Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.

I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.

I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.

My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.

I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.

I graduated from Montville Township High School in 2018 and from Wesleyan University in 2022. I did PF for 4 years and I now work for the New York City Urban Debate League.

I can keep up with PF speed and a bit beyond that, but please don't go crazy. I probably won't flow from a speech doc. I'm fine with game-like things like kicking case and going for turns. I'm okay with some level of tech/progressive argumentation, but I don't want that to be a game-like thing--I probably won't vote for a shell/K that I think is read solely because the other team doesn't know how to handle it.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline. Feel free to, but don't feel like you have to.

First summary does not need to cover defense unless second rebuttal frontlined. First summary should include turns if you want them as offense, but they can go rebuttal to FF as defense (unless they were frontlined in second rebuttal).

I really, really appreciate collapsing in both summaries. And, of course, weighing.

I do want to be on the email chains: viveth [at] debate.nyc

I'm the lead program director at the NYC Urban Debate League. I've coached policy debate at Harvard University and Emory University. I did policy debate at Emory University and at Chattahoochee High School.

I evaluate the debate entirely based on the arguments in the round and the flow.

Iowa City High school 2012-2016

Northwestern University 2016-2020

Northwestern University Coach 2020-???

I want on the email chain: josephweideman01@gmail.com

--I generally know more about policy arguments, but I'm happy to vote for the K/think it is very strategic and usually answered badly.

--In K debates, both sides need to do a much better job of: 1) using examples/contextualizing their offense; 2) debating the other team's argument instead of a caricature of their argument; 3) evidence based debating

--I care a lot about evidence quality. I'll usually read a good chunk of the cards during the debate.

--I think a lot of debates are determined by which team has the better strategic vision/ability to weave the different pieces of a debate together into a win. I do not like having to piece together a debate without instruction from debaters on how to do so.

--I will be very quick to ignore evidence composed of sentence fragments that make no grammatical sense when put together.

--Inserting re-highlighting of the other team's ev is fine, but you must explain what you're inserting/why you think it helps you.

--T-USFG/FW: I think the vitriol with which this argument is approached by many people on both sides of this issue is bordering on the absurd. FW has argumentative merit. So do the answers to FW. Clash is good (If you want to convince me otherwise you'll need to explain what debate is without clash). I care less about fairness gripes. Stop saying things are intrinsic goods and instead use descriptive language to explain why they matter. Aff teams' impact usually outweighs but I consistently vote neg when the aff shotguns offense and fails to answer the neg's defense/tricks and/or because clash turns aff offense.

--I am uninterested in adjudicating personal attacks/arguments about things that happened outside of the debate.

--Conditionality = Good

--T vs Plans: Least favorite type of debate to judge (other than theory debates...maybe). I think evidence quality/predictability matters a lot and its usually silly to put limits above everything else.

--Make choices please.