I am a high school graduate from Technology High School in Newark. I have also debated for a total of 5 years. I’ve debated at many tournaments (Yale, Harvard, Bronx, etc).
I am a Kritikal judge.
if there are any other questions feel free to email me at acostalberto94@gmail.com
Arguments

Framework
You need to make this the most important argument in the round. For me at least. You loss framework, than you have a really high chance of lossing the round (depends on how far you are on the framework flow)

Dropping arguments
Drop them properly. Don’t just stop talking about them. If your opponent does drop this argument then bring it up so you can reap the benefits of their mistake.

Speed
I fine with it. I just ask that you slow down on the tags and the main warrants of the arg. If I can’t hear after I say clear three times I will only flow what I hear.

Theory
I like it and I know about it, but I am not going to do the work for you. Just because you say theory and extend it doesn’t mean that you explained ite. There needs to be a clear explanation on the theory flow what is the abuse that happens in the round and why it is important. Theory for me out ranks all others (not because it is an easy way out) because I feel that this argument are the actual rules of the debate round on what can and can’t be done by each team.

C/X
It is open I don’t flow it, but I do listen to it, and it can change my decision.

2NR/2AR
I flow it, but I mostly like to listen to it. This is the crux of the round. I need you to tell me why you should win (by explaining your arguments in the most detail that you can in the time period) and what arguments that your opponent dropped. (the reason for this is that a lot of teams really don’t do this any more so better to feel safe then sorry).

Jargon
I understand all of the debate jargon (since I did us most of them anyway) just that if there are any new ones that you think that I didn’t hear about then explain it to me.

Affirmatives
Topical affs are great, but I really enjoy hearing a critical debate with a critical affs, but with these kinds aff’s come with great responsibility. There needs to be a lot of in-depth analysis onto why your aff solves for what it solves, how it is a prereq. To the k and other args. A lot of debaters really just read evidence after evidence, i instead like to hear how the aff actually interacts with other arguments what is the actual connection. The critical aff can be the most dangerous weapon in any debate round if used properly. Performance affs are fine just explain the framework in great detail and why I should reject the resolution (if that is the case) in your own words or how you are topical.

Negative

Topicality

This can be a very powerful critical argument if used properly, but not many teams use this argument. I will vote on t if there is clear violation before the round is even finished (unless there is framework or theory). This is an argument that I like but not love like others

Counterplan
This is an argument that is very confusing for me, if you are going to run it explain what the plan does and how it doesn’t steal aff ground (unless theory is involved). If there is a critical counterplan involved explain how it is different from a k. other then that I don’t like counterplans too much, but I would vote on it.

Da
This is really a straightforward argument; I really didn’t see any variations of this argument in my debating career. If there are then I welcome them, but I really don’t have anything else to say about them.

K
Finally to the one argument that all teams want to know about. I love this argument, however I find that a lot of teams really don’t explain this argument in great detail. They just leave the k up in the air for the judge to interpret it in there own way. I know enough about the most common k’s that I can understand them, but again if I need to decide what your k is talking about you may not like what I think. Some of the other arguments that I’m not to familiar with I will listen to but there needs to be more of a keen eye in the explanation for those kinds of arguments.

Chattahoochee HS '21

University Of Kentucky '25

Add me to the chain: jaredaadam@gmail.com

Top:

I will pretty much vote on anything and lack many ideological predispositions with a few exceptions. I try to be as least interventionist as possible so please do judge instruction that explains to me why you have won the debate & the implications of the arguments you are going for.

Send a card doc after the debate has ended. I'll read the cards you think are important, but I tend to think the quality of evidence comes secondary to who did the better debating.

Debate is a communication activity, I will flow what I hear, not what is in the doc.

Theory:

I prefer to judge substantive debates over trivial theory arguments. Anything that isn't conditionality is a reason to reject the argument not the team. I lean NEG on condo, and would only prefer you go for it if either a. the neg severely mishandles it or b. it's the only winning option. I will not vote on blimpy theory arguments that aren't developed or articulated out earlier in the debate.

Non-resolutional theory is a non-starter.

Counterplans:

Judge kick is my default unless told otherwise.

Huge fan of them, I love me some solvency offense & AFF specific counterplans.

I am okay for counterplan competition, but the more egregious the counterplan, the lower the threshold it is to win the CP is illegitimate.

Disads:

Good

I think the interest rates DA is cracked. Though I haven't judge that many debates on this topic, I do not understand why some variation of an econ DA is not the 2NR in every debate.

Kritiks:

The best kritiks are ones with links to the plan. If you want to just rehash some theory about the world, without contextualizing it to the plan, I am not the judge for you.

Topicality:

I would prefer you read & defend a topical plan. Impact turning framework is more persuasive to me than extending a counter interpretation.

Impact Turns:

Good

Misc:

- tech > truth

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed

• Bigotry will not be tolerated

I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at NSU University School

Last Update: November 2023---Thoughts on "Disclosure" and "Evidence Ethics" in PF added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. I don’t think I have particularly controversial views, but have tried to be thorough where it matters for prefs/pre-round prep.

Policy vs. K---An argument is an argument, assuming it’s complete, warranted, and applicable.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly. I flow on a computer without much shorthand.

Evidence---I read it during debates. When referenced in CX, I’ll likely go to it. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Fiscal Redistribution" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer, and at this point in the season still do not have strong views on most of the debated T issues like “FR = tax and transfer” or “FJ = no subsets.” From grad school studying health policy, "Social Security can be turned into single-payer health insurance" seems a bit absurd, but I’ll let evidence dictate decisions.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

Daryl Burch

currently the director of high school debate for McDonogh

formerly coached at the University of Louisville, duPont Manual High School (3X TOC qualifiers; Octofinalist team 2002) the head coach for Capitol Debate who won the TOC.  McDonogh won the TOC in 2007.  I have taught summer institutes at the University of Michigan, Michigan State, Emory, Iowa, Catholic University, and Towson University and Wake Forest as a lab leader.

I debated three years in high school on the kentucky and national circuit and debated five years at the University of Louisville.

I gave that little tidbit to say that I have been around debate for a while and have debated and coached at the most competitive levels with ample success. I pride myself in being committed to the activity and feel that everyone should have a voice and choice in their argument selection so I am pretty much open to everything that is in good taste as long as YOU are committed and passionate about the argument. The worst thing you can do in the back of the room is assume that you know what I want to hear and switch up your argument selection and style for me and give a substandard debate. Debate you and do it well and you will be find.

True things to know about me:
Did not flow debates while coaching at the University of Louisville for two years but am flowing again

Was a HUGE Topicality HACK in college and still feel that i am up on the argument. I consider this more than a time suck but a legitimate issue in the activity to discuss the merit of the debate at hand and future debates. I have come to evolve my thoughts on topicality as seeing a difference between a discussion of the topic and a topical discussion (the later representing traditional views of debate- division of ground, limits, predictability etc.) A discussion of the topic can be metaphorical, can be interpretive through performance or narratives and while a topical discussion needs a plan text, a discussion of the topic does not. Both I think can be defended and can be persuasive if debated out well. Again stick to what you do best. Critiquing topicality is legitimate to me if a reverse voting issue is truly an ISSUE and not just stated with unwarranted little As through little Gs. i.e. framework best arguments about reduction of language choices or criticism of language limitations in academic discussion can become ISSUES, voting issues in fact. The negative's charge that the Affirmative is not topical can easily be developed into an argument of exclusion begat from predictable limitations that should be rejected in debate.

It is difficult to label me traditional or non traditional but safer to assume that i can go either way and am partial to traditional performative debate which is the permutation of both genres. Teams that run cases with well developed advantages backed by a few quality pieces of evidence are just as powerful as teams that speak from their social location and incorporate aesthetics such as poetry and music. in other words if you just want to read cards, read them poetically and know your argument not just debate simply line by line to win cheap shots on the flow. "They dropped our simon evidence" is not enough of an argument for me to win a debate in front of me. If i am reading your evidence at the end of the debate that is not necessairly a good thing for you. I should know what a good piece of evidence is because you have articulated how good it was to me (relied on it, repeated it, used it to answer all the other arguments, related to it, revealed the author to me) this is a good strategic ploy for me in the back of the room.

Technique is all about you. I must understand what you are saying and that is it. I have judged at some of the highest levels in debate (late elims at the NDT and CEDA) and feel pretty confident in keeping up if you are clear.

Not a big fan of Malthus and Racism Good so run them at your own risk. Malthus is a legitimate theory but not to say that we should allow systematic targeted genocide of Black people because it limits the global population. I think i would be more persuaded by the argument that that is not a NATURAL death check but an IMMORAL act of genocide and is argumentatively irresponsible within the context of competitive debate. Also i am not inclined to believe you that Nietzsche would say that we should target Black people and exterminate them because death is good. Could be wrong but even if i am, that is not a persuasive argument to run with me in the back of the room. In case you didn't know, I AM A BLACK PERSON.

Bottom line, I can stomach almost any argument as long as you are willing to defend the argument in a passionate but respectful way. I believe that debate is inherently and unavoidable SUBJECTIVE so i will not pretend to judge the round OBJECTIVELY but i will promise to be as honest and consistent as possible in my ajudication. Any questions you have specifically I am more than happy to answer.

Open Cross X, weird use of prep time (before cross x, as a prolonging of cross x) all that stuff that formal judges don't like, i am probably ok with.

db

Hello,

I will be entering law school the fall of 2024. In undergrad, I debated a few times, but most of my experience with debate comes from high school. There, I did policy debate for three years. Though I am most familiar with policy, I am a generalist in terms of my knowledge of the debate space, having judged rounds of PF, LD, and Congress in the past.

In debate, I care about the formation and presentation of the arguments. To put that clearly, you can use ANY type of argument so long as you effectively communicate your point. I typically do not tell debaters what types of arguments I prefer because I don't want them to conform to my likings. You should debate the way YOU feel most comfortable. When I say I am comfortable with any argument, I mean ANY! (Ks/Aff-Ks, DAs, T, Performance, etc.)

Here are a few notes:

1. You communicate between your partner (if not LD) and your opponents. For example, if you are spreading and your opponent has clearly indicated they can't follow your speed, I will dock speaker points. (I am comfortable with all speeds, so spreading is okay in my book, but it has to be interpretable by your opponent. Debate is an activity about the exchange of ideas, and speed should not inhibit that goal.)

2. There is no such thing as a common-sense argument. By this I mean, do not let anything go left-unsaid. A good tactic here is to go line by line on the flow. Oftentimes, we think we can bypass a point because the argument seems simplistic on its surface, but in reality, it has layers. If we ignore these nuances because they seem common sensical, we miss great chances to reveal nuance.

I think this is meaningful advice for any round because you never know what a judge will end up voting on. Now, I do not mean get lost in the minor details of your opponent's arguments. All I am saying is, engage truthfully and meaningfully with what your opponent is saying.

3. I believe in Low-Point Wins. Frankly, If you are not in a speech event (which debate is not) I do not care about how you speak. I care more about what you say and how it develops your argument not how articulate yourself. The best speaker does not always have the most syllogistically sound argument, and I want to respect this possibility.

Feel free to ask me about my paradigm before round!

Here is my email for the email chain:

Williamc0402@gmail.com

Here is my short biography for you to know who I am:
Hi, my name is William. I finished a PhD in German at NYU. My focus was on literature, critical theory, and to some extent black studies.
As for debate experience, I used to debate for CUNY debate in college for 4 years, reading critical arguments in the Northeast. I won a handful of regional tournaments and broke at CEDA. I also coach for Brooklyn Technical High School (sometimes we sign up at Brooklyn Independent). I have been coaching there for 8 years and have had my debaters make it far in national tournaments as well as qualify for the TOC a bunch. Because I work with Brooklyn Tech (a UDL school), I am also connected to the NYCUDL.

Here is the start of my paradigm:
As everyone else says, rule of thumb: DO WHAT YOU’RE GOOD AT
Whether your go-to strat is to throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks, a straight up disad/cp, or a one-off K; I will be more than happy to judge your round…
given that you:

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have some trouble adjudicating what you’ve said.
2) Properly explain your positions—don’t make an assumption that I know you the abbreviations you use, the specific DA scenario you're going for (perhaps fill me in on the internal link chains), or the K jargon you're using. Help me out!
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles between your own positions compared to those of the other team.

4) Frame things— tell me how I should prioritize impacts otherwise I will default to util (see section at the bottom)
5) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
6) Write the ballot for me in your 2nr/2ar, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Prioritize your best offense and tell me why that offense is critical to evaluating the round—force me to evaluate the debate through a prism that has you winning

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations and util unless an alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round are introduced

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise

3) I will avoid looking at evidence unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate though my own experience debating and coaching revolves around mostly K debate.

General Stuff

High School: Bronx Science CM 2018-2021

College: Bing TC (current)

Send the email chain to choudhura3@bxscience.edu

Put the subject in this format please:

Aff (Aff Team Name) v. Neg (Neg Team Name) (Tournament Name) Round X

I currently do policy debate in college and did four years of policy debate in high school. I have gone for many types of arguments on the policy, kritik, and theory aspects of the debate, so as long as you're explaining your arguments clearly you will win my ballot.

KvK

Give me a clear Role of the Ballot/Role of the Judge and explain how it applies to your theory of power and you'll be good.

KvFW/T

I've been on both sides of this debate and understand the strategies employed by both teams to win it. As a college debater, I don't read Framework against K-Affirmatives as frequently as I did in High School, but I am still open to voting either way in these arguments.

Policy v Policy

I like evidence comparisons in these debates.

The more I think about my paradigm and debate the more I realize that my opinions are constantly evolving and thus I will probably not be straight down my paradigm in round.

The bold is important highlights throughout. Enjoy

Quick overview:

I debated at Calvert Hall for four years (2017-2021), debate at Towson University (2022-present). I ran policy arguments in high school and now I do performance debate in college. Make it simple for me, i don't like doing work for you, you don't write my paychecks. Every aspect of debate is performative, make sure that you are a decent human being and call out your opponents when their performance is problematic. But, run what you want and do your job as a to explain to me while it matters.

yes I want to be on the email chain, christd550@gmail.com

You should leave pen time whether or not i'm flowing on my laptop or paper - I want to make sure I get all your warrants!

here's how I would pref me:

1 - policy (soft-left) or policy vs the K

2 - Policy (heg/nuke war)

3 - Identity K

4 - High theory K's

Specifics:

Affs:

I think K affs are good for debate. I really like seeing you incorporate aspects of your performance into later speeches, and strategic cross-applications of your performance to answer things like framework. There's lots of things that happen in rounds that can create other arguments to prove your critical arguments, especially if your criticizing things about debate as an institution. Behaviors and such matter in debate but I'm not going to evaluate that for you unless you make it an issue.

Neg:

DA:

Better link debating is better debating and will earn you higher speaks.

Live laugh love the politics disad

T:

Prove abuse and impact it out. If you're aff give me specific examples of why the aff is uniquely good for debate/is topical. You should probably have a case-list or at least a categories list otherwise i'm not sure what your interp devolves to.

Explain my role as a judge clearly. What am i voting for, what am i justifying in the community writ-large? why the other side's interp is uniquely bad/violent and you have a good chance at picking up my ballot.

I think that being non-topical is also important but its the affs burden to prove why they should get to be non-topical. I like models debates, what does your model justify vs theirs for the activity as whole, why is this round the key internal link to your model, etc.

CP's:

PIC's are alright - not my favorite thing, but I'm willing to listen to anything and learn why we shouldn't include a certain part of the aff. Not the best for huge and technical CP theory debates.

I enjoy CP debates but a lot of people don't explain solvency enough - no do the work. I think the same applies to the perm debate - lots of permutations go wildly underexplained.

Theory:

Condo:

I think condo is good unless I'm told it's not/the negs vision is really abusive. Multiple condo worlds are fun. I probably draw the line somewhere around 4 but that's a gray area; I can be convinced that 4+ is good and I can be convinced that more than 1 is abusive.

Theory debates are often very late-breaking and difficult to resolve. I am not the best for lots of debate theory especially without good line by line and comparison. Your theory blocks are great but what am I supposed to do with that and how does it interact with your opponent? If you want to debate theory do it well because I don't really enjoy it all that much so make it worth my time.

K's:

Anything super high theory (Baudrillard, psychoanalysis, deluze, etc.) I'm not familiar with the lit so you're going to have to explain it to me. Do your thing but you might have to do more explanation than throwing buzzwords around.

I like alts that resolve the links and result in some form of the aff - make sure you win the sequencing question for either the perm or the alt debate.

Most familiar with capitalism and antiblacknes K's - that's what I do with Towson CT.

Other Thoughts:

- Impact calc is very important, tell me exactly why I should prioritize your impacts. If this means framing cards, go for it.

- I'm willing to vote on anything (except things like racism good), just make it interesting and well explained, and do you!!!

- Don't be rude to your opponent, be respectful and nice, debate is competitive but fun.

- Pretty middle of the road/slightly above average for speaker points.

I think debaters have gotten too comfortable dumping cards and not really explaining them or using cards to make arguments instead of just being a debater and making arguments yourself. I challenge you to push yourself to make arguments and use less evidence - y'all are smart, show me you are!

if you read this far - you're already in a high stress situation and prepping for your round, so take a deep breath and get off of my paradigm and do your thing!

here's a cookie for reading this far

accomplishments you don't care about:

2x NDT Qualifier

1x CEDA Octafinalist

1x TOC Bid recipient

Hi, I'm Jeremiah!

Please add me to the chain: cohn.jeremiah@gmail.com.

Postround me/ask questions if you want

+.2 speak for good Bladee references

Experience

4 years of HS debate for Summit Highschool in NJ, Graduated 2022

4 years PF, 8 gold bids, and 4 silvers with 4 different partners, mainly ran substance & theory

1 year LD, reached 3 bid rounds ran stock/impact turns, theory/friv theory, tricks, Marx and Agonism, contracts, and a couple of NIB NCs

2 years of College Policy at Binghamton University, I'm a 2N, PoMo, Impact turns, theory. Qualified to NDT & cleared at CEDA twice.

Harrison RR (4/6/24)

I do not know anything about the LD topic

TLDR:

I will eval anything -- dogmatism is cringe & I hated losing cuz I read the wrong thing and the judge refused to evaluate -- be good at what you do and have a good time (morally abhorrent arguments are the obvious exception)

open cross & flex prep are fine

Clash Debates: I am probably 40/60 in clash debates -- I think T is a beautifully elegant technical argument & K teams often get bogged down in the LBL battle instead of winning the top-level stuff. My standards for T teams have also increased, your blocks should be contextual to the debate & the best 2NRs on T are not only technically proficient but also very persuasive.

The aff: win impact turns, top-level framing, or debate is bad.

The neg: win truth testing, limits, or good TVAs

That being said I love T vs policy affs.

Defaults: CIs, no RVI, presume neg in LD/Policy, 1st speaker in PF

Auto L for intentionally x-ist arguments.

I reserve the right to stop the round for safety stuff (ie misgendering)

One Winner / One Loser

Gut-check yourself, if you're debating a novice try to make the round accessible

clarity > speed, auditory processing disorder = slurred words are incoherent to me

LD

My wiki from HS to get an idea of what I read: https://opencaselist.com/hsld21/Summit/JeCo

I read way more K now in college but my heart wishes I could still read NIBs

I am also cool w/ policy style debate but I will probably just enjoy it less

I never did trad LD

Speaks are fake and shouldn't be a tie-breaker -- why arent we using Opp W% like every other competitive activity?

I love a good case debate :)

Will eval "vote after x speech" but it requires me evaluating the rest of the round

Skep: I keep judging rounds w/ this super generic skep NC, I find it really boring, do with this information as you please. I enjoy paradoxes & random NIBs much more. Also, Skep vs non-pomo K affs probably caps ur speaks but is not an unwinnable position.

Policy

All the LD stuff applies here I could totally see myself voting for tricks in a policy round and would probably find it really funny

I debate policy in college

Good case debate >> lots of off. I think case debate wins rounds.

I'm also a sucker for good impact turns (spark, cap good, dedev etc)

Reasonability makes way more sense in this activity, I love theory though so if you have a good abuse story go for it.

PF

probability weighing: unwarranted weighing will cap your speaks I don't have any idea of what is probable until technical concessions are made.

I debated this for 4 years of HS, but I pay 0 attention to the PF meta now

Theory was the a-strat when I could get away with it in PF

Warrant comparison and weighing r super important

TERMINAL IMPACTS PLEASE

Yes silly extinction scenarios but also yes warrants :)

I will tank your speaks for badly warranted % weighing. I have no idea what is probable or not. I care what is won in round.

1st Summary doesn't need to extend conceded defense, but ff probably should

My favorite PF arguments were tricky overviews that somehow framed out the opps offense or triggered presumption, if you do something like this well you will love your speaks.

Google me . 1st black top speaker at TOC . CEDA finalist . NDT quarter finals . 3rd speaker at both. tournaments .

Sign post : when you read the aff you clearly state “ PLAN ! Advantages ! SOLVENCY !

when you neg you clearly say : “ First off ! Second off ! Case !”

I despise terrible spreading , I despise unclear arguments . I despise you assuming because I’m a judge that you can make rhetorical shortcuts through debate jargon unless you’re actually using debate jargon .

Omg what happened to overviews ?

All arguments aren’t created equally .

stop being scary when it comes to being great .

Mamaroneck 2023

Yale 2027

she/her

jdavisdebate@gmail.com

T/L

The most important thing is that everyone has fun. If there is a way that I can make the round more comfortable for you, please don't hesitate to ask.

Use trigger warnings during (do not spread them) AND ask opponents before round if you plan to read potentially sensitive arguments.

No ad hominem attacks; no berating your opponents.

Respect pronouns.

Argumentation

Read whatever you want in front of me. I have limited topic knowledge, so be careful with acronyms (putting them in parentheses in a tag is fine).

Tech > truth so long as your arguments are explained and implicated sufficiently.

I will find it difficult to vote for you if you cannot explain your arguments beyond cyclical jargon.

Misc

A marked doc does not mean taking out the cards you didn't read. Clarifying which cards weren't read requires cross/prep time.

I look annoyed sometimes but I swear I'm not.

I encourage you to make jokes about any of the Bronx Science/Mamaroneck debaters from the classes of 2022/2023 in your speeches.

Feel free to email me/ask me questions before and after the round.

STANFORD & BERKELEY 24: Very thin working knowledge of the topic. Proceed assuming I know almost nothing, ESPECIALLY in heavy econ debates

my name is kyujin (pronounced Q-jin) – he/him, toc elim debater & il state champion @ northside from 2017-21, coaching @ interlake since 2021. email chain: kyujinderradji@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com.

trying to update this once or twice a year every year that I’m active; debaters spend thousands of hours researching and preparing for tournaments, and the least i can do to maximize the benefits that come from that is to let you know how i will approach evaluating the things you prepared to say.

TLDR: no hard and fast rules except that I will not evaluate death good, and i am heavily biased against strategies that eschew line-by-line debating. if you read a planless aff i would put me lower than “k-friendly” judges but not at the bottom of your pref sheet.

LONGER:

top level –

· i have substantive preferences (of course, everyone does even if they don’t say so) BUT those should not change the way you debate. debates are best when debaters are not just Saying The Words They Were Told To Say, but rather when all the debaters have evidently been thinking about their position and making refined and clear arguments that are not intended to confuse but instead to persuade. while, of course, you will not persuade me that we should kill social security to prevent the Hat Man from haunting your dreams, my role is to evaluate the effectiveness of your communication in attempting to prove that such is true.

· additionally, i will exclude arguments prefaced off events that happened outside of what i have witnessed in the debate, ad homs, or otherwise accusatory statements. i will err towards facilitating the continuation of the debate unless it becomes clear that is no longer possible, in which case i will follow tabroom procedure and maximize opportunities to ensure the well-being of the debaters directly affected by malicious and/or harmful behavior.

· do not attempt to pander to me!! there’s obviously a level of comfortability and camaraderie that i think is good and appropriate in the setting of a debate, but ultimately i am almost out of college. many older people in debate lack boundaries when engaging with high schoolers that honestly makes me very uncomfortable. i appreciate being friendly/relaxed etc, and i encourage that, but please do not act like we are old buddies or make comments that you wouldn’t make to a teacher.

· people who have shaped the way i think about debate: john turner, shree awsare, dml, holland bald, luther snagel, addison kane, wayne tang, all of northside c/o '19

pet peeves –

· clarity. i will not clear you. it's up to you to be as clear as possible even if that means sacrificing speed. having to give an rfd where i tell you that i couldn't understand a third of what you were saying is frustrating annoying for me and embarrassing for you.

· kicking stuff. not kicking out of stuff correctly, even if it doesn’t do you any strategic harm, is a very bad look and your speaks will suffer.

· cx. barring the aff is new or you are mav, you must either do cross ex for all 3 minutes or end early. you cannot use cross ex for prep.

speaker points –

· speaker points will be rewarded by knowing what you are talking about, doing research, clarity, strategic vision, and being funny. speaker points will be docked by rudeness/undue assertiveness, lack of clarity, and lack of strategic vision.

· doing my best to accommodate new trends in speaker points even if i might disagree with them. i understand how frustrating it is to have stingy judges give low speaks and jeopardize seeding/breaking.

decision calc –

· tech over truth. BUT! that requires you extend a claim, warrant, and impact. a 2nr should extend an impact and do impact comparison, not something like “they dropped impact #3 in the 1nr, extinction, don’t make me reinvent the wheel” – bad bad bad. setting yourself up for failure at the hands of a smart 2a.

· i need your arguments to make sense – that’s really really crucial. seems like a truism but unfortunately it is not.

evidence –

· i care a lot about evidence quality – i'd say more than the average judge. research is the largest/most valuable portable skill from debate and i will look for ways to reward teams who have clearly conducted original, innovative, and/or high-quality research and can demonstrate the knowledge that research has imparted them with.

· i do read evidence (not every time, but if I feel so compelled) but i will not include that into my decision unless evidence is a subject of disagreement.

· I will read more than the highlighting, but I will only evaluate the un-highlighted portion if I think that you have misrepresented it in a way that makes the evidence read better than it is i.e. you selectively highlight words or ignore paragraphs to make your evidence look more conclusive. I will not include warrants from ev in my decision that you have not read obviously.

· rehighlightings are obvi great, you can insert them, as long as it’s not egregious. You can’t insert cards from other articles that an author has written in order to indict them – you have to read that. the point of inserting recuttings is just to point to the other team’s own evidence and provide direction as to what specifically is at issue with it. introducing other articles obviously requires you read them, because that is not evidence read by the other team.

· caveat to the above – please! make sure you are not mis-recutting evidence. It will look like you didn’t actually read the evidence and assumed it was miscut. Your speaks will suffer.

the rest of this paradigm are my opinions on various positions, but matter much less than what was just said above.

planless affs/framework –

· 70-30 neg. one of the two hardest things for the aff in these debates are when the aff does not have a meaningful reason why debates over the resolution are bad, as opposed to the resolution itself. this usually requires some kind of exclusionary critique of the idea of debating the topic entirely, which is a pretty high bar to clear imo. the other barrier to an aff ballot in my mind is the role of debate. what is the ballot’s function? what does it mean if i vote aff or neg? why is debating the 1ac valuable fro the neg? all of these are questions I think the aff must be able to answer, and often they cannot to a satisfactory degree. given the aff is choosing to forego a traditional defense of the resolution, i think the burden of proof is set significantly higher because the aff must then establish a new set of criteria by which to evaluate the debate – which also often lends to the neg’s predictability offense on framework.

· i heavily prefer impacts pertinent to the process of debate rather than its substance (paraphrased from holland <3). topic education and the like tend to ignore the way that competition/resolutional wording distorts how we approach the topic – and lend themselves to internal link turns absent substantive defense to the 1ac’s thesis claims.

· all good for a da/pic against a planless aff – my favorite debates v k affs senior year were going for tech good against a “zoom bad” aff and heg good against a mao aff.

· NOT good for k v k debates. i will likely be confused and you will likely be unhappy with my decision.

counterplans –

· :thumbs-up:

· fine for intricate competition debates BUT i will need arguments to be warranted – saying “their interp justifies x” is sometimes not immediately intuitive for me, so just err on the side of explaining things more.

· agree with like everyone else that counterplans can’t simply identify an aff internal link and write a plank to the effect of “solve x impact”. it’s like making an alt cause argument that explains no alt causes.

· i won’t automatically judge kick a counterplan.

· i am neg leaning on basically all theory. most theory is better articulated as a competition argument. i am not a good judge for teams who shotgun 1ar extensions of conditionality and make it 5 minutes of the 2ar – obviously can be a legitimate strategy but it feels like it has recently become a safety net for teams who are afraid of debating substance. also, please slow down in heavy theory debates.

disads –

· :thumbs-up:

· comparison and narrative-telling are the most important. telling me why I should care about your thing and using examples/common threads from evidence is very helpful and demonstrates a lot of skill.

t v plans –

· :thumbs-up:

· there should only really be two kinds of t debates to me: one that gets to the core of a topic disagreement (i.e. t-enact on CJR or t-AOS on immigration) and one that points out an egregious instance of a violation. outside of these two instances, i’ll tend to err aff.

· i prefer t debates with lots of evidence, warrants, and little repetition. limits is the best neg impact and (usually) precision or aff ground are the best aff impacts.

k’s vs. plans –

· yes for most. i think these are best executed when they function as an impact turn to core ideological assumptions of the plan. the more the k is [insert theory – no perm because footnote DA] or reps k of [one of your 9 impacts], the less I will be a fan.

· ideally, the function of your framework argument should be to ratchet down the importance of having a coherent alternative.

· i generally quite dislike "you link, you lose", and i have a pretty low threshold for voting aff on framework in these debates. giving the aff some kind of access to their consequences (at least as a defense of their epistemology) will make me much more receptive to a research or epistemology k.

Me

I am a freshman at Columbia and debated policy for 4 years at Bronx Science.

Email: donovanj@bxscience.edu

TLDR

Tech>Truth

Line by Line>8 minute overviews

Clash>KvK>Policy

Clarity>Speed

Maybe your Baudrillard>Not your Baudrillard>Yes your Baudrillard

DO NOT BE RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, ABLESIT, ETC.

Proper

Top Level

Read whatever you want. I genuinely have zero issues with any arguments as long as they're neither exclusionary nor violent. I'll always do my best to fairly adjudicate the debate based on the flow and the flow alone. That being said, I spent the majority of my career as a K debater. Here are the most common arguments I read my last two years: Hegel, Psychoanalysis, Deleuze, Cybernetics, Bataille, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Cap, Security.

Clash

K v Policy debates are always enjoyable to watch AS LONG AS THEY ARE GOOD DEBATES. The worst thing in the world is a 2AC that is disorganized followed by a 2NC with a 6 minute overview and zero line by line. Above all, I value good clash, not jargon or big thesis level papers. This is not to say no overviews or not totally keeping the debate 100% organized is bad(I almost always read an overview), but I do want to see a general structure kept throughout the debate.

I think that the best K debating occurs when the NEG decides to go 1 off the K. Anything else just detracts from your time spent developing the argument. I will visibly cringe in your face if I open the 1NC and have to pull out a ridiculous amount of flow paper.

Framework is probably the most important part of the debate for me, despite how inconsequential it becomes 99% of the time. In most clash debates I've watched, the AFF and NEG start on totally different sides of the framework spectrum, only to leave a ton of ambiguity by the last speeches, causing most judges to just take a middle ground approach. I hate that, not because of the middle ground, but because of the general consensus that framework for some reason requires the least amount of judge instruction. I genuinely don't care what you have me do with the aff and the K, whether it’s mooting, no reps links, or some weird synthesis between the two -- just please say it and give me judge instruction. Anything else forces me to intervene with absolutely zero clue as to how I should fairly evaluate the K versus the AFF.

I like strong link debating. That means that if your idea of a link is a 20 second rant about how "aff bad because it’s hyperreal" or something, I'm not the judge for you. Spend time fleshing out your links as well as their impacts. Pull quotes. Do turns case analysis. Contextualize the links to the AFF's scenario -- don't read your prewritten blocks and call it a day. Explain how the alt solves. Explain how it interacts with framework.

I think alternatives are important. Winning framework is almost never enough on its own unless you can explicitly justify it. That being said, my bar for what constitutes an alternative is literally just that it needs to solve something. I don't care how. I just want an explanation of how your vanguard party or fiated mindset shift or research shift or whatever does something.

I think AFF teams in these debates forget that the debate is literally about the AFF. In other words, stick to your guns. A lot of K debate is really just smoke and mirrors meant to confuse rather than explain. If you press K teams on their arguments, most of them fold or give some incoherent explanation. Sticking to explaining your AFF, weighing, and winning specific parts of the debate makes for a good front against the K.

KvK

I think a lot of what I said above applies here. I love K v K debates, but am often frustrated at the lack of clash. In the isolated confines of the debate round, I don't care if you know your theory of power like the back of your hand -- I care if you can contextualize it and clash with your opponents and their theory of power.

I think the aff gets the perm, but that doesn't mean I can't be convinced otherwise. That's partially because I believe it true that the perm usually wins 9/10 debates for the aff absent any real work beyond an abstract combination of two diametrically opposed theories. As such, I expect both a thorough explanation of the perm and its functionality from the aff in addition to a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity from the neg. You are setting yourself up for failure if you don't.

Overviews are chill, just don't use them as an excuse to dodge clash. The worst debating is when you read a long overview and then go down the flow saying "I answered that in the overview." I'm not your secretary. I will not do that work for you. You have been warned.

Alt solvency, impact calc, and strong link debating are the most important here. You're better off investing your time here rather than explaining why your way of understanding the world is correct.

I love a good old cap debate, but I also want to see your creativity. Maybe try something else?

High Theory

I decided to devote a special section to the infamous high theory debates here. My take is simple -- they can either be my favorite or my most despised debates to judge ever. While I never go into a debate with any preconceived notions, my opinion on these types of debates will be easily swayed by your knowledge of your literature base, your ability to keep the debate technical, and your ability to defend your argument absent jargon. My enjoyment of the debate will mainly depend on those factors. If you cannot defend your K beyond repeating "will to transparency go brrrrr," I will be thoroughly disappointed, and your speaks will reflect that.

As such, my threshold for these debates will be much higher as I not only have knowledge of many of the literature bases commonly read in debate, but am honestly sick of hearing barebones garbage like a 2 minute underhighlighted Baudrillard shell in the 1NC. That being said, do not let this deter you from reading these arguments in front of me if you genuinely want to debate them. I am more than open and honestly most excited to hear them IF RUN WELL.

K Affs v FW

I really only ever read K affs. I read a joke death star policy aff once and that was the only exception. Take that as you will.

In all honesty, I like K affs, but also think that 99% of them are probably cheating to some extent. TLDR, I think FW is probably true. That, however, has zero bearing on which way I'll vote.

For AFF teams, I think the best thing you can do is use your aff. A good K aff will always have reasons as to why either the form or content of debate is bad for some reason based in their theory of power. Whichever way you go, it's important to stick strong to it and maintain that narrative throughout the debate. I personally find criticisms that don’t go beyond mere “USFG Bad” offense unpersuasive. For me to vote for you (the K team) against a competent FW team, I require a coherent explanation as to why your offense supersedes procedural questions of fairness or their paradigm of clash.

For NEG teams, I personally believe that fairness is your best option here. 9/10 times, you’re fighting an uphill battle going for a clash based impact as your opponents not only debate FW almost every debate and are thus more well versed in its nuances, but also because fairness really just is the most straightforward impact in my opinion. Your opponents will almost always have a cheeky internal link turn to your arguments that you can usually just bypass with a fairness DA to their model/interp. I also just find a lot of impacts tied to clash like sabotage, movements, etc. very unpersuasive. That doesn’t mean that I won’t vote for a clash based impact if executed properly, nor does it mean I’m a hack for fairness. I personally believe that there are unique scenarios where both have their merits and the edge over the other.

TVA and SSD – I personally don’t have a lot of thoughts here. I think they are both defensive arguments that can bolster key points of negative offense, but are not enough for me to vote on in a vacuum.

Policy

I’ll admit here that these are probably the debates I’m least well versed in. That doesn’t mean I don’t know how to evaluate them, it just means that I have comparatively less experience here than I do in K debates.

That being said, here are my thoughts in no particular order:

For T, limits and predictability are both a sliding scale. I think of them both as circles around the topic that posses loosely defined borders.

You are annoying if you state “plantext in a vacuum solves” or “positional competition solves” without any further explanation.

Your T evidence probably sucks and is not contextualized to what you are talking about. Stop gaslighting.

I like good cheeky CPs.

Intrinsic perms are cool if you can justify them.

I have a high threshold for zero risk – I think unless something is straight up conceded, there is always a minimal risk. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to win in front of me, it just requires more work than saying the words.

Theory

I have zero reservations on voting for any argument, but I will internally laugh myself to death if I see something like A-Z spec in the 1NC.

Misc

I don’t think condo is bad as long as you can justify it. That, however, does not detract from my personal belief that the best debating happens in 1 off rounds.

Time your own speeches and prep. Also be honest about it.

No, you cannot “insert this rehighlighting here.”

Do not clip.

Do not piss me off trying to postround. You will not change my mind. I’m more than happy to give you constructive criticism, but I will not spend my weekend listening to you rant as to why you think I’m wrong.

Do not ask about speaks.

Do not make me adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

Do not be rude to your opponents or your partner.

Novices

1. Flow! It's the most important thing you can do in a debate.

2. Stick to what you are comfortable with.

3. Don't clip -- if you don't know what that is, ask me.

4. Practice good line by line -- refute your opponents rather than reading blocks all the time

5. Don't stick to your varsity's blocks. I understand that it can be hard to break dependency, but the best way to improve is to exercise your own creativity.

6. BE RESPECTFUL AND HAVE FUN!

I debated on the national circuit for Bronx Science for four years and Dartmouth College for 2.5 years. I found success with a wide array of policy and critical arguments, and I attempt to judge those "clash of civs" debates as objectively as possible.

Here are some key bullets:

- Aff has to defend something

- Argue smart, not hard

- Completely unfamiliar with the topic, so going for T may not be the best idea

- End of the day, I'm a guy evaluating who won. If you would like me to pretend I'm an institution, I will.

*TOC coaching affiliation: I am a coach for Break Debate. Conflict List---Barrington AC, Carnegie Vanguard LH, Durham SA, Flower Mound AM, Garland LA, L C Anderson LS, L C Anderson NW, Lexington MS, Lynbrook BZ, Lynbrook OM, Monta Vista EY, Oak Ridge AA, Sage Oak Charter AK, Scripps Ranch AS, Southlake Carroll AS, St Agnes EH, Seven Lakes VS.

*Please start the email chain without me - I flow without the doc.

Debate is a game that requires dropped arguments to be evaluated as true in order to function. That means I will vote on anything sans racism, sexism, etc.

—CX—

One of the most important parts of the round. I will shake my head if you ask about a card that wasn’t read.

—Ks—

2NR must explain why either the plan or plan focus is bad. Quotes from evidence, cx, and references to their performance are persuasive.

An offensive reason for why they shouldn’t be able to weigh case + a link to the affs reps is sufficient. You do not need an alternative because framework provides uniqueness.

If the link is to the plan, you do not need to win framework as long as you treat the K as a critical DA and CP. Link turns case prior to solvency, the impact to the link outweighs case, the alt solves enough of the aff for the link to outweigh the solvency deficit, etc.

Perm cards and generic DAs are unpersuasive. Spend that time doing contextual analysis, using the link to explain why the perm fails.

—Policy vs K—

2AR must explain why either their reps are good, or why plan focus is good.

Good affs have smart tricks vs the K: aff is anti-militarist, withdrawal inevitable, plan affirms sovereignty, etc. Use them.

Perm double bind.

Debate the links, don’t just assert the opposite - explain why their characterization of the aff is wrong. Links have three levels: link, internal link, impact. Answering any one of these is usually sufficient.

—K affs—

DAs to the negs model must be intrinsic - your offense should be about something their interp mandates, not arguments that can potentially be made under it.

Alternatively, you can read a DA that establishes why their performance in this round is a reason they should lose.

Most aff framework angles rely on winning debate shapes subjectivity - this is probably the most important argument in any debate where the impact is clash.

If the impact is fairness, affs should have reason for why debate is more than a game, alternatives to competition are possible, etc.

Ballot key?

—Framework—

The impact to fairness is fairness. However, it is your job to prove that.

2NRs should probably win that debate is a game and content is neutral.

Explain why their DAs don’t apply to your model. Explain why their C/I links harder to their offense.

Line by line their arguments with offense and defense. If clash is good, do it.

—Policy Vs Policy—

I should not be in the back of this. I understand substantive interactions but am not well versed in competition. However, I will do my best to evaluate these rounds as technically as possible.

—Phil—

I vote on it. Decent understanding of skep, intent-based vs consequentialist frameworks, etc.

—Theory/Tricks—

A dropped argument is a dropped argument no matter how silly. However, silly arguments are by virtue east to answer.

Princeton '26 Bronx Science '22

Affiliations- Assistant Coach at Berkeley Prep ('23-), Private Coach for Bronx Science teams ('23-)

Email chain: oneoffthek@gmail.com, hidden.aspec@gmail.com, bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him

TLDR

Tech over truth but have trouble in mid/high level policy v policy debates. Like clash debates but there are better judges for it. Like easy decisions (dropped aspec, wipeout vs a team that is not ready, etc). If its a North East tournament that has comparatively low quality of judges and you are a technical team, you should pref me high. If its an Octas Bid tournament and/or has college coaches / college debaters / good high school coaches who are technically sound and know how arguments interact, I am probably not worth preffing above them.

Debaters who are crushing the other team should make my life easier. If the 2AC drops a DA and a CP, and you are sure you will win, just extend those and sit down. Some of these debates can be won with 3 minutes of the 2NC. Dont use all your prep if you dont need it. Will be rewarded with speaks.

Old:

Glenbrooks Update:

I do prefs for some of my teams. I look for two things: first, are they pure tech over truth. I am, I will only evaluate the arguments on my flow and only intervene if neccesary. I will vote on dropped arguments and will scratch my head if you don't take the easy way out.

Second, what are their opinions on Framework Kritiks and K Affs.

I prefer to judge kritiks that invest most of their time in framework to moot the aff. I prefer the aff to go for fairness impacts. I prefer the negative to realize that 5 links in the block, specific or not, will not help you with mooting the aff. If mooting the aff is not a negative win condition, you will probably lose to the perm double bind or case outweighs if equally debated. I can judge negative kritiks that fiat big functionally competetive alternatives if the negative is losing framework that is treated as a DA/UQ CP. This likely requires a lot of cards and some way to capture aff offense. Less strategic, although its what I did senior year.

For K Affs, I prefer judging impact turn based strategies. The counter interpretation makes sense to me ONLY when winning some external offense about predictability or limits. Otherwise, in my mind, counter interp will always link to negative offense if predictability is articulated well. I prefer that the negative goes for fairness based impacts that explains the neccesity of fairness for both teams.

KvK debates - I prefer that the negative wins a reason the aff doesn't get a permutation or, a harder sell, that the permutation doesn't sheild the link.

Policy v Policy - I dont trust myself to judge decent policy debates. You likely dont want me in the back for this. You should pref me below the college debaters you're comfortable with taking, successful FYOs that still think about debate, and definitely below college and high school coaches who actively cut cards and think about policy arguments. Since I am not super well versed on the true arguments on things like counterplan competition and such, I will be heavily relying on my technical ability and evaluate drops highly. Going for less and collapsing on one or two pieces of offense decreases the chances of me making a bad decision because I'll need time to parse the card doc and think about how arguments interact. I think infinite condo is good (although I enjoyed going for condo a lot and felt judges sometimes did too much work).

Old:

--I went positive at TOCs my senior year if that matters to you

--Tldr: Do what you do best- I am a technical judge and will vote for the team who did better debating. All of my opinions can easily be overturned by out-debating your opponent. I want to judge high-level debates and recognize that you are giving up your precious time to research and compete. I will be invested in your debate, try my best to catch every argument, read cards during prep, etc out of respect for your preparation, genuine interest in high-level argumentative innovation, and appreciation for technical proficiency. Although I'm not going to lie, I may look bored watching some not high level/not competitive debates

--My favorite judges were clash judges who were flow-centric and did not bring personal opinions into the decision (unless it was necessary to do so). This was because I debated fast, reading 13 off and going for undercovered positions. What David Sposito says here resonates with me "Recently I've found myself advising losing teams in the post round that they should have gone for extremely bad, dropped blips. An argument being 'bad' ALONE does not mean that I will have a 'high threshold' for voting on it (again, these are weasel words that allow judges to get away w/ voting as is convenient for them, or as they please). Teams still must answer an argument satisfactorily. It is true that practically, 'bad' arguments should be unstrategic b/c they can swiftly be beaten w/ the right arguments, but the other team only benefits if they know the right answers (which they often do, but sometimes do not, especially for arguments w/ a bad reputation). But that's not about thresholds, exactly.... Ineffective arguments do not suddenly become better because I want one argument to win or lose--logically, that is bizarre, and practically, it is a violation of giving each team their due."

--So what do I believe are "truer" arguments and "faultier" arguments? Despite mostly going for the K in my career, I found myself voting for Policy teams more often in close clash debates when judging last year. However, I am only coaching K teams right now which shows that I recognize the K's strategic potential. This means that if you are a competent K team that utilizes speed to overwhelm your opponent with arguments that are hard to answer, shotgun extendable arguments against the policy team's "true" answers to your offense, isolate offense that is mishandled, impact out arguments and explain how they interact with your opponent's arguments, then you should not be worried. These are the K teams that end up succeeding anyways- most K teams that make it to deep elims of TOCs and other big high school tournaments pref college debaters that solely read policy arguments and college coaches that will vote strictly off of their flow but will vote for the policy team if equally debated. I will think about clash debates similar to these judges. This means I will moot the aff if you win its good to do so, and I will not evaluate reps links if you win reps links are bad.

--To be transparent, I'm confident I can follow a counterplan competition debate but am not as well versed as college policy debaters nor do I know enough dense critical theory to process blocks that use buzzwords every other sentence. I can handle speed, but I can't process insanely fast mumbling or flow as good as the college debaters and coaches who devote much more time to this activity than I currently do. However, I want to judge high-level debates and am confident I can keep up with skilled debaters that make arguments clear and explain how arguments interact with each other.

--I mostly agree with other community norms seen at high levels of debate: if the "truest" arguments on each side are forwarded, affs get perms in kvk debates, unlimited condo is justified, fairness is the most strategic impact, predictability outweighs limits for the sake of limits, dont default to squo unless its mentioned by the negative, etc. I understand these are not homogeneous views held by the community and are contestable, these views mostly stem from Brian Klarman and Mikaela Malsin along with discussions with other top-performing debaters.

--Send docs out quicker, prep ends when doc is sent, asking what cards were read is prep (asking for a marked copy is not)

--Format emails reasonably. If you need help, "Tournament X Round Y- AFF Your Team Code Vs NEG Other Team Code - Judge Alex Eum"

--If everyone in the round sends analytics and you remind me after the debate, I'll raise speaks, just remind me.

Aanya Ghosh

aanyaghosh23@gmail.com

I usually take on the longer side to decide debates (~10 minutes average) even if it's not close sorry!!!!

You can ask questions but if the post rounding gets excessive and I'm just answering the same question over and over again I'm just going to leave :/

PLEASE try to be clear if you are spreading through analytics at top speed and ur not clear I won't feel uncomfortable not voting on something that was incomprehensible

General

I debated for four years at Lexington High School in MA (1A/2N). I accumulated 9 bids and qualified to the TOC four times, consecutively double-qualifying in CX and LD. Coaching Lex + some independents.

I would prefer not to judge lay/traditional rounds but I will adapt to you.

I don't care where you sit/stand as long as I can hear you. You don't have to ask me to take prep.

The email chain should be formatted as follows:

Tournament Name Year Round # Flight # --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]

Tech > Truth whenever possible. I will try and adhere as closely as possible to the flow to adjudicate debates, save for morally abhorrent arguments or callouts. Clarity >>> Speed. I will listen to CX. I don't care if you tag-team/open CX. Prep can be cross, but cross is never prep. Compiling a doc is prep, but sending it doesn't count. I don't have defaults--please don't make me flip a coin.

I will hold the line on new arguments -- I should be able to trace a line from the 2AR to the 1AR.

For new 2NR evidence, my thinking is as follows: if it's supporting an evidentiary position held in the 1NC and is responsive to new 1AR evidence, then it's generally permissible (for example, if the 1NC reads heg bad and the 1AR reads new heg good cards). However, I err against the 2NR introducing new evidence that could have been read in the 1NC (e.g. reading a new impact scenario for a disad) ABSENT the 1NC justifying why they should get to. Any defaults I have can be easily changed and only apply when no arguments have been made regarding the matter.

Policy

Evidence matters just as much as spin, and the latter is distinct from lying. Yes zero risk if it's won. I like impact turns. Cheaty counterplans/permutations are yours to debate.

Kritik

I consider myself agnostic in these debates--have been on both sides.

Neg teams should read framework and link walls in the 1NC. I will hold the line on new 2NR framework interpretations that seem to have emerged from nowhere. Please don't pref me if you read overviews that take up half of your speech.

Fine for clash/fairness/skills 2NRs as well as counter-interps/impact turns. I enjoyed going for kritiks and presumption versus K affs.

Philosophy

I'm familiar with most common frameworks, but over-explain super niche stuff. I would prefer to see a robust defense of your syllogism and not hedging your bets on preclusive end-all be-alls such as "extinction outweighs" or "induction fails".

Determinism is probably one of my favorite arguments to hear and I will especially enjoy if you read Van Inwagen!

Theory

I don't care how frivolous it is. Reasonability and drop the argument are underutilized.

For policy: I am a good judge for theory; I won't intervene and will vote on anything (1 condo, new affs bad, hidden ASPEC (if I flow it)).

T

Precision should be articulated as an internal link to clash and limits in the 1NC. LD should have more policy-esque T interpretations that define terms of art in the resolution.

Tricks

I didn't really go for these when I debated but I'm not opposed to judging them--just make them easy for me to evaluate.

Saying "what's an a priori" is funny one time maximum.

PF

Given my background, I probably care very little about lay appeal relative to your technical skill in terms of determining who gets my ballot (but it will, of course, factor into speaks). Good for spreading/tech arguments, just don't execute them badly. I would prefer that you read cards; if not, at least have formal citations when paraphrasing.

PLEASE share evidence/cases before your speeches with me (and probably each other), whether it's via an email chain, SpeechDrop, or Tabroom file share.

If you disclose in PF, I will give +0.1 speaker points for having a wiki page and +0.3 if you have open-source disclosure for most rounds (let me know before round/before I enter speaks).

I won't default to sticky defense; just make a short reason as to why it is or isn't valid.

Speaks

I'm probably a speaks fairy; I think they are oftentimes interventionist and will take into account their effect on seeding/clearing. I won't dock speaks for reading any particular style of argument. I will for being egregiously rude.

Speaks are lowkey relative depending on how tired I am but I usually inflate anyways

Technical efficiency above all will be rewarded, but here are some extra things you can do to boost your speaks (pre round ideally):

• Sit down early and win and/or use less prep (let me know)
• Read entertaining/funny arguments I haven't seen before
• Bring me food (protein bars/shakes/preworkout please!!! fruit tea boba, black coffee, energy drinks (Celsius, sugar-free Monster, C4), anything with caffeine, healthy snacks) +0.5
• Correctly guess my astrological element, zodiac sign, and/or moon and rising signs. You get 3 tries for each variant.
• Correctly guess my favorite three-stage Pokémon evolution (NOT eevee)
• I will bring my speaker preround and if you play a song I like
• Beat me at Gamepigeon Word Hunt/Anagrams or Monkeytype 30 second no punctuation typing test
• W references (Drake, Naruto, Serial Experiments Lain, South Park, Gone Girl)

New Trier '23

call me sam, not judge

please add me to the email chain - samgdebate@gmail.com

Top Level Stuff

Tech >>>> truth - I am down for whatever. The only exceptions to this are callouts, hateful arguments, or death good.

be clear!! I am not the world’s greatest flow, so please prioritize in-depth argumentation over shotgunning a bunch of misc arguments.

I won’t read cards unless specifically directed to by debaters or if it is essential to resolve a debate - even then, I will not read unhighlighted portions of cards unless a rehighlight is extended

I have very little topic knowledge, so please avoid jargon and explain topic-specific examples

T

Give an alternative to plan text in a vacuum

interpretations must be explicitly extended in every speech

CPs

I default to judge kick unless told not to - these debates need to begin in the 1AR

DAs

even if it’s kind of silly, 1ARs need to respond to turns case

K v Policy

I’m familiar with Pess, Set Col, Cap, Death Cult, and Security - anything else requires significantly more explanation

I’ll probably always start off with framework when writing my ballot in these rounds, so teams need to be explicit about what I weigh if they win their interp - this explanation should preferably begin in the 2AC and 2NC

If you want an argument to be applied to framework, that needs to be explicit

Subjectivity shift defense should go beyond the generic list of alt causes (also applies to T-USFG)

T v K

I have no preference for the offense either team decides to go for in these sorts of rounds - I generally think that fairness is an impact but can be persuaded otherwise

please cut the long overviews

If i have no idea what your AFF does after the 2AR, i’m voting on presumption

K v K

I would feel much more comfortable adjudicating a T debate

clarity is super important here, I will feel much more confident in my decision if everyone slows down and defaults to more explanation - keep things super organized, and i should be fine

Theory

Unless theory is dropped (and it's on a flow that's extended into the 2NR), condo is probably the only reason to reject the team - that said please don’t go for condo unless absolutely necessary - condo debates make me want to throw up

I won’t vote on condo in novice debates

Absent an add-on, I think 2NC CPs are indefensible

Misc Things

saying "oops" in a speech = -0.1 speaks

please don't like yell your speeches - idk why people think being loud equates to increased ethos

Personal – Westwood HS '18, Duke University '22, Debated for 4 years in HS (CX), attended the TOC

Email Chain – Yes, goyalritik2000 at gmail dot com

Prep Time – Emailing a document is not prep. Demonstrating technological competence is good for ethos.

TLDR - Plans and Ks are fine. "No Ks" and "No K affs" are fine. My 2NR's were 99% kritiks my senior year. I generally think debate is a game.

I'm decently knowledgeable about the economic inequality topic as it's related to my work and enjoy thinking about jobs guarantee/social security/basic income.

Meta:

- Tech > truth

- In a theory debate I am more likely to reject the illegitimate argument than vote a team down.

Topicality:

- Debates over the source and quality of definitions are necessary and interesting.

- Weighing the relative importance of different procedural impacts is effective and necessary.

- I default to competing interpretations.

Disadvantages:

- Most “impact calculus” arguments are not real arguments, and the Prob/Mag/TF trio is boring and useless. I do like debates on the merits of various impact comparison frameworks (prefer probability over magnitude, extinction over structural violence, etc.)

- Making turns case arguments that interact with the internal links of the aff is more effective than “nuclear war turns economy”.

- Zero risk is a thing.

Counterplans:

- The more specific to the case the better.

- I lean neg on PICs and aff on mostly everything else, including judge kick.

- If the 2NR extends a counterplan, presumption flips.

Kritiks:

- I spent the most time with these arguments in high school, and I like thinking about them.

- My evaluation will start with framework, so clearly identify your model of debate and justify it.

- The more specific your link is to the aff, the better for you.

- Your overview is a bad one if it is the same every debate.

- Links of omission are mostly unpersuasive, but I can be convinced otherwise.

K v Ks:

- In order to encourage/reward engagement with the content of the 1AC by the negative, I generally require more work by the affirmative justifying why they deserve a perm.

- The permutation is not always the best 2AR strategic choice

- Competition should not always be based under the same frameworks as a policy/counterplan debate.

Answering Kritiks:

- Don’t forget about your aff, and don’t be afraid to defend your side (yes, our threats are real, here are a hundred reasons.)

- Framework arguments as to why the negative should not get a kritik are unpersuasive.

- Even if you win that you get to weigh the impacts of the affirmative, often for the purposes of the debate weighing the benefits of your research/approach/methodology are more rewarding.

- Don’t drop tricks, but don’t be afraid to waive them off as nonsense.

Reading framework against a K Aff:

- Different K Affs warrant different FW 1NCs.

- Demonstrating understanding of the aff’s theory through a TVA, turns case argument, etc. is very persuasive and good for your ethos.

- I do not have preference between education-based or fairness-based impacts to your interpretation. Generally think fairness-based impacts are more persuasive all things equal.

- TVA’s do not need to solve the aff but instead allow for the debates that the aff thinks are good.

Reading a K Aff against framework:

- I spent the most time on this side.

- Use every part of your aff to impact turn framework.

- Clearly identify what the role of the negative is in your model of debate, and what the purpose of having these debates is. I want to be able to place myself in the shoes of the negative and envision a non-FW strategy I could go for.

Put me on the email chain csh7916@nyu.edu

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate for years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Parli rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. My pronouns are she/her. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

Top Line:

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

Aaron Kim (He/They)

UChicago Lab '22

Emory '26

debate.ajk@gmail.com

Top Level:

• Follow the flow
• Include judge instruction
• Little to no topic knowledge
• I generally decide debates quickly---this is not a referendum on the quality of the debate
• You have to stake the round if you make an ethics violation

Specifics:

K Affs / FW: I’ve been on both sides and don’t have any strong opinions. Fairness is generally an impact but obviously needs an explanation for why it is such. Both teams should have explanations for how the ballot resolves offense. More persuaded by technical execution than grandstanding about why debate is bad.

T: Probably the area of the topic I've done the least research. Strongly tech over truth, will vote for any T interp or against any T interp given sufficient evidence comparison and impact calc. Fine for reasonability and PTIV.

K: I've read a lot of K's, from a slew of identity K's, post modernism, etc. The negative should commit to a 2NR that either is a fiat K or uses K tricks in order turn case and outweigh.

CP: No hot takes, probably more likely to vote for Process CP's than most. Affs should impact out each deficit and compare it to the net benefit. I don't judge kick unless told.

DA: No hot takes, I think turns case is underutilized when you don’t have case defense and will vote aff onanalytics against dumb DA's.

Misc:

I rarely read cards and probably care less about cards than the average judge.

I’m usually tired when judging, so the less wasted time, the higher speaks will go.

The more cards with the initials "DKP" you read, the higher speaks you get.

Condensed Paradigm:

Refer to Jose Rivera for all my opinions on debate. I have no topic knowledge. I'm a traditional judge from a traditional part of the country.

Email: jk4790@columbia.edu

Pronouns They/Them

Policy Debate

The debater bears the responsibility of reviewing the paradigm before the commencement of each round and posing any necessary clarifying questions. My evaluation of the round will proceed under the assumption that it has been reviewed, regardless of whether you did so or not. I will not verify if you have read my paradigm, nor will I issue any warnings related to it. Non-compliance will have consequences, as I am weary of debaters neglecting it, and my patience has reached its limit in debate rounds.

1. I have a strong aversion to spreading, so please refrain from it if you desire me to follow your arguments. Anything not on my flow will not be considered part of the round, irrespective of how well it is explained or extended. Depending on the speech, it may, at best, be treated as a new or analytical argument, and subsequently evaluated accordingly. I am open to being included in the email chain; my email is jk4790@columbia.edu. However, being part of the email chain does not guarantee that I will flow everything I read. I only flow what I hear, so ensure that your arguments are audible. I will be monitoring the round to ensure that no one is cutting cards, and I will call out teams for such actions, so make sure to follow proper procedures. I will drop cards before penalizing the entire team, and continued card-cutting will lead to me stopping the round and reporting it to the tab room. Furthermore, I will not vocally request clarity, nor will I provide time signals except to indicate when your time has concluded. I find these actions unfairly distract debaters and divide my attention, so rest assured, you will have my full attention.

2. I have a strong distaste for theory. I disapprove of disclosure theory and consider it an invalid argument. My bias against this argument stems from a time when there was no debate wiki, and I do not recommend presenting it in my rounds. Regardless of the argument, I prefer it to be relevant to the topic. I am equally invested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. However, I am willing to listen to a wide range of arguments as long as they are effectively articulated and explained (refer to point 3). I have encountered some unconventional arguments and am open to hearing new and innovative ones. To earn my vote, an argument must have a discernible impact and a clear explanation of how that impact is reached. A simplistic equation of A + B = C will not suffice; I require a narrative explaining how the impact is derived and why it holds significance. I will not vote for a dropped argument unless it is the only option, which I consider to be an instance of judge intervention. Debaters should guide me on how to vote, and I will penalize speaker points if I am required to do the work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.

3. At the outset of each round, I approach it with a blank slate, akin to a 6 or 7-year-old child. Arguments should be explained with this in mind. My own knowledge and opinions will not influence my judgment; I evaluate solely based on what is presented in the round. For instance, if a debater claims that the sky is purple, provides evidence supporting this claim, and it remains uncontested, then, for the purposes of the round, the sky is considered purple. I emphasize this because I regard any deviation from this principle as judge intervention, which I strongly oppose and will penalize with a reduction in speaker points. By default, I adopt a standard policy-making framework at the start of each round unless instructed otherwise. This principle also applies to evidence; your interpretation of evidence is authoritative unless challenged. If challenged, I will examine the evidence and make a determination based on my understanding and how it was contested. This may lead to a reversal in my judgment on an argument, the dismissal of the evidence, or a change in my ballot.

4. I diligently monitor speech times and prep times and rely exclusively on my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you declare "stop prep." Once you utter those words, I expect you to be prepared to send the file. I do not want to hear excuses about copying arguments to a file for the email chain; I will include that time as prep. It should not take long to send a pre-prepared file via email, and I will wait until all participants have received the file before allowing the following speech to begin. However, be aware that I may reset prep time if an unusually long delay occurs. It is essential to note that I will not halt my timer for any reason once a speech has commenced, except under extreme circumstances, and technical difficulties are not considered such circumstances. If you opt to stop your timer to address an issue before resuming, keep in mind that my timer continues running, and your speech time is being consumed. Additionally, I expect all debaters to refrain from using their phones during the round, including the intervals between speeches and during prep. Such behavior is disrespectful to the activity of debate and to your opponents, and I will deduct speaker points for it. Furthermore, I will not evaluate any arguments presented from a phone, especially if you have a laptop available in the round.

5. In JV and VCX, Cross-X is unequivocally closed; there are no exceptions. In NCX, I will only permit it if requested; otherwise, it is closed. Should you decide to have an open CX despite not requesting it, I will dock speaker points.

6. Finally, I expect respectful conduct towards both me and your fellow debaters, and I appreciate displays of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect will result in a deduction of speaker points on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect may lead to the involvement of tournament staff and lower-than-average speaker points, though I do not anticipate such circumstances.

E-Debate:

A. Cameras must remain activated at all times. I will not flow teams with deactivated cameras, and you have been forewarned that this may lead to your loss. I will enforce this rule rigorously, as I have encountered non-compliance in the past.

B. Prep time will continue until speeches are received in the email chain. Do not assume control over the time, as previously mentioned. I maintain timekeeping responsibility and will adhere to my timer. I will initiate the speech timer when you conclude prep AND subsequently send the speech. I have zero tolerance for any deviation from this protocol, as teams have previously exploited this to gain an unfair advantage. Sending an email should be a straightforward process, and if you encounter genuine technical issues, please inform me, as the tournament offers Tech Time for this purpose. Otherwise, I will enforce speech time. I do not take this matter lightly, as I am tired of being disregarded as if I am not an integral part of the debate round.

C. It should go without saying, but please ensure that I am ready before commencing your speech. Initiating a speech before I am prepared will result in missed arguments on my flow, and I will be significantly displeased. Your speaker points will reflect this, and if it pertains to a crucial argument that I missed, it may influence the outcome of the round.

D. Spreading on camera is ill-advised from both a technical perspective and my personal dislike for spreading. E-Debates are already challenging due to the varying devices, internet speeds, ect.

+.1 speaks for Adventure Time References

+.1 speaks if you bring me snacks that I like

Update for 2023: College Junior

Formerly Debated as Devin Kyser

Currently go by Drixxon Kyzar. Both Dev & Drixx are fine, I really don't mind.

email chain: davk2300@gmail.com

Paradigm:

If there's an email chain, I'd appreciate being on it, but I'm fine with spreading as long as you're somewhat clear.

Will vote on Kritiks and Theory Shells as long as you explain them well. Not a very big fan of tricks, but I won't vote you down for it.

Please keep things cordial and respectful. I understand that Debates can get very intense, but it's important to attack someone's case rather than their person.

Sign posting is highly valued, as it makes my job easier, and is appreciated when I see that your case and motives are organized.

2024 Revised Paradigm:

I'm a product of Newark Science. You can refer to my former coach's paradigm as a basis for how I'll judge.

Speed
Be clear. Pretend I don't have your doc. For most topics, you can spread as fast as you want.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, clear tags are extremely important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory is to make it make sense. I'm not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

Policy Debate Coach - North Star High School, Newark, NJ

email: tlatta27@gmail.com

Former policy debater and now second year policy-focused coach with some summer lab instruction experience. Comfortable with policy and critical approaches.

General Preferences

Depth > breadth: spread has rapidly diminishing returns with me. Warrant quality will win out so...compare warrants.

I appreciate a speaking speed where individual words are distinct and discernible, at the bare minimum. I'm not receptive to speaking styles with purposely low volume or monotone and this will be reflected in speaker points and, if egregious and repeated, the RFD.

If you want your arguments reflected in my flow, I STRONGLY suggest you DO NOT spread analytics, particularly those not reflected in distributed speech docs or those related to T's and/or Frameworks.

Disads: Uniqueness argument is usually the determinant in my view.

Counterplans: Throw-away cps with no solvency warrants can be defeated by the Aff with much less time than the Neg spends in the block but don't be sloppy in the 2AC. I am receptive to theory here. See remarks on theory below.

Receptive to condo bad. I'm not your best judge for 5+ off-case

Kritiks: Receptive to aff or neg but not as a shield to not engage with the arguments the other team is making. Not clashing will put you behind. The link debate is important to me and you have a much better chance if you compare warrants effectively in this area. Thoughtful Alts, particularly with analytics referencing history/examples are meaningful to me. I do not (yet) have a lot of direct experience with the literature of many areas of kritiks, hence you need to slow down and make them clear

Theory: Given my experience level, I encounter new theory all the time and that is sometimes a challenge. If you want to have an impact on the ballot in these areas, slow down and make your argument clear. Blasting through theory will leave a void on my flow.

Speaker points…28.5 is average clarity, most clear-thinking and focus. More and less of those qualities will be reflected by divergences from that point but will generally not go below 27.

In general, I will give you my full concentration as a judge, provide clear and reasonable feedback and appreciate your efforts to improve my understanding of policy debate and the round we are in.

Sarah Lawrence '25, Caddo Magnet High '21, she/her, yes I want to be on the email chain-- ejarlawrence@gmail.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.

Non-negotiables:

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.

Jake Lee (He/Him)

Math Teacher and Director of Debate at Mamaroneck High School

My Email for the Chain: jakemlee@umich.edu

HS Debaters ALSO add: mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

In-Depth Judging Record: View this Speadsheet

-
Top Level:

**Before the start of every round: I want every person in the room to go around and state your name, pronouns and one fun fact about yourself. You all are way too stressed out before rounds and having this little icebreaker before the start of rounds promotes a safe, friendly space. It helps create a community in debate, and the teacher in me enjoys the idea of promoting community building.

I evaluate arguments on a Tech over Truth basis. A dropped argument is a true argument on the flow. However, the word "conceded" does not mean you get to skirt by with laziness on the flow.

The only time tech over truth will not matter is on Death Good (Ligotti style), Racism Good, Sexism Good, etc. Reading these arguments at your own expense will lead to an inevitable L and 25's immediately. As an educator, it is my responsibility to make debate a safe space for everyone.

Schools I judge the most: Lexington (45), Berkeley Prep (43), GDS (40), GBN (26), Calvert Hall (21), New Trier (20), Bronx Science (19), MBA (16)

Giving the final speeches (2NR/2AR) off the flow (ie paper) will boost speaker points!!!! Shows great ethos in round.

-

The State of Flowing:
The state of flowing and line by line is very concerning. You all should be flowing the SPEECH, NOT the SPEECH DOC. The amount of times the 2AC has answered a skipped offcase or a couple of skipped cards on case because you just did not listen is concerning. Same with the other speeches in the debate where a team is answering something that was not said at all because "iT wAs iN tHe DoC"!! Same thing with people just claiming everyone is dropping everything.

No requesting "can you take out the cards that you did not read" before CX or speeches. If you ask, I'm going to run YOUR prep time and the other team can stall as long as they want because you decided not to flow. I don't care if they purposely run your time to ZERO, you didn't FLOW! You all have the document in front of you. That is a privilege debaters about 15 years ago did not have. If I can flow the speech without looking at the doc, you can to.

-

Consider the Following:

1) Implicate Arguments:

Judge Instruction is pretty non-existent in 90% of debates. As a math person, I really care about how things are concluded. What implicating your argument is pretty much equivalent to showing your work to me on a test. Telling me how to vote prevents major judge intervention from me. Clash, compare, articulate, explain arguments and tell me how they relate to you winning the debate round. Arguments without warrants depreciate in value compared to arguments with warrants are appreciated.

Nothing frustrates me more when teams say their arguments but do not tell me how to evaluate them. If I cannot figure out what I am supposed to do with your argument at the end, I am pretty much going to ignore it or not evaluate it. It is pretty consuming to try to sort out a wad of arguments that have no value to them. It is equivalent as to you telling me that this shape is a rectangle, and you cannot tell me why it is a rectangle without the proof/work. Do not bank on me trying to figure out what you are trying to tell me if you do not provide judge instruction, otherwise your arguments get bogged down.

If a team reads an argument that is considered "trolling", you have every right to troll back at them.

It feels really ironic that teams who have "framing contentions" do not do any framing at all. Both AFF and NEG are at fault for just reading cards and not "framing" anything. The spamming of Util Outweighs or Deontology First does nothing to help me evaluate the round.

2) Theory:

Please just stop reading pre-written blocks in these debates. Do Line-by-Line as you would normally do on any other flow.

Conditionality is probably good. I have voted both ways when it comes down to conditionality. Impact calculus and counter-interpretation debating does matter. New AFFs justify condo and perf con.

Hiding ASPEC/Other Theory arguments is Cowardly. If you do it and go for it because the other team dropped it, I will probably still vote for you; but it will end being a low point win. The 2N will take the hit the most for hiding it. You have to read ASPEC/other theory arguments on it's OWN flow to avoid this consequence. Do you want to be known as the ASPEC hider? If I don't catch it on my flow because you hid it, YOU do not get to complain about me missing it. If I know you hid it, I might end up not flowing it. Don't care.

3) Framework:

In these debates, both in K AFF and K rounds, are often quite frustrating to resolve at the end of the day. To win Framework on either the AFF or NEG, you need to do impact calculus! Most debates tend to stagnate and never expand on their impacts.

The other thing that annoys me that teams do not do is explaining their interpretation of debate. Both sides just breeze through this when this actually matters to me a lot as to why you resolve your own offense and why they link to your own offense. Debating and refuting each other's interpretations matters a lot and gets you a lot farther in the debate.

Hey Jake, is Fairness an impact? Yes. I think Fairness is an internal impact that can produce a plethora of external impacts. Hence, I tend to think Fairness is more of an internal link. I prefer clash style impacts over fairness impacts, but fairness can be a powerful impact set up for a lot of framework offense if executed correctly. However, I am not the person debating, and if you make frame Fairness as an external on the flow, I will treat it as an impact on the flow. It is your job to implicate it. Yes, I have voted on Fairness being an impact in the past. Walter Payton SW, LFS MR, Peninsula LL, and UC Lab ES are a few teams that I have voted on fairness for.

I prefer the AFF to have a counter-interpretation most of the time than just going for the impact turn strategy. Counter-interpretations help me get a perspective as to what I should think about debate and how I should come to the conclusion about debate. Most teams fail to provide also any UQ framing about debate.

TVAs are a great tool. A lot of NEG teams fail to understand the purpose of a TVA. A TVA does not need to solve the AFF. If the NEG can prove there is a TVA that can resolve a lot of offense from the AFF, the NEG is in a good spot. The AFF's best shot at beating TVAs is proving how silly sometimes these TVAs are. I am also shocked how AFF teams just let the NEG get away with blatantly untopical TVAs. There are so many times where I am just shocked that I end up voting for a TVA that just sounds very UNTOPICAL under the NEG's definitions.

Switch Side Debate is an under utilized argument that helps with most NEG teams. AFF teams can easily combat this by stating an AFF key warrant, which goes back to my thoughts about the counter-interpretation always being present in the 2AR.

Limits DA is OP. I just find it the most persuasive reason to Fairness because in all honestly, debate would be broken if there is no limit.

Here are the following arguments I just find unpersuasive from both sides on Framework:

"They flipped NEG into a K AFF" - don't care, the 2N can lie all they want as to why they flipped neg. the 2N can say because my 2A is tired so we flipped NEG, and I am fine with it

"They flipped AFF with a K AFF, they are embracing competition" - don't care, same as above, the AFF can just lie and be like my 2N is tired so we flipped AFF

"The TVA does not Solve the AFF 100%" - no it does not have to, see the TVA section above

"You read 4+ offcase in the 1NC so you had ground" - 90% of the 1NC is hot garbage so it is not good ground

"We could only read T in the 1NC, so we have no ground" - have you tried at least reading the Cap K or the Heg/Cap Good DA?

"More People have quit debate because of K AFFs" - I do not think this is true, I think this is an unfalsifiable claim

"Perm Do their interpretation and our counter-interpretation" - You can't perm T, it is not an advocacy

4) Counterplans:

I am always down for a counterplan debate. I did find the NATO topic last year a bit annoying with the amount of process CPs that came out of it, so let's try to avoid it this year since there are decent non-process CPs on this topic. Counterplans should be both "textually and functionally" competitive is the immoveable standard that I will stake in counterplan debates.

Not only this forces better counterplans writing, but better permutation writing. Limited intrinsic perms really are go-to strategy against counterplans such as Consult NATO or the Lopez CP when they really have no intrinsic purpose to the topic. But a very good counterplan that destroys the intrinsic perm is very much a power move. I am easily persuaded that the "other issues" perm should be abolished since it limits out NEG ground a ton. Debating out words, phrases, and reasons behind it will go a long way. Should/Resolved debates are pretty meh, but they have stuck with me for a long time given my time debating against GBN and hearing Forslund's thoughts about counterplan competition theory.

Permutation Do Both seems lost in most process CP debates. I sometime think that you can just do both. That places the burden a lot of the NEG to really explain any inherent trade-off between doing the plan and the counterplan, especially with garbage internal net benefits.

Permutations are not advocacies and DO NOT have to be topical.

**Hot Take on Text-Only Counterplans: If the NEG team just reads a counterplan text in the 1NC and nothing else, the AFF can just say Perm Do Both and move on. Here's why: a) there is no claim of solvency established after the text. The Counterplan text explains what you are doing, not how it solves and b) you have not established the threshold of competition. Jimin Park and I had an interesting conversation about this.

5) Disadvantages:

Huge fan of disadvantages. However, this is a sliding scale. There are some DAs that are pretty heat, ie. Assurance DA on Alliances Topic, Econ DA on Health Insurance Topic, Russia Fill-In DA on Arms Sales topic. Then, there are some DAs that are absolute garbage, ie. Federalism DA on Education topic, DoD Trade-Off on the NATO topic.

Much prefer you focus on the link level of the DA. This is where a lot of DA debates are either won or lost. A lot of debaters really fail to explain or attack the link. I see the common tactic against DAs is just impact defense, when again link level debating helps. AFFs should link turn DAs when they have the opportunity. Straight turning stuff has become a lost art.

Politics DAs: Okay, I will admit these DAs are non-sensical. However, I love a good politics DA debate. It was my most common 2NR in high school. That being said, the politics DA is probably the hardest DA to both execute and answer. There are a ton of moving parts to it, that a lot of debaters end up getting lost in the sauce and just make this debate about who likes/hates the plan. Defenses of PC theory, UQ warrants, takes outs of the bill all have large implications on the DA. Winner's Win theory is a great debate to listen if the AFF decides to put offense against the DA. Rider DAs are bad (sorry Voss).

6) Critiques:

Framework for me dictates how I evaluate the round. Both teams should have a comprehensive interpretation of what debates should look like and how I should evaluate it. Both teams should also impact out why their model of debate is better than their opponents. This is where a lot of debates just fall flat. AFF team says fairness and clash. NEG team says that's capitalist/anti-black and that's it. Lack of impact calculus just frustrates me a lot. Why should I have to "weigh the plan" or "prefer representations first prior to weighing the plan". Bronx Science BD was the only team that really impacted out framework and provided a clear lane for judges to evaluate rounds.

I prefer if the critique had links about the plan/topic rather than representations of the AFF's impacts. That is a preference, not a mandate. A lot of good executions of the link debate utilize re-highlightings and implicating the reason for a link. AFF's can easily combat this by just defending their threats are real. I am pretty good for AFF teams that just that their impact is true OR their AFF is just a good idea.

Extinction is First is a default for me, unless there is another Utilitarian thought process that is presented and articulated well to me to think otherwise.

If you say the K is unconditional, and you kick the alt, you cheated!!!! If the NEG team does this, AFF call them out and it does not need to be much, but explain why what they did is bad! The K is not unconditional, the advocacy is. You kicking breaks the rules of uncondo. It is the same logic of a Process CP being uncondo, and then the team kicks the CP part and going for the internal net benefit. That is not how unconditionality works

7) Topicality:

I am probably not the best judge for topicality debates.

I will default to competing interpretations majority of the time.

What matters to me is counter-interpretation debating, and how you explain to me your view of the topic is better for debate. A lot debates end up messy for me to evaluate because there is no impacting out why limits outweighs ground or AFF ground better than NEG ground. I will always will try to figure out which topic is best for both the AFF and NEG.

Much prefer limits over ground, unless there is a clear linkage between the AFF's interpretation decking NEG ground.

8) Case Debating:

Love a good case debate. Both sides will profit well from a good case debate. Making smart internal link/solvency takes outs really provide the NEG a lot of leverage. If going for a counterplan, still having case defense to the advantage that you think the CP solves the least forces me to drop you twice as I have to decide the CP doesn’t solve AND that the case impact outweighs your net-benefit. That seems like a pretty good spot to be in for NEG since I can judge kick the CP and weigh the net benefit. What most high school debaters end up doing is just spamming impact defense. Much prefer internal link/solvency take outs.

Majority of the time, a lot of 1ACs are hyperinflated, illogical and run into a ton of problems. If you tell me you cannot find an illogical flaw in an internal link chain that says, "plan's biofuel research promotes ag research, ag research promotes GMOs, GMOs help solve food shortage in Ukraine, lack of food in Ukraine causes NATO intervention, NATO scares Russia, NATO-Russia war goes nuclear", I will be shocked.

9) Ethics Violations:

Clipping: a team misrepresents how much evidence they have read in a debate, such as improperly highlighting their evidence, “clipping cards” (the team says they read more than they actually did by clipping a card short of the indicated end), or “cross reading” (the team skips words or sentences in the middle of the text but indicates that they read all the highlighted words).

Any altering of the author's original text such as deleting/adding/re-arranging words/phrases/paragraphs is also deemed a fabrication of evidence. Proof of fraud is necessary.

Any ethics violation challenge, the other team must present evidence. Whoever wins the challenge gets the win and max speaker points. Whoever loses the challenge gets the lost and lowest speaker points possible (probably a 25).

David Levin (he/him/his)

Head Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT

Email Chain: levind@stlukesct.org

All Formats

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.

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

Public Forum

>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for Kritiks. i'm a pretty good judge for theory. this format has so much potential for innovation - don't be afraid to try something different/new.

General:

"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 "substance" round. I don't enjoy evaluating what you might call "tricks", but I'll judge them fairly. I'm not here to tell you what you can't run (outside of oppressive/exclusionary arguments). 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 likethis article from Stefan Bauschard a lot.

Housekeeping:

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.

DO NOT send a "locked" document to me or your opponents. This is a competitive equity AND academic integrity concern.

Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one.

Speaking:

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.

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.

Speaker Points:

I average around a 28.7 for varsity rounds. For a well-executed technical debate, expect something in the 28.8-29.4 realm. Above a 29.5 is reserved for performances that "stick to the ribs", demonstrating both technical mastery and rhetorical salience. Remember that debate is largely a practice in storytelling.

Specific Arguments

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.

These rounds are where I can offer my most helpful feedback, whether you're running a K or debating against one.

Non-topical criticisms:

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.

"Off-case" Criticisms:

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).

Topicality:

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.

Theory:

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.

Evidence:

Cut cards are an 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.

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

Policy:

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.

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

Lincoln-Douglas:

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! [lin.debate@gmail.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

tl;dr

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!

Misc Stuff

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...

Bottom Line

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.

Good luck!

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Yes, include me on the email chain. zhaneclloyd@gmail.com

Brooklyn Tech: 2011 - 2012 (those three novice UDL tournaments apparently count), 2017 - 2021 (coach)
NYU: 2014 - 2018
The New School: 2018-2020 (coach)

***I used to keep my video off for rounds, but I've since learned that it's a mistake for the morale of the debater as well as for confirming whether or not I'm actually in the room. If my camera is off, I am not in the room. Please do not start speaking***

I currently work a full-time job that has nothing to do with debate. I still judge because that full-time job does not pay enough (does any job nowadays?) and I've built community with people that are still very active in debate, so seeing them is nice. It is also means I'm VERY out of touch with what the new norms in debate are. But everything below still applies for the most part.

In case you're pressed for time

1. Do you. Have fun. Don't drop an important argument.

2. If there is an impact in the 2NR/2AR, there's a high chance you've won the debate in front of me. I like going for the easy way out and impacts give me the opportunity to do that. Impact comparisons are good too. NEG - LINKS to those impacts matter. AFF - how you SOLVE those impacts matter. Outside of that context, I'm not sure how I should evaluate.

3. I flow on paper, so please don't be upset if I miss arguments because you're slurring your words or making 17 arguments/minute.

4. Don't assume I know the acronyms or theories you're talking about, even if I do. This is a persuasion activity, so no shortcuts to persuading me.

5. Obviously, I have biases, but I try not to let those biases influence how I decide a round. Usually, if debaters can't accomplish #2, then I'll be forced to. I prefer to go with the flow though.

6. If at the end of the round, you find yourself wanting to ask my opinion on an argument that you thought was a round winner, know that I have one of two answers: I didn't consider it or I didn't hear it. Usually, it's the latter. So try not to make 5 arguments in 20 seconds.

7. There's no such thing as a "good" time to run 5+ off, but I'll especially be annoyed if it's the first or last round of the day. 10+ off guarantees I will not flow and may even stop the round. I'm not the judge for those type of rounds.

8. I've grown increasingly annoyed with non-Black debaters making "helping Black people" as part of their solvency. A lot of you don't know how to do this without either a). sounding patronizing as hell or b). forgetting that "helping Black people" was part of your solvency by the time rebuttals come around (#BackburnerDA). I'm not going to tell you to stop running those arguments, but I strongly recommend you don't have me in the back of the room for them.

**ONLINE DEBATE**: You don't need to yell into your mic. I can hear you fine. In fact, yelling into your mic might make it harder for me to hear you. Which means you may lose. Which is bad. For you.

If you're not so pressed for time

I debated for four years at NYU and ran mostly soft left affs. I think that means I'm a pretty good judge for these types of affs and it also means I'm probably able to tell if there is a genuine want for a discussion about structural violence impacts and the government's ability to solve them or if they're just tacked on because K debaters are scary and it makes the perm easier.

I do think debate is a game, but I also think people should be allowed to modify the "rules" of the game if they're harmful or just straight up unlikeable. I've designed games from time to time, so I like thinking about the implications of declaring debate to be "just" a game or "more than" a game. Now to the important stuff.

Speed: Through a card, I'll tolerate it. Through a tag or analytics, I'll be pretty annoyed. And so will you, because I'll probably miss something important that could cost you the round. When reading a new card, either verbally indicate it ("and" or "next") or change your tone to reflect it.

Planless affs: Even in a game, some people just don't want to defend the government. And that's perfectly okay. But I would like the aff to be relevant to the current topic. Though I do understand that my definition of "relevant" and a K debater's definition of "relevant" may differ greatly slightly, so just prove to me why the aff is a good idea and why the lack of government action is not as relevant/bad/important as the negative's framework makes it seem.

CP: Wasn't really much of a CP debater and I don't really coach teams that run CPs, except the basic novice ones that come in a starter kit. I think they're a fine argument and am willing to vote on them.

DA: You could never go wrong with a good DA. DAs, when run correctly, have a really good, linear story that can be extended in the neg block and could be used to effectively handle aff answers. Feel free to go crazy.

Ks: I can't think of a neg round where I didn't run a K. I've run cap, security, queerness, and Black feminism. But please, do not talk to me as if I know your K. If you're running pomo, I most definitely don't know your K and will need to be talked through it with analogies and examples. If you're running an identity K, I probably do know your K but expect the same from you as I expect from a pomo debater. Cap, security - you get the memo.

T: My favorite neg arg as a senior. I'm always down for a good T debate. I do think that sometimes it's used as a cop-out, but I also think that some affs aren't forwarding any sort of plan or advocacy. Just stating an FYI and a neg can't really argue against that. So T becomes the winning strategy.

Framework: Not exactly the same as T, but I still **like** it. Please just call it framework in front of me. I've heard various names be used to describe it, but they're all just arguments about what should be discussed in the round and how the aff fails to do so.

Theory: Important, but the way debaters speed through their theory shells makes me question just how important it is. Again, slow down when reading theory in front of me so it's actually an option for you at the end of the round.

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:

1. Framework - what's yours, reasons to perfer, why is your opponents f/w undesirable, etc.
2. Impacts - what is the urgency? In round impacts included. If going for theory, what's the terminal impact of that.
3. Risks - what conquenses will be made from an opposing ballot?
4. Solvency - evidence of proof
5. 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.

"It’s one thing to study something, but it’s an entirely different thing to actually experience it." -- Dr. Shani Tahir Mott

i value debate for its ability to teach students about issues and literature that are unlikely to come up otherwise. i hope that this activity shapes the activities and education you pursue outside of it!

-------

i debated in a small region with many outdated practices and graduated with no accomplishments. i'm currently the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of debate, i'm studying public health and africana studies at johns hopkins university.

if you’re an asian debater looking for community and resources, i welcome you to apply for the asian debate collective!

-------

i am exhausted and frustrated with how long rounds take, and it's usually avoidable. prep time ends when the email has been sent. document compilation and attaching the file is not free time.

the 1ac should be sent by start time, even if i am not in the room. if it is not, the aff's speaker points will suffer. if the neg has failed to be present and offer their emails in a timely manner, the neg's speaker points will suffer.

-------

quick and easy: i am mediocre to bad at straight policy, theory, and topicality debates. i will try my best though! on the other hand, i am much better at evaluating kritikal and clash rounds.

good and better debating > any of the preferences i list below.

-------

general:

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com — add me to the email chain.

simdebates@gmail.com — for other inquiries.

go as fast as you want. i will clear each speech no more than twice and if you fail to adapt, you’ll just have to accept that my flow will have missing pieces.

if you want me to flow something, it needs to be read out loud — this includes re-highlighted evidence.

everyone needs to weigh and layer more.

clear extensions for core parts of an argument are absolutely necessary — if you jump straight into the line by line, don’t expect me to extend the rest of the argument for you.

-------

kritiks & fw:

i believe that judges use ballots for kritikal arguments to remedy racial guilt/anxiety, but that is not me. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, particularly when it relies on unwarranted or circular claims, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays, and i am uninterested in listening to rounds where arguments would not even be defended by the authors of evidence.

being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot.

there needs to be far more substantive explanation in these rounds and far less jargon/made-up words.

framework always determines these rounds — at the end of the round, i need to have a clear way to evaluate between the 1ac’s impacts and criticisms of their scholarship.

specific links to the aff’s mechanisms are fantastic, and i love it when there’s evidence that shows you clearly researched and strategized against a specific aff.

you do not need an alt in the 2nr to win. if you are going for one, please give me a reasonable explanation of what it does rather than vague grandstanding.

i think debate is a game, one that have epistemological implications and consequences, but you can debate otherwise.

both teams need to provide a workable model of debate with clearly defined roles of aff/neg teams.

i have a mild preference for clash and education impacts over fairness, but i’ve voted both ways. just weigh well and explain why procedural fairness is an independent good.

a lot of k affs read DAs to fw that are functionally the same thing — labeling arguments differently does not make it a different argument. have distinct and explained warrants.

-------

policy:

this is not my forte so i definitely have a higher bar for explanations.

impact turns are very fun.

-------

theory & topicality:

i evaluate t violations using the plan text and nothing else.

explain very well and don’t be blippy — not fantastic at judging these.

hidden aspec is fine as long as it’s not hidden to me. i flow by ear and won’t go back to the speech doc to double check if it’s there.

*wear a mask if you are any degree of ill*

neutral or they/them pronouns // aprilmayma@gmail.com

me: 4 yrs TOC circuit policy @ Blue Valley West ('19: surveillance, china, education, immigration) // BA Political Science @ UC Berkeley ('22) // [Current] PhD student, Political Science @ Johns Hopkins. did not debate in college.

conflicts: college prep (2019-present), georgetown day (2023-present), calvert hall (2023-present)

judging stats: 264 sum, aff: 126(46.8%) - neg: 143(53.2%) // panels: 63, sat: 6x, split: 19 // decisions regretted: like 2, maybe 3

non-policy: dabbled but will evaluate like a policy judge.

___

juj preferences

[me] my debate opinions are influenced primarily by KU-affiliated/Kansas debate diaspora (ian beier, allie chase, matt munday, jyleesa hampton, box, hegna, Q, countless others, peers I had the privilege to debate against). i read heg affs as a 2A. I went for the K, impact turn & adv cp, and T as a 2N. Great for policy/T, policy/policy & policy/K, OK for K/policy, mid for K/K & theory. I think i'm good for a fast/technical debate for someone having been out of debate for 5 years. LOL. have mercy on me.

[norms] CX is a speech except when using extra prep. I do not care about respectability/politeness/"professionalism", but ego posturing/nastiness is distinct from assertiveness/confidence/good faith. respect diverse skill levels and debating styles. non-debate (interpersonal) disputes go straight to tab, NOT me. I am a mandated reporter.

[rfd] I will take the easiest way out. I try to write an aff and neg ballot and resolve one of them with as little intervention as possible - read: judge instructions necessary. I only read cards if they're extended into rebuttals w authors & warrants. Ev work, like Mac dre said, is not my job. framing the round through offensive/defense framing, presumption, models, etc. also helpful (if consistent). i flow on paper so slow down where it matters.

[online] do not start if my camera is off. SLOW DOWN, like slower than an in-person tournament, or else your cpu mic/my speaker will eat all your words; I will type "clear" in the round chat box once per speech.

[IRL] I'll clear u once per speech & stop flowing if i don't understand. my facial expressions reveal a lot about what I do/dont understand. track your own prep, but if you're bad at stealing prep (aka, I can tell), you will not like your speaks. cut my rfd short if you need to prep another round immediately.

[gen] debate is not debaters adjusting to the judge. do the type debate you are good at, not what you think I will like. I will meet you where you are, as long as you can explain your args. I like efficiency & will not punish a shortened speech unless its prematurely concluded. i do not read "inserts", a recut card is still a card - read it. I will not evaluate what I cannot flow & I do not flow analytics off the doc. #lets #signpost. clarity > speed, tech > truth. content warnings/disability accommodations/etc should be made verbally before disclosure/round.

** TLDR: I like good debate; as in, the more rounds I judge, the less strong feelings I have about specific arguments. I can be persuaded by most arguments (if you are good at being persuasive). do the work and you will win me over. good luck and have fun! :)

___

argument notes

[ETHICS VIOLATIONS] Teams must call an ethics violation to stop the round. if verified, the violating team drops with lowest speaks. otherwise, the accusing team drops with lowest speaks. [clipping] usually necessitates recording, contingent on debaters consent & tournament rules. clipping includes being unclear to the point of being incomprehensible & not marking.**I am following at least the 1AC and 1NC - read every word. seriously READ ALL THE WORDS!!!! if I notice clipping and no one else calls it out, I will not stop the round, but your speaks will reflect what I hear.

[case] yes. plan texts are my preference, but not a requirement. #1 fan of case debate. case turns too. does anyone go for dedev anymore?

[K-aff] okay, but not my neck of the woods. being germane to the resolution is good, or affs must resolve something or have offense. don't miss the forest for the trees- ex: 2NR responds LBL to the 1AR but fails to contextualize to the rest of the debate. I find myself often w a lot of info but unclear reasons to vote. judge instruction prevents judge intervention (esp. re: kvk debate).

[K-neg] sure. tell me what ur words mean. I'm familiar with most neolib/security/ontology-relevant K's, but never never never assume I know your theory of power. idk your white people (heidegger, bataille, schlag, baudrillard, wtv). K tricks r dope, if you can explain them.

[disads] yes. impact turns/turns case are awesome. idk anything about finance, spare me the jargon or at least explain it in baby words.

[cp] okay. slow down/signpost on deficits & impact out. "sufficiency framing" "perm do ____" are meaningless w/o explanation. abolish perm vomit! adv cp's r awesome!! risk of net ben before CP solvency (unless told otherwise... judge instruction is your friend). remember to actually "[insert aff]" in your cp text.

[T] good (but I'm waiting for it to be great...). default to competing interps/framing through models unless told otherwise. caselists are good. SIGNPOST. slow down, i need to hear every word. + speaks for T debate off the flow. Impress me, & your speaks will reflect it! [re: T vs. K-aff]: I admittedly lean neg for limits being good & personal familiarity of args. i find K-aff v. fw rounds are increasingly uncreative/unadaptive... TVA's are persuasive (aff teams are not good at debating against them). judge instruction is your friend!

[theory] rule of thumb: equal input, equal-ish output. aka, blipped theory warrants blipped answers. do not expect a good rfd if you are speeding through theory blocks like you are reading the Cheesecake Factory menu. I will not vote on theory if you are simply asserting a violation - it is procedural argument, treat it like one.

[speaker points] i am anti speaks inflation. everyone starts at 28. I drop speaks for aforementioned reasons + disorganization + offensive/bad faith behavior. speaks are earned via efficient/effective speech construction, cx usage, succinctness, and strategy. 29.2+ reserved for exemplary speeches. below 28 indicates more pre-tournament prep is needed.

Emmanuel Makinde - Add me to the email chain - (emmanuelmakinde18@gmail.com)

i debate at NYU currently

Top-Level

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.

Plans Texts

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

CPs

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

DAs

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)

Ks

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.

K/Performance Affs
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.

Prefs

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

Theory

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.

T/FW

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

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.

Misc

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

Public Forum

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:

Adventure Time

Steven Universe

Vikram Saigal

Maximillian Layden

The briefest background info ever:

2A at Binghamton - I did a lot of K debate in high school - I do a lot of K debate now.

1- K, phil

2- policy/LARP

3/strike- theory/tricks

Put me on the email chain

cmarin1@binghamton.edu

Do whatever you want* just tell me how to vote, what to vote on, and why I should vote on it

* Misc things that are not up for debate

- problematic behavior/rhetoric/language/vibes means your speaks= the number of hours of sleep I got last night

- I will flow shared speeches, please do not feed lines to your partner, just say them yourself

- If you're reading Schmitt or Heidegger your speaks are capped at 26 regardless of whether or not you win

- Brownie points in the form of speaks for a well-executed phil strat in any event (that includes util if you do it right)

- if you spread your unsent analytics at card speed im only going to evaluate what i was able to flow so be careful

My default procedure for evaluating a debate -

*I believe very strongly that the three points under this heading are up for debate - these are just defaults*

1. Who am I, what is the round, what is the ballot and what can it do? Absent arguments that tell me otherwise:

- I am a college debater majoring in linguistics and psychology, I care a lot more about the activity than policymaking

- The round is a competition predicated on your ability to persuade me to vote for you

2. What are the roles/burdens of the aff and the neg

- I don't care if the aff reads a plan, defends a change from the status quo, makes no arguments at all, you just have to explain why it means I should vote aff

- the negs job is to convince me to vote neg

3. Who solves which impacts and how do I evaluate/compare them?

- I start my evaluation with probability of solvency

- discourse/education matter (ie. I would rather you just go for liberalism good than argue that your reps aren't important)

more detailed takes for people who want them:

K's:

I have probably read your lit base, if I haven't I'm equally excited to hear it

Do something fun and exciting, do something we've all seen before, just do it well and enjoy doing it. It's your round, I'm just living in it

There are probably no perms in a methods debate, but you still have to win that

DAs:

Love them (and never get to judge them lmao)

Don't be afraid to go for a DA and case just don't forget presumption

CPs:

Solvency advocate theory is probably true

These are a solid and underutilized strategy against k affs

Theory/T:

think of this as like a break glass in case of emergency option in front of me

Disclosure theory means I need screenshots with a timestamp

if you're a circuit debater and your opponent has no idea what's going on I will deck your speaks

affs

I'm a 2a, I've read all kinds of affs.

K aff's- literally do whatever you want. I don't care if you mention the topic. I don't care if you have a c/i on fw.

I will vote for soft left affs, and honestly, I miss them, probability>magnitude is very winnable in front of me.

Policy affs- please keep your internal link chains alive ???? - tell me how the aff solves your extinction scenario

Hey, hey, I'm Mira. Debated for Georgetown Day, studying Gender Studies and English at Columbia with Jack Halberstam, and probably judging or being judged by you. Note: the Bronx will be my first time judging on this topic. i think i'll be familiar with most of the content (i've done econ research before; i know too much about too many strains of anti-capitalist political ideology), but i will not be familiar with your acronyms. So please explain them for me!

My pronouns are: Mira/Miriam

Please put me on the email chain: miriamlaurismason@gmail.com

The Disclaimers:

1. i won't be voting for any explicitly bigoted arguments.
2. i'm an offense/defense kind of judge. For me, that means i'm going to start my deliberation by looking at the offensive portion of the debate before moving on to the defensive part. It doesn't mean you can't go for presumption, it just means you have to mean it when you do.
3. All debate is a performance, it's just that only a few of us make our performances into relevant arguments

Policy Crap

Y'all are going to do what y'all are going to do, and i appreciate that. i have a couple relevant pet peeves though:

i enjoy knowing what the plan does at the end of the round. That means i'd appreciate it if you explain it to me in the rebuttals. No, a couple tagline extensions in response to a solvency push is not good explanation.

i also tend to enjoy fully developed arguments. This makes condo an intuitive argument to me, but not necessarily a strategic one.

i'm a real sucker for advantage CP's paired with impact turns and clear aff specificity in general.

Kritical Krap

i have your K on my bookshelf. i am particularly familiar with arguments surrounding blackness (an intentionally large umbrella term), transness, and the works of Jean Baudrillard. This is good for you because it means that i understand your arguments. This is bad for you because it means i understand what your arguments should be and why.

A good speech on the k, especially the late rebuttals, should sound like an essay. Amateur writers tend to use big words they don't quite understand and overgeneralizations that don't quite make sense in lieu of specific, well-thought out arguments. Good thing we're not amateurs, right? (Sidenote: if you are a novice reading this and are scared i'm going to mock you or whatever, you are so, so fine and i promise i will be super nice if you try reading an argument you don't quite have a handle on yet)

Particularly on this topic, i feel like y'all should be able to find decent links. It seems most strains of critical thought have something interesting to say about the care of our elders (SS reform), labor (jobs guarantee), and/or how we should be distributing resources and responsibilities in our communities (UBI). Which is to say, i will be listening with sharp ears to the block's link contextualization, both because it's something i'm interested in and because it seems like an easy place to make your arguments more strategic.

Relatedly, good affs tend to have a topic link. Great affs tend to be about the topic.

FW

If you couldn't tell by now, i was a performance debater in high school. So, if you expect me to insta-vote neg and turn my brain off once i hear "debate is a game," you will be disappointed. At the same time, if you expect me to insta-vote aff and turn my brain off once i hear "counterinterpretation," you will also be disappointed.

i think the aff tends to have an advantage in terms of argument quality. Policy kids all say the same thing which makes it easy for the aff to think deeply and thoroughly about their answers to the 2-3 possible arguments the 2NR will inevitably go for. Because of this, i find that the aff tends to win these debates when they are able to identify how to deal with their opponents offense with a small number of really clear arguments that are developed from the 2ac to the 2ar. The neg tends to win these debates when they are able to proliferate enough relevant and diverse arguments to force a technical concession in the 1AR. That being said, it's entirely possible that the neg has better constructed arguments than the aff and/or that the aff is more technical than the neg; i'm just speaking from my own experience and the debates i've seen/judged so far.

i would be extremely interested in hearing an in-depth debate about game theory. Like, why is debate a game? What is a game? Why do games have rules? i think there's a truly fascinating debate to be had here and most of the time both teams just kind of glide past it for convenience's sake (e.g. no, debate is not a game just because there are winners and losers. If that were true, you'd be having a lot more fun applying to college).

In case you still have burning questions, here's the paradigm i wrote at the end of my senior year of high school. Admittedly, some of these opinions are more of the product of me trying to be edgy or whatever, but i figure some of y'all might want to take a peek while you sort out your prefs:

OLD PARADIGM

Hi, I'm Mira. I've been debating for all of high school, pursuing critical argumentation with a performative bend. I've done that whole ToC thing and that whole deep elim round thing if that's something you find relevant. I'll try my best to keep things brief and specific but i also like to write a lot.

Yes, i do want to be on the email chain: mlm2362@columbia.edu

The big picture/what to read before the round:

1. i will not be voting up any bigoted form of argumentation.

2. i think fairly strictly in terms of offense then defense. This isn't to say i won't vote on defense (I am very willing to vote on presumption in most debates), but i try to resolve the offensive portions of the debate before looking at your defense.

3. i think all debate is fundamentally a performance, though only some of us make use of it in our arguments.

4. I'm probably going to be more familiar with you high-theory k than you're nitty gritty policy aff, but i am happy to hear any argument under the sun as long as you appear to be actually interested in what your talking about.

5. I'll try to keep my camera on as long as I'm at my computer. I'd prefer it if you had camera on while you're speaking, but if you can't its not a big deal.

The Policy Throw down (Policy aff vs. policy neg)

For the Aff: i feel like most affs on this topic (CJR) either have bad internal links to extinction or a fundamental mismatch between the forms of structural violence they identify and the very limited scope of their reform. i won't hate you or not vote for you if this describes your aff, but i would appreciate it if you were either cognizant of that or read an aff that didn't make one those mistakes.

I expect some sort of description of what your internal link and solvency scenarios are in each of your speeches. If you can do this on the line by line, go right ahead but I'd much rather hear a 15-20 second overview that briefly explains what the issue is and how the plan solves it than be stuck wondering what the aff at the end of your speech.

If you read a framing contention, please actually extend and contextualize your evidence in the 2AC instead of just reading more cards. Preempts are supposed to save you time, not waste mine.

For the Neg:

I'm a sucker for the smart advantage CP + impact turns to the other advantages strategy. I'm also a sucker for CP's with aff specific solvency advocates.

In terms of theory, i think condo is a potential voter at 3 advocacies (I'm counting conditional planks in this too). It becomes a persuasive voter at 5 advocacies. I'm neutral on all other theoretical questions.

Good DA's always turn case, even against soft left affs. i also think link specificity is pretty important but you can get away with contextualizing it in the block.

I'm also down with a good T debate, just impact out your standards and either prove in round abuse or convince why it doesn't matter.

I'm also a sucker for a good (and offensive) case debate

The One Off Debate (Policy Aff vs. Kritikal Neg)

For the Aff: i think most of y'all have figured out that you only have two real paths of victory. There's the "defensive" route where you go for the permutation with a sufficient combination of no link, no alt solvency, and state engagement/reform good arguments to prove that the link is either inapplicable or resolved by the perm. Then there's the "offensive" strategy where you go for impact turns (when applicable) and internal link turns when its not with a big framing push (case outweighs, consequences of the plan come first, discourse/epistemology/ontology/whatever doesn't affect reality) all in the service of making the link debate entirely irrelevant. i think elements of both of these strategies should be in the 2AC, but i also think it should be clear in the 2AC which strategy you're going for, if for no other reason than for the sake of strategic time allocation.

For the Neg: I'm going to be familiar with your kritik. This is good for because I'll know what you're talking about, but bad for you because I'll know when you don't know what your talking about. i am very familiar with arguments surrounding blackness (this is an intentionally big umbrella term). i also genuinely enjoy the work of Jean Baudrillard.

For me, these debates largely boil down to two questions: 1. Did you win a link to the affirmative? 2. How should i evaluate that link in relationship to the aff's advantage(s)? If your link is relatively specific and functions like a glorified case turn, you are well on your way to getting my ballot. If your link operates on the level of epistemology or metaphysics or not strictly in the fiated world of the aff, you probably need to do some amount of framing/impact calc too.

This is not to say that the big framing/theory of power push is a bad strategy, i just think most folks end up going for their links much more persuasively than they go for scenario planning bad or what have you (Hint: "fiat is illusory" isn't actually a complete argument, its a good warrant for one of your impact claims).

I say this as a one-off k debater myself: please keep your o/v to less than a minute. i will be able to flow more of your arguments and they will sound more persuasive if you just break them up and put them on the relevant parts of the line by line.

Also, a little bit of case defense can go a long way. A little bit of case offense goes even farther.

The Framework Debate (Kritikal Aff vs. Policy Neg)

For the Aff: I'm excited to hear what y'all have come up with. i generally prefer to know what i should be voting for by the end of the 1AC and i generally prefer clear solvency mechanisms but i can be persuaded that i shouldn't. i find that good affs tend to include a discussion of the topic but great affs tend to be about the topic. i also think that affs should be more substantive than 8 minutes of fw preempts.

I think the aff generally has two core strategies against fw: the impact turn route and the counter-interpretation+turns to the differences between your model and their model route. The 1AR should be able to choose between these strategies, but also the 1AR should choose a strategy. Beyond that, i have no strong preference against any particular subset of fw answers, though I'd very much enjoy arguments that discuss game theory in relation to fw.

For the Neg: i generally don't think that negative teams straight up win these debates rather than the affirmative team losing these debates. What i mean by this is that the you'll very rarely solve most/all of the aff or win that your model is far and away better than the aff's, but you will likely get some some sort of technical misstep or concession from the 1AR just through your near ceaseless proliferation of arguments that could matter, be it through micro arguments like SSD and the TVA or broader arguments about the kinds of debates i should want to see/incentivize. Because of this, i tend to find the most pursuasive form of FW the kind that develops one central piece of external offense (i.e. procedural fairness or specific debates about government reform makes us better advocates) and several pieces of defense that mitigates the aff's offense (i.e. debate doesn't shape subjectivity, the aforementioned SSD and TVA, or things like predictability is key to education)

On the question of whether debate is a game, i can be persuaded that it is, given that you actually make a coherent argument. For example, a lot of folks will say something like "debate is a game, proven by winners/losers" but I'm left wondering precisely why that means debate is a game. Lots of activities have winners and loser, including my college applications, international war, and (if you listen to certain conservatives) society itself and none of those are games. i think other examples like speaker points or trophies can help, but i think you're probably better served starting in the other direction: A game is xyz which obviously includes debate. Secondarily, I'm not sure why debate being a game automatically means procedural fairness should come 1st. i have yet to find, let alone enjoy, a game that is perfectly procedurally fair. Many games rely on some element of intentional procedural unfairness to be fun and enjoyable experiences, which suggests that you'll actually need a warrant as to why procedural fairness comes first. i feel like most of the time all these thoughts are irrelevant because most aff teams will spot you that debate is a game and that procedural fairness is at least somewhat important to games but i do think that very few people articulate this argument in such a way that its strategic utility is not contingent on specific technical concessions from the aff.

Kritikal Nonsense (Kritikal Aff vs. Kritikal Neg)

These are by far my favorite debates to watch and participate in. i feel like one team or the other usually stops clearly responding to their opponents arguments about half-way through the debate, which is all fine and good in theory but i suspect that the first team to stop engaging in argument response is going to be more likely to lose the debate. I'm willing to reject the perm on theory, but I'd prefer if you just read a competitive alternative. Even more so than in clash of civ debates, i think these debates center upon what the link is and why i should or shouldn't care about. Also, go for presumption!

email chains are good in the absence of paper copies - jimi.morales@successacademies.org

if you only read one part of my paradigm, this should be it -i have tinnitus and in spite of this condition will not use the speech doc to flow because you can still be intelligible without me needing to actively read over evidence . good (sp)/(eed)/(reading) with vocal variation and pacing exists and is easy to follow - (poor/unpracticed) spreading will tank your speaks and likely result in the L!!! please strike me if you cannot meet this condition-the conversations are becoming more and more uncomfortable after neither debater reads the paradigm and then both expect me to given an intelligent RFD to resolve an unintelligible debate. quality over quantity typically wins my ballots. id rather you articulate multiple solid links for one argument than run 7 off case positions with vague/weak links.

i often use the speech doc as a reference point if evidence in the debate is disputed or referenced in a rebuttal speeches as something i should look at post round as a key warrant for the decision.

framework is often useful. so is the keeping up the with "the news"

that being said, my job is to be a neutral arbiter for a single debate of which the only usual rules are the speech times. just when i think i've seen it all in the activity, debate has a way of pleasantly surprising me.

i am listening to cross-x and you can/should reference it.

i like well researched positions that don't contradict themselves unless explained in advance or immediately after why those contradictions are ok. if you run ironic performance positions without explaining or looking up from your laptop, i will take your words literally. this will likely make you upset at my decision.

if your coach or another competitor wrote anything you are reading and you haven't re-written it, unless you really understand the argument, you probably don't want me judging.

ask me specific questions about subjects not listed above and i will happily answer them to the best of my ability.

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.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.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

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.

Framework:

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.

DA/CP:

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.

K:

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.

K Affs:

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:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

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.

Speaks:

• 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

PF Specific

• 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.

LD Specific

• 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.

Quick Bio

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.

Debate well and do not change what you read just because I am judging. These are just my thoughts on debate, but I try to leave all my opinions at the door and vote off the flow. I do not coach often anymore, so assume that I have no topic knowledge.

I debated at Mamaroneck for three years and coached the team during the criminal justice reform and water resources topics. I did grad school at Georgetown and work for the debate team.

People who have influenced how I judge and view debate: Ken Karas, Jake Lee, Rayeed Rahman, Jack Hightower, Cole Weese, Tess Lepelstat, Zach Zinober, David Trigaux, Brandon Kelley, Gabe Lewis

Put me on the email chain: eaorfanos1[at]gmail[dot]com AND mhsdebatedocs[at]googlegroups[dot]com. The email subject should be "Tournament + Year - Round # - Aff Team v. Neg Team" [Example: Mamaroneck 2023 - Round 1 - Mamaroneck RS v. Mamaroneck LS]

Please open source all your evidence after the debate.

Be respectful. Have fun.

general

Tech > Truth. Dropped arguments are true if they have a claim, warrant, and impact, you extend the argument, and you tell me why I should vote on it. It is not enough to say dropping the argument means you automatically win without extending and explaining. That being said, the threshold for explanation is low if the other team drops the argument.

I adjust speaker points based on the tournament, division, and quality of competition. I reward debaters who are strategic and creative.

Clipping will give you the lowest possible speaks and a loss. Please take this seriously as I have caught a couple debaters doing so and promptly reported the situation to tab and gave L 1 to the debater at fault.

Violence and threats of violence will also result in L 1 or lowest possible points. Don't test me on this.

specific

I love a good case debate. Show me that you did your research and prepared well. Evidence comparison and quality is very important. Do not just say their evidence is bad and your evidence is better without comparing warrants.

I am a good judge for extinction outweighs.

Impact turns are great when done well. However, I do not like wipeout (gross) or warming good (I work in environmental law). I will be annoyed if you run these arguments, but will still try to evaluate the round fairly. Obviously no racism good or similar arguments.

Heg good is a vibe.

5+ off vs K affs is also a vibe.

Big politics disadvantage fan.

I love well-researched advantage counterplans. My favorite strategies involve advantage counterplans and impact turns. I am also good for process counterplans, but it is always better if there is truth based on the topic lit that supports why the specific process is competitive with and applicable to the aff. Counterplans need a net benefit and a good explanation of solvency and competition. I like smart perm texts and expect good explanations of how the perm functions. I will not judge kick unless the 2NR tells me to. Honestly, I am uncomfortable with judge kick and would rather not have to do it, but will if the neg justifies it.

I used to like topicality debates, but I realized that they become unnecessarily difficult to evaluate when neither side does proper comparative work on the interpretation or impact level. Abuse must be substantiated, and the negative must have an offensive reason why the aff's model of debate is bad. You should have an alternative to plan text in a vacuum (this argument is kinda dumb). Legal precision, predictable limits, clash, and topic education are persuasive. I think that I am persuaded by reasonability more than most, but I think this is dependent on the violation and the topic. Please provide a case list.

Condo is probably good, but I can be persuaded otherwise if abuse is proved and there is an absurd amount of condo. I will vote for condo it is dropped, the 2nr is only defense on condo, or the aff is winning the argument on the flow.

For other theory, I am probably also neg leaning. Theory debates are not fun to resolve, so please do not make me evaluate a theory debate. A note for disclosure theory: I firmly believe that disclosure is good, and the bar is lowest on this theory argument for me to vote for it, but you must still extend the argument fully and answer your opponent's responses. Even if you opponent violates, you must make a complete argument and answer their arguments.

Great for T-USFG. Procedural fairness and clash are the most persuasive impacts. I love real and true arguments.

More negative teams should go for presumption against K Affs. Affirmative teams reading K Affs should provide a thorough explanation of aff solvency or at least tell me why the ballot is key if your aff does not necessarily need to have a specific solvency mechanism and instead relies on an endorsement of its method or thesis.

I am most familiar with the basic Ks like capitalism and security. I am not the best judge if you read high-theory Ks, and my least favorite debates have involved teams reading these kind of Ks and relying on blocks. Overviews and non-jargon tags are very helpful. Explanation is key. Specific links to the plan are always better. Despite my own argument preferences, I have voted for the K fairly often.

My ballot in clash rounds is usually based on framework or the perm. Negative teams going for the K in front of me should spend more time on framework than they normally would, unless it is an impact turn debate.

I am not the best judge for K v K, but I will try my best if I find myself in one of these debates. My ballot in these types of debates has mostly focused on aff vs alt solvency.

Email: simonpark101@gmail.com
Conflicts: Centennial, McDonogh, Atholton, River Hill, Reservoir, Capitol Debate, Georgetown Day

2024 Update (Random thoughts from recently judging, read this if time is limited)

• Everyone, it is now 2024. You ALL have the responsibility of making paperless debate run EFFICIENTLY. PLEASE learn/know how to reply to an email chain with an attachment.
• PLEASE FLOW. I'll say again: PLEASE FLOW. And I mean flow the SPEECHES, NOT the SPEECH DOCS. There is definitely a difference. My biggest pet peeve is when I see a debater get up and yell "we win because they dropped XYZ," when I saw you the past 3 speeches staring off into space and/or barely paying attention. I PAY ATTENTION TO EVERYTHING. As unfair as it is, from my time talking to judges from all backgrounds and ranges of debate knowledge, how you come across and are perceived IN THE ROUND play an enormous psychological component to judges when they give their decision and speaker points.
• Depth > Breadth. I love debate. However, I am a little disappointed that the popular negative strategy now is to read 8+ contradictory off-case positions with 3+ conditional advocacies. It is NOT the shear NUMBER of arguments that gets me disappointed, but rather the strategy of reading 1-3 positions that you know you can/will go for and reading 5-7 positions you know you will NEVER go for and reading them SOLEY for the purpose of SKEWING the 2A. So this goes without saying, but I highly encourage affirmative teams to go for conditionality/performative contradictions and/or to straight-turn half of the 1NC and I highly encourage negative teams to focus more on the DEPTH of GOOD arguments that are VIABLE 2NR options rather than ways to contrive the 1NC to "trick" the 2A. Do not get me wrong: I have seen very impressive speeches and voted for very good debaters that employ this strategy. I am writing this point more for affirmative teams that can use the lack of depth of the negative's arguments to their advantage.
• An extension of an argument requires a claim, warrant, and reference to author/date (if applicable). I am not reading any evidence post-round if final rebuttals do not reach this threshold of explanation.
• The best speeches I have seen are where the debater 1) uses their flow to guide their line by line , 2) has ethos/pathos, 3) connects and communicates to the judge in the speeches AND CX, 4) articulate the warrants of their main arguments embedded within the opponent's arguments/warrants, and 5) give smart framing and meta-level explanation (impact calculus, CP solvency framing, how FW on the K implicates the rest of the debate etc.)
• Please have fun and be competitive!

Top-Level

• Don’t clip/cross-read/cheat in any way
• Tech > Truth. However, the worse your argument is, the more explanation is needed even though it may be dropped.
• Presumption goes towards less change
• Debate is a communication activity. If you aren't communicating with me in your speeches, you're not doing your job. In other words, be clear and confident. Gabe Koo said it best "...If I hear you muttering how awful your 2AR is right as it ends, why do you think I would want to vote for you? If you don't think you won, why should I convince myself you won?"

"Clash" Debate

• I have read an affirmative without a traditional plan text and also have been negative reading only Framework
• To me, these debates are won by the side that best argues their interpretation creates the best model for debate while solving for all, if not most, of the opposing side's offense.
• The case debate MUST be relevant to the debate, unless the negative team is WAYYYYY ahead on the Framework proper debate (I have yet to see this).
• There are typically two routes for the negative. 1. Liberal 2. Hard-core Right. I personally think the hard core right is better because if you go the Liberal route, the Aff is able to either include themselves in your interpretation and your internal link thresholds are a lot weaker, or the Aff can solve for your terminal impacts a lot easier. I think the most persuasive way to go for Framework is to go for limits/clash as an internal link to fairness and advocacy skills/decision making. Make a bunch of turns case/solves case arguments as well. I do think the Liberal version of Framework can be persuasive when there is a good link argument to the aff that proves a trade-off. However, given the way people read no-plan affs now-a-days, that is hard to win. When the Liberal version of Framework is executed correctly, it is devastating.

Theory and where I lean

• 3+ Conditional Advocacies/Conditions CPs/Word PICs/Process CPs/Object Fiat/Contradictions Bad – Aff
• 1 Conditional Advocacy/Topical CPs/Unconditionality/Intrinsic & Severance Perms – Neg
• 2 Conditional Advocacies/International Fiat/50 State Fiat/Agent CPs/Floating PIKs – Middle

Counterplans

• the 2NR has to explicitly say the judge has to kick the CP
• Solvency advocates are necessary
• Well-researched process-based CPs/PICs are my favorite

Disadvantages/Impact Turns

• Top-level disad impact calculus and straight impact turns I feel like almost became a lost art
• Smart and analytical "turns case" arguments are underrated
• Politics is cool

Topicality

• Mostly aff leaning on reasonability vs. competing interpretation questions but can be persuaded otherwise
• Generic fairness/education impact calc is boring. That should all be contextualized to the aff/what the aff justifies
• I give the 1AR leeway when T is extended for like 1:30 or 2 minutes in the block. Because if it is only1:30~2:00of the block, it was probably super blippy and in most cases, awful

The K

• Link/impact contextualization to the aff’s plan mechanism/internal link triumphs contextualization to the aff saying "USfg" in the plan/the impact card the aff reads
• Role of the ballot/judge arguments getting thrown around a lot but never being implicated is my biggest pet peeve. Given that, I think it is kinda ridiculous how some K debates go down vs. policy affs. Obviously debate isn't ONLY be about the plan vs. squo/competitive policy option and obviously debate isn't ONLY about whether the aff's reps/epistemology/ontology/other are ok. Each side needs to win why their framework is a better model for debate that can also solve the opposing side's offense.
• 2ACs impact turning the K is an underrated strategy. I don't know why people don't go for imperialism/capitalism/biopolitics good as much as people used to. If you’re going to defend the hard right, might as well stick to it.

Left on Left

• This is where anything goes. Do you and do what you do well.
• Most of these debates I have judged primarily came down to whether the affirmative gets a permutation. I am right down the middle and can be persuaded either way.

A Reminder

Debate is hard, treat yourself kindly. Have you had a glass of water today? Have you eaten? Take care of yourself and those around you. If you are looking at this while preparing for a round, good luck! With that being said...

The Basics

Hi! I debate at SUNY Binghamton and debated for Brooklyn Tech. I use they/them pronouns. If you have any questions email me at hpicall1@binghamton.edu and I am happy to answer them! This also works for rounds.

I am what you say I am, I will do what you tell me to do. Explain to me what I should care about and how I should evaluate it. Debate rounds can look like a lot of things, and I am down for all of it. If you make it feel worth it, I will do work for you. Bering persuasive, creative, or captivating are all ways to make me give an extra glance at what you are saying. Do something cool! Or don't. I will listen either way.

I don't like the delineation between tech and truth. Tech is truth, insofar as the tecnhe of this activity shapes the parameters of what constitutes truth. But if you convince me that what you have to say outweighs whatever argument you dropped, then you win. I am a very flow centric judge, but I care about the optics and social dynamics of what is happening just as much. After all, the flow is a written recollection of what happened in the room. But I was in the room, and what happened can make me view my flow with suspicion.

Be good or be good at it. If you want to do something crazy, go for it. But be prepared to do it well. I respect anyone who wants to think outside the box, but you have to explain why the box is bad and why it's good that you aren't in it. Whether or not you do it well, you have my undying love and support !!!! <3 But not necessarily my ballot.

Debate is an oratory activity!!! I try my hardest to flow solely based on what I hear, and am very willing to "clear" you. If I have to spend my time chasing where you are on the document I will be sad and probably give up, which will lower your speaks and mean my RFD may frustrate you. Also, I care much more about well warrented analytics and historical analysis than a super fire card.

I flow on paper. I think you should too.

I think "US Hegemony good" is a more disgusting argument than "death good". I will vote on either. What does this say about me? Whose to say.

I reserve the right to intervene in the round if it is made unsafe due to bigotry. If there is anything that I can do to help facilitate a safe space, I am happy to do so.

Who I am

If you want to learn more about what I think about debate and have some time to read, I’ll put stuff here. This is for if you are bored looking through paradigms or you think I'm neat in which case I'm flattered !

I study philosophy with the intention of going into public education. Much of my experience in debate outside of competing is helping volunteer at local programs and tournaments. This means, for me, the reason why debate is important is its ability to spread important political education to as many people as possible and from as many backgrounds as possible. If there are ever questions of accessibility in rounds I am more than happy to help out and make sure debate is as educational and am more than happy to talk with coaches or debaters after rounds to explain my decision and help see small school debate grow.

In debate rounds I do wacky things. No cards on the aff, live music on the neg. I like to talk about the relationship between race, class, and the ways that we construct meaning through semiotic representation. I have been in a lot of different kinds of debate rounds, and it has taught me that there are many different things one can do when the doors close and tab isn't looking. Debate is a game, but it is also a site of creation and expression!

My current philosophical crushes are Sylvia Wynter and Jean Baudrillard, and I have a love for Fred Moten, Michel Foucault and others who articulate how the way that we perceive, perform, and practice the world shapes and is shaped by the environment that we find ourselves in. I think Marxism is probably true. So is Afro-Pessimism. If you ask me, I will make it make sense. I think more often than not critical theory authors agree with each other, albeit using different traditions and verbiages. I love synthesizing different philosophical traditions, as I feel that people end up describing the same couple phenomena. This makes me a bad academic, but a good educator.

If you are a K debater at a small school I would be happy to throw some files your way and answer any questions :)

Thoughts on arguments

Plan based aff’s: You do you. Im not going to flow each advantage on a separate sheet of paper but just make sure your impact scenario makes sense and that you clearly articulate your framing in later speeches. The clearer you explain your impact scenario, the higher your speaks will be. Don't let the aff disappear !

K Affs: By the end of the round I would like a good idea of what the aff does and how. I like it when K Affs solve things and if yours doesnt it would be smart to have a very robust explanation of your affs relationship to presumption and why not doing things is good. Using examples and historical understanding to contextualize your solvency to the world is helpful for me. If you do want to break all rules, be prepared to defend it. I am very down to vote on weird things, but you need to win said weird things and prove why that means I vote for you.

K’s: Be clear, both with your scholarship and with how you use it in debate. I will give high speaks to those who are able to articulate kritikal literature in ways that are easy to understand and relevant to the round. Often in the 2nc the K splits up into the framework and plan based flow, and while I am fine with this just tell me where to put my pen.

CP’s: I find very well researched and articulated counterplans to be very fun to watch in action. Advantage CPing out of k affs is baller and not utilized enough, policy teams using their arguments to mess with k teams is innovative and cool.

DA’s: You do you homie. Not really much to say here except going for policy da’s against k affs is a smart strategic move if they defend them.

T: When executed properly, I really like going for T against affs where it genuinely applies. I hate super small policy affs that defend nothing or policy affs that garner offense off of elements of the resolution that they dont access. That being said, explain !!!!! I will vote on T, but I am not caught up on the T meta so you will need to spend some extra time comparing definitions and explaining buzzwords.

Framework: I am making an important distinction between T and FW. T implies the existence of fiat while FW does not (as no part of the resolution implies fiat, but the question of fiat is irrelevant in T debates because it is implied). Most people probably scrolled down just to see my thoughts on FW because this is the Northeast and FW is half of the debates we have here, so I will be more articulate.

(Note: I have become less pessimistic about fairness as an impact since originally writing this. You will have to do work to explain why fairness and limits are intrinsically good, but i'm open to it.)

1. Education comes first: framework is a question of education, and at the end of the day its the only real impact to framework. The terminal impact to fw is either teams leave debate (which doesn’t matter/is good if normative debate is bad) or the affs model makes us worse people (deliberation skills/whatever silly jargon think tanks use nowadays to describe why normative political subjectivity is good). If you want to prove why the game is worth playing, its because it is valuable, and that value is its educational ability. That being said education can look like different things (deliberative dialogue, research, movements, etc) but its still education. This can be hedged back against by proving that debate doesn't shape subjectivity, but thats an argument you need to make and not one that I will assume.

2. The question then becomes, what about the game? Arguments about fairness and models of debate are important because there must always be a negative to negate the aff. I think affs should articulate their model of what debate and competition looks like in their model. You don't need to do a ton of work on this question, but its always important that standards are addressed as some terminal defense

3. Clash is the best argument and Fairness is an internal link: clash is by far the best internal link on the framework flow. This is because all skills we get from debate, and the thing that separates it from other activities, is the ability to engage with and refute the opponents argument.

4. The most common scenario where I vote aff is when the negative has done no work on the case page, as the 2ar gets to stand up and explain how the entire 1ac is a critique of framework and then weigh the entirety of the case against FW, which means their impacts outweigh. The most common scenario where I vote neg is when Framework (and other parallel arguments like "state engagement good" or "roleplaying good") is contextualized to the 1ac and resolves aff offense while still showing that playing the game of policy debate is good and cool.

Theory: Its cool, and I like creative interpretations of theory. Just make sure to send out and not spread your theory analytics too fast so I can understand and flow them. (Debate hot take: the best condo interp is that you get two condo advocacies, one competing policy alternative and one kritkal one, its the only non arbitrary interp and fosters great debates. But like, Ill vote on whatever if u win it)

Things That Will Get You Good Speaks

- Be cool: I am very down for whatever debate persona you have, and love when debaters are distinct and have a presence in round and will always reward them for that. Feel free to go through the throat, but do it well. I am rarely swayed by "gotchya" moments.

- Be a baudrillard pal not a baudrillard bro: For """""high theory""""" debaters or really anyone articulating abstract theories, you will look so much nicer and get way better speaks by being genuine and helping your opponent understand your arguments than if you are smug and mess with them. The better your opponent is, the more I will allow you to be smug.

- Be tidy: Dawdling, stealing prep, taking long with the email chain, these are all things that make me cringe vaguely. Tighten it up! I want time to decide.

- Don't rely on blocks too much: debaters who are able to contextualize their arguments to the round in specific ways and can speak of the flow will get better speaks, because it shows that your thoughts are your own or that you have practiced and refined a speech so well that you can do it off the top of your head. This applies more so for rebuttal speeches

In Conclusion

“Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order.” -some bald french guy

Hey you made it to the end of my paradigm, thanks! I will put my spotify here because I often play music in rounds (not your rounds, I will let you assert the vibes) so if u wanted to see what my vibes were here u go. https://open.spotify.com/user/calypsocan?si=XMTWgaD3TdOMsDKfL80cHg

Also listen to my music lol - https://open.spotify.com/album/2byHkEafvXES0XxfC0Ki1Q?si=zohIOJ0_QS6Qq9CAmz2VPA

Thanks for reading!! Hope u have a nice day/tournament :0

pulverizer1997@icloud.com to share the evidence

My name is Michael Alexander Pulver. My kids call me Coach MAP but I do not hold you to that standard, as a competitor or fellow coach. In high school I participated in every debate related activity for a small town in East Texas called Athens. My main successes, at that level, were in speech events, Policy, and Lincoln Douglas. Fundamentally, debate is one big joke and, technically, I leveraged that to my advantage as a frame of reference and debate style. My grace and indebted thanks for helping me understand that goes to Nicole Cornish, Jordan Innerarity, and Carver Hodgkiss; without them, I wouldn’t come close to understanding the purpose of speech and debate.

I was lucky enough to pursue a bachelors of science, with Integrative Studies, and compete for the University of North Texas. Parliamentary Debate kicked open the joke, in full-swing, and I got to tour the country in the pursuit of this knowledge. Brian Lain and Louie Petit, along with the incredible alumni of the program, produced content that allowed me to understand this joke from a perspective where I could laugh, and cry, about this “game we play”.

This “game” produces dogs and cats. It’s hard to understand this concept without a full visualization of my philosophy but I’m also certain that the ontological threshold to “understanding” is held within the eye of the beholder. In essence, I was introduced to this concept, within this space, by Jason Jordan, Matthew Gayetsky, and Gabe Murillo. We are simple creatures that, rather simply, have near-zero relationship to ourselves and we reproduce tools in order to filter, with extreme amounts of success, the communication to our “self”. My telos begins at the conception that debate is a space, looking for its time, to break this cycle and we’ve been woefully unsuccessful at stopping this joke from occurring. Side-hustling as a dog trainer opened up synchronicity into my paradigm and vice-versa. Without that realization, I don’t think I could still enjoy coaching, judging, or training. To those three for that help, I am indebted.

At a few moments in time, I did think it was important to write a several page paradigm about my philosophy about "DisAds", "Condo", "CP Theory", etc., etc. but I've discovered we're in a struggle between competitors who are having to "10x" their flows versus institutionalization. I do not see the importance in either. Rather, I defend that debate is a space to have fun and explore. In the time that I judge, I derive purpose from the quality of character and clarity of forensic mapping while producing a decision from what's given. To me, this means I'm not a "tab" or "tech > truth" but rather a "real judge"; and I will agree: "whatever that means?". Though, the more you read through this, and hopefully ask me questions, you will find that I'm simply calling the plays that are given and executing based on the "score" at the end of the debate. Additionally, this means that I weigh topicality in relation to its position on the lemniscate curve where my firmbelief is that it's the extreme finite position; since I know that's your question after reading all this. Brendan Dimmig, Jimi Morales, Cyd-Marie Minier Ciriaco, and Friedrich Hegel are responsible for ingraining this portion and I thank them for simply helping me find this path.

Lastly, I lost a ton of debates in my career. In doing so, I learned more than the wins ever taught me. Without being too "tongue in cheek", Slavoj Žižek taught me how to lose with grace, Sam Cook taught me how to lose on the flow, Will Harper taught me how to lose on framework, Rodrigo Paramo taught me how to lose on character design, and I lost on the "K" to Matt Hernandez, True Head, and Jose Sanchez; without those characters, I'm sure I'd be taking this joke too seriously. To Mom, Dad, and all the cats and dogs out there: you keep me learning and you inspire me to keep going.

TLDR; If you flow well, you understand your prep, and have a fullness to your character-design, you will pick up my ballot.

================================================================================================

FOR Virtual Debates: I find the computer medium does not allow for spreading to be coherent and I won't use the dock as an excuse for that BUT I'm comfortable with all forms of argumentation and I encourage creativity.

they/them

Presentation '23, Georgetown '27

nlr51@georgetown.edu

TL:

1. Debate is an educational research game---you can certainly win that it is something other than a game in front of me, but I will evaluate debates based on who did the better technical argumentation, i.e. tech over truth.

2. An argument has a claim, warrant, and impact, even in the 1AR. However, I have been told my threshold for what constitutes a warrant with an impact is lower than some---ex. if the 1AR asserts that the neg "destroys debate" with a warrant and the 2NR concedes this without an explanation of why debate is bad, I will vote aff because absent alternative judge instruction I should assume the functioning of debate is an impact I should care about. That said, I would strongly prefer it if your debating did not call such thresholds into question.

3. I will not adjudicate a dispute pertaining to conduct that did not occur in round. I will not flow your callouts; they are not arguments, they are ad hominem character attacks that degrade the quality of dialogue in debate, discourage strategic preparation, and generate competitively incentivized hostility. If you believe it is ethically impermissible for your opponents to even engage in debates, you are welcome to complain officially to tournament staff.

4. My least favorite debates are the non-technical ones. It is not permissible to abandon answering arguments because the style of debate you do is critical of conventional policy paradigms. No line by line no win.

5. I read what you read.

6. Explain things. I have bigger things to worry about than fiscal redistribution.

Policy Affs:

1. Write a real plan text. This is not the 50s---plan texts are read in the 1AC. If you are too afraid of debating real negative arguments, here is a competing incentive to do so: if I don’t know what the aff does, I won’t vote for it.

T:

1. Topicality is a question of competing models. I can be persuaded to vote on a violation as determined by in-round abuse, but I generally believe it to be unstrategic.

2. Competing interpretations is a far more concrete paradigm for determining the winner of debates.

3. Reasonability is a permissive preference towards the aff’s counter-interpretation, not the aff itself. It is best articulated as a deterrent to infinitely regressive T interpretations that bracket out substantive debate.

CP:

1. Text and function are arbitrary interventions into the concept of negation---counterplans should prove a germane opportunity cost to the plan. The way you choose to determine whether or not it meets this standard is a question of the 2AC permutation construction. That said, I will certainly listen to a "conventional" competition debate over the merits of text and function.

2. Theory should ideally be a net benefit to your interpretation of competition rather than an isolated procedural.

3. I enjoy creatively written perms and will reward them.

4. You must send perm texts for anything other than perm do both and perm do the counterplan.

5. You must tell me to judge kick, it is not a presumptive default.

6. Contrary to popular opinion, we actually do know what dispo means! The role of dispo is to allow the aff to straight turn the net benefit of a counterplan in the 2AC and force the neg to answer it; in other words, the neg can only kick a counterplan that the aff has made a perm, competition, or theory argument on.

DA:

1. Quality over quantity.

2. Please be prepared for an entirely new 1AR if you have opted to abandon what you learned in 7th grade debate class about the fundamental components of a disad and chosen to make an incomplete argument in the 1NC.

3. Compare evidence. I would rather not do it for you.

K v. Policy Affs:

1. Framework is the highest layer of offense in these debates. I am increasingly frustrated with judges that believe “framework is a wash” or who are “generally unpersuaded by reps first”, or worse yet, who believe "the aff always gets the aff and the neg always gets the k"---I will make a definitive evaluation of framework based only on the interpretations extended in the final rebuttals in favor of one side before weighing either side’s substantive offense.

2. Middle ground interpretations are nonsense. It is not possible to compare discursive violence within debate to global nuclear war, absent excellent instruction on how I should go about doing so. It would probably benefit you more to write the most offensive interpretation possible and win it.

3. If the role of your overview is to give you the opportunity to roleplay as an ivory tower academic without doing any contextual debating, don’t read it.

4. In most cases, your link cards do not need to be literally describing something other than the squo. I believe this is an unreasonable burden---nearly every card read in these debates is about the squo. However, you must contextualize the warrants of your evidence to the particular action or representation of the aff.

5. If I could not flag your floating PIK in the 2NC I probably will not vote for it.

6. The neg should, if not going for framework, re-narrate the aff’s internal links through the lens of the K in a way that concludes the plan is bad or at least inferior to the alternative.

7. To beat perm double bind, you must have particular disads to the perm with terminal impacts that actually preclude its effectiveness. Throwing around words like “recognition politics” or “trick of time” absent impact comparison is a quick way to lose.

Policy Affs v. K:

1. For the aff, framework and extinction outweighs alone is the laziest and least persuasive 2AR you can give. You must develop specific offense---you are likely already playing catch up on framework and probably link to whatever their offense is, so take that into account.

2. Most 1ARs in these debates are appalling and leave me highly inclined to vote negative---you do not have to answer every word of the 2NC, but you must at least directly engage every subset of arguments made. If not, your 2A will be very sad when I give their entirely new line by line minimal weight.

3. Contextualized impact turns are highly underrated and preferable to case outweighs alone---most neg teams are unprepared to actually defend the consequences of the telos they prescribe and you should take advantage of that.

4. The permutation is always a test of competition---it does not require a net benefit. However, the 2NR will likely extend at least some gesture towards a link argument that will force me to err neg in the scenario that the permutation and the alternative are of approximately equal effectiveness at resolving all relevant impacts. Therefore, it may be useful to make arguments that the permutation solves something not accessed by the alternative alone.

5. The 1AR must say more than the words “perm double bind” in order for me to discount a 2NR on alt solves the aff. The 2NC’s answers to the permutation are likely sufficient to answer this argument if the 1AR drops them---you do not get to forego technical debating simply because perm double bind is a distinct application from a traditional perm 2AR.

FW v. K Affs:

1. In a perfectly executed debate from both sides, I am likely to vote neg by a very small margin.

2. You must articulate fairness as a plausible and concrete impact without relying on moral imperatives, analogies, or unrealistic dramatization. Otherwise you will certainly lose to very concrete aff impacts surrounding inaccessibility or psychic violence.

3. Clash debaters should beat back every net benefit to the counter-interpretation with both offense and defense. It is strategic to use the intuitive internal link turns to your advantage to do some of this work for you. These 2NRs suffer from a lack of impact comparison. You have conceded that the debate is an influential site of education, so being dismissive of aff offense and under-utilizing the terminal impacts of clash does you a major disservice.

4. You must at some point engage the aff’s theory of power, or lack thereof. Even if your ideal 2NR is procedural fairness alone, not doing so will make a 2AR that grandstands about totalizing antagonisms that overcode debate and therefore frame out all neg offense very easy to vote on.

K Affs v. FW:

1. Either read a coherent counter-interpretation and win defense to neg standards, or impact turn adherence to the resolution in every instance. Again, middle ground interpretations are largely nonsense.

2. If you are going to go for a counter-interpretation, you must actually counter-interpret the resolution ideally through counter-definitions of words, not just arbitrarily define a model of debate---if your position is that topical debate and all associated skills are bad, you should probably be going for impact turns.

3. Debate probably does at least influence subjectivity, but individual rounds probably do not. This means winning that debate overall shapes subjectivity is insufficient to demonstrate an impact to voting aff, especially in a fairness debate.

4. It is frankly embarrassing for the aff to lose these debates unless they are at a very high level. You have had countless more debates against framework than the neg has had against K affs, and it is the only threatening argument you have to beat. There is no excuse to be losing to mediocre framework teams.

5. If your aff revolves around the assertion that debate ought not be a competitive activity, please provide and perform a clearly defined alternative while maintaining a legitimate claim to the ballot, because this seems paradoxical to me. If this thought experiment leads to something like a research forum or intellectual society, please think about the relative ability of you as debaters or me as a judge to actualize that, and please explain to me why me making a competitive endorsement in debate does not in fact do the opposite.

6. Model comparison is the most logical way to evaluate framework---anything else is tautological. Even if your strategy relies on impact turning the idea of models, you are responsible for the implications of abandoning topicality as a constraint on debate. I am generally unpersuaded by attempts to define offense within the scope of this round alone, because every impact usually collapses to nebulous and warrant-deficient assertions of psychic violence based on the “reading of framework.” In order to win the “imposition of a model” is bad, you should probably win that said model is bad to begin with. Otherwise, the threshold you must meet is nearly impossible---you must win that while the neg’s interpretation is entirely correct, they ought not defend it or impose it in debates.

7. Debate is not a story, a prison, a computer, a museum, or a sporting event. I will not play along with your fantasy and render a decision based on the principle that debate is something other than what it is. Find a way to access an impact without relying on metaphor.

K v. K:

1. When comparing impacts, you must establish a scale of comparison. Similar to clash debates, I don’t know what standard to use when comparing discursive violence to ecological extinction, so you must define one for me. I find the most persuasive articulation of this to be through alt solvency---if the telos of the aff precludes the alt, it triggers the opportunity cost of extinction.

2. I am amenable to “no perms in a methods debate,” but I do not think it is a generally good model.

3. It is the role of the negative to hold the affirmative to their advocacy or explanation. Likewise, it is the role of the affirmative to maintain a level of consistency in characterizations of the aff throughout the debate.

4. “Not our party” is not sufficient to answer arguments about violence within communist movements. Similarly, listing racist party organizations without contextualization is not sufficient to prove the alternative is problematic.

5. You must define what an “accountability mechanism” is.

6. If you are a performance debater, your performance should be relevant after the 1AC. If you are reading poems to sound cool, stop.

Hi. I debated policy for years at Brooklyn Tech, mostly running soft left policy affs & the cap K, and now I'm debating policy at NYU. I have experience judging policy, PF, and parliamentary debate.

I always want to be on the email chain. My email is jzs9739@nyu.edu

Policy- general thoughts

-I don't flow or evaluate cx.

-I want to see every card that is read. Be prepared to send evidence quickly and efficiently, please.

-I love analytic args, and I don't believe a card is necessary to make an argument, but PLEASE change tone, slow down, or verbally indicate important analytics.

-The 2nr/2ar should write my ballot very clearly. The top of the speech should include fw, framing, impact calc. Role of judge/role of ballot args are a prior question to anything else in the round in my opinion so be sure to win that debate throughout, and emphasise in the 2nr/2ar.

-Don't be mean or rude to other debaters. Don't be unecessarily aggressive. This is probably the only reason I will dock speaks. Be kind to everyone in the room. Debate is a lot. Let's make the experience nicer for eachother.

Policy - Aff

-I'm very likely to vote neg on presumption because most affs don't do anything. You have to win some sort of solvency, and I've noticed most aff teams just don't do enough convincing me their plan does anything.

-I don't believe that in-round activism spills out to the real world, so you'll have to do a lot to convince me if that's your solvency mechanism if you're running some sort of K aff.

-There needs to be a strong internal link chain for me to want to vote aff, so make sure that is present and extended throughout speeches.

Policy - Neg

-I like voting neg on presumption. Most aff teams can't prove their aff does anything, so take advantage of this and make the round easier for everyone.

-fairness itself isn't a convincing impact for me most of the time. However, fairness could be an internal link to education (which is my preferred impact for theory/t/fw args)

-don't drop case in the block or the 2nr. this makes it extremely hard for me to vote neg.

PF -

I don't care what you wear/how you look. Not really any specific notes; I'll vote on the team that did the better debating.

Hi, I'm Jeremy. I did policy debate in high school and now in college..

Some thoughts, not necessarily in any order:

--the 2nr/2ar should write my ballot. that requires judge instruction surrounding key framing questions and how those framing questions implicate my evaluation of the rest of the debate. the best rebuttal probably wins a framing arg at the top and then goes down the flow to apply it. Recently i've been persuaded by role of the judge arguments because they provide me with a epistemic/ethical position from which to adjudicate arguments on the flow. If you want me to do work for you in my decision, this is how, you just need to implicate it.

--If ur a 2n, probably don’t drop case. if you’re a 2a, punish the 2n for dropping case.

--hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical

--The same logic folds true for other impact analysis. I tend to think that institutions/systems/entities, etc. have historical existence (for instance, "historical capitalism") which binds their coming-into-Being (past) to their Being (present). That is to say that violence isn't just an ethical choice in a vacuum, but something that accumulates through the reproduction of its existence over time and through space. that means that hypothetical impacts are probably less important than real-existing impacts since the future existence of hypothetical impacts is not certain and/or necessary. That being said, if you win your internal link chain is true, that the hypothetical impact outweighs, and that you solve it, i probably will vote for you absent some tricky framing argument you drop.

Topicality

• I like these debates. i don't judge a ton of them though, especially not on this topic.
• Fairness is probably the best impact if you're reading T, but you should have inroads/internal link turns on clash/edu because i'm willing to be persuaded that the inclusion of debatably (un)topical aff into the activity is good because it provides a unique type of education not accessed by existing affirmatives
• the current college topic has made me believe in subsets (do with that what you will)

Framework vs K affs

• hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical
• I tend to think that FW is chosen ground vs many k affs unless its a new aff because many teams get by fine without reading fw
• Fairness is probably an impact, but its not necessarily the most important impact and is often just an internal link to other things (clash/education/etc.)
• The biggest issues that i have with 2nrs that go for fw is a) the lack of an external impact (people quit, debate dies - participation has decreased over the years, explain that impact flows ur way and how you solve it) and b) not explaining why debate is a valuable activity that should be preserved (this is where things like education, skills, and fun often become terminal impacts to the internal link of education) c) lack of defense (SSD or TVA) that absorbs the educational net benefits of the aff
• The biggest issue that i have with 2ars responding to fw is insufficient impact calculus - i will probably let you weigh ur aff's theory of power/understanding of the world vs fw, but you have to explain you impacts on the level of the activity and contextualize that as offense vs their reading of fw - does FW, particularly the invocation of procedural norms, insulate debate from a critique of its ideology? Are the content-neutral education/skills produced by their content agnostic model good?
• I don't really care whether you go for a C/I or an impact turn, but a mix of the two can be good i.e. a straight impact turn might leave you without defense, whereas a C/I means your vulnerable to the normative impacts of theory debates. I think that if you isolate a critique of the outcomes of their model, then provide an alternative model, you're probably in a good place.

K v K Debates

• Affs probably get a perm, theoretically (if the 1nr is 5 min of perm theory that would be pretty devastating) but whether the perm solves the links is up for debate.
• A good 2ar either goes for the perm with case, link turns, and alt DAs as Net benefits OR goes for case outweighs with a disad to the alternative
• A good 2nr has an impact which outweighs the aff with either an alt that resolves the aff impacts OR presumption
• you can probably win presumption with me in the back. I used to go for baudrillard a lot

DA/CP

I don't judge these debates very often and thus don't have any specific thoughts that aren't captured by stuff i said above. just win the flow.

If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it: psusko@gmail.com

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans

Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.

Disadvantages

I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.

Criticisms

I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.

Performance

In my eight years as a debater, I ran a policy affirmative and primarily went for framework against performance AFFs. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.

Flowing

I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.

Notes

Prep time continues until the jump drive is out of the computer / the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

e-mail chain: afroditeoshun@gmail.com

Hey, I’m Eli! Binghamton University (Bing TC)

Personal thoughts (on debate): Debate is legit a business. To debate is work. Like yes, enjoy the activity, but after a certain point what is the plan for how you interact with this space (and especially your arguments)?

That said, I do not have the capacity to busy myself with argumentation that is a waste (meaning it lacks intention, a goal, and/or a purpose). I'm deeply intuitive and clock things with ease.

Let me not feel about your arguments how Grace Jones felt about meeting Lady Gaga:

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/grace-jones-on-meeting-lady-gaga-i-just-didnt-feel-a-soul-2015510/

-

For PF: you can read this paradigm to understand the framework I will evaluate arguments, but the threshold is lower (except for everything I wrote after the Theory section). Do you, have fun. I don't particularly care.

-

Top of the line: I like ethos. I vote for the team who best articulates a politic that shows an understanding of the world beyond technicalities and jargon.

-

Speed: If I yell clear twice, more than likely I will default to what I’ve heard and understood. So, if it comes down to the flow, please make sure I understand the important points. For your sake, not mine.

-

Policy Affs- I need a clear framework for how I am to evaluate the plan (and round) beyond a reactionary response to the negative. I also require a clear link story to the impact(s), and how the plan actualizes a politic to secure a resolution to the harms of the 1AC.

In many words, block out for T. That seems to be a lot of policy teams' weakness when Affirmative.

T/Framework: I think procedurals can be a proper way to contest the aff's methodology and solvency mechanism. That depends on nuance and the way it is read. So, T-USFG: that’s fine, but you're not gonna go far if the block is just surface level on questions of YOUR wants.

CPs: I’m pretty neutral on them. Please just remember to have a net benefit (whether it’s internal or a DA).

DAs: Again, also pretty neutral. In order to justify a win with the DA, I require a very clear and concise link story as well as impact comparison to justify the DA as a takeout to Aff solvency. Like, why is it important? Many times I see DAs be ran and I'm just like... this feels like a huge FYI and still don't know why I should care (judge instruction)...

-----

The K-

Aff: Let the aff be in discussion of the topic. If not, I need instruction as to why I should care. I feel like that's my entire paradigm: why should I care... how should I evaluate the round...?

Neg: I think it’s important for content and form to be aligned. I require strong judge instruction because I refuse to do any more labor than I need to. This applies to Affs as well, but I specified here as the Neg has the burden of rejoinder. Meaning y'all have to win an actual DA to the Aff and/or an outweigh claim.

POMO: I require an advocacy that could easily be materialized or understood in a way that I can intuitively see it solving for the impacts. Examples and analogies would be best.

"Identity": to win my ballot, you have to win your Theory of Power and that your method best alleviates the violence that incurs from power (as opposed to being an 8/9-minute FYI). I'm familiar with many and live in the intersections of many. Black Fem args have my heart tho

~~

Performance: Your stylistic choice in itself is also a critique. Be strategic and use your 1AC/1NC to leverage offense throughout the round.

-----

Theory: No one reads it properly for me. Divert from only reading unspecified shells. Apply it to the actual performances of the opposing team, so that I can evaluate the importance of this voter. Clear articulation (and extension) of the abuse story is key.

/

Any rhetoric that defaults to antiblackness (yes that includes misogynoir), queer/trans-phobia, ableism, etc- I have the complete right to drop you and end the round. I do not care. Auto-loss.

//

I live for a good ki ki, a roast, a gag. So, gag me and I will give a boost to your speaks.

///

Anything more than 5 off, you're clicking... but you're clicking down (iykyk).

////

I (still) flow on paper.

/////

Add on to previous: I do not flow from the doc, but from speech. Clarity benefits you.

//////

I vote fast because I am actively thinking about the round. My written RFD will be short, but the verbal RFD will be plentiful. Take notes and ask questions.

///////

I cuss, but only to emphasize certain points. That said, with Novs/JV I'll watch my mouth but varsity? I view y'all as growing academic peers and therefore will speak to you as such. Do not be surprised if I say a curse here or there, it is what it is.

if y'all flash i appreciate this and respect u for this but my computer has no ports so i will need email chain sorry

For the chain: daviddean.mclaughlin@gmail.com

About me:

NYU '27, from Colorado originally (debate there sucks, excited to be here w yall)

I did Policy in high school all 4 years, mainly read Ks

pronouns: he/they/she any honestly

Qualified for NSDA Nationals 2x (this isnt important just gives you an idea of args i've seen)

Policy stuff:

Off the bat I like Ks wayyyy more than Policymaking, more interesting and educational imo, and more fun.

Big spreading fan

Policy main thing: I can deal with anything, I vote tech over truth usually, unless the argument is actually problematic.

T - Please put effort into T if you run it, it makes for really interesting debates when done well, having a definition that can be met makes it way more fun and more purposeful.

CPs - neutral on this, clearly explain net benefit and I'll usually buy it if well developed.

K - I love Ks, I read a bunch in high school so I'm super familiar with Cap K (the alt we read was usually violent revolution or something like that), Queer K (alt we read was primarily embrace queer monstrosity), Set Col, etc. I'll probably be able to follow most things you throw at me, but if it's too far out of that realm just go slow and treat me as almost lay; I won't ignore you or stop listening. K debates are what makes this format so cool in my opinion, so if you have some wacky, non-policymaking stuff I'd love it. K affs are real and cool and I love them, please run if you have them (and if you want ofc, it's all about havin fun and running what you want to run).

misc

You can make jokes and stuff but please don't be rude, that's not funny it's just embarrassing for everyone in the room.

**LAKELAND: prep time ends when you send out the email or are ready to start your speech! **

Cornell '27, Mamaroneck '23

She/Her

Email: kiraptretiak@gmail.com & mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

!! Limited topic knowledge (include what acronyms stand for in tags & don't assume any knowledge of topic norms) !!

My priority is always making the debate a safe space. If you do not feel comfortable debating your opponent, please let me know before the round starts and I'll talk to Tabroom with you.

Should go without saying but don't be racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. - L + lowest speaks + email to coach. If you have a Title IX allegation against you, strike me. Use content warnings when necessary - both before & during round.

Tech > Truth to the extent that an argument is fully developed and expressed in a logically sound way. For instance, "they dropped T, vote neg" (the novice special) isn't enough to get my ballot even if technically true because it lacks warrants and requires me to do too much work on the neg's behalf.

Read whatever you want. I think reading what you think aligns best with my personal argumentative preferences will probably hurt you more than help you if that strategy is not generally your preferred strategy i.e. read what you feel comfortable reading. I have a lot of respect for policy debate kids because I know how much effort it takes just to be able to attend a tournament!

Misc preferences:

• Name the email chain with useful info (tournament, round #, teams)
• If you're sending a marked doc, don't take out stuff you didn't read & mark it during the speech - questions about what cards were read go in cross-ex or prep time
• For online debate, turn on your camera or lmk if you can't
• Don't delete tags
• Novices - closed cross-ex
• I like jokes but pls be creative if you want to read a joke type argument (no a-z spec) - jokes abt mamaroneck debaters appreciated. If you don't know any, just name drop Jordan Davis (my former partner) or Jake Lee in your speech and I will be amused

the basics

email is trivinoaimee@gmail.com

my pronouns are they/them and she/hers but i prefer they/them.

i debated for brooklyn tech in the northeastern circuit. I have coached for MS 50 in the bilingual league and now work for the NYCUDL and for Binghamton debate. 

i did mostly critical debate and performance debate focusing on identity, particularly indigeneity, queerness, feminism, and academia.

fairness is an internal link to education in my mind.

i will vote on presumtion if neither team makes sufficient offense to resolve the other’s team’s alt/cp/da/whatever

anyone who commits microagressions or is being rude (included but not limited to speaking over non-men, yelling at their opponents, purposely misgendering someone, or interrupting speeches) will receive -.5 in speaker points. anyone who is blatantly homophobic, anti-black, sexist, or ableist will receive an automatic loss.

being witty makes me happy. judging rounds are boring when debaters are: monotone, ununique (is that a word?) all business. this activity is fun- make it fun for me and your speaks will benefit

adding to that, i will be very unhappy if you are not being clear- i’ll say clear a few times and if i can’t understand you i will stop flowing. so plz be clear so that i can flow your speech.

have fun and feel free to email me questions!

Sidwell '23, Dartmouth '27.

Please put me on the chain - s.k.wallace.09@gmail.com AND georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com (if policy).

Debate should be fun for everyone. If I can help you in any way when it comes to your comfort or safety in the round, let me know.

OV:

1. I don't have much topic knowledge.

2. I will not open docs until after the debate ends.

3. You must disclose anything that isn't new.

4. I am best for teams that, in the 2NR/2AR, tell a cohesive and pretty story about the technical debating that has occurred. If this is helpful, I am most persuaded by teams that debate like: Georgetown AM/BK/KL, Dartmouth SV/TV, Wake EF, Harvard BS.

Policy stuff:

I judge this most.

I basically only read cards as a tiebreaker for technical debating in close debates.

Try or die framing is not very persuasive to me. I evaluate relative risk of advantage vs disadvantage. The risk of the advantage linearly decreases with the risk of solvency.

Arguments about the procedure of debate/debating counterplans are more persuasive to me as theory, not competition. This is not a particularly strong opinion.

I will almost certainly not reject the team for anything other than conditionality.

Planless affs:

I don't judge this much. My voting record is 50/50. I vote affirmative either when the negative drops a trick, or the aff wins sufficient defense to neg debatability offense such that a K of the reading/imposition of T outweighs.

I can't imagine a 2AR that convinces me to vote on "they flipped neg to read T and that's bad." It's a logical criticism of a non-topical affirmative. Similarly, if the 2NR doesn’t go for T, it will be hard to persuade me to vote on disads to their interpretation.

K:

I judge this a bit more. My voting record leans slightly policy. This is broadly a reflection of who has done the better technical debating in the particular rounds I have judged. I generally vote negative when the neg wins a framework argument and a link that outweighs aff link turns.

I really enjoy critiques that make aff specific and nuanced arguments for why the affirmative is bad, premised on framework arguments that emphasize the importance of how we do research or justify policy.

I am very bad for Ks that rely on the logic of cause and effect - if links are non-unique, it makes no sense to attempt to attempt to garner offense from a unique consequence of the plan.

"Debaters should presume good-faith engagement by their opponents. If your strategy primarily relies on ad hominems, references to out-of-round events, screenshots, or accusations that could have been resolved by emailing your opponents or their coaches before the round, you should strike me."

he/him, freshman at Columbia, debated 4 yrs at Westminster

add me to the chain: brandonyao21@gmail.com

T/L

Please do line by line, flow, and answer arguments in the order presented

Clarity, judge instruction, and not being mean are good

You should probably also do disclosure

Anything below can be reversed if one side is more technically proficient than the other. I will try to intervene as little as possible and remove my opinions from the round as much as possible. Unfortunately, no judge is a blank slate and I try to make my argumentative proclivities as transparent as possible.

If you have any other questions about things that aren't covered here, feel free to ask :)

K stuff

On the Neg

---I don't care what the substance of your argument is, all I care about is that you do line by line and explain how the K interacts with the Aff.

---I'm not going to list literature bases I'm familiar with because that shouldn't change how much you explain stuff.

---I will probably be more likely to vote for a strategy that centers on the alt/links turning the case than a "you link you lose" approach, but the second is possible if there's a big asymmetry in how the debate plays out.

---Framework, I try to resolve this first because it frequently determines how the rest of the debate is evaluated so I will never say "framework was a wash" unless neither team explains what their interpretation means. I don't really have any revolutionary thoughts here. However, I do think if the neg is trying to go for a you link, you lose/don't weigh the plan framework, there needs to be offense other than "caring about rhetoric is good". I've never heard a great reason that an Aff middle ground interpretation along the lines of "reps can be a basis for making the alt competitive but you should still weigh the case" doesn't solve this. Offense along the lines of "policymaking/fiat bad", or really good cards establishing a tradeoff between analyzing policy outcomes and analyzing rhetoric both seem fine.

---Framework for the Aff, the fastest way to lose a framework debate in front of me is to drop a series of the defensive arguments at the bottom of any framework 2nc/1nr.

---Specific impact explanation/how the K interacts with the case is also vital. Saying the word "militarism" or an analogy to the iraq war aren't impacts.

---Going to be honest, in a debate setting, trying to convince me utilitarianism is bad might be an uphill battle given I haven't heard any great alternative ethical frameworks that don't rely on utilitarian justifications. That’s not to say "extinction outweighs" is unbeatable in front of me, i just think I'll be persuaded better by other approaches to mitigating the Affs extinction impact including: answering the case, a plan exclusive framework interpretation, turns case arguments, having your own extinction impact, some sort of risk analysis argument (predictions fail, conjunctive fallacy etc.) a root cause claim (securitization makes threats inevitable etc.).

On the Aff

---The 2AR I am most likely to vote on has a counter interp that defines words in the resolution in an attempt to solve some neg offense (doesn't necessarily mean traditional definitions) or at the very least, a clear vision of what the topic looks like. Establishing a role for the neg beyond "you can read baudrillard" will help you a lot. Fairness is an impact (if the neg takes the time to explain why), clash might be a better one though.

Policy stuff

I care about evidence quality but only insofar as its debated out, i.e If the neg's politics uniqueness cards are far better than the Aff's but only the Aff is doing evidence comparison/spin, I'll probably end up Aff.

Absolute defense/presumption is a thing.

I'll go either way on judge-kick.

I think predictable limits matter a lot and that unpredictable but limiting interpretations don't solve anything. I can be convinced that small differences in card quality/predictability are outweighed by a big limits DA though.

The neg probably needs a counter interpretation in plan text in a vacuum debates.

theory predispositions (none of these are strongly held).

---I find the argument that competition determines legitimacy fairly persuasive. It seems to me that going for theory while conceding the CP competes is analogous to ASPEC or going for T without reading any definitions of words in the resolution.

---For process cps, there is a big difference between CPs that solve by causing the Aff via follow on, and CPs that fiat the plan but said action is conditioned on X. I.e a CP that has Mexico recommend the plan but doesn't fiat anything else is way more competitive/legitimate than a CP that fiats the plan if Mexico agrees.

---Condo debates---I think that debates where the Aff defends 2 condo and the neg defends 3 are kinda silly. The neg should defend conditionality and the Aff should defend dispositionality, unconditionality et cetera.

---Very ambivalent about everything else, ill go either way on condo, process cps, international fiat etc.

Mamaroneck '20, NYU '24

Put me on the email chain: ivanziabkin [at] gmail [dot] com

My pronouns are he/him.

I like to give a lot of comments -- if you have to leave shortly after the round feel free to interrupt me

TLDR

I like:

K debate, aff and neg

Contextualization

Interesting strategies and arguments (impact turns, esoteric ks, critical procedurals, etc.)
Clear signposting

Good cx
Performance, poetry, music, etc. etc.


I'm ok with:

Policy strats

Judge kicking

Condo, theory,T vs policy

T/FW vs Ks, "debate is/isn't a game" etc.

I dislike:
Blippy or incomplete arguments
Extreme lack of clarity

Stealing prep and/or repeated lengthy tech issues

Paradigm Proper

- Everything here is a suggestion rather than a rule. Don't do judge adaptation for me if you think it will hurt your chances of debating well. On most things I'm aligned with most other judges, what follows are quirks that are somewhat specific to me

- Online debate: I'll give you some leeway. If you suddenly disconnect in the middle of a speech let me know and we can figure something out. For me, I've found that using my camera on NSDA Campus produces a lot of crashes so I mostly keep it off. If I haven't spoken in a while and you're unsure that I'm still connected just ask.

- Tech over truth, I'm willing to vote on basically anything provided it's a complete argument with a clearly articulated warrant and impact. Dropped arguments are true, BUT there is still a burden on you to articulate those arguments in a way that has an effect on the round. Most rounds are decided by which side's conceded arguments work together best as a cohesive picture rather than a scoreboard of how many subpoints were dropped.

- I am fine with spreading, any speed, as long as it remains clear.

- I might read relevant evidence after a round for a close decision. You have some wiggle room in your explanation, but at the end of the day a card is an argument just like an analytic, so how faithful you are to the original warrant is very relevant in, for example, deciding whether an argument is "new."

- Please be organized and signpost clearly.

- I'm cool with alternative methods and models of debate that don't follow common norms e.g. performances, k affs (more on that at the bottom), poetry, do nothing alts, etc.

- I have minimal knowledge on any given topic since I'm not a full time coach. Please spell it out for me on names, abbreviations, what is considered core aff/neg ground, and so on

- If a rehighlight is readable, you should read it. If not, just insert and move on (e.g. a graph or a picture). The only exception I can think of is if the rehighlight uses problematic language and you are inserting to prove a violation, no need to read that out loud

- Tech issues: If you're a novice don't worry about it. For anyone else, you get a pass for short, isolated incidents, but I'll start to dock speaks if it takes up a lot of time.

- Irrational pet peeve of mine -- asking questions in or before cross like "what card did you get to" and/or answering arguments that were in the doc but skipped will cost you speaker points. The exception is if your opponent was very unclear or bad at signposting. If you really have to it's fine -- I'd rather you ask than drop arguments -- but the best solution is to actually flow your opponent's speech like your coaches tell you to.

Policy Stuff

- I love well-prepared impact turns. For similar reasons, I also like disads and cps that clash with central elements of the aff.

- Condo is valid imo but I'll let your theory rounds play out without intervention.

- I'm probably not the best judge for other ticky-tacky CP theory debates unless someone makes a big concession. I'll still do my best to evaluate those more contested rounds, but if that's what you go for every round maybe strike me.

- I'm more open to topicality. Still not my favorite rounds to be a part of but I get it, many policy affs are abusive enough to justify T

- Judge kicking is ok, but it must be explicitly articulated at some point in the 2nr. The 2ar is too late for new objections but objections based on existing theory flows in the round might be considered

Ks (Neg)

- K strategies tend to result in highly educational and interesting debates, so I encourage you to go for one. My personal lit base favs are the dead frenchies but I've read and faced a large variety of Ks and will likely be familiar with whatever you throw at me. If you want to discuss K lit feel free to come talk to me pre or post round! I enjoy these discussions and we might both learn something.

- Jargon is inevitable since K debate deals with more abstract power relations, but once you devolve into meaningless word salad I'm probably not doing the work for you to connect that to a ballot.

- I dislike Ks that are just a hodgepodge of different lit bases on a single flow with no real consistency. One common example is a bastardized academy k where you just compile the academy/communication links from a dozen different Ks -- a card from psychoanalysis, one from settler colonialism, another from Baudrillard and so on. Not good!

- What the alt is and how it solves are 2 different things. You can basically fiat a specific strategy if the aff doesn't press you on spillup but I won't let you fiat away your structure of violence without an explanation for how the alt makes that happen.

- Friendly reminder that contextualizing your link and impact analysis to the aff is incredibly important.

K Affs and Framework

- Points on the section above apply here too.

- I understand where both sides come from on the debate is a game/site for subject formation question having been on either side many times. "Debate is more than just a game" is a great argument for the aff, but "debate is not a game at all" can also be very strong.

- Some shiftiness is ok, as long as it's based on stuff you've said before and you are consistent with your story. Just be honest and you'll be fine.

- I enjoy KvK debates a lot. A K with fleshed out links is probably going to be the most convincing strategy against a K aff for me if done well.

- Performance affs (and Ks on the neg) are great.