FREE NSDA Warm Up Practice Tournament CX
2023 — Online/KCMO, MO/US
Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hello, I am Sage, and I am very excited to be judging your round!
Competition- Salina South High School (KS): 2018-22 (immigration, arms sales, criminal justice, water)
Coaching- Rock Bridge High School (MO): 2022-Present (NATO, fiscal redistribution)
I use she/her pronouns, but you can just call me Sage or judge, whichever you prefer
The Short Version:
I am here for whatever you want to do. I love debate because of the freedom you have with your arguments, and I do not wish to stifle that in any way. So long as you are clean on the flow and explaining things clearly to me, I do not care what you do so long as it is appropriate. If you break that by being racist, sexist, homophobic, overly aggressive, or making the space unsafe, you will not be happy. I like debaters that have fun, making (tasteful) jokes is encouraged, laughing, and smiling during a debate is what I love to see. I am also fine with speed only if your opponents are, I'm probably a 7/10 for speed on a bad day, 8.5/10 on a good day. Just keep an eye out for my expressions to know if you're going too fast for me. For the rest of the paradigm, like all judges, I have some biases with arguments and deficiencies in some areas, this paradigm will hopefully be able to answer a majority of your questions, but if I am unclear or you want more clarification on something, please ask me!
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do judge instruction! If I have to come to my own conclusions in the debate and having to read evidence, I may come to a conclusion that you disagree with. To prevent that, you should be so explicit how you want me to evaluate this round and what my ballot should say. I will find the easiest way to the ballot, and if the other team lays out a clearer route than you do, I will take that route.
General Misc. Things-
I love theory debates and I have seen a lot of them recently, but I am begging ALL of you, especially if you are online, slow down! It is really hard for me to catch a lot of the work you are doing on theory if you are blazing through it at high speed in the rebuttals and I can miss a lot. I will no longer feel bad about saying I missed something because of speed, please slow down if you want me to catch something important.
A proper extension is extending the author, date, claim, and warrant from a card. If you do not say these things, you did not extend the card. If your opponent calls this out and they are properly extending, I will not evaluate that evidence since it is dropped.
Doing impact work is incredibly important for me. I usually start my decision at the impact level, deciding what the biggest impact is in the round and then who solves it better. Starting there and working backwards is probably the best way to get my ballot in every 2AR/NR.
You're going to want to slow down here, especially if you are going down the line by line.
I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable. I really like impact work on T, sure exploding limits is bad for debate, but why? Doing that work for me puts you way ahead
I've debated at small schools all my career, so I love those impacts especially and I am a huge fan of brightlines. Other than those, I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you explain them.
I don't know what are the popular T arguments are or what T debates look like on this topic, so if it's a really weird interp or something like that, probably explain it a bit more than you would for me.
I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.
I don't have much experience with this debate personally, but I can still evaluate it well, I just don't read it personally and don't see many non-policy affs in Missouri.
Much like regular T, don't have many preferences here, just do the impact work and show why your model is the best
For the aff, I like counter-interps and impact turns. For the neg I like TVAs and SSD. This doesn't mean these are the only arguments I like or the only things you should be going for in the 2NR/AR, just that I like these arguments.
I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it.
C/A the voting explanation from regular T
I love when teams use the DA strategically across multiple sheets. Link turns solvency, internal link turns solvency, timeframe impact calc, use the DA to act as multiple arguments.
Do impact calc, the earlier the better
I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action. I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.
Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.
I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.
Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier
I enjoy counterplan theory and think it needs to be utilized more. PICs and international fiat bad are some of my favs.
I also enjoy condo debates! I usually flow condo on the CP sheet, if you do not want me to do this make sure you tell me. I can be convinced that a team should not have any conditional advocacies, but that's pretty difficult. I don't really lean any side on condo, but if you read more than 5 conditional advocacies, the more I sympathize with the aff. I like arguments about why the certain number in the interpretation is necessary and time skew arguments.
I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve. I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.
My favorite argument and the one I am most familiar with. The lit bases I know strongly are queer/trans theory, capitalism, biopolitics (specifically Agamben), academy/university, and militarism/security. Lit bases I know but maybe not as much as you are Baudrillard, Set Col, and anti-blackness. Not a huge Fem IR or psychoanalysis fan, I'll still vote on it, but I find arguments about how those fields of thought are transphobic or problematic in other ways very persuasive.
I'd like to think if I am not super familiar with a lit base I can catch on quick in a debate, but if your K is like super complex and hard to understand, you may want to put it up. Feel free to ask how I feel about your K lit base and how much I know.
I like when the K is used as a way to make the 1AC irrelevant, whether it be through FW, impacts, or serial policy failure, making it so your alternative is the only option in the debate is what you should be trying to do.
I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.
Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.
I vote neg on the K when they win it's mutually exclusive their framework and a link (a note for this, just because you are the only side that presents a framework and they don't read a we meet doesn't mean an auto win. If they can win an impact turn on the K that makes it not fit the framework then I won't vote for it.), or when they show how the aff makes a bad thing much worse and they win a way to avoid that. I vote aff on the K when they win their model of debate, they show they don't link or link turn, they win an impact turn (that is not morally egregious), the alt is bad, or a permutation that makes sense and is explained well.
I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.
It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic, and especially your mechanism, but if you want to not even mention the topic then go for it.
I'm a big fan of presumption arguments, being able to take out solvency and turn the case is very good.
I really enjoy seeing the cap K against K Affs as I think most often it is the most important discussion, but also variety is cool. I think academy Ks are neat, or any other K you feel, just be confident with it. You should probably be saying "no perms in a methods debate" also.
I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy. I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counteradvocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.
I did some LD in high school, it was mostly trad value/criterion though so I am pretty inexperienced with circuit LD.
I am probably better for policy (y'all call it LARP?) and K arguments since that is my background. Phil seems interesting, but I have no experience with it or many of the arguments. I know some Rawls and Kant, but if your phil args are not super easy to understand you may want to read something else.
I don't entirely know what tricks are, if its just theory then great! I love theory debates. But, if it is more cheap shot, one line theory args or just silly args, I am not your judge and more than willing to hold the line on arguments I think are not pedagogically valuable.
I think the rest of my paradigm should answer most questions you may have, but if it does not, ask me anything! I don't really know what a good LD paradigm looks like so I def missed something. I am still super excited to judge your round!
Stolen Paradigm Lines I Agree With
"I want my opinion to come into play as little as possible during the round. I would like to be told how to vote and why, by the end of the rebuttals I will almost always pick the easiest simplest route to ballot possible. You can do this through Impact Calc, Framing debates, link directionality claims, etc. I don’t particularly care what the debate ends up being about, topical or in total rejection of the resolution I’ll be fine either way."- Nadya Steck (Her entire paradigm could just be mine)
"Impact framing is essential for all arguments, regardless of content/form. I almost always vote for the team who better frames "what is important" and explains how it interacts with other arguments. The magic words are "even if..." and "they say ... but". Winning 2NRs and 2ARs use these phrases to 'frame' the big picture of the debate."- Eric Lanning
"I think that I probably will hold the line on cheap shot arguments more often than not, typically one line arguments on a theory shell/solvency flow will not get my ballot. Generally the team that does the better link/impact analysis/comparison will win my ballot."- David Bowers
Blue Valley Southwest: 2015-2018
Liberty University: 2018-2020
Email for the chain: email@example.com
1. Ignore my facial expressions.
2. Much better for policy than the K.
3. This paradigm reflects my random thoughts about debate. Generally, you should keep the debate simple. Complex strategies, big words, and flexing your topic knowledge will probably hurt you because, chances are, I am not well researched on the topic or your advocacy.
4. Tech > Truth, but I do not have the sharpest flow. Do not blaze through concessions/arguments that you think are game-winning. Do frame the debate at the beginning of the 2NR/2AR: writing my ballot early will help me flow the important stuff.
K on the Neg
1. The AFF gets to weigh the 1AC.
2. I do not understand high theory.
3. Links should be to the plan.
4. I often find myself voting NEG because AFF teams are bad at answering the K.
5. The perm double-bind is 100% true for structural Ks (e.g., capitalism with a movements alternative). I have heard no convincing argument otherwise.
K on the AFF
1. Defend a material change from the status quo.
2. 'Debates about debate' probably lack ballot solvency when the forum is two teams (one of which has to negate) and one judge. Outrounds may be different because there are observers; however, I tend to think most observers watch to improve their flowing, scout for their school, or support their friends. My overwhelming bias is that AFFs must 'solve' their impacts. Rejecting fiat does not free you from solvency. I am sympathetic to the uniqueness argument that debate is deeply flawed and unfair in a structural-sense; making that observation alone is not enough to win the round. I am also not convinced that debate rounds are an effective forum for creating genuine change.
3. Counter-interps are your friend. You are in a great spot if I believe your interpretation is predictable and good for clash.
4. Impact turns to procedural fairness, predictability, and clash are not persuasive.
K v K
2. Empirical examples are good. I will place a lot of weight on evidence that compares your theory of power/explanation of the world with the opponents' theory of power/explanation of the world.
1. Procedural fairness is my favorite impact.
2. TVAs do not have to solve the whole AFF, but TVAs that solve none or few of the AFF's impacts are unpersuasive.
1. Many AFF teams are bad at defending untopical plans.
2. Reasonability should frame the AFF's interp. Something like "Even if the NEG's topic is better, ours is [predictable, sufficiently limited, debatable etc.]. Voting NEG [justifies a race-to-the-bottom for bad interps, discourages topic research, etc.]."
3. Limits and contextual ground standards are great .
4. TVAs are underutilized.
5. Slow down on caselists. Assume I do not know what AFFs look like on the topic.
1. CPs should be textually and functionally competitive. I lean AFF on Perm do the CP.
2. CP amendments are okay against new AFFs and add-ons. Not a big fan otherwise.
3. 'Perm do both' can be explained in the 1AR, but not the 2AR. NEG teams should ask how the perm functions in 2AC cross-ex.
2. Turns-case args should be couched in the internal links and links of the DA when possible.
3. Good 1NRs line up their speech with the 2AC (impact o/v is the exception).
4. 1NR should card dump if you have the goods.
1. Go a bit slower.
2. Conditionality is good, but strong impact comparison + technical proficiency can prove otherwise. Condo bad has become relatively popular; I do not love this trend. 2AR on substance > 2AR on theory. This should not deter you from going for Condo if that's the best 2AR or the NEG has really messed up.
3. Perf-Con theory < conceding assumptions made by one contradictory position to take out the other.
4. Everything should be a reason to reject the team. Why artificially limit the impact of your argument?
Things I've noticed about myself as a judge
1. I highly value scenario/impact explanation. This is especially true for rebuttals.
2. Reading is difficult. If you think the debate should be won/lost on card quality or a key piece of evidence, make that known.
3. Impact turn debates are my favorite rounds to judge.
4. I am prone to confusion.
5. Long deliberation, quick rfd kinda judge.
1. Good for spark/dedev/co2 good.
2. I will flow/evaluate both policy and critical arguments. "Policy debate bad" or "The K does not belong in debate" are unpersuasive arguments.
3. I will evaluate arguments about an individual's or team's bad acts outside of the debate as a reason that individual or team should lose. However, I have a high threshold for two issues. First, the "link" evidence should leave no doubt that the act(s) happened. Assertion alone will not establish a "link." Evidence beyond 95% certainty will establish a "link." Second, there must be a reason to reject the team. Why should I punish a team for an act or acts happening outside of the round? Safety, detoxifying the activity, and deterrence are possible, but not exclusive, avenues.
1. Arguments in the final focus must exist in the summary.
2. I care about line-by-line. Meta framing is not a substitute for clash.
3. Signposting will get you very far very quickly.
4. Some teams do not read evidence in rebuttal - that seems bad, but nobody tells me why.
5. One team has expressed that FF and Summary speeches do not need to extend arguments or do line-by-line. I vehemently disagree.
6. Teams that email evidence/speech docs get a .5 speaker point boost. Set up the email chain before the debate.
7. PF evidence is usually awful. Use that to your advantage.
8. Only read paraphrasing theory if your opponent has misrepresented or overstated the author's claims. If you provide that evidence, I will stop the round and treat the situation as an ethics violation. The opposing party will be allowed to respond one time and the moving party will not be allowed a rebuttal (i.e., give me all of your evidence upfront). It does not matter who paraphrased and cut the evidence (you are responsible for what you choose to read).
9. Wiki theory is getting out of hand. Disclosing carded evidence on the wiki is enough.
1. Be polite and don't be offensive. You will lose for discriminatory language or policy.
2. I think death/suffering good arguments are unpersuasive. Arguments about inevitable death/suffering are unimportant.
3. Mark cards during the speech.
The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. ) So any ad hominem will NOT be tolerated, this includes racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia.
Who am I?
I am currently the Director of Speech and Debate at The Woodlands College Park High school. I debated on the college circuit for LSCO in Parli debate and almost any speaking event offered. I competed in Policy/Congress/Extemp/Interp in High School and was a state qualifier in all four events. I have worked summer camp for FCDI and will be on staff at Mean Green this summer.
Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap.
Email Chains: I should be on all email chains or whatever is being used to share evidence my email is firstname.lastname@example.org. Please title the chain "Round X, Tournament Name"
During Round Preferences (policy Specific for Nationals 2023) :
First off I am a firm believer in this is your round make what you want of it. I will flow every argument you run and evaluate them at the end of the round to see would I rather live in a place that backs up the stances of the affirmative or the stances of the negative (No matter how crazy them impacts might seem). I would say I lean a little more to the side of tech over truth. If you are going to run an argument run it correctly or do not run it at all (Dont run a K without an Alternative). I am fine with all arguments but I do believe that the arguments should still exist within the span of the resolution. If you are going to run a off centered K or K aff it still needs to be able to link back to why that is important within the framing of the resolution and not take us out on a completely wild tangent.
Theory and K is fine but make sure you slow down on these as I might not be as familiar with all literature on these natures. You also need to show a true abuse on theory. Why is this something that has impacted you specifically and what is the Role of the ballot within this theory/abuse
The one place it will be extremely hard to get my ballot is going to be tricks. Tricks are something that I seem to find unnecessary beat them at the clash dont try to trick a ballot
At the end of the day make the decision easy for me. You should be telling me what my signature means for me and the world if I vote for your side.
Any questions please feel free to ask!
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
University of Kansas '25
Lawrence Free State '21
I'm a junior debating for KU, and a 2A who has read a mix of policy and K arguments.
Do what you do best. I will try my best to adapt and be unbiased. I care much more about argument quality than argument type.
Judge instruction is really important and will improve your speaks and odds of winning. The 2NR/2AR should put pieces together, use even if statements, simplify the debate, and do impact calc. Organized, easy to flow speeches that use direct clash will boost speaks and make the debate easier to be resolved.
I have done minimal topic research - explain acronyms, have specific link stories/solvency mechanisms, contextualize arguments to the 1AC.
Read re-highlightings or explain what it says if inserting it - I won't read it for you.
Tech > truth.
They're good. Assume I don't know your literature base and err on the side of over-explanation.
It is possible to win on presumption against K affs. Specific analysis and explanation of the advocacy/mechanism for the aff is important. Explain why you solve something or don't need to.
I don't care about the form the 1AC takes (performance, cards, etc.), but it should defend something and have some connection to the topic.
I appreciate innovative neg strats and creative PIKs.
Framework v K affs
Go for whatever impact you're most comfortable with.
Fairness can/can not be an impact depending on who is winning this argument, so explain and impact out fairness when going for it.
Explain what your model of the resolution/debate looks like, including topical affs and a progression of innovation for those affs throughout the season. You're probably winning an impact, so a giant impact overview is useless, but contextualizing and explaining it to the debate can write my ballot for you.
Neg: Answer case - don't concede the aff's theory of power or solvency mechanism and case offense. TVAs aren't necessary, but a good one can be terminal defense.
Aff: Get creative with your counter-interpretation to limit out of the negs impacts. Weigh the aff and its education - you read it for a reason. Reading a couple well-impacted out disads in the 2AC is better than reading a series of unexplained disads. Impact turn strategies should be coupled with defense.
Explain the theory of power in simple language, assuming I don't understand the literature and buzzwords. Err on the side of over-explanation in high theory debates.
Embedded clash > long overviews.
Links are DAs to the perm, but there needs to be an impact to this.
Links of omission aren't links. Link contextualization is important and can make a generic link persuasive - talk about the aff as much as possible - pull lines from the 1AC and CX. 1-2 impacted out links > multiple links.
Framework shapes how I should resolve clash debates, so explain why winning framework matters, and how you win the debate even if you lose framework.
Winning an alt isn't totally necessary, but it is helpful. Explain how the alt solves the links but the perm doesn't.
I'm good for technical, well-defended K tricks - link turns case, floating piks, PIPs, epist first, etc. These strategies should not be vague or underexplained by the end of the 2NR.
Aff: 2ACs should contextualize perms to the links. You need to answer their theory of power - defense to theirs and an alternative theory of power. Leverage your 1AC - impact turns, case outweighs, net benefit to the perm, etc.
2ACs should read multiple theory arguments, and don't be afraid to go for them.
Condo isn't necessarily good or bad, you don't need to win in round abuse but it helps.
Slow down and clash, don’t spread through blocks at top speed.
My topic knowledge is minimal, so I don't have a great understanding of what "core of the topic" actually is, and the interp debate is extra important.
Slow down in these debates and impact it out in the 2NR.
Case lists and examples of lost ground/functional limits are good.
I default to competing interpretations but think reasonability is fine. Either way, explain what it means for resolving the debate.
Specific links and explanations > topic links.
Couch turns case arguments into the internal link when possible.
Judge kick is probably bad and I won't do it unless instructed to.
Good analytics can beat a bad DA.
2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)
2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)
2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)
2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)
2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)
2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)
2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)
2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)
2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).
Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: firstname.lastname@example.org
If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.
Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.
*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*
You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.
Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.
I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.
If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.
In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.
Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.
It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.
I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.
People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.
I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.
I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.
Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.
I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.
Kritiks on the Negative:
I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments
Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.
Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:
I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.
Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.
Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.
Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.
I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.
Things that are bad, but people continually do:
Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.
Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.
Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.
Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.
Refusing to disclose.
Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.
Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.
Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.
Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)
4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.
6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.
I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.
I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:
1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.
2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.
3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.
4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.
5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.
6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.
That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.
A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.
B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.
C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.
Updated Last: May 4, 2023
Email: christian.d.jones[at]gmail.com (yes, I would like to be on the chain)
Experience: Head coach for 11 years.
My General Paradigm
Debates must be fair and winnable for both sides, but debaters may argue what is and is not fair. Debaters may try to convince me which particular instance of debate ought to occur in each round. I will try to have an open mind, but I do have likes and dislikes.
I prefer debaters to ensure clarity before trying to accelerate. I can handle speed, but if I can't understand it, it doesn't get flowed. If I am being honest, I would estimate that I can catch almost every argument at about 85% of top speed for the national circuit. But if you brake for taglines and present them in a unique vocal inflection, top speed is not a problem.
I will only intervene if I feel I absolutely have to. I prefer that debaters to help me decide the debate. Comparative arguments will usually accomplish this. Extrapolations in rebuttals are acceptable if they are grounded in arguments already on the flow. Arguments that are extremely offensive or outright false may be rejected on face.
I enjoy and find value in a variety of argumentation styles as long as they do not preclude a debate from taking place. A debate must have clash.
The 1AC presents their argument to a blank slate. If you want to change this, you will need an interpretation and to be clear on the criteria for winning the round. This criteria should offer both sides the possibility of winning the debate.
Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)
If you want me to vote on a proposed rule violation, then you need to win the complete argument. You must win that you have the best interpretation, that the other team has violated your interpretation, that your interpretation is good for debate, and that the offense is a voting issue. If you want to argue that the other team is breaking the rules, then you have the burden of proof. Procedural arguments may also urge a lesser punishment, such as, excluding the consideration of an argument.
I do not want to proscribe specifics when it comes to kritiks, but I do want to see clash and comparative argumentation in any debate. I prefer Ks that are germane to the topic or affirmative case in some way. I like kritiks that have a clearly defined alternative. Alternatives that propose something are preferable to 'reject' or 'do nothing' type alts. I am not a fan of ontological arguments, especially nihilistic ones. If you choose to enter the debate space, you have already ceded certain assumptions about reality.
I am open to any type of counterplan, but all arguments are subject to the standard of fairness determined in the debate round. That said, if you are going to read a counterplan, it should probably have a solvency card.
My experience includes 4 years of LD debate throughout high school as well as extemporaneous speaking and congressional debate. In college I competed on a national circuit in parliamentary style debate, LD Policy debate, and extemporaneous speaking. I’ve intermittently judged high school LD, policy, and congressional debate for the past 10 years. I consider my paradigm to be part tabula rasa, part games. I try to let the debaters determine the type of round it will be and I will vote on whatever the best and most logical arguments are. If a debater is able to logically defend their position as the most advantageous or the least disadvantageous, then I will vote on it regardless of how unrealistic or absurd it may be. I enjoy Kritiks, but they need to be well understood and ran with intention. I will listen to pretty much any argument as long as it links and you can defend it. I will vote on topicalities but I prefer to hear attempts at creative argumentation. I don’t mind speed but I prefer articulation over a larger quantity of arguments and my flow will be reflective of how clearly the speaker is communicating their arguments.
Email chain email@example.com
Fine with speed
Make sure you kick out of stuff right
Good for the K and Policy, generally more experienced with policy affs and flex negative strategies.
Hi I'm Mitchell or Scotty, either work, I did 4 years of high school debate for Riverfield Country Day School. I Currently Debate for Michigan State University. Competing at both the local and national level.
I decided to scratch most of my prewritten paradigm, it felt like debaters tried to overadapt to what my preconceived biases are, when I should be trying to evaluate a debate. So I'll leave it at this, win your arguments and win the debate, and I'll vote for you, generally regardless of what it it (exceptions for inherently problematic arguments like sexism, racism, ableism, etc.)
Cool with everything, run what you want (yes even strange things like wipeout), I generally have a soft spot for the fun but completely unrealistic arguments. Not a bias so much as an acknowledgment that I will in fact vote for it if you win.
I'm generally pretty open to debate how the debaters want to debate. Things I don't have patience for are sexism, racism, ableism, etc. and "progressive debate bad" arguing Ks are an invalid strat or speed is bad for comprehension is not super persuasive for me. (Note about speed, if you have a reason for a more conversational speed round, feel free to ask for one before the round, the other team should honor this, but trying to catch a team with either a speed K or speed theory when you didn't ask for no speed is not persuasive to me)
if you have questions, feel free to ask before rounds and feel free to reach out post-round.
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.
General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.
Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.
Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)
- Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
- Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
- Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
- Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
- Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.
Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)
- Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc. Internal links matter.
- CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
- Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
- Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
- Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
- Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
- Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
- Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."
Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)
- I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate. The Aff. can object, of course.
- Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
- Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
- Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
- You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
- Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
- The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
- I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.
Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)
- Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
- It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
- A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
I debate for the University of Kansas. I'm currently coaching for Blue Valley North. I worked with a lab at Michigan for a little while this summer and judged a lot of practice debates.
Grumpy stuff. Do not ask for a marked document. If the number of cards marked in a speech is excessive, I will ask for a marked document. Asking what cards were read is either CX time or prep time. Prompting needs to stop. Past the first time, I will not flow the things your partner prompts you to say.
I dislike bad arguments. I think most debaters understand what these are: hidden aspec in the 1NC, reading paradoxes as solvency arguments, counterplans which assassinate anyone, etc. If your ideal negative strategy involves more nonsense than specific discussions of the affirmative, we probably don't think about debate the same way.
Evidence matters a lot. Debaters should strive to connect the claims and warrants they make to pieces of qualified evidence. If one team is reading qualified evidence on an issue and the other team is not, I'll almost certainly conclude the team reading evidence is correct. I care about author qualifications/funding/bias more than most judges and I'm willing to disregard evidence if a team raises valid criticisms of it.
Kritiks. The links are the most important part of the kritik. If I have a hard time explaining back exactly what bad thing the 1AC did or assumed, I will have a hard time voting for you. When I sit on panels, it's often because I have a higher threshold for negative links. Please tell me the implication of your framework arguments. "1AC = object of research" is a common framework interp, but I don't exactly know what it means for me as a judge (are the consequences of the plan ever a factor? how do I determine whether the alt is competitive? what is each team's condition for victory?).
Planless affs. Recently, a lot of the K aff vs framework debates I've judged have consisted of teams reading framework and AT framework blocks into their computers as fast as possible with very little engagement with their opponents arguments. In these debates, you will win more in front of me if you attempt to answer the specific things your opponent said and communicate your arguments to me at a slower than average pace. I will try to be more ruthless about clearing people and giving lower than average speaks if this doesn't happen. Affs, I'm a better judge for evidence based criticisms of the topic's education then generic "T/FW is bad" arguments.
Topicality against plans. I am more willing than other judges to take a "you know it when you see it" approach to topicality. Overly limiting interpretations that most affs at the tournament would violate are not very persuasive to me. I am willing to vote on vagueness or aff conditionality if the affirmative only reads the resolution as their plan, but if the plan says "the US should adopt a federal jobs guarantee," there is not a definition of "federal jobs guarantee" that will convince me that aff is untopical.
Things which will make your speaker points higher: exceptional clarity, numbering your arguments, good cross-x moments which make it into a speech, specific and well-researched strategies, developing and improving arguments over the course of a season, slowing down and making a connection with me to emphasize an important argument, not being a jerk to a team with much less skill/experience than you. I decide speaker points.
You're welcome to post-round or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.
Email for document sharing/evidence chains: email@example.com
I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 14 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.
LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I don’t like Ks or anything based entirely on theory with no actual clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.
PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash. Again, I don’t like Ks or anything based entirely on theory.
CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) I do not traditionally like Ks because I feel like there is always a performative contradiction. If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.
General Things ~
Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.
Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.
Don't advocate for atrocities.
Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)
email chain/contact info: firstname.lastname@example.org
truman state university recruiting: email@example.com
about me: I did policy, congressional debate, and extemp in HS. I was an NSDA elimination round qualifier in 2020. I am currently a senior NFA-LD debater at Truman State. Debate is a game, that I am very passionated about! Have fun!
ETHICS ISSUES: Don't scream. Be Kind. Don't Cheat! Don't card clip. Repeated Interrupting and yelling in CX is a voter.
'22-'23 NATO: I have done relatively little judging/coaching on this topic, so don't expect me to know the ins and outs of what affirmatives/off case are generally ran.
Tech > Truth: I am anti-judge intervention, so I default to tech as reasonably as I can. Dropped args are generally true so long as there is some extension of a warrant. I will read cards - so at the very minimum at least make sure your evi. is somewhat coming to the conclusion you say it does. If the card is completely dropped, my threshold for this is pretty low but don't misconstrue evidence -> that's probably not good for debate.
Speed: Speed is my preference as a competitor. I do not love speed as a tool to exclude individuals from debate, (just make sure your opp is good with speed, and we're good!). Slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.
T/Theory: Big fan, if you do it well. The 2NR/2AR should collapse solely to the theory page. There should be an interp, vio, standards and voters in the shell. I'll vote on potential abuse if there is a clear warrant for why I should. Love a good TVA. I default to competing interps, but can be swayed.
Disclosure: Neg and aff should disclose full-text new positions on the wiki.Hard debate is good debate. I'm from a smaller school, and have fully disclosed all of my debate rounds. I highly encourage debaters to disclose, it makes you better. Don't false disclose.
Disads: I pref aff-specific links. If you collapse to DA/Case, give me an overview on top and do lots of impact comparison.
New in the 2: Not a fan, unless it's justified - i.e. a new theory sheet because of in-round abuse. New impact scenarios are fine, but I'll give a lot of mercy to the 1ar.
Counterplans: One condo CP/K is fine. The more conditional CPs/Ks you run, the lower my threshold gets. Not a huge fan of multi-plank CPs. I default to judge kick, but can be persuaded on why judge kicks are bad - or why I shouldn't. I won't vote solely on a solvency lens - you need to win the net benefit. I lean aff on PIC theory but certainly can be persuaded.
Kritiks (Neg): Please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading -- that's the best way to avoid any specific K biases I might have. I enjoy it if you can clearly explain what the K does & what the alt looks like. Well versed on cap, militarism, security and fem. Specific K links will always be more compelling than generic ones. It's probably good for debate that the aff can be weighed against the K. Utopian fiat is legit. I like alts that do something.
Kritiks (Aff): My philosophy has evolved over time but I used to be pretty against K affs without a plan text/advocacy statement. I think debate rounds are ?probably? more beneficial if there is a clear stasis point. With that being said I find some framework arguments particularly persuasive -- tell me why the debate space solves, and how that outweighs fairness claims and such. Kritikal advantages are fun and cool.
Case: I LOVE turns and I will vote on them if they are impacted out properly. Do not expect me to vote on a dropped turn if you do not weigh it in the round. Case debate is a lost art for the negative, I award high speaks to debaters who do quality evidentiary analysis.
Fun Speaks: clever tasteful APPROPRIATE humor in round is rewarded w/ speaker points :)
Counterplans/Kritiks: I do not think the wording of the LD resolution warrants counter-proposals - "ought" implies that it is morally a good idea to affirm - not that it is the best idea. I lean aff on theory here.
Broken Arrow HS ‘19 (LD 4 years)
Mo State '23 (NDT/CEDA + NFA LD 3 years)
GTA @ Wichita State
Conflicts: Broken Arrow, Tulsa Union, Truman, Pembroke Hill, Maize South, Missouri State
These are just my random thoughts about debate collected into one place. If you do what you do well, you will be fine.
Policy first, NFA LD next, then HS LD at the bottom -- if there is no specific section for either LD format assume it’s the same as policy or ask me questions pre round! :)
You can call me Lauren or judge.
yes open cx - yes you can sit during cx - yes flex prep
tech > truth
!!:) please send out analytics :)!!
Please provide trigger warnings if there is graphic descriptions of violence against fem people included in your arguments
I enjoy watching these debates, but that does not mean I am the best judge. Read that again. I think that K debates are educational, and make debate interesting - but I am not an expert on the argument.
I am not familiar with all the literature. I am the most familiar with Set Col, Fem, Cap, and Security. Despite having read Bataille and Baudrillard in my last year, I do not understand PoMo lit (life of the 1N).
At the beginning of the round, I start with the assumption that the 1AC should be weighed. Framework can change this assumption. I prefer K affs that are related to the topic OR the debate space. I enjoy watching performance K affs even if I am not the best judge to grasp it.
I believe fairness (procedurally or structurally) is not an impact. I believe it is an internal link.
I love a good TVA - but I would prefer it be creative to the aff and carded to demonstrate that it could solve the aff's offense.
I believe perf con is bad and can be a voting issue. I think some perf con violations are worse than others. Reading spark and set col is probably worse than cap and case defense.
I'm starting to believe I prefer movements / material alternatives over reject / thought project alternatives. I find myself easily persuaded by arguments that alternatives lack the means to resolve the links and impacts. I like when alternatives are specific in what they accomplish in the block.
We should kick the alt more if we're losing it. Just a thought.
I LOVE perm debates. I am a sucker for creative perms that are specific to the alternative. If you execute this strategy correctly, you will be rewarded.
Consult CPs are cheating and I am 100% more than willing to die on that hill.
Net benefits should be identified by the block.
I used to believe infinite condo was good, now I do not. I think condo is good to an extent. I feel like I could sit here and list off random numbers, but I think it comes down to the round. Maybe an update to come after judging more NDT rounds.
I default to judge kick.
I LOVE T - but that does not mean I'm always voting negative.I need a clearly articulated violation and impact. A lot of T debates talk a lot about how the aff is untopical - but they don’t get into why topicality matters. If I determine a team to be untopical, but there's no impacts, there's no reason for me to vote them down.
In round abuse should be present, but I also believe that setting a precedent for the community might be more important.
I think grounds and limits are both good arguments, but I find I am more persuaded by limits. Going for either is fine.
High schoolers - there is a 99% chance I will not vote for topicality if you do not extend it for the entire 2nr. Less than the entire speech is not enough to make a coherent T argument in my opinion.
I LOVE ptx.
I stop flowing after time elapses and you finish your sentence. anything else after will not be on my flow. Time constraints are for a reason. I will finish writing what I am writing, and hold up my hands. If you're still talking, I will interrupt.
I don't have a good poker face. Take that as you will.
My newest pet peeve is reading the first sentence of a card and then marking it and acting like gets you anything. It doesn't.
I will vote on arguments about violence in rounds i.e. racism, misgendering, etc. I think debate should be a safe space for folks. If I find a debater engages in violent behaviors in round, I will give you the lowest speaks Tab will let me assign.
Otherwise, I am extremely generous with speaker points.
NFA LD has some norms that are different than policy so I will try to establish my thoughts on some of those in here.
yes spreading - yes disclose - yes email chain - (sigh) yes speech drop
Will vote on disclosure theory IF it's egregious. I think empty wikis are probably bad after attending 2 tournaments. I think if every aff they've ever read is uploaded, even if not every round is, zeroes the impact. I think not disclosing an aff 15 minutes prior to the round is probably bad if no wiki entries or multiple affs on the wiki. TLDR: nondisclosure has to actually inhibit your pre round prep.
I think mandating an inherency contention is silly, UQ from the advantages can answer this.
Solvency advocate theory is cowardice. If the aff doesn't have a solvency advocate, then... you should... be able to beat it...
Will vote on speed bad due to accessibility concerns. I have some thoughts on how to go about this if there is an accessibility issue. If we are doing online, I personally believe it would be easier to say no speed period than to put a cap on speed. I find it is harder to "clear" the debater online sometimes. If we are in person - then a speed cap would be fine. I expect both debaters to adhere to a no spreading / speed cap on the round.
For condo, my thoughts differ from policy and HS LD. With a 6 minute 1ar, that allows the affirmative more time to answer NC arguments. Therefore, unlike in HS LD, 2 CPs are probably my max. However, if the 2 CPs are polar opposite worlds (ex - US should engage in bilat relations with China vs US should first strike China) I would be willing to err affirmative. Kicking planks is probably bad. Judge kick is probably bad. Basically, make sure your CPs aren't abusive, and I'm good.
Stop being scared to put offense across the pages in the 1ar.
Bad DAs can be beat with analytics and impact D.
Update your ptx UQ cards.
Call out people's crappy case cards.
Cut better case cards.
I hate underviews.
I prefer 1/2 off in depth debates to shallow 3/4 off debates in LD - I find that by the end of the round if there is more than 2 off I am left doing a lot of work for teams simply because there was not enough time to cover every necessary component in an argument.
Underviews are fine.
I find myself voting for the K more often in LD than I do in policy. I am not super familiar with all the lit, so I might not be the best for KvK. If you're about to have a KvK round in front of me, make sure to explain the interactions between both theories. I very much enjoy Policy v K rounds. I think FW is very important and so is alt solvency. Kicking the alt is ok if you're losing it.
RVIs aren’t real and I will never vote on them unless there is literally 0 (and I mean 0, not a single word said) arguments on it. even then, I will be extremely sad. please don't go for it.
1 CP is fine - 2 is too many (hint hint: i am very aff leaning on condo)
Theory in LD is wild to me. I am not the best judge for silly theory tricks. The theory I am most willing to vote on is condo and perf con. Second most willing is any other policy theory arg. If you're wondering about a specific theory arg feel free to ask me pre round.