Clear, concise, and logical arguments. Please be respectful while still being competitive. I do not like spreading.

Speak loudly. Not too fast. Very much value quality over quantity. Be persuasive to the audience. If I cannot understand you, your argument is of no value.

brown.earl@westada.org

ewbrown@gmail.com

Experience

Competed at the local, state, and national level in Lincoln-Douglas debate. I have worked in management consulting for Fortune 500 companies for two decades. I still do that, but I also coach Speech and Debate on a part time basis in my spare time. I understand how to craft an argument and unpack a position in a logical and compelling way. I built a career selling ideas, which is the essence of debate.

Philosophy as a Judge

I prioritize clear communication, logical argumentation, and clash between competing values.

I believe debate should be a space for intellectual exploration and advocacy. I value clarity, engagement, and a well-supported clash of ideas, balanced by respect for the rules and norms of competitive debate. While I am open to nontraditional approaches, debaters should ensure their arguments remain accessible and grounded in logic or evidence. I seek to evaluate rounds on the merits of the arguments presented, not based on my personal beliefs or biases.I will assess the round based solely on what is argued and how it is warranted.

Framework and Value Debate

1. Framework (Value and Criterion):
• I evaluate the round based on the frameworks presented. If neither debater provides a compelling framework, I will default to the framework that aligns most clearly with the resolution.
• I view the framework as the foundation of the round and prefer clear articulation of how your value and criterion interact with your case and weigh the round.
• If you choose to critique the framework debate itself (e.g., meta-ethics or kritiks of value structures), explain its relevance to the resolution and the round.
2. Resolution Focus:
• I expect arguments to stay tied to the resolution. Philosophy, examples, and evidence should directly link back to the central question of the debate
• Traditional Arguments: Strongly grounded frameworks, clear value/criterion structures, and robust philosophical or policy analysis are welcome.
• Progressive Arguments: I am open to kritiks, theory, and other nontraditional arguments. That said, these arguments must be clearly explained and not rely on buzzwords or assumptions about my familiarity. Don't make it a gimmick.
• Performance/Advocacy: I am open to creative or performative strategies but only if they tie back to the resolution or the spirit of competitive debate.

Delivery and Communication

1. Speed:
• I can handle speed, but clarity is non-negotiable. If I cannot understand your argument, I cannot weigh it. Please slow down on taglines, value/criterion, and key points.
• As a side note, I believe that speaking quickly and spreading has no practical application to the real world. As long as I can understand you, I won't count off for speaking too quickly. Just know that you are touting a skill that will not do any favors to your future career.
2. Organization:
• Clear signposting is essential. I appreciate when debaters explicitly tell me where they are in the flow ("Responding to their first contention," etc.).
3. Persuasion:
• Strong rhetorical delivery and ethos can add to the overall impact, but they should not overshadow substantive argumentation.

Decision-Making

1. Flow-Centric:
• I am a flow judge. My decision will be based on the arguments that make it to the end of the round and how they interact with the framework.
2. Weighing:
• Explicitly weigh impacts for me in the round. If you do not explain why your arguments outweigh your opponent’s, I will make that decision based on my evaluation.
3. Dropped Arguments:
• Dropped arguments will be weighed in favor of the side that presented them, provided they are extended and warranted.
4. Kritiks (Ks):
• I am open to kritiks but expect clear links to the resolution and the opponent’s advocacy.
• Explain the alternative thoroughly, including how it resolves harms or outweighs other impacts in the round.

5. Theory and Topicality:

• I will evaluate theory and topicality arguments if they are run well and presented as voting issues.
• Frivolous theory or "blippy" arguments that lack development will likely be dismissed.

6.Evidence and Warranting:

• High-quality evidence is important, but your explanation and warranting carry equal weight.
• Debaters should not rely solely on card dumps; articulate why your evidence supports your claims and why they matter in the round.

7. Cross-Examination and Clash:

• Use CX to clarify or challenge key points, not as a time to grandstand.
• Clash is critical; engage directly with your opponent’s case and extend arguments to final speeches.

8. Weighing and Impact Calculus:

• Comparative analysis (e.g., magnitude, probability, timeframe) is crucial in crystallizing the round.
• If you don’t weigh arguments or impacts, I may have to make assumptions when deciding the round.

Speaker Points

I award speaker points based on a combination of:

• Clarity and organization.
• Strategic choices and weighing.
• Professionalism
• I reward creativity and bold strategies when executed effectively

Flow, impacts and line of reasoning. Off time roadmaps get you brownie points.

Who am I:

This is my 10th year as the head speech and debate coach.

Here's the best way to earn my ballot for any type of debate:

1) I am not a flow judge.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponent clean concedes an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Weigh your impacts! This is a great way to win the ballot with me.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outweigh argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Courtesy. If you are not kind, courteous, and ethical to your opponent, you will receive lower speaker points. I believe that debaters should be able to win on the flow and do so in a kind and professional manner. If the round is extremely close, I often use courtesy and ethics as a tiebreaker.

5) Speed: I think that it's easier to have a cleaner debate when it is slower.

LD DEBATE:

Value/Value Criterions

I think these are necessary in LD debate. I am a more traditional LD debate. Make sure to use your V/CR throughout the round. These are usually a large voting issue for me, so make sure I know why you've won on these issues.

K's/Theory

I prefer traditional LD debate, with a focus on values and value criterions.

Speed: I think that it's easier to have a cleaner debate when it is slower.

Calling for evidence will use prep time. Ensure you need it and that you are willing to use prep time before you ask to see evidence. I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

Any other questions, ask me in round!

I have been a coach in Idaho since 2013 with students competing in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas and Policy style debate. In general I prefer clear articulation, solid logic, and in depth analysis. I will add style specific details below.

Public Forum

I believe that public forum should remain the most accessible format of debate and should strive to avoid over reliance on Debate Theory or jargon. I prefer a few in depth and detailed arguments over a larger quantity of superficial arguments. Final Focus should include key voters on both sides.

Lincoln Douglas

I am on the progressive side of traditional for LD debate. I believe the value debate is the key to Lincoln Douglas debate and expect clash on the value level as well as the argument level. I like the inclusion of philosophical arguments and may vote only on philosophy if it is warranted. I enjoy definition and theory debate but you'll have to work very hard to get me to vote on a K.

Policy

I am a traditionalist in Policy debate. I vote almost exclusively on the stock issues, I believe that the Affirmative must sufficiently address each of the major stock issues and have never voted on a kritical Aff. I believe T is a voter, but that the default assumption is that the Aff is topical. I don't like topical CP's and you will have to work pretty hard to get me to vote on a K. I default to Condo Bad so the neg will need to justify any conditional positions. I am not a fan of high speed "spreading" or any rate of speed which inhibits clarity of arguments or speech. I want to be able to flow the warrants and links as well as taglines and impacts.

My Background

I have been judging for two years now, primarily Congress. I strive to be impartial and judge by reasonable standards of argumentation and presentation. Genuine civility and respect for others impresses me. I do my best to judge on the merits of argument and presentation, putting aside my personal opinions on the subject at hand. I take notes for myself and write as many ballot comments as I can in the allotted time, aiming for respectful honesty and recognition of merit.

Content

I expect the premise to be clear immediately, followed by logical, well-developed arguments with convincing evidence to support them. If an argument requires technical language, it should be explained.

Delivery

Eye contact, please! Connecting with the audience is an important part of convincing, both of your sound arguments and the integrity and believability of your character. I am greatly biased toward understandable speed of speech. If I can't understand a speaker because of speed, I cannot give that person a positive critique. There is a way of beginning - becoming suddenly much more forceful and raising the voice - that I find distracting.

Hello, the first thing you need to know about me as a judge is that I have lost half my hearing. If you start speaking as fast as you can, or just overly fast, then you can pretty much guarantee that you lose. I don't do well with high speeds, as I already have a hard time hearing at normal pace. If I can't hear or understand your argument then you will lose. Simple as that. Beyond that, I believe spreading or speed reading is inherently a form of ableism. Thus I will treat it so. If you want to have a discussion with me on that let me know. I will do what I can to work with you.

I encourage you to tie your arguments into whatever weighing mechanism or value you and your opponent have agreed upon. Try to signpost as best as you can. Also, give me voters! And don't get overly worked up in round, do your best, and have fun!

I am cool with off-time roadmaps!

I am generally a communications judge, meaning that good communication, clear signposting, and also being respectful of each other and the rules of debate is very important to me. I do judge based on the flow, but if I can't get info down on my flow, I won't be able to consider it in my decision

For PF, I am a policy maker judge, meaning I like to view the round as if it is a policy proposal and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the resolution. For LD, I am a tabula rasa judge, so I will focus on and whatever argument is key in the round.

I did speech and debate in high school and now I help with coaching. My main format was Public Forum, but I have experience in a lot of formats and events.

With that, even though I can track with a lot of complicated rounds, accessibility in debate means a lot and we should all be striving for that.

For Debate:

I always try to be a tabula rasa, but I would still say I'm a flows judge, so signposting and taglines are super important to me. If I don't even know what side of the flow you are on in your speech, I probably won't even write down what you're saying. With that, I'm not going to make connections for you, so if you can't communicate internal and external links in your speeches, it will be difficult to flow your arguments through.

I am good with speed but clarity, projection, and inflection are where I'm giving speaker points. If I can't understand you, it's not going on the flow.

My decisions are based solely off what is said in speeches. If a great point is presented in cross, it doesn't matter to me until it's in a speech.

Warrants are also super important to me, so make sure all of your links are clear and your evidence is good.

For me, impacts are really what win rounds. If you can show me a clear link story with clear impacts and weigh them well, you'll probably win my ballot.

I can handle some fun RA's and stuff, but if it's not done well then it will be difficult to win my ballot.

Be nice and have fun!!

In PF, I think framework is important. It is the only way to really convince me why your arguments matter at the end of the day. If you're going to run framework, you need to stick to it.

In LD, I think your Value and Criterion should be the core of every single argument and I want to hear about it in every single speech. It will usually be my main judging issue. I am a firm supporter of traditional LD, I don't want it to sound like a PF round and I definitely don't want it to sound like a policy round!

In Congress, clash and preponderance of evidence has always been really impressive to me in this event. A good speaking style and presentation goes a long way for me.

I am the speech and debate coach at Owyhee High School, and I have been a high school English teacher since 2011. Because of that, I value all arguments, both scripted and improvised, that are evidence-based. I like a good amount of clash in questioning and rebuttals, and I do not mind speed. I guess the closest archetype for my paradigm would be a flow judge, but I am not strictly going off the flow for my decision. Not all arguments are debated equally, so I will value the points that get the most attention in cross ex and rebuttals.

I hate critiks, even in policy rounds.

I really want to be an observer who listens and records the winner(s). I prefer it when students time and manage the round themselves, and you do not need to ask me if I am ever ready. Of course, I will always answer any questions you have, but my favorite rounds happen when the students run the whole show and I get to sit back and take notes.

LD/PF:

Former debater and coach; I will flow the round.

I heavily weigh voters; I cross-check your voters with the flow (so don't be lyin about why you winnin).

Cong:

Congress is an extemporaneous format per the IDC and NSDA rules. I'm cool with authorship and 1st neg speeches being mostly prepared, however all subsequent speeches on any bill must clash/support previous reps' points in some capacity or I am out.

Hello! My name is Nathan and I am a former speech & debate student. My main format was Congress, but I have experience with and a good understanding of other events & formats. If there's anything I learned in Congress, it is that the more accessible your style is, the better. This is something I value and encourage in all rounds.

On balance I overall align with the tabula rasa paradigm. However, once again citing my Congress background, I value general speaking skill, confidence, light humor (when done right!!!) & speech composition in addition to all the usual debate conventions (warrants/evidence/impacts/etc.). Out of all these conventions, I would say warrants matter most to me (although all are critical!). If I do not properly understand the links of your contentions, I'm not going to favor them much in the flow. In that same vein & in alignment with the tabula rasa paradigm, I ask debaters to be as explicit as possible in their links, warrants, and connections. The less you leave for interpretation, the better I can evaluate your case & flow. If you do not explicitly state more nuanced components of the case and how they connect to the flow, you can probably consider the argument dropped.

Finally, I want to make it clear that I do not like to hear any sort of "progressive" argumentation or behavior in any rounds or formats. Spreading, K's, & most debate theory-related args will not fare well on my ballot. Please keep all cases & rounds strictly in the traditional realm!

Thanks for reading and good luck in round!

Hello! My name is Nathan and I am a former speech & debate student. My main format was Congress, but I have experience with and a good understanding of other events & formats. If there's anything I learned in Congress, it is that the more accessible your style is, the better. This is something I value and encourage in all rounds.

On balance I overall align with the tabula rasa paradigm. However, once again citing my Congress background, I value general speaking skill, confidence, light humor (when done right!!!) & speech composition in addition to all the usual debate conventions (warrants/evidence/impacts/etc.). Out of all these conventions, I would say warrants matter most to me (although all are critical!). If I do not properly understand the links of your contentions, I'm not going to favor them much in the flow. In that same vein & in alignment with the tabula rasa paradigm, I ask debaters to be as explicit as possible in their links, warrants, and connections. The less you leave for interpretation, the better I can evaluate your case & flow. If you do not explicitly state more nuanced components of the case and how they connect to the flow, you can probably consider the argument dropped.

Finally, I want to make it clear that I do not like to hear any sort of "progressive" argumentation or behavior in any rounds or formats. Spreading, K's, & most debate theory-related args will not fare well on my ballot. Please keep all cases & rounds strictly in the traditional realm!

Thanks for reading and good luck in round!

I tend to judge off the flow

Spreading is fine if you flash your case to me and your opponents, and slow down on your tags. If you don't flash and you spread I will drop you.

I tend to not buy nuke war impacts (I'm willing to but u gotta convince me) if u gonna read a big stick aff u gotta fully commit, in general I tend to favor structural violence affs.

I'm fine with Kritiks but unless it's Cap, Abolition, or Securitization, I have pretty much no background on it. In round K's like Gendered Language are also fine. Make sure you do the work to explain it to me and convince me that I should value it. If your alt is 3 paragraphs of dog sh!t u better explain it to me.

I LOVE T, that doesn't mean I'll always vote on it, but if you run it well I will be happy. I'm very willing to vote on ridiculous or weirdly specific T if you can do it well.

Tagteaming is cool w me.

Obvious no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., and also slurs.

add me on the email chain or lmk if you have questions before/after round (: parsons152@gmail.com

CX: Thrilled to to judge whatever you're comfortable doing. Read and/or go for whatever you feel good about, it's your round and I'll work hard on adapting to your style and the substance of your argument. One word of caution: I'm not at all familiar with what's being read on the 2022-2023 topic, so don't assume that I'm going to be versed in your argument just because it's been read all year. I'm pretty familiar with K debate, and I love examining T and theory debates (but if you're going for T or Theory, impacting out the argument is the most important thing on the flow to me.). I almost exclusively went for T or cap or DnG when I was competing. If you are going to go for a K or read a K aff, I think it's really important to spend a lot of time on framework and answering the top-level questions about what we're doing: What does it mean for us to share this space together? What significance does my ballot have and why does it matter who I vote for? And what does the alternative effectuate within that framework?

LD: Progressive or trad are both fine, but aff lmk if you're reading a plan because I have a different flow for that. If you're doing progressive debate, see the CX section.

PF: The only type of debate I've never done. I guess the most helpful thing suggestion I have is to just walk me through your argument cleanly and clearly, and tell me how I should weigh/evaluate arguments.

I competed in PF throughout high school and have assistant coached for two teams. I've judged all forms of debate extensively and I love progressive debate. Be clear, signpost, and I should be able to keep up.

I judge off the flow. If you drop arguments, you will lose them. Everything should be carried throughout the round, unless you give me reason it shouldn't be. I also judge heavily on framework (especially in LD and CX) because this tells me how I should measure the round. I'm comfortable with virtually any kind of argument, as long as you can prove to me why it matters.

I don't mind speed. Spreading is fine with me if you go slow on tags and flash your case to your opponent.

I don't care much about propriety (tag-teaming, standing vs seated, etc.) but I do care that you're respectful. This is an educational space. I don't care about assertiveness (totally understand rounds can get heated) but if you need to be mean or condescending to win, you're not a good debater.

See you in round! Good luck! :)

I began my experience with Speech and Debate in 2022. I have a background in Classics (Greek and Latin Language, Culture, Literature and History), and care deeply about effective pedagogy.

Essentially, I am a hybrid communications/flow judge, meaning that effective communication, clear signposting/structure, and also being respectful of each other and both the rules AND SPIRIT of debate is very important to me. I will judge from my flows for both LD and PF, so I will ask for pre-flow of your number of contentions and sub-points; please make sure I can flow your case. Please note: LD is not Policy, PF is not Policy, and I am not a Policy judge. For my approach to speech events, please follow this link.

Speaker Points: I am developing a Speaker Points Rubric that will assess the following categories:

~Constructive Argumentation
~Refutation & Rebuttal
~Evidence & Logic
~Cross-Examination
~Delivery

Cross-X and Clash: I value civil and direct cross, as well as effective engagement with opposing arguments and framework. Direct clash with claims and evidence is possible while still treating one another well. I will notice evasive responses.

Spread: I can tolerate a fairly quick rate of speech, but if I miss key terms or points, my understanding of your argument will suffer. I also find that people who prioritize speed and quantity of information over clarity lose my attention, since it's impossible to use effective vocal dynamics if your pace is too quick.

Resolution Analyses and Kritiks: Unless you are a going to do something amazing with them, or there’s something in the Resolution that truly merits one, I think they're a waste of time and unnecessarily obfuscate argumentation. I repeat: LD is not Policy. PF is not Policy. I am not a Policy judge. Until I see a K or RA that changes my mind, I am of the opinion that K's are most often a cowardly way of avoiding engagement with the opposing side. Counterplans are fine!

Pet Peeves: I resent being gaslighted. I keep careful flows, so don't tell me they dropped your case/points, unless that's clear from the flow.

The main thing I look for is impacts, I like to know how I am affected and why I should care.

The next thing I look at is the framework, if you give me a framework use it, and don't drop it.

I don't mind conflict during the round (I think it is fun to watch) but when you leave please be kind and friendly to your opponent.

No Spreading, if you talk fast, I can't understand and follow your case.

The main thing I look for is impacts, I like to know how I am affected and why I should care.

The next thing I look at is the framework, if you give me a framework use it, and don't drop it.

I don't mind conflict during the round (I think it is fun to watch) but when you leave please be kind and friendly to your opponent.

No Spreading, if you talk fast, I can't understand and follow your case.

First and foremost:

I like rounds to be fast and efficient. Do not ask if I am ready, I am always ready. Unless your opponent specifically wants to be asked, do not ask if they are ready as well. Just don't ask if anyone is ready. Roadmaps are okay. Yes time yourselves. Your evidence exchanges will be on your prep time. I will probably drop you if you use the Idaho debate code as an argument. Rule violations are not to be handled during your speeches. If you use it as an argument I am just going to assume you were not prepared enough to have an actual attack.

LD: I will weigh the round based on the Value/Criterion and voters. Explain your v/c and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the v/c. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the v/c unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the AFF and NEG v/c. But as I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the v/c and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts. Plans and Counter Plans are ok with me! I think that it adds an interesting element to the debate. I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. I love to see impacts.

PF: I will weigh the round based on the Resolutional Analysis and voters. Explain your RA and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the RA. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the RA unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the PRO and CON RA. But as I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please do not run values, that's for LD. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the RA and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts and impact calc.

Policy: I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. Please don't run them if you run them. I don't care for "education in debate" args. However, If someone is being abusive feel free to explain how. I am okay with speed but do not talk so fast to the point you are wheezing. Just be understandable. Have impacts and have voters. Be consistent with your plan and counter plan. Constantly remind me why I should care about them or should not care about your opponents. I will weigh the round based on the superior plan or cp.

Hi! I’m Sarah. I use she/they pronouns. I graduated from Penn State in the spring of 2022. I’m now at Cornell Law School. I currently don’t have any program affiliation, but I love the activity and am glad to be involved however I can. If you have questions about this paradigm, any of my decisions, want to talk about law school applications, or just need a friendly ear, feel free to reach out via Facebook or email (ses452@cornell.edu).

General things

• I’m a person first, educator second, and adjudicator third. You do what you enjoy and I’m excited to learn from you. Tell me what to do with the ballot and I’ll listen.

• I’ll do my best to be tabula rasa. I’ll share my biases because I can’t be perfectly neutral as much as I might want to. Everything in this paradigm (except decent human being things) are only defaults, you can change them easily with an argument.

• Tech over truth but it’s way better when your arguments are at least dubiously true.

• I’d like novices to stick broadly to the topic and to reasonably understandable arguments. It helps nobody to hand your novice a Baudrillard file. I’m pretty willing to fill in the gaps for novices making smart arguments who don’t make them in technically correct ways.

• I’m good with speed if and only if everyone in the round is, please slow on tags.

• Don’t do things to make the debate community a worse place. It shows a lot more skill to win elegantly and cleanly by an inch than to bash the other side and win by a mile.

• Please make complete arguments - this means at minimum have internal links, ideally ones with warrants. If your argument isn’t complete, I can’t vote on it even if nobody points out the flaws.

• I get that there are things the community universally accepts even without links (e.g. politics disads) and I’ll probably give those to you if nobody points out the lack of links. I’ll err on the side of granting them for predictability but I want to be up front that since I’m new to judging I don’t know yet where my threshold is.

• It’s fun and makes for less frustrating decisions when you weigh and meta-weigh.

• CX is underutilized and it would be cool if you accomplished something with it.

• Things I reserve the right to stop the round and give you the L for:

• Doing or reading something the other side explicitly asked you not to do for mental health reasons

• Misgendering someone after being corrected

• Explicit bigotry (exception: if everyone in the round agrees beforehand to test arguments like “sexism good for econ,” I think that can be educational. But you can’t spring that on someone)

• Making arguments about sexual violence or suicide without ASKING the other side if it’s okay. Content warnings that do not ask are not okay. If you do this I will stop you and confirm with everyone in the round that it is okay before continuing, and if it’s not and you can’t read a different position, the round will end and you will lose

• Ad hominem arguments - you can attack the argument or the framing, but not the person or intention

Feedback and evaluation

In novice or JV divisions, I’ll type out notes mid-speech. I think it’s more important that you get specific feedback than that my flow is perfect. In open, I’ll prioritize my flow but make a point to be extremely detailed during the RFD. The distinction is mostly that open debaters can benefit a lot more from strategic analysis. I’ll also do everything I can to give you tips on fixing errors instead of just pointing them out. If you feel like you’d learn more from a different kind of feedback than this, just let me know and I’m happy to oblige.

Speaker points are silly, arbitrary, and biased. My hope is if enough people simply refuse to take them seriously, it will disavow people of the notion that they have any value as a metric and we can get rid of them. As such, you’re all getting 30s unless you do something worth getting 0.

Ballot comments on Tabroom go to you and your coach (and anyone else with access to your team's Tabroom page). Nine times out of ten this is good for education. If for some reason (and I won't ask the reason), you do not want your coach to see your feedback, just let me know privately and I'm happy to give feedback orally or share it via PDF in the Speechdrop instead of putting it on the ballot.

Counterplans

• Dispo > condo (dispo means a CP is like a disad where you can extend defense but can’t kick out of offense)

• Two condo fine if it’s a CP and an alt, more than that probably bad

• Perms are probably advocacies

Theory

• I-meets are terminal defense on theory

• Competing interps > reasonability. I’ve been told I think of theory in the NPDA sense more than the LD sense if that helps anyone

• I don't need proven abuse. I honestly don't know what proven abuse is. If your practice is bad, it probably had some impact on strategy. You don't need to execute a bad strategy to prove that it's bad.

• I’m probably more amenable to resource disparity arguments than a lot of people as a product of debating for a student-run team in college

• Disclosure theory is elitist and bad. Aff disclosure is probably good, but 9/10 times people don’t do it because they don’t know how (especially with these new confusing caselist updates). Educate, don’t punish

Kritiks

• Alts should either have some evidence indicating solvency in the traditional sense (of fixing the problem you present) or subvert traditional notions of solvency. Alts that do neither probably do nothing and the other side should point this out

• Alts that operate in a different paradigm than the aff (e.g. discourse alts compared to policy affs) need a ROB to be cohesive. Otherwise you’re just talking past each other because the government could do the aff and you could do the alt and there’s no contradiction. Perms are really strong here and at best with these alts and no FW you win on K turns case

• Fiat is illusory, but that doesn’t mean it’s not valuable, and it would be better if you had more than “the plan isn’t real”

Performance

• Nontopical affs should have neg ground and you should be able to tell us what it is during CX.

• If the neg ground is theory and you then make IVIs to theory I’m going be really persuaded by arguments that there is no neg ground

• It’s much preferable imo if the neg ground is topic generics (e.g. a movements case where the effect is change to election laws, a topical plan text with narrative evidence, or a critique of NFA elections in the direction of the topic)

• In novice divisions you have to be topical or at least have topical neg ground - predictability reasons are overwhelming when it comes to making newbies want to stay in debate

Miscellaneous thoughts

• I won't enforce the rules simply because they're the rules. Appeals to the rules are fine though if you warrant why following the rules is good.

• One piece of unethically cut or cited ev → drop the arg + ballot comments to your coach. If it happens again, auto-loss. Unless you’re a novice, in which case still fix it but you get more leeway

• New NR and 2AR arguments don’t get flowed

• Zoom lets you do cool things and if you need to screen-share to do them that should be allowed. We ought to get something out of this virtual debate thing

• Baum-Barret is a garbage card written by people who need to at minimum SKIM Rawls before incorrectly citing him. I’m pretty sure most people under the veil of ignorance would care a lot more about the threat of crushing poverty than a 1% risk of nuclear war

• Evidence comparison > tons of cards that all say the same thing

I’m sure I’m missing something. I’ll try to edit as I notice things. Feel free to ask any questions before round!

Don't be a bigot, tell me how you win the round, engage with your opponents arguments don't just talk passed them