2023 — New Haven, CT/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a new judge. I will evaluate who best persuades me of the truth of their position. I do not prefer a fast debate.
My name is Yogev Angelovici, and I go by he/him pronouns. For a little bit of context, I am a former Policy debater hailing from the Eastern Missouri circuit (read: I have a lot of lay experience). Although I attended MSDI and had a decent amount of interaction with the national-circuit style of Policy Debate, I am definitely most familiar in a far more lay setting.
If you have any pieces of evidence to send me, please email them to:
That being said, let’s get into the actual paradigms:
I strive to be as Tabula Rasa as possible, and will evaluate the round in whatever way you tell me to. That being said, I do want to give my opinions on a few subjects for the sake of clarity.
I hate to be that person, but debate is first and foremost a communication activity. No matter what speed you’re going at, you have to be clear and intelligible. I can certainly handle a fair amount of speed and will be able to follow along with what you’re saying, but I would appreciate it if you didn’t make me have to work for it too hard. I want to fully comprehend what you’re saying so I can evaluate the round in the most fair way possible, so accelerate at your own risk.
Kritiks, Theory, and other assorted fun stuff:
Go for it! One of the things I most regret from my debate career is that I didn’t get to debate these kinds of subjects more. As stated above, I will evaluate anything and everything stated in the round as long as you give me a reason to evaluate it. Extra points to anyone with a performance aff or something similarly entertaining that I’ve never yet seen in a round.
When I stated “I will evaluate the round in whatever way you tell me to”, this is exactly what I meant. If you do not come up in your final speech (and, arguably, a portion of your 1st rebuttal) and give me a clear explanation how I should be evaluating the round and why that evaluation means a ballot in your favor you will lose.
That being said, here too I am more than open to basically any argument. Just please, for the love of god, give me something. If necessary, I will resort to a basic Offense/Defense or Stocks analysis of the debate if neither team gives me a good framework for my vote.
I am pretty much entirely tabula rasa, though I do have some preferences. What I vote on is entirely dependent on what you present during the debate and what you frame is important ie. if your opponent drops an argument and you want me to vote on that, tell me. There are no fundamentals guaranteed in the debate other than those which are mutually accepted by, best articulated or debated by the two teams. In this, all voting issues are consequential to the framework of any single debate, so I vote on anything and everything so long as I have an implicit or direct framework which allows me to evaluate it in comparison to the debate as a whole and all rebuttals raised against it.
I will vote off of the flow, but that means I must be able to flow; there is no reason to spread at an unreasonable speed. I have auditory processing issues, so please make sure I can understand you.
Lastly, be reasonable with each other. While debate can be a competitive space, it is best to respect your opponent. There is no reason to be rude in this enriching space, we are all here to learn.
Hi! My name is Pol (he/him) and I debated PF and Policy at Carmel High School in Indiana.
Add firstname.lastname@example.org to the email chain
1) I'm typically a stock issues judge and appreciate clash from both sides in all five. However I am also open to accepting other frameworks proposed by either the aff or neg in opening speeches. If a framework is proposed by one team and not countered by the opposition, I will default to using that framework for the round. If neither team proposes a framework, I will vote on stock issues.
2) I'm open to all sorts of arguments including theory and kritiks and enjoy hearing new arguments and perspectives on resolutions.
3) I'm not a huge fan of spreading on neg, would rather 2-3 very solid attacks on the policy as opposed to 7-8 less thought ones.
4) Extend arguments throughout all speeches, not a huge fan of bringing new arguments during rebuttals and will likely strike them. Please weigh your advantages/disadvantages over your opponent's in later speeches.
5) I will vote against anyone who is disrespectful to their opposition.
General:I did four years of policy debate in high school. Read whatever you are most comfortable with, but make it clear to me why I should vote for you.
Critiques: I am relatively comfortable with critiques. I read a critical affirmative, so I am fine in principle with voting for them. I think critical debate is where it's most important to tell me why I should vote for you. That said, I am also probably unfamiliar at this point with the specific literature you are reading.
Topicality: I think topicality debates are/can be more interesting than probably most judges do, although that's not to say that I'm more likely to vote neg on it than anyone else. I default to competing interpretations. I think of the standards as the impacts to voting for a particular interpretation (same for any theory argument.) As with any position, it's most important to me that you explain why I should vote for you.
DAs/CPs: Nothing specific to say here.
Speed: For Yale Invitational -- it has been a few years since I did debate and this is my first time judging a remote tournament. It would probably be wise to treat me as maybe a 9/10 on comfortability with speed compared to a random judge who just says something like "I did debate in high school/college just be clear" but at the same time as long as you are clear you can go as fast as you want.
Speaker points: 28.5 is average.
Ask any additional questions before the round.
Washington Urban Debate League '22 Yale '26
Add me to the email chain plz: email@example.com
I did policy debate from 7th grade through high school, double 2. Currently coach middle and high school UDL teams. Mostly read Ks—mainly set col, fem, racial cap—on both aff and neg, so it's what I am most adept at evaluating. That aside, read what you want, I’m cool with voting on most anything.
Do the work for me in deciding the debate. Particularly at the top of the 2ar/2nr, tell me how I should be filtering the round, what you are going for, and why that should win you the ballot. I'll go off the flow.
Intensity's great, but there’s an important line that separates it from hostility and disrespect, particularly when we consider our different positionalities within debate. I won't tolerate in-round hostility or violence.
Language matters. Genocide is not a buzzword; do not use it as such.
Do your best with whatever you argue and have fun! Let me know if you have specific qs before round.
My favorite. Be creative, do what you want, just justify why. I find Ks are strongest when they can couple their theory of power links with more specific links rooted in the 1AC (pull lines!) and historical/ social examples. Impact out the links and explain why they turn case. “State bad” alone won’t cut it and will make me sad...
I’m not picky on whether the alt is material or not, but I do want to hear some articulation of solvency beyond just making an “epistemological shift” or “insert x in debate”—that is to say that you should be taking it further and explaining the implications. Love examples here too—point me to instances that can help envision what the alt and alt solvency looks like.
If you’re doing your link debate properly the aff shouldn’t have a chance at winning the perm, although I do appreciate external, named DAs to the perm.
**see note below from k affs
When answering the k, no matter from what side or argument style, you NEED to engage their thesis or theory of the power. It becomes really hard to beat it when you concede their way of understanding the world and of the filtering debate.
If you are a non-Black team reading afro-pess, I will hold the opposing team to an extremely low-threshold to win.
K Affs v FW
Leverage your 1AC more. Yes, the blocks you prepped are probably great, but the purpose of crafting and refining kritical 1ACs is that they are meant to challenge dominant frames of the way we think/act; your theory should absolutely be your best offense against the neg.
Your model of debate should be very clear—what’s the role of the aff and negative, what does debate look like, etc. Do impact calc on the standards debate.
**Make sure that you understand and articulate the relationship btwn your k in round and out of round ie the relationship between some performance of resistance within debate and the implications for the structures of power you claim to challenge as they exist out of round.
Need to engage the aff’s unique critique of your model; specifically, how the aff scholarship & advocacy, as well as their theory of power, exists under the neg’s model of debate. Put effort and time into the TVA; how does it provide an inroad to the aff’s scholarship? Impact calculus on standards is great.
P.S. If you’re going to run cap in addition to FW, try to have some more specific links + alt examples to at least pretend there’s a chance you’re going to go for it.
Specific links are ideal. Take time to explain out your internal link chain—too often they get superficially extended and muddled. Impact calc and framing are key.
Make sure to have a net benefit. Explain how you solve for the aff, and if not in its entirety, then why your net-benefit outweighs.
T v policy affs
Not my favorite debate but will vote on it. Make sure analytics are clear/ slow down a bit. Tell me what debate looks like under your competing models and why I should prefer yours.
I didn’t have these debates much. Well-warranted theory arguments that you spend a bit more time on are more compelling than second-long blips that get blown up and ironically feel like they get in the way of the educational value of debate.
While I’d say I’m tech > truth, in the end, I find that teams do theory better when the violation is an actually impactful abuse that harms the education, fairness, etc of the debate, rather than just generic blocks read every round.
You’re probably not going to convince me to vote on disclosure against a UDL team.
Debater for central catholic high school (graduated in 2022, 2x state champ), four years of policy debate on the national circuit (1a/2n) & mostly went for the cap k/process cps/ptx das
currently a student at yale (not debating)
email for chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Plz do not call me judge just call me Oscar
also plz keep track of ur own prep/speech times
note for pf/ld: idk the res, so make sure to explain any niche terminology.
note for policy: i haven't done any research on this year's resolution
note for Ks: i don't think u need to win the alt to win a k debate. if u wanna go for a non unique da w/ the link alone go for it
if the neg reads a cp and a k, the aff should just read perfcon instead of condo
TLDR; read whatever you want, I'll vote on anything (just don't be racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc...)
Hi! My name is Esmie Hurd (she/her) and I did policy at Bozeman High School in Bozeman, Montana for 3 years. I went to NSDA nationals 3x and have been judging for about 2 years.
I'm a firm believer that the best debates are ones where your arguments are topical and could be understood by a layperson, so you're welcome to pretend I am one. You don't need to explain any policy terminology or theory to me, but you should be able to explain what you're running and why you're running it in simple terms.
Please don't spread! You simply do not need more than 2 or 3 good off-case arguments to win a policy round. If you're running 6 or 7, I'm going to assume it's because none of them are very good. I will immediately vote aff if they claim the 1NC is built as a time suck and if they are right.
I don't like Ks. If you're going to run one, it has to be extremely relevant, topical, necessary, and fairly specific to your opponent's case for me to weigh it. (I have yet to see or participate in a good K debate that meets all of these requirements).
I'm more lenient with CP's, but they have to be good.
I'm fine with new args in the 2N.
I don't mind theory at all if you have a good reason for running it!
Weigh impacts and read evidence. Look for holes, inconsistencies, and double binds you can use. Don't just go in a circle citing new evidence that supports your point and negates your opponent's. We all know you can find evidence saying whatever you want. EXPLAIN to me why their evidence sucks, yours is good, or your argument makes more logical sense. Don't get yourself in a stalemate with cards. An entire voting issue can end in a wash for me if you rely solely on an abundance of authors who happen to agree with you.
And please be kind to each other :)
Sarah Lawrence '25, Caddo Magnet High '21, she/her, yes I want to be on the email chain-- email@example.com
Top-Level: I prefer a fast, technical debate and default to evaluating debates as a policymaker, but can be persuaded otherwise. Don't overadapt - debate is a game, and winning your arguments is what matters. I like to reward good evidence, but I won't be reading every card after the round unless it is flagged or a close debate and good evidence is not an excuse for unwarranted debating/little explanation.
T vs policy affs: I don't enjoy close definitions debates. T debates where the interpretation becomes clear only in CX of the 2NC or later will be very hard to reward with my ballot. I understand that good T debates happen (T-LPR on immigration comes to mind) but if the topic doesnt have easily understandable, legally precise definitions based in government literature (CJR comes to mind) I'm going to err towards reasonability more than anyone I know. Plan text in a vaccum probably sucks, but if you can't articulate a clear alternative you probably can't win. Predictability probably outweighs debatability.
T vs K affs: Debate is probably a game, but probably also more than that, and neither team's offense is likely truly reliant on winning this anyway. Fairness is probably an impact, but it is frequently pretty small. Neg teams that clearly explain what the aff's interpretation justifies (ie. internal link debating) and why that's bad are more likely to win my ballot. Aff teams that come up with a counter-interp that attempts to solve for some limits/predictability seem more instinctively reasonable to me than those who try to impact turn things I think are probably good like predictability, but either strategy is fine.
Counterplans/Theory: Theory other than conditionality/perfcon is probably not a voter. On a truth level, I think being neg in a world without massive conditionality and theoretical abuse is impossible on lots of hs topics. Given that, I'm actually fairly familiar with and interested in hearing good condo debating- competing interps means if you have something explainable and not arbitrary (infinite condo, infinite dispo, no condo) and can articulate some standards I won't hack for anyone. Default to judge kick, but can be convinced not to, counterplans should probably be textually and functionally competitive, I'd love to hear a real debate on positional competition but I'm not optimistic.
Disads: Uniqueness matters, and determines offense on the link level, but win the link too. No politics disad is true, but some politics disads are more true than others. These were my favorite arguments to cut and go for, and interesting scenarios that are closer to the truth or strategic will be rewarded with speaks. I'm of the somewhat controversial opinion they make for good education and the less controversial one lots of topics are unworkable for the neg without them, so don't go for intrinsicness/floortime DAs bad theory.
Impact Turns: Nothing much to say here, other than a reassurance I will not check out on something I find unpersuasive in real life (any of the war good debates, spark, wipeout). If you can't beat it, update your blocks.
Impact Framing/Soft Left Impacts: I default to utilitarian consequentialism, and have a strong bias in favor of that as a way to evaluate impacts. If you want to present another way to evaluate impacts, PLEASE tell me what it means for my ballot and how I evaluate it. "Overweight probability" is fine for the 1AC, but by the 1AR I should know if that means I ONLY evaluate probability/disregard probabilities under 1%/don't evaluate magnitudes of infinity. Anything else means you're going to get my super arbitrary and probably fairly utilitarian impulse. I would love if whoever's advocating for ex risks would do the same, but I have a better handle on what your deal means for the ballot, so I don't need as much help. "Util Bad" without an alternative is very unpersuasive - BUT a fleshed out alternative can be very strategic.
K vs Policy Affs: I vote neg most often in these debates when the neg can lose framework but win case takeouts or an impact to the K that outweighs and turns the aff. I vote neg somewhat often in these debates when the aff does a bad job explaining the internal links of their FW interp or answering negative impacts (which is still pretty often). For security type Ks, it seems like some people think they can convince me sweeping IR theories or other impacts are false with all the knowledge of a high schooler. Read a card, or I will assume the aff's 3 cards on China Revisionist/cyber war real are true and the K is false.
Brief tangent ahead: If you think the above statement re: the security K does not apply to you because you have a fun way to get around this by saying "it doesn't matter if the K is false because we shouldn't just use Truth to determine whether statements are good to say", I think you're probably wrong. You're critiquing a theory of how we should evaluate the merits of Saying Stuff (traditionally Truth, for whatever value we can determine it) without providing an alternative. So, provide an alternative way for me to determine the merits of Saying Stuff or you're liable to get my frustration and fairly arbitrary decisionmaking on whether you've met the very high burden required to win this. I've judged like four debates now which revolved around this specific issue and enjoyed evaluating none of them. Aff teams when faced with this should ask a basic question like "how do we determine what statements are good outside of their ability to explain the world" please. First person I see do this will get very good speaker points. TLDR: treat your epistemological debates like util good/bad debates and I will enjoy listening to them. Don't and face the consequences.
K vs K affs: I've now judged a few of these debates, and have found when the aff goes for the perm they're very likely to get my ballot absent basically losing the thesis of the affirmative (which has happened). This means I don't think "the aff doesn't get perms in a method debate" is a nonstarter. Other than that, my background in the literature is not strong, so if your link relies on a nuanced debate in the literature, I'm going to need a lot of explanation.
Miscellaneous: These are unsorted feelings I have about debate somewhere between the preferences expressed above and non-negotiables below.
For online debate: Debaters should endeavor to keep their cameras on for their speeches as much as possible. I find that I'm able to pay much more attention to cx and give better speaker comments. Judging online is hard and staring at four blank screens makes it harder.
I am becoming somewhat annoyed with CX of the 1NC/2AC that starts with "did you read X" or "what cards from the doc did you not read" and will minorly (.1, .2 if it's egregious) reduce your speaks if you do this. I am MORE annoyed if you try to make this happen outside of speech or prep time. 2As, have your 1A flow the 1NC to catch these things. 2Ns, same for your 1Ns. If the speaker is particularly unclear or the doc is particularly disorganized, this goes away.
At my baseline, I think about the world in a more truth over tech way. My judging strategy and process is optimized to eliminate this bias, as I think its not a good way to evaluate debate rounds, but I am not perfect. You have been warned.
I am gay. I am not a good judge for queerness arguments. This isn't a "you read it you lose/i will deck speaks" situation, but you have been warned its a harder sell than anything else mentioned
For LD/PF: I have judged very little of either of these events; I have knowledge of the content of the topic but not any of its conventions. I understand the burden for warranted arguments (especially theory) is lower in LD than in policy - I'm reluctant to make debaters entirely transform their style, so I won't necessarily apply my standard for argument depth, but if the one team argues another has insufficiently extended an argument, I will be very receptive to that.
In high school policy debate, both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, 3 minutes for CX, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says. CX is binding. There is one winner and one loser. I will flow. I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab so that they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate on.
You have to read rehighlightings, you can't just insert them. If I or the other team notice you clipping or engaging in another ethics violation prohibited by tournament rules and it is found to be legitimate, it's an auto-loss and I will give the lowest speaks that I can give.
It'll be hard to offend me but don't say any slurs or engage in harmful behavior against anyone else including racism, sexism, homophobia, intentionally misgendering someone, etc. I see pretty much all arguments as fair game but when that becomes personally harmful for other people, then it's crossed a line. I've thankfully never seen something like this happen in a debate that I've been in but it'd be naive to act like it's never happened. The line for what is and is not personally harmful to someone is obviously very arbitrary but that applies to almost all things in debate, so I think it's fair to say that it is also up to the judge's discretion for when the line has been crossed.
David Levin (he/him/his)
Head Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT
Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
be decent to one another (this includes your partner). don't use oppressive rhetoric. put me on the email chain.
Paradigms for PF, PD, and LD below.
>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for the K. i'm a good judge for theory.
"Progressive debate" debate doesn't mean much to me. I love to evaluate kritik and framework debates. I like evaluating purposeful T and theory rounds (I'd especially like to see more fiat debates). I also like judging a good salt-of-the-earth "normal" round. I don't enjoy evaluating what you might call "tricks", but I'll judge them fairly. It's good to interrogate the normative expectations of PF debate, and to have discussions of what forms of exclusion undergird debate, and specifically this format, to begin with. I like this article from Stefan Bauschard a lot.
Please pre-flow and create the email chain before the round. Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting (see "Evidence"). If you have a shell (T, theory, etc), please send it in the card doc. Let's work together to trim down the time spent on evidence exchanges.
Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one. No preference for room setup, however, if there is a rocking chair in the room, I reserve claim to it.
Speed/spreading is fine with some exceptions. Arguments presented in shell form (T, theory, etc) should be read more deliberately than case, otherwise I may miss an important warrant. Critical cases don't need to be read slower, but they often benefit from it.
If you have an auditory processing concern, please address it with your opponents rather than me whenever possible. If someone comes to you with an auditory processing concern, accommodate them. Be good to each other.
How I flow:
I flow digitally, and divide my flow by contentions. For contentions with multiple subpoints, just make sure you sign post. I flow warrants and read card docs during crossfire and prep, so don't just extend your author/tag.
I don't judge-extend or judge-kick whenever possible (maybe once in a while in a novice round).
I flow overviews at the top of the first contention. I'd rather flow weighing on the contentions individually, rather than en-masse at the bottom of the speech.
How I evaluate:
A-priori arguments are, as the name implies, evaluated first. Absent an a-priori debate, I go to framing.
Framing should be complementary to your impact/weighing. If framing is not argued, or if both teams drop framing, I default to utilitarianism. Once the framework debate is resolved (if there is one), I move to the contentions.
I like comparative link weighing a lot. Speculative impacts require a bit more work on uniqueness than empiric impacts. I think the status quo can be an impact in itself.
If neither team is able to garner offense, presumption defaults to the side of the resolution which most resembles the status quo. Presumption can be flipped if the status quo is the impact.
Crossfire is binding.
Topical "normative" Cases:
Truth is determined by the flow, and I don't judge-extend or kick arguments. Otherwise, do what you do. Turns rock.
Topical "critical" Cases:
Win your framework and role of the ballot. "Role of the judge" feels redundant, but if you make a distinction between my role and my ballot's role, I'll listen.
Again, links and solvency usually the most vulnerable components of the case. K solvency shouldn't be restricted to discourse - but what does the fiat-ed adoption of the critical worldview look like?
Textual alts that suggest specific actions get a little too close to plans/counterplans for comfort - instead, "vote [your side] to endorse/reject [something]", then go win the link.
Win your framework. Explain why the criticism is a prerequisite to topical debate, answer the TVA/TVN, and the perm.
Remember that I default presume to the side of the ballot closest to the status quo, whether you're reading a Non-T K or debating against one.
Presumption can be flipped either way. If you do a performance or narrative of some sort, implicate that stylistic choice.
I'm not quite as fond of these for time constraint reasons (they often result in messy back-halves), so if you read one, do so in 2nd constructive or first rebuttal.
If you're critiquing a specific problematic discourse your opponent advances, consider running it as a short theory shell instead (example: I don't need you to spend 120 seconds dissecting gendered structures of power to claim misgendering is bad - it's pretty straightforward).
I prefer T be read in shell form with an interpretation, violation, standards and voter(s).
I believe that fairness is an internal link to various more objective impacts, rather than an impact itself. If you go for "drop the team" on T, it should be the whole FF.
T against kritiks should center standards for why I should hold the line for the resolution.
Strong theory debates should focus on defining best practices for the activity.
"Theory bad" arguments are inherently theory arguments themselves and I'll evaluate them the same way I evaluate other forms of theory.
I prefer competing interpretations, but if the theory is clearly infinitely regressive or needlessly punitive, my threshold for reasonability lowers. This is especially true for theory "tricks".
Disclosure is good; Open-source disclosure is the gold standard; from my experience and observation, disclosure serves to benefit small programs and under-resourced programs; community minimums for disclosure are debatable. Paraphrasing, rather than reading actual evidence, is unethical.
Cut cards are and ethical standard for debate and non-negotiable at the varsity circuit level. Paraphrasing is not an automatic loss, but I will have no basis to trust your analytics absent you producing a marked copy of your evidence.
I have a low threshold for voting for paraphrasing theory against you, absent a performative contradiction from the other team.
Novices should learn to cut cards, but for them this a goal, not an expectation.
I'm a little rusty, but regularly judged policy between 2016 and 2020. K v. K and K v. FW/T rounds were my favorites.
Hello again! It's been a minute! If you have me in a policy round, my most important request is that you help me flow you. I can normally follow at decently quick speeds, but if I "clear" you, it's a request for you to help me catch what you're saying. Sign posting is important and please please read tags and shells more slowly than your internals.
I debated policy in HS and coached/judged for a few years before moving to more PF. That said, policy directly informed the way I coach and evaluate PF. I don't have particularly strong opinions about most arguments, so run what you're good at running. I understand that this is quite vague, so if you're unsure how you'll pref me, or what to run in front of me, just ask.
Run what you want, but understand that I don't know the norms as well here.
You can likely infer my judging style from the PF and Policy sections above. Any questions, just send an email.
Zoey Lin (she/her/hers)
Lexington '20 | Dartmouth '24
Please put me on and properly name the email chain! [email@example.com] [Tournament - Round X: Aff Team v Neg Team]
I'm colorblind, so please highlight in green (or give me time to change your color)
Also if y'all wanna bring me food, like... I won't say no. To be clear I'm not asking for food, I'm just saying it will make me happy <3
Be genuine, be nice, just do what you’re good at. I promise I'm very low maintenance, as long as you're nice, give me an outlet and a chair, and are a reasonable human being I will and flow what you say! Don't be rude pls
This picture encapsulates both my personality and my judging philosophy
Please be super clear. I can flow you, but I might not be able to flow you + mumble + echo + distance + zoom. If you're unclear and lose even though "but I said it in my speech", imma give you this look: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Policy (Updated 9.23.23)
Do what you're good at, don't adapt for me (yes I have biases, but if I'll be persuaded more by what you say than what I think).
Frame the round and tell a good story, unless told otherwise I am tech > truth, theory is a reason to reject the arg (but condo is a reason to reject the team), judges don't kick, and anything goes. Other than that, I am a sucker for specific strategies. Even if you don't go for them I will reward case specific research (aff recuts, counterplans that solve the internal link, specific pics against k affs, etc). Do your best with neg ground—even though you need a DA, that's not an excuse for awful ptx scenarios.
Other thoughts: I don't think enough 2a's are willing to go for theory and I'm happy to vote on 2+ condo bad!
What You're Here For (K Stuff)
Debate is definitely a game and clash is an intrinsic good for debate. I find myself particularly persuaded by switch-side debate arguments and well crafted TVAs. Despite that, I think debate could be much more than a game even though we're here "playing" it and the history of the args I read supports that idea. I'm most familiar with and went for identity critiques (anti-blackness and queer theory) and security (fem ir, racial ir, and traditional ir). I'm pretty decent for psychoanalysis and various anti-capitalist lit bases (marxism, left accelerationism, semio-capitalism). I'm average for other white pomo, and pretty bad for death good. That being said, I don't want to listen to nebulous appeals to buzzword impacts... K teams win when they are able to contextualize their k to their opponent's args, especially with links. You don't need a "good k" you need a well applied k.
LD (Updated 11.18.23)
I'm a policy debater who doesn't care what you read. The only thing you should consider is that although I will flow your argument and its warrants, I might not fully understand it to your liking (i.e. just because you said permissibility doesn't mean I'll fill in the warrant for you).
If you want to know specifics though, I'm definitely better for k/larp compared to phil, and definitely questionable for theory and tricks*. I don't care if you defend the topic, but have some sort of grounded criticism, please.
Long LD Specific Paradigm: I aspire to be Henry Curtis
*Caveat: Lexington Debater Brett Fortier told me "if you're willing to listen to tricks, you're a tricks judge." While that is me... I really do not want to listen to RVI's, trick's, nebel t, a prioris and just LISTS of paradoxes. Much thanks!
I flow on a computer and sometimes often away or stare blankly. Don't worry I can type without looking, this just means I'm thinking
I've realized that zoom debate has made it so that y'all prep so loudly. I don't super care but it's also just jarring that I can hear all of your conversations about the debate and especially your conversations about me...
Debate is a great place to challenge yourself and have fun while doing it... the first thing that I want to see is that everyone is enjoying themselves and having a good time. Some debaters think that they're too good or cool to afford their opponents respect and decency in-round: if this is you, I will not be a good judge to have in the back of your round. We are all here to have fun and get better, so if you are jeopardizing that in any way, don't expect me to be as willing to vote for you.
I really care about the participation of queer debaters, especially gender minorities and poc. It's really difficult to find queer spaces in general, never mind in debate and worst of all in an online debate environment. I will be extremely sensitive to the way people who are not cis white men are treated in the debate space. If you are looking for additional resources, please check out https://www.windebate.org/ for the most passionate mentors and https://www.girlsdebate.org/ for funny memes, cool people, and amazing overall help.
If you have any questions, don't be afraid to shoot me an email or ask before the round starts. I'd be happy to clarify anything on this paradigm or offer you any other insight that I might have forgotten to include here.
I'm a versatile judge but also keeping in mind that this is policy debate, I intend on voting at least with the barest minimum required:
- Framework - what's yours, reasons to perfer, why is your opponents f/w undesirable, etc.
- Impacts - what is the urgency? In round impacts included. If going for theory, what's the terminal impact of that.
- Risks - what conquenses will be made from an opposing ballot?
- Solvency - evidence of proof
- Topicality/Theory - if there are no voters, I will not be voting on the argument. Independent voters need to be impacted out.
K affs have the burden of proof which means even if you don't claim fiat, solvency is still required. Evidence can be used as proof but there's going to be a deeper analysis needed to support your commitment and legitimacy of your advocacy if it is a performative style of debate especially. I still expect clash and line by line. You cannot get caught up in the argument that you refuse or forget to engage in actual debate. If by the end of debate I don't understand the solvency mechanism being used to solve the impacts of the aff and no analysis on reasons to perfer affs f/w I'm probably going to vote on persumption.
Lastly but should've been firstly, after years of debating and over a decade of judging, I have seen an upward trend in bad ethos in debate. Lets keep it respectful. If there are trigger warnings, they need to be addressed before the debate starts.
Open cross-x is fine.
I'm not going to evaluate any questions past cross x but if you want to ask simple questions during your prep during contructives, that's fine.
Emmanuel Makinde - Add me to the email chain - (firstname.lastname@example.org)
i debate at NYU currently
For the sake of all things good in life, cringe, and the activity of debate... call me Manny or Emmanuel, not "judge"
Debate is a space where people come to test their intellectual capacities through a discussion about the reading of the 1AC. I don’t care what your methodology is for accessing that discussion, but you should be able to defend it. I love debate and have a lot of fun, so it is more enjoyable for me to see other debaters having fun.
I can't promise to set aside my biases entirely (I try my best, but I don't think anyone can 100% do this). I do promise to evaluate debates as fairly as I can and give you the most valuable feedback. I'm always going to be open to questions at the end of debate, and don't be afraid to disagree with the RFD. I've experienced a fair share of inexperienced judges, and strive to be as far from that as possible. I default to common sense unless you tell me otherwise.
The nuance between, "The plan is not topical" and "The plan is so obviously, wildly untopical" can make or break debates. Don't mistake this for ad homs, but don't forget that debate is about persuasion as much as it is about research, and argumentation—how you articulate your argument makes a difference. I'll clarify here that tech and truth aren't mutually exclusive, but judge instruction on how to evaluate a certain argument is useful. Here, I'll also insert a link to a certain segment of Juju's lecture that embodies how I feel about tech v. truth. A dropped argument is true to the extent that you explain it.
Spreading is good. Speaking slow is good. Debate ultimately relies on communication. I know how hard it might be for you to grapple with the idea of maybe not spreading incomprehensibly through tags and analytics, but it's just that simple. If I can't hear what you said, it won't get on my flow. Just be self-aware about your spreading. You don't automatically get higher speaks because you spread faster.
Plan texts are cool. I think a lot of policy AFFs have poor evidence and can be beaten with analytics sometimes. I generally dislike the ones that “The USFG should do the resolution in its [insert plan focus]” plan texts because they are a moving target for me. I will gladly fill in for the neg here and probably err on any theory if there isn’t much contextualization coming out the 2AC. I value the quality of evidence (because it’s really hard to find), but I won’t look at you sideways if your warrants are SLIGHTLY inconsistent with your tag unless the opposing team points it out.
2ACs should integrate extensions on the line by line. 2AC overviews are fine, but I won't flow them as a response to any case arg made by the 1NC. Long 2AC overviews are boring.
Case debates are so underrated. Please do it more
I love weird, specific, techy CPs. Advantage CPs and PIKs are my favorite. A lot of teams are usually bad at explaining why the perm doesn’t solve beyond a random card in the block or saying “Perm links to NB”. Good analysis is rewarded on the perm debate. Case solvency usually needs more time spent as well.
I don't believe in judge kick lmao sry
Similar to 1AC's, I think a lot of DA's have terrible link ev. I don't think it's the fault of the card cutters, but rather the topic committee for picking topics with terrible neg ground. I also think generics are generics for a reason - you can win on them if you debate them well. I'm willing to vote aff on any part of the DA that neg loses (i.e. if there's no impact why does it matter, if there's no link why is it relevant, if its not-unique why should I vote neg, it the internal links are cheap why should I grant you risk of impact o/w)
I'm very comfortable with anti-blackness Ks. I'm less comfortable, but still fine with other identity/positionality Ks, DnG, dark Deleuze, Baudrillard, Bataille, and some other pomo Ks, but do not expect me to fill in the lines. In those debates, I will flow cross and value/reward digestible explanations on the line by line.
I'm more attracted to small alternatives/advocacies than big ones. The former is more like "Discourse within this round is good" while the latter is like, "We organize an international communist revolution". I think the bigger ones lose more often to the args that are foundational on the "How do we get there?" questions. With that said, presumption becomes more convincing on the big advocacies than the smaller ones.
Be clear whether or not you're kicking the alt in the 2NR.
I’m not the judge for you if you are not black (especially white) and you want to read anti-blackness. Autoloss 0 speaks. Content > Strategy. It’s the same thing if you read bizcon and cap in the same 1NC. Do not embody perf cons.
I've read several K AFFs the majority of my senior year (and still do in college). Even though I love the K so much, remember that I still value the clash and technical component of debating, so don't just read a 2.5 hr overview and then say "that was the work i did in the overview" in response to line by line. That is not debating. Also, do not come into the debate with the idea that your K just sort of subsumes every conceivable notion of human thought that doesn't directly engage with the body of literature you introduce. There isn't any theory of power that can intricately explain every single other theory of power.
With that said, KvK debates are fun but easily get muddy. Fortunately, there are easy ways for you to get out of the muddiness (specific link contextualization, using the grammars of your opponents, specific quotes, etc.).
I do not appreciate you reading a K Aff as a justification for being rude and disrespectful. A lot of K debaters in general have felt the need to assume this perceived role of K debaters (especially identity K debaters) as just rude and like all French revolution "F the state and F you". No. Your K authors aren't saying to be rude to people, so don't do it. Don't confuse that with being assertive which is excellent.
It should be related to the topic. You cannot just read a K AFF that has nothing to do with the resolution---you will definitely lose on T. I know how tempting it might be given the low prep burden, but even one card or two cards that establish a relationship to the resolution is enough.
I love performance AFFs and respect the debaters who have the courage to do it and make it look so easy. I also don't care if you choose not to read cards; just make it something flowable.
On a scale of 1-10, how confident am I to render a ballot on certain debates?
Policy vs. Policy: 8.2
Policy vs. T: 6.3
Policy vs. K: 8
K vs. FW: 7.9
K vs. K: 8.1
K vs. Cap K: 9
K vs. Antiblackness Ks: 9.3
K vs. Pomo Ks: 7.2
If you go for theory, you should make the framing clear as to how you are going for it/how you want me to evaluate it (i.e., procedural, reason to reject the team, PIK solves case *these are not mutually exclusive, but it helps in terms of impact framing*)
Impact it out, please. It helps to point out in-round abuse. On procedurals, it helps to explain why their model abuses others.
If you feel like there is an ethics violation, I'd rather you make it as an argument than stop the debate unless you feel the ethics violation is making you seriously uncomfortable or unable to continue the debate. Here, I'll insert that homophobia, transphobia, racism, ableism, sexism, and any other "ism" that expresses deep prejudice towards any specific group warrants 0 speaks and an auto loss. Ad homs are also weird.
More than 3 condo probably isn't good against common AFFs that were alr on the wiki. Disclosure is good.
Fairness is an impact if it's an intrinsic good. Otherwise, it's an internal link to education and clash. Predictability controls everything.
v. K Aff: If the 2NR doesn't have a way to prove why you can access the critical lit/discourse of the 1AC (i.e. TVA, SSD) then aff offense on your model becomes so attractive. PIKS, counter-advocacies, and your regular CP + disad debates are smart if deployed correctly.
v. Policy Aff: If you think I'm slightly on edge about whether or not the plan text is topical, good impact debating should mitigate that. If the plan is "obviously" not topical, then that should be clear to me from the 1NC. A single line as to why I should prefer the interp or C/I is necessary.
I believe non-traditional AFFs can be topical because "affirming" the resolution is entirely up to the terms the debaters set on. That means I have a high bar for voting on T against non-trad AFFs (especially ones that don't impact turn the resolution). That doesn't mean if you read non-trad you shouldn't work hard to win your model of debate, but I will not just sort of default to normative ways of affirming the resolution.
Cross ex is the most interesting time of the debate. It is where debaters actively interact with each other. I don't flow cross, but I pay close attention to and will write down arguments that are made. I've seen entire K links from cross make it into the 2NR.
If you run high theory and can't answer questions about your thesis sufficiently, you will likely lose.
The nuance between assertive and rude are apparent and you lose speaks for the latter.
Tech -----x--------------- Truth
K ----------x---------- Policy
AT x-------------------- A2
Turns case x-------------------- O/W
Saitama -x----------------------- Goku
Ins and outs are fine.
Some of my favorite current/past debaters & coaches atm: *subject to change* Will Baker, Darrian Carroll, DB, Eu, Tyler Vergho, Raam Tambe, Azja Butler, Iyana Trotman, Maeve Ella, Ryan Cavanaugh, Beau Larsen, Nae Edwards, Greg Zoda, Joe Leeson-Schatz, Aden Barton, Gabriel Chang-Deutsch, John Sharp, Diego (Jay-Z) Flores, Curtis Ortega, Taj Robinson
I've never done PF, but I've judged quite a bit. It's a nice break from all the policy spreading.
A lot of the policy stuff applies.
I prefer speech docs where everything you read is in one document. Google docs is fine, but don't send me like 8 different docs for the first constructive
Off-time road maps are good
+0.1 speaks if you reference any of the following:
Hey, please add me to the email chain email@example.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.
PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.
How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.
Online Debate Update
If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.
By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.
I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.
I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.
I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.
Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.
Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.
So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.
- What gets you good speaks:
- Making it easier for me to flow
- Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
- Making things interesting
- Clear spreading
- Productive CX
- What hurts your speaks:
- Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
- Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
- Being really boring
- Being rude
- I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
- If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
- Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
- In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
- Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.
- 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
- Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
- Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.
I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.
stuy '23, emory '27
the n of stuy hn
email chain please: firstname.lastname@example.org
***i'm in my first year out and i've done little to no research on this topic... which means please slow down a bit for me to flow and don't expect me to know all your abbreviations
anything i say below can be easily overridden by good debating -
- policy: i'm familiar with the core policy strategies and have decent experience debating for/against them. 10 off and case is <3 but only when run well (quality>quantity). i also really care about an internal link chain as i just find that its never explained that well, but i feel like it's really important to get me to buy your impact calculus more. i actually really like t debate - specifically i love a creative interpretation and really prioritize doing work on standards.
- k: love these, ran primarily ks my sophomore and junior years. some lit bases i know pretty well: cap, Asian identity, techno-orientalism, afropess, antiblackness, set-col, Agamben, biopower, and security. some lit bases i'm familiar with: Baudrillard, psychoanalysis, QT, and cybernetics.
- kvk debates: don't have experience judging these but i've been on both sides of the debate. i think that in these debates id need the most explanation on the thesis and alt level.
- kaff v framework: i've been in this type of debate a lot. i don't tend to lean one way or another on if debate is a game, i evaluate it based on what's on my flow at the end of the round. i think that education is an impact but also that procedural fairness is pretty important.
- theory: i'll vote for condo and yes judge kick. other than that, i think theory is pretty unpersuasive, but that does not mean you can't win in front of me on it.
- cx: i flow cx & really like when you can use something that the other team said in cx against them. jokes are definitely welcome in cx (and in your speeches) and i'm down for a good ethos moment. that being said, there's a clear distinction between having ethos and just being a jerk and i will dock speaks for poor cx etiquette.
- i default tech>truth and util good
- speed is fine but clarity>speed
- giving a 7-minute overview will not win you the round. i'd rather you read a 15-sec overview and get to the line by line.
- PLEASE TIME YOUR OWN SPEECHES AND PREP TIME - i won't be timing the round.
- roadmaps are really great :)
- any racism, homophobia, ableism, or any other -isms warrant a massive dock in your speaks
- if you've read this far, give me a music rec and I'll boost speaks depending on how much i like it
- if you say something funny about Nikki Chen, Talia Hsia, or August Petry, +0.2 speaks per joke/expose
uc davis 26 james logan high school 22
former circuit policy debater qualed to the toc my senior year
yes add me to the email chain - email@example.com
I'm cool with speed but be clear that being said if I'm on a panel with other judges, please adjust your speaking speed to the level of comfort in the room
my paradigm will closely reflect my teammates --> mateo mijares + jack jacobs -- (cept the part on jacks paradigm where he says copying ev onto a doc to send out is prep. this is objectively wrong. i don't care) you can check out their paradigms for a more comprehensive understanding of my judging philosophy
don't be racist or homophobic i hope this goes without saying
K's r cool, Policys cool - just warrant out your arguments & have fun
History: Former Brooklyn Tech K/Performance Debater (2012-2014), current Ph.D. Candidate. Co-champion of Big Bronx, Octos finish at Harvard, attended TOC in my second and last year of debate.
General Paradigm: I judge as close to "tabula-rasa" as possible, ie. just because I am a former K debater, I will vote for the team that actually did the better debating. Heavy on impact framing/ROTB/ROTJ. If you make the decision easy for me, then there is a good chance I will vote for you. I tend not to vote for the team whose work I have to do for them so don't be lazy.
Speaker Points are given based on a mix of clarity, passion, and sportsmanship. Trash-talk/banter is allowed, but keep it strictly tasteful and tact.
Newark Science | Rutgers-Newark
Email chain: Ask me before the round. Different vibes, different emails ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If it matters, I've done basically every debate style (LD/CX in high school. CX, BP, PF, LD, Civic, and Public in college). I don't care what you read as I've probably just about made every argument from policy action good to talking about grandmas. Throughout my career, I read trad args, Kant, Hartman, Bataille, Disclosure, Wilderson, Gumbs, Wipeout, Politics DA, T, framework, etc.
My only real rule is don't make the room an unsafe space. I've always loved the creativity that debate allows so I would implore you to be free and do what you want as well because I genuinely don't care. Debate's a different game than when I was in it and I'm just here to follow the vibes. Please remember I'm an adult viewing the game, not participating in it.
- Spreading is fine. Open CX is fine. Flex prep is fine.
- Having an impact is good. Doing impact weighing is great.
- Efficiency is good! Arguments being grouped is fun and shows me that you have a strategic vision of what is necessary to win and what arguments are connected, etc.
- Truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth (probably because you were inefficient).
- Don't be lazy. For example, even if case is conceded, the aff should still be in the 1/2AR (do not dedicate the whole time to it but remember to use the strategic pieces of your aff that you built).
- I am offering a shoulder to cry on or an ear to listen when debate forgets that they should be creating good people. Don't be afraid to find me or talk to me after a debate or whatever. I do wellness checks when I can (and I have/will hold up a round or 2 to do so).
Trix (or Tricks): Please don't play with me.
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Currently based in Taiwan and coaching debate for the ADL. That means I am staying up all night when I judge at US tournaments. Please pref accordingly
- Debated in college at the University of Kansas, 2017-2022 (Healthcare, Executive Authority, Space, Alliances, Antitrust). I majored in math and minored in Russian if that matters.
- Debated in high school at Shawnee Mission Northwest, 2013-2017 (Latin America, Oceans, Surveillance, China).
- If I can tell that you are not even trying to flow (eg you never take out a piece of paper the entire debate, you stand up to give your 2NC with just your laptop and no paper) your speaks are capped at 27.
- Please don't call me "judge." It's tacky. My name is Lily. Note that this does not apply to saying "the role of the judge."
- Cross-x isn't "closed," nobody ever "closed" it... BUT each debater should be a primary participant in 2 cross-xes if your goal is to avoid speaker point penalties.
- I would prefer to not judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments or arguments about something that happened outside the debate.
- I might give you a 30 if I think you're the best debater at the tournament.
- High schoolers are too young to swear in debates. It makes me feel awkward.
- Don't just say words for no reason - not in cross-x and certainly not in speeches.
- If you are asking questions like "was x card read?" a timer should be running. Flowing is part of getting good speaker points.
- The word "nuclear" is not pronounced "nuke-yoo-ler." If you say this it makes you sound like George Bush.
- Shady disclosure practices are a scourge on the activity.
- I judge a lot of clash debates. I'm more likely to vote aff on impact turns than most policy judges, but I do see a lot of value in the preservation of competition. Procedural fairness can be an impact but it takes a lot of work to explain it as such. Sometimes a clash impact is a cleaner kill.
- TVAs don't have to solve the whole aff. I like TVAs with solvency advocates. I think it's beneficial when the 2NC lays out some examples of neg strategies that could be read against the TVA, and why those strategies produce educational debates.
Topicality vs policy affs:
- Speaker point boost if your 2NC has a grammar argument (conditional on the argument making sense of course).
- If you're aff and going for reasonability, "race to the bottom" < debatability.
- Case lists are good.
- The presence of other negative positions is not defense to a ground argument. The aff being disclosed is not defense to a limits argument. This also goes for T-USFG.
- When people refer to counterplans by saying the letters "CP" out loud it makes me wish I were dead.
- As a human I think counterplans that advocate immediate, indefinite, non-plan action by the USFG are legit, but as a judge I'm chaotic neutral on all theory questions.
- Conditionality: I'll give you a speaker point boost if you can tell me how many 2NRs are possible given the number of counterplan planks in the 1NC.
- Read them
- Politics DAs are fun. Make arguments about polling methodology.
- I feel like I have a higher threshold for Ks on the neg than some. I'm not a hack and I will vote for your K if you do the better debating, but I also think arguments that rely on the ballot having some inherent meaning are
- I dislike lazy link debating immensely, primarily because it makes my life harder. Affs hoping to capitalize on this REALLY ought to include a perm/link defense in the 2AR.
- Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
- Affs should explain why mooting the 1AC means that the neg's framework is anti-educational. Negs should explain why the links justify mooting the aff.
- Case outweighs 2ARs can be very persuasive. The neg can beat this with discrete impacts to specific links+impact framing+framework.
- Speaker point penalty if the 1AR drops fiat is illusory - at the very least your framework extension needs an education impact.
- If there is no net benefit to a counterplan, presumption flips aff automatically.
- I do not think permutations are cheating.
- An argument is a claim and a warrant. If you say something that does not contain a warrant, I will not necessarily vote on it even if it's dropped. In the interest of preventing judge intervention, please say things that have warrants.
- Most neg theory arguments I've watched would go away instantly if affs said "counter interpretation: we have to be topical."
- RVIs are not persuasive to me. Being topical is never an independent reason to vote affirmative. The fact that a counterplan is conditional is never offense for the negative.
General Thoughts – I try to be as tab as possible. However, I think everyone inevitably comes in with some preconceived notions about debate. Don’t feel like you have to adapt to my preferences--you should do whatever you do best. But if what you do best happens to be judge adaptation, here are some of my thoughts:
Framework – All I ask is that you engage each other's interpretations and arguments--don’t just read and extend. Look to my comments on topicality if you're interested in how I try to evaluate standards-based debate.
Case Debate – I think case-specific strategies that integrate intelligent on-case arguments into the 1NC can be really compelling.
DA/CPs – The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.
Critiques – Most persuasive when they interact explicitly with the 1AC/2AC. For example, I like specific 2NC link analysis (doesn’t necessarily need to be carded) that points to arguments being made in the 1AC/2AC, and I like 2NC attempts to gain in roads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency. I'm fine with critical affirmatives so long as you explain the significance of voting affirmative. A general note: given that I'm trying to evaluate your arguments as though I'm hearing them for the first time, please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading.
Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other type of argument, but like all other positions, there are central issues that the 2NR needs to resolve in order for me to vote on T. If neither team articulates a framework within which I can vote, then I’ll default to competing interpretations, but I’d much rather not have to default to anything. Assuming I’m voting in a competing interpretations framework, I think of standards as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means comparative impact calculus has a huge place in a 2NR that’s going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative.
Theory – Please engage the other team's arguments--don't just read blocks and talk past one another. If you expect to win on theory (independently), you should probably give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits rejection of the team, and not just the argument.
Nontraditional Debate – As long as I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that I feel both teams can reasonably be expected to meet, you can do whatever you'd like.
In Round Decorum – Don’t be mean. Try to have fun.
Speed – As long as you’re clear, I’m fine with speed.
Speaker Points – 28.5 is average. I'll add points for things like clarity and efficiency, and I'll subtract points for particularly messy debating.
If you have any specific questions, please ask. Feel free to email me after round with questions: email@example.com
Hi, I’m Ashley Quach
Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org.
I have debated policy for four years with the Bay Area Urban Debate League and am open to all arguments so long as you can back them up!
Tech > Truth — Please stay organized!
I like role of the ballot! If you don’t have a counter role of the ballot, I am forced to view the round in the perspective of the one that was provided.
I enjoy T and framework but you have to do the groundwork to show me why your version of debate is best.
Theory /Condo: I’m open to condo, but start buying “condo bad” arguments when there are more than 6 off.
I like Ks and I think they are a good neg strat. I’ve run many different K’s myself, but do not assume I understand everything, and thoroughly explain them as if I know nothing about the topic. Please be clear about your alternative and why your framework is best for the debate space. I buy good links!
K AFFS: I enjoy a good K debate, but tend to err on the policy side. With that being said, it won’t stop me from voting on the K aff that can prove why the advocacy is important to the debate space and how it proposes some sort of change to the status quo.
I will vote on a good CP, but I generally tend to lean towards the aff plan if the CP doesn’t have a net benefit or any offense. In terms of the DA, If you’re going to go for this you need to extend it out throughout all of your speeches and make sure your links are clear. Please make sure to signpost if your DA is the net benefit to the CP.
CASE: Any case is fine. I'm not currently debating this year so I might not be familiar with the case specific lingo. Please make your arguments clear if it is specific to your case. Extend your impacts!
I don’t do judge kicks. I’ll flow the argument the entire round if you do not concede it.
I’ll dock your speaker points if you use discriminatory and harmful language. I will reject the team if I have to. I won’t hesitate to intervene to keep the debate space safe.
I appreciate a passionate speech! It still might not be enough to win you the round but you’ll get good speaks.
Line by lines and signposting will get you points as well.
Spreading is fine with me but there's a difference between mumble spreading and clear articulation.
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
I competed in primarily LD & Policy debate. I read everything from theory, tricks, phil, policy, and the K; I have no ideological predispositions.
- Tech > Truth, but bad arguments need more warranting. That being said, bad arguments are bad and you should be able to respond to them.
- Complex arguments about counterplan competition need to be fleshed out for me to understand.
- All arguments - no matter what kind - should be weighed comparatively so I can evaluate competing claims.
- Spreading is good - clarity> speed - be slower just to be safe
I'll assign speaker points based on strategy and execution. I'll stay 28.8+ . I'll also assign them based on the level of competition at the tournament you're competing in.
add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
I try to be as tab as possible. Please be nice to each other (including to your partner). Here are some specific thoughts:
Speed is generally fine as long as you're clear. Slower on analytics than evidence and ramp up to your top speed in the first ~15 seconds to give my ear a moment to adjust.
Make sure there's an impact if you go for it. I default to competing interpretations.
Kick planks, run PICs, UQ CPs, whatever. Haven't heard a DA I won't at least entertain. The more specific the better.
I'm most likely to vote for the K when there's specific link analysis in the block (quotes from 1AC ev, specific cards, etc) and an alt that understandably resolves the impacts of the K (if it resolves the aff as well that's even better). I probably don't know anything about your lit base.
I have judged a single round of this type, but feel free to do whatever you'd like as long as I'm provided a standard of evaluation that both teams can be reasonably expected to meet.
ABOUT ME: I have four years of experience in policy and judged a few tournaments. I'm also a big fan of BP style debate. I'm an undergraduate student at Yale University and attended high school at So. Tx. Sci Acad in Texas, where I was the debate team captain.
TECHNICAL STUFF: Don't spread too hard, I want to understand what you're saying. It makes it easier for me to flow and give you meaningful feedback. I'll keep time, but I'd appreciate it if you kept time as well. Also, don't spend too much time sending files.
GENERAL: Try to be truthful? Generally, I'm truth > tech. A bit of bending is allowed but don't say stuff that's objectively false, regardless of how many cards you have to back it up. A big part of that is having rock-solid defense for any nuclear extinction style impacts.
THEORY: Love this stuff, refrain from just using it as filler though.
AFF: Give me a clear story, K affs are ok but I'd really prefer it if you actually defend the topic. Hit all the stock issues, it'll definitely strengthen your case in my eyes. Dropping is a big no for me, it usually results in an aff loss.
NEG: Use varied arguments! Love hearing on and off, education is defo improved if you hit as many points the aff made as possible.
K: I'm going to be honest, I'm not the best versed person on K lit, you're going to have to explain stuff to me, but I'm definitely down to hear what you have to say :)
T: Poorly constructed Ts on the neg side are lowkey lazy, please make it a good argument and not just something you're arguing for the sake of it. As for aff, you need to win T to win the debate.
IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, LET ME KNOW
Email me if you have questions and please put me on the chain: dylan.willett8 at gmail dot com as well as email@example.com. I coach for the Asian Debate League. I debated for UMKC. In college, I mostly went for framework, topic DAs, and an assortment of topic critiques. As a coach I mostly have spent the last year working on random policy stuff, but have spent a lot of time working with critical approaches to the topic as well.
Be bold, read something new, it will be rewarded if you do it well. Analysis of evidence is important. I have found that over the past few years I have grown my appreciation for more of the policy side of research not in an ideological lean, but rather I am not starting from negative with process counterplans, I appreciate clever disadvantages, etc. If you have good cards, I am more willing to reward that research and if you do something new, I will definitely be happy.
I begin my decisions by attempting to identify what the most important arguments are, who won them, and how they implicate the rest of the debate. The more judge instruction, including dictating where I should begin my decision by showing me what is most important will help determine the lens of how I read the rest of the arguments
I find that I am really annoyed by how frequently teams are asking major flow clarifications like sending a new file that removes the evidence that was skipped. Please just flow, if there is an actual issue that warrants a question its obviously ok, but in most situations it comes across as not paying attention to the speeches which is a bit frustrating.
I like good, strategic cross-ex. If you pay attention and prepare for your cx, it pays dividens in points and ballots. Have a plan. Separate yourself and your arguments here!
I am a big fan of case debates that consist of a lot of offense – impact turns or link turns are always better than just pulling from an impact d file.
I think that I mostly lean negative on theory arguments – I would be really sad if I had to parse through a huge theory debate like condo, but am willing. I think I start from a predisposition that condo, PICs, etc are okay, and change based off the theory debate as it develops. I think theory is an important part of an affirmative strategy versus good, and especially cheaty, counterplans. I don't think education is a super persuasive argument in theory debates I have found. Way easier to go for some type of fairness argument and compare internal links versus going for some abstract notion about how conditionality benefits or hurts "advocacy skills".
In framework debates, the best teams spend a lot of their speeches on these flows answering the nuanced developments of their opponents. AFF or NEG teams that just say a different wording of their original offense in each speech are setting themselves up to lose. I am interested in hearing what debates would look like under each model. I like education arguments that are contextual to the topic and clever TVAs and impact turns are good ways to get my ballot while making the debate less stale. I find the framework teams that lose my ballot most are those that refuse to turn (on the link level or impact level, in appropriate manner) AFF offense. I find the K AFF teams that lose my ballot most are those that don't double down on their offense and explain how the NEGs impacts fit in your depiction of how debate operates.
Ks, DAs, CPs, T, FW, etc are all fine to read and impact turn – as long as I am judging a round where there is some attention to strategy and arguments are being developed, I will be happy. Definitely willing to vote on zero risk of a link.
Two primary beliefs:
1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.
2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.
I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.
These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.
CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.
1. No judge kick
2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good
3. Sufficiency framing is true
Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.
Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.
YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.
Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.
Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.
Emory '23 | Strath Haven '19 | 2A/1N
tech > truth
debated two years in college/qualled to TOC in policy my senior year/know nothing about the water topic
please put me on the email chain: lynnea(dot)zhang@gmail(dot)com
i go by the flow which presupposes any ideological preferences i have; if you win the flow, i will vote for you.
if i look grouchy, you're doing something wrong.
do ev comparison.
i will be very very sad if i have to flow your 24 point at: perm do the counterplan block
won't judge kick unless i am told to
if you're running one, your burden is still to disprove the aff. please debate the case. i am probably not familiar with your theory, but have few ideological preferences when it comes to what your scholarship is as long as it is well explained.
i really really do not care that fiat isn't real, i'm going to weigh the aff
do your thing. i really enjoy well-developed case debate, k aff or otherwise. the best k affs capably explain their method to resolve a problem. impact turns vs k affs are great.
K Affs vs T
i think debate is a game and the only impact that my ballot can really resolve is procedural fairness. however, if you can prove why that that's a bad or violent model, you've leveled the playing field.
counter define words in the resolution.
procedural fairness >>> truth-testing/refinement > topic education > deliberation > any other impact
condo is probably pretty good and the only violation i'd be willing to vote on
i have a high threshold for voting issues here. my team routinely ran very abusive counterplans, so there's no alarm that really goes off in my head
i like t debates. please explain the violation clearly and compare counter-interps.
untopical affs should go for reasonability and literature checks limits/potential abuse. i find the arg that ground shapes limits on certain resolutions very persuasive in determining an impact to something like ground loss or limits explosion.
i don't think there is much delineation between my philosophy for LD and Policy. i will give more weight to theory because i recognize that it is apart of LD norms, except for rvis. rvis are silly.