HS policy debate and 2 years of college NDT and LD @ MSU

email: arwa7654@missouristate.edu

General

psa this is a work in progress and will change as a judge and debate more xoxo

they/she/he (switch it up!)

coppell '23 || wake forest '27

send docs hunniya.ahmad@gmail.com-pls pls pls make the subject the tournament, round, & year!!!

credentials because people seem to care??: debated for coppell high school 4 years as an LDer, attended NSDA NATS as a freshman in policy, qualified to TFA state 3 years consecutively, qualified to TOC junior + senior year with 4 career bids not including 5+ bid rounds, breaking to doubles and achieving eighth speaker my senior year. coached middle school debate for 2+ years and have taught 3+ debate camps. have experience in policy, LD, and PF, currently coaching 4 ish HS debaters as well

dont be racist, sexist, homophobic, yada yada u down and i nuke ur speaks. if u feel unsafe in a round or need to talk about anything i am always here just shoot me an email <3

WSD:

Barely dabbled in this event so don't know a lot about event specifics- will most likely end up judging heavily on argumentation and who is winning the overall flow- so more techy than your traditional wsd judges due to my event background- just do your thing and I'll follow along

I find refusing alot of Pois, or asking too many a little frustrating! find the happy medium. Most of my worlds schools understanding comes from watching Coppell Black debate!!. I like the affect of the later speeches but make sure they resolve any argumentative concerns- especially the four. So I have a high expectations for 3s making the round clear and concise, and 2s to do a decent amount of line by line (getting all the arguments needed out there). The 1 should have emotion in their voice, and be engaging with presenting the information.

I like speeches that start with a creative introduction, I think they make the round more engaging and will boost speaks.

I love when debaters start with their offense first! makes stronger speeches

Shortcuts:

these are based on my ability to judge/understanding not personal preferences meaning you can read what you want just tell me how to evaluate it! tldr if ur good at it i dont care what you read just win. im human and have predispositions but my goal is to be trasnparent about them and let you guide my ballot

1- K v K, Policy v K, K v Phil, Traditional

2- Policy v Policy, T, Theory

3- Phil v Policy

4- Phil v Phil, Tricks

Trad

i care tons about weighing and worlds analysis to help me determine the winner. organization is ur best friendi use framework to filter which offense matters- if you dont do this it comes hard to adjucate I need you to not be two ships passing in the night and do the argument interaction work for me.

Counterplans

explain to me how their competitive + net benefits. process counter plans, pics, advantage counterplans are all a green light. im more likely to buy less probable impacts if there's a counterplan that solves the aff so da + cp is a pair that I respect

permutations are test of competitions but can reolsve many concerns on the cp-- they need a text and explanation beyond perm do both that gets blown up later. you should be explaining how the perm shields the link I find it highly persuasive. if ur gonna go for severance as a da to the perm impact it out or it wastes time and explicate how the links are das to the perm.

Disads

care so much about link analysis and the i/l chain, but other than that do ur thing. most impact turns r good except things like death good.

do evidence comparison it can make and break this debate, I hate outdate evidence on things that recency matter for.

K

yes! I read queerpess, cap, security, afropess, psychoanalysis and have an understanding of set col, identity ks but will need hand holding through baudy and any way high theory stuff. organize the 2nr, tell a story, ks dont need an alt but if they have one prove solvency, framing matters as how I evaluate the k and if I evaluate the post fiat impacts of the aff- how I come to that conclusion is up to you. the more specific a link is the more likely I am to vote for you.

contrary to popular belief im not a k hack- clash of civ debates are my favorite andI do vote on extinction own---> just win it

I need a k 2nr to be not 6 mins of reading ur backfiles but actual engagement w the 1ar these debates are most likely lost when you don't explicitly shut the door son 2ar outs and tell me where to flow ur prewritten stuff in the context of the 1ar

when answering a k win u weigh the case I buy clash most as a warrant but also eval fairness etc, if THEY CONCEDE CASE and you go for extinction OWS I am very likely to vote for you -- k debaters answer case or shut the dooorrrr on their access to it that doesn't rely on securitization of threats (bc you concede one is real)

K affs

I will not vote for u just because you read on- dont just do it for me (me having read it means my bar may be higher and so on).

what does the aff do? why do you need the ballot? why not defend the topic? are all questions that arise I expect to be answered in the debate. I won't vote for something I dont understand. performance rocks you do ur thing just justify it. contrary to popular belief- I WILL VOTE ON T- if you dont win your model. yes im the girl who read queer muslim futurity so be as creative unique fun and fresh with what you read and how you embody it

I need to be able to tell u what the aff is in the rfd. If I cannot you WILL NOT get my ballot.

TFW

my brain has tons of thoughts.

debate is a game but that game has value- means yes fairness matters but to what extent is for you to instruct me on. im more persuaded by clash and education 2nrs than anything that sounds like whining to me. definitions may be important but you have to win they are- world comparison on this flow is a make or break for me. contextualize it too the aff.

Theory

have voted on it when its executed well, I default to c/I and drop the debater but you can convince me otherwise. the more frivolous a shell is the less of a bar i have for responses so on and so forth. I enjoy judging this if you do it well

disclosure is good at bid tournaments but if ur a novice/small school debater who doesn't know what the wiki is just say that + error to reasonability and I won't vote you down! evading disclosure for competitive benefits is something I disagree with

yes ill vote on most theory shells just win competing interp and dont make it silly like shoe theory!!! I value tech a ton so if its conceded and no reasonability warrants it doesn't matter what the shell is if it has a voter.

Phil

I dont get this especially beyond Kant so be slow, explanatory and pretend your teaching it to a flay judge. some concepts click with me and ill nod but some fly over my head so watch my facial expressions. I will vote on it if you win it I just need hand holding through understanding it- again I can vote on it ONLY if I understand it

This is the hardest thing for me to judge as it confuses me ALOT because I just haven't delved into these philosophers as much as you. Tell me how this standard concession on framing means u win, tell me how you filter out their offense teach me why consequentialism doesn't matter.

Tricks

t I think these suck for debate so will take tons of convincing and slow/clear explanations, no I will not vote for any eval after x speech arguments but if you convince me to vote for ur apriori good for u i guess? ive come to the conclusion if you win it ill vote on it but the bar for responses is on the floor also pls tell me why the conceded thing means you win and dont assume I know why

Speaks/Notes

tech>truth to an extent, be clear and i dont care how fast you are- ill say clear but also my body language is really obvious! if I look confused I am.

I give speaks yes on speaking but also strategy + organization. make me smile and maybe ill up ur speaks ;). I dont like speaks theory. I will nuke ur speaks out of spite. Just do better !!

sitting down early or using less prep is a power move and a slay- ill reward u heavilyin speaks if u do it and crush the win.

NUMBER UR ARGUMENTS PLEASE

the more you split ur 2nr the less likely it is i will vote for you- ur arguments wont be fleshed out enough AT ALL

I have adhd and may or not be on meds when I judge you depending on the day- we love clear slow down moments and organization bc it helps me tons when im not medicated!! before 930am and after 830pm are times when you need to keep this in mind

along those lines pls be a nice person- your energy carries into the room and debate should be a positive place of community

ask me questions! if you disagree with my decision feel free to respectfully inquire about it-just key wordrespectfully andI loveeee helping people talk to me ill work with you on anything

I like when u make my decision easy- do it :)

Please turn your camera on for online debate.

The later in the day it is the more slow + judge instruction heavy I expect you to be

Tech judge. Please do not do off time road maps unless if you say where you are going to start and end on the flow. Please keep it below 5-10 seconds.

Hi! My name is Raif, I debated PF from 2016-2020 at local, state, and nat circ tourneys in the northeast. I coached TOC qualifying and judged extensively from 2020-2022. Once we are in the round, I will provide my email for a email evidence chain or a google doc whichever u prefer. On any other event than PF you can treat me like a well meaning lay judge.

PF:

General Stuff:

-I live for the line by line debate, a rebuttal that clearly signposts what part of a contention that the second speaker will be responding to and then applying responses that are actually responsive and not just topshelf is awesome, and same thing goes for summaries/final foci. "Big picture/voters style debate" is tolerable, but nothing beats a good line by line round.

-All Offense(Contentions, Turns, or Disads) has to be properly FRONTLINED(Improperly frontlining is when you just straight up extend through ink pretending that explaining your link story actually responds to your opponent's response when it clearly doesn't or drop any response on any argument you collapse on), EXTENDED(An extension that isn't sufficient is one that extends a link, but then drops the impact, or just only extends an impact without a link, please do both), and probably WEIGHED in BOTH SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS IN ORDER TO BE EVALUATED. In non-debate jargon: Explain the arguments you want me to vote for you off of, answer your opponent's responses, and explain why your arguments are more important than your opponents in both summary and final focus.

-WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS. "Weighing" by saying "we outweigh on probability and magnitude" with no further explanation is not weighing. You genuinely have to compare your impacts or links and explicitly explain why I prefer one link or impact over the other. Weighing will boost your speaks, but weighing by just using buzzwords with no additional analysis will make me physically cringe. Don't take advantage of Probability/Strength of Link Weighing to read new link or impact defense that wasn't in the round already. If you start weighing in rebuttal, +.5 speaks for you and an imaginary cookie! The only time I will accept new weighing in either final foci is if there has literally been no weighing in the past speeches by either side(if u reach this scenario, your speaks won't be as high compared to if yall started weighing earlier).

-Turns read in the first rebuttal have to be responded to in the second rebuttal, or I consider it as a clean line of offense for the first speaking team(hey first speaking team you should probably blow that up!). The second rebuttal probably should also frontline defensive responses for strategic purposes, but that is not mandatory.

-UPDATE: 3-minute summaries require defense to be extended in first summary.Because of 1st Summary not being able to definitively know what the second speaking team is collapsing on in summary and final focus, 1st Final Focus CAN extend defensive responses from rebuttal to Final Focus ONLY IF the response was dropped(uncontested). That being said, I would much rather prefer if you could also extend the responses you want to collapse on in FF be in summary too. Please don't say a certain response was dropped when it wasn't. If a link turn is read by a team in rebuttal, and then is not read in summary, but is dropped by the opposing team in their summary, I am willing to evaluate the turn as terminal defense in final focus if the team who read it in rebuttal decides to extend the response in their final focus.

-If there is no offense at the end of the round I will presume the status quo(default con), but before that I will try to find some trivial piece of offense on on the flow that may seem insignificant to the debate if it comes to that(please do not let it come to that).

-Signpost: If I can't tell where you are on the flow, then I cant flow what you say, and that sucks for everyone!

-Warranted analytic>Carded response with no warrant most of the time

-Tech>Truth

Lay-------------Flay---------X---Tech

-Defesne is sticky, even if a response isnt extended in summary and final, if said response was read onto one of the arguments that would be collapsed on in the latter half of the round, I would be more hesitant to vote off of that argument compared to other arguments collapsed in the latter half of the round that have less ink on them or no ink that hasnt been frontlined.

-For concessions in crossfire to be evaluated, CONCESSIONS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH.

Speed:(<275 Words Per Minute)

-Please don't spread, you can honestly just work on your word economy!

-I’ve been less involved recently, and if it’s online please speak at a normal pace.

-Def pref 180-200wpm the most but above that is bearable untill 275wpm.

-If you can speak CLEARLY AND QUICKLY, you should be fine!

-If you go fast, and I yell clear more than twice, your speaks are getting docked(there is literally no educational or tangible real-world benefits made from spreading so quickly that neither I nor your opponents can comprehend your arguments).

-Quality of responses>Quantity of response

I trust you to count your own prep time, please do not abuse that.

Theory/Ks/Other Progressive Args:

-As someone who debated mainly in the Northeast, I don't know how to evaluate progressive arguments because I have never really debated them nor have I been exposed to them much. I am open to hearing them and don't plan on hacking against them, but I would much rather not have to judge fast progressive rounds if I do not have to.

-2 exceptions tho:

A) Impacting to structural violence if it is warranted, frontlined, and continuously extended in a logical and intuitive manner.

B) If your opponents are genuinely being abusive in the round, at that point you don't need to read a shell, just straight up say they are being abusive and warrant it quickly(i.e. "they read a new and unrelated contention in second rebuttal that does not interact with our case, that's abusive bc of timeskew.")

Evidence:

-I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible.

-Paraphrasing is okay so long as it is within the context of the actual evidence

-After two minutes(Im sympathetic to those w slow laptops bc I had one when I used to debate), if you can't get your evidence, I'm just not evaluating it, and we are moving on with the round. If want to use your team's prep time to still get the evidence after the two minutes, you can do that too if it is so important.

-Your speaks are getting DOCKED if you're misrepresenting evidence and I will drop the evidence/or even the argument entirely from the round based on how severe the misconstrual is.

-Unless the opposing team tells me miscut evidence means I should drop the debater and why, the team that miscut the evidence WILL NOT have an auto-drop.

These are the scenarios I call for evidence:

A) A debater tells me to in the round

B) It sounds hella sketch/too good to be true

C) It is important for my decision

-Evidence weighing or whatever is generally really cringe, but there are exceptions like in this vid(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siA9SmHyO7M&t=2610s) at 42:15.

Good luck, don't be mean, and have fun!

Experience

-I am a 3rd year College LD and NDT debater at Missouri State University

-Debated LD 3 years in High School

Contact

jusalb07@gmail.com

tl:dr

I debate primarily Ks in college

I'll flow anything and everything. If you make an interesting argument/value just make sure you explain it well. Evidence quality is better than quantity.

I understand the moral clash is essential to LD and what the debate should be focused around.

I feel like I have better understanding about the topic then a typical lay judge.

I debated primarily Ks in college

Spreading is in the nature of the debate beasts in the modern era…please keep it to 50% of your max.

I am a newer judge and coach, but I can appreciate all intellectually sound arguments. My largest concern is your understanding of your material and capability to defend it. 

High school LD in the dark ages before the internet. I prefer traditional LD, and arguments to be flowable. 

Superior logic, evidence, and skill in defending/refutation will always dictate my vote. In a very close race speaks will turn the tide in your favor. Strong presentation skills are part of the persuasive package.

Email Chain: cburnsdebate@gmail.com

I debate for Missouri State and am earning a bachelors of science in Geology.

I have very minimal topic knowledge for the high school topic; I won’t know the majority of your acronyms. I did cut a couple of files for a camp but nothing substantial.

Apart from the non-negotiables, everything, and I truly do mean everything, is up for debate.

Last substantive Change: April 10th, 2024 - Non-Negotiable section

Should I pref this fool? I answer with this: "I am a forest, and a night of dark trees: but he who is not afraid of my darkness, will find banks full of roses under my cypresses." (Nietzsche inThus Spoke Zarathustra)

Non-Negotiables

1---Arguments consist of claim, warrant, and impact. Anything less than these and I am woe to consider it.

2---What happened to clarity? I will not ever have speech docs open; the only thing on my computer will be a flowing spreadsheet and maybe some sort of chess stream or sports game should an important one be on.

3---I will be on the email chain.

4---Ethics violations (including clipping) and anything that is racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will all result in the immediate ceasing of the round and tab getting involved.

5---No analytics in a card doc lest they be plan, counterplan, or permutation texts.

6---Ad Homs are fallacious arguments that do not belong in the space of debate. I have not, and will not, ever vote on one of these; it is not my spot as a 20 year old to determine the character of someone. Ad Homs include, but are not limited too, twitter screenshots, wiki screenshots, hearsay, "you struck x person, so you are the lowest scum on earth", etc. This, and the aforementioned #4, are the only things that transcend my thoughts on tech over truth.

7---Cards must be highlighted to include complete sentences. If I go to read a card and cannot as a result of poor highlighting it will not influence my decision. In fact, it will probably make me much grumpier as a result of wasting already minimal decision time.

Top Level:

1---I will flow the debate and come to a decision off of the flow. I will read evidence if there are questions that I have about the flow. Please send a doc after the 2XR of the cards you extended in the speech. Do not send an 80 card doc. I will not read any because I don’t want to sift through so many cards that I take the debating out of your hands. Ideally, I read no cards. Realistically, I might read 4 or 5 per side.

2---I find that I am better for policy arguments than K arguments. If you’re going to read a K, I prefer kritiks rooted in epistemology over ontology. I find that when I do vote for the K, it's because the aff drops something like a sequencing claim or mishandles framework. I'd vote for the K more if there was more clash and less "go to the link" or "go to the perms." LINE BY LINE IS THE WAY FOR EVERY DEBATE.

3---I am super tech over truth. Judges that create carve outs for arguments that they dislike are actively bad for the activity. If an argument is so bad that I shouldn't vote on it, then it shouldn't be that hard to beat it. The things below are my thoughts about debate and will often not implicate the way I decide the round. It is my job as a judge to decide based off of what is discussed in the round. The exception is an ethics violation which is a separate issue and will be decided based off of what the tournament has set forth as procedure.

4---People take this game of ours way too seriously. Some of my worst experiences come from people taking it too seriously. If you get to a point where you are yelling, constantly cutting your opponent off, or whatever else you think is justified in the eternal chase for a win that won’t matter in ten years, you will get your points tanked. We are all people who enjoy this game; you making it not enjoyable makes it really hard for people to want to join or come back.

DAs:

1---DA turns case should be the start of every speech in which the da is extended.

2---Link specificity matters a great deal to me. This isn’t to say that I’m not fine with generic links, but that I really do value aff-specific research.

3---Turn the impact not the link. Everyone will enjoy that debate a great deal more.

4---I have a soft spot for politics disads.

5---I generally start at the bottom (uniqueness) and work to the top (the impact) when deciding.

6---I’m not a fan of the DA isn’t intrinsic, or a logical policymaker would do both. The latter doesn’t make sense if the neg doesn’t read a counterplan that’s like “pass x bill.” The former just doesn’t make sense to me.

CPs:

1---I will not judge kick the cp. If you lose the perm then you probably lost the debate. The exception to this is if the aff makes an argument about perms being tests of competition in response to some negative concession of perm do the counterplan (or something similar) that equates the aff to the counterplan. This is probably the only thing I'm pro aff for. Judge kicking has never made intuitive sense for me; I'm woe to do it.

2---I think the ideal 2NR with a cp + external net benefit is ideally 2:30 cp and 3:30 disad.

3---Condo is probably good. That's up for debate though. Most other theory is probably reject the argument; that all depends on how the arguments are presented to me.

4---I think that counterplans like states, consult, delay, etc. lose to perm do the counterplan.

5---I enjoy well written advantage counterplans.

T vs Policy:

1---I think T against blatantly topical affs is a waste of time (i.e. NFU on the college nukes topic) (I think that we meet - plan text in a vacuum is more than enough in this instance). Just beat them on a disad.

2---I am good for well researched T arguments that are tailored to specific affs. These are often some of, if not the most, enjoyable debates.

3---I value voting for the interpretation that fosters the best debates possible. This isn’t to say that I won’t vote for reasonability; you need to win the technical level of things.

4---I think the most persuasive impacts are Limits > Clash > Ground.

T vs K Affs:

1---I have a slight preference to being topical. This isn't to say you'll auto lose, just that, if evenly debated, I'm more likely to err on the side of the negative. If you think you can out-tech your policy counterparts, you should pref me.

2---If you don’t defend a plan text, please read as much offense as you can in the debate. The best offense will be offense that operates independent of the counter-interp. I generally find myself thinking that impact turns are more persuasive than reasonability pushes.

3---That being said, a lot of the stuff that I said on T vs Policy about competing interps applies here.

4---Clash > limits > fairness. We debate so that we can have intricate arguments over government action.

5---A TVA that is from the author the aff is reading will be really good for you.

6---“We would lose to the perm” is not a good answer to the TVA.

7---Fairness is an impact, even if I think it's a bad one that is typically unpersuasive. I do tend to think of debate as a game; there are various aspects of it that do potentially shape the way we think politically.

K vs Policy:

1---Please do not read an overview that’s longer than 30 seconds. Put the extraneous parts of it onto the line by line.

2---I think the aff should be weighed. Either beat them on your framework or win under your opponents.

3---Links specific to the aff (NOT THE STATUS QUO) are very important to me.

4---Explain how the alt solves the aff. So many K teams will spend 2 minutes on an overview, 6 minutes on a link;1 minute of calling their opponent a racist. Do line by line, be clear and concise in the overview, and just be a better debater than your opponent.

5---I find people that get upset or angry at their opponents in K rounds often just tank ethos in front of me. We're literally just having a debate and nothing that happens in this round will matter in 10 years (barring a Towson vs. Fort Hayes or NDT final round (this is not targeted at any specific final round; I think that most people forget about all of the rounds in the year that aren't it) type of thing); stop acting like it will.

K vs K:

1---I enjoy these debates quite a bit. I find myself thinking about solvency the most when judging these.

2---I do value link specificity quite a bit. If you’re reading Bataille against an anti-blackness aff, I’d appreciate it if you read stuff about how the specific field of anti-blackness seals off the possibility of expenditure.

3---The perm debate will probably get muddled. Do your best to have it not be.

4---Impact comparison goes a long way. If you can explain why your impact outweighs/turns the case you’ll be doing very well.

5---I have a soft spot for Nietzsche in these rounds. His philosophy makes intuitive sense to me; it also clashes directly with what most K-Affs say.

6---I'm pretty familiar with most Ks. The exceptions are D and G, Derrida, and most existentialism (barring Nietzsche). I've recently been diving more into Lacan and all of the psychoanalysis that opens the world up too.

Misc:

1---I don’t know what speaker points are like at the high school level. On average, I give out a 28.4. If you make good strategic decisions and speak clearly, you'll get higher points. If you don't do that expect lower points. I think that speaker points are not a good tiebreaker because they are way too arbitrary; however, I'm not in charge of running the tournament. Sadly, speaker point inflation is a thing and once again, carve outs exist or boosts exist for reasons that threaten the integrity of the game. I personally think your opponents win/loss ratio is a much better measure of how good you are as a debater.

2---I appreciate humor in rounds. I don’t like listening to debate robots read through blocks that there coaches wrote for them.

3---I think that disclosure is good and that you should do it. I’ll give you a bump in speaks if you open source all your cards and pre-typed analytics. Just tell me that you did it or that you’re in the process of doing it. I probably won’t give as much of a bump if it makes it a low point win because it messes with tabulation and could potentially ruin the winning team’s chance of breaking.

4---I appreciate well formatted docs with yellow, blue, or green highlighting. Ideally, line by line happens. I realize that this is not always a possibility for whatever reason people tell themselves. You should do it and watch your results do much better.

5---I flow on computer. I would still appreciate some amount of time to switch between screens.

6---Some people that have been tremendous influences to me are: Eric Morris, Parker Hopkins, and Nathan Rothenbaum.

7---I encourage you to think of debate as a game of chess. It's all about capitalizing on your opponents mistakes. Good prep puts your opponents into a position where they are likely to make mistakes.

8---Inserting highlighting of evidence makes sense to me. The body was introduced by your opponents; you shouldn't have to re-read things they introduced.

9---Post-Round if you want. If you're being excessively rude I'll stop it. Excessively rude would mean that you are yelling at me for something that cannot be undone. I try to be very thorough and use as much decision time as possible.

10---Spend more time explaining things and less time reading cards in the block.

11---LOOK AT ME DURING YOUR FINAL REBUTALLS AND READ MY FACIAL EXPRESSIONS.

Above all, please be respectful to your opponents and me. I take judging very seriously and will be annoyed if you decide not be. Kindness costs nothing.

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

About me: I competed successfully in LD and in Parli in high school in a fairly traditional league. I am now an assistant parli coach for El Cerrito High School. I use she/her/hers. Generally, I am familiar with pretty much all standard argumentation in both LD and Parli. I am also more or less familiar with other less traditional stuff in LD, although my direct experience with specific progressive debate maneuvers may vary. I am a flow judge, but you still need to explain why the points you win matter, rather than just telling me “flow x points to us and that’s more than our opponent so we win.” This paradigm is to tell you what I think about particular strategies/techniques, not to tell you how you should debate - that's up to you!

GENERAL:

Logistics: Speak clearly and fluently; I dislike spreading. I will say “slow” or “clear” a couple times if you are too fast; after that I will put down my pen if I just can’t flow. Avoid all ad hominem attacks and pejorative or derogatory language. In events with CX (LD), be aware of the gender and race dynamics in the room and be respectful of your opponent’s CX time. Signposting clearly will help me flow better, which can only benefit you. I will listen as long as you are speaking but I will not flow after about 10 seconds after the timer has gone off. In partnered events (Parli) you can communicate with your partner, but I will only flow what the speaker says. Respect everyone’s identity in the round; one way in which you should do this is to provide/ask for pronouns and use everyone’s pronouns as desired.

Flowing: I will understand if you say something like “extend our second contention subpoint A to us, which gives us all the impacts,” but I will be much more convinced if you explain why the extension/drop/turn/whatever matters, both in the context of the round and in the real world. Impacts are where you get the win normally, but you should still provide clear link chains to said impacts. Also, it helps if you contextualize why your impacts are bad/good. You should weigh in the rebuttal/final speech to show me that you understand why your arguments matter, and how they stack up against your opponents’.

Debate is for you, not for me, and I will judge the round you give me.

PARLI:

Plans: Give me a plan text and some advantages/contentions and we’re good. Ideally if the resolution has any unclear terms, the aff would define them and hold fast to those definitions in their plan.

Counterplans: Be sure to explain your CP’s exclusivity/competitiveness (I think your CP can be competitive without being strictly mutually exclusive). I am receptive to most arguments about a CP’s competitiveness/fairness. If you run a CP that’s reallllly close to the plan (PIC), I will consider aff arguments on fairness based on the neg leaving very little ground for the aff. For perms, I’m receptive to both the perm and to the defense of the CP. I will consider PICs and the response.

Theory: Ideally, theory should not overshadow the substance of the resolution being debated. That said, if the clash in the round ends up being primarily on theory, obviously I will consider it. Articulate a clear violation and clearly link it to its impact on the round. Theory to me is not a style of debate but a way to check back against unfairness in debate.

Kritiks: I consider Ks more of an LD/policy thing but I will consider them if I see them in Parli. See the Kritiks section in LD below.

Evidence: Don’t make stuff up and don’t use outrageous sources and we’re good.

POIs: Feel free to attempt as many times as you want, but it is ultimately up to the speaker’s discretion how many they choose to accept.

POOs: I will listen to the POO claim and defense.

LD:

General: Provide a framework, ideally with a value and a value criterion. Explain how you derive this framework from the resolution and link every contention/argument back to how it achieves your framework. If you cite philosophy in your framework, be sure you understand the work/author/concept.

Plans: LD is a moral debate. Therefore, I believe that any plan you run should be thoroughly linked to your framework, and your framework to the resolution. In other words, explain to me how your plan upholds the value/moral statement in the resolution.

CPs: I think these only make sense if a plan was run by the aff. Also, a CP doesn’t absolve you from needing to clarify what framework you are defending, whether that’s the same as your opponent’s or not. My other views on CPs are above in the Parli section of my paradigm.

Theory: see theory section in Parli above.

Kritiks: I understand Ks and will consider them. Ideally, a K would have a clear explicit link to the wording of the res/the plan so as to demonstrate that the aff has clearly done something worthy of kritiking. I don't think Ks are inherently bad or good, so feel free to engage with the K however you like.

Cards: I usually accept whatever cards or evidence you read and I won’t ask to see them. I don’t love arguments about sourcing/source quality unless the source has a blatant bias or you can clearly explain something about why your study provides a more accurate/relevant conclusion. If your opponent asks to see your card, please provide it for them. If you take a while to do so, I will be lenient with the end time of their prep.

Hello! I am Christy Cruz from Travis Bryan High School.

I am a parent/Lay judge and I usually judge in the novice divisions, but in case I have to judge varsity, here are my Preferences.

1= I know and comfortable judging.

2= A little confusing, but I can understand.

3= Very confusing, but I will try to understand.

4= Way to confusing and likely won't understand. (Strike)

Traditional/UIL style- 1

LARP/Policy- 2

K- 3

K/Performance Affs- 4

Topicality-3

Theory- 4

Philosophy- 1

Stanford 24' is my first tournament on the HS topic

I debated at Missouri State for three years and had moderate success. I am now out of the debate community but judge every so often.

Email: engelbyclayton@gmail.com

TL;DR

I slightly prefer policy arguments more than critical ones. I want to refrain from intervening in the debate as much as possible. Extinction is probably bad. I think debate is good and has had a positive impact on my life. Both teams worked hard and deserve to be respected.

My beliefs

-Aff needs a clear internal link to the impact. Teams often focus too much time on impacts and not enough on the link story, this is where you should start.

-I like impact turns that don't deviate from norms of morality.

-Condo is good.

-Fairness is not an impact within itself but could be an internal link to something.

-Kritiks are interesting. Explain your stuff.

-Weighing impacts, evidence comparison, strategic decisions, and judge instruction can go a long way.

If you have any questions about my paradigm that aren't listed, ask me or email me before the round starts. If you have any questions about your ballot after the round, feel free to email me at thechemistlovescarbon@gmail.com

ANY TYPE OF -IST OR -OBIC ARGS/RHETORIC (INCLUDING INTENTIONALLY/REPEATEDLY MISGENDERING SOMEONE) WILL GET YOU AN L + THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS, AND A TALKING TO YOUR COACH AT MINIMUM.

Please don't yell in round. I experience migraines and if you are the cause of one, it will be a thornier path to my ballot.

Paradigms in order: Congress, LD (prog, trad), PFD, CX

Congress

I have high expectations because this is the only event in speech and debate that truly combines speaking and debating. I do not care how good your points are if I can't understand them, and I don't care how pretty you speak if all you're saying is empty words. Balance is key to succeed. The PO starts with the 1. Mistakes will lose you spots in the ranking, but you probably won't score lower than a 5 unless there are major issues. Also, just because you don't have the most experience doesn't mean you can't win an election. Just run! For speeches, sponsors have my gratitude (especially if nobody looks like they want to give it), and I will factor your willingness to sponsor into my ranking. Rebuttal speeches need to clap back against the opps. Specific callouts of others in the chamber and proving them wrong or expanding their point (depending on side) is going to help your ranking. Use others to climb your way up. This is debate battle royale! I like crystals, but make sure you accurately track the arguments of the round, because I am. No matter what type of speech or what order you're in, there is always a way to high ranks. CANNED SPEECH INTROS ARE BORING AND UNCREATIVE! BE ORIGINAL! I especially hate the penguin intro. For questions: sponsor and first neg is a double edged sword. If you can fend off four attackers and expand your points, that's amazing. If you get picked apart in questioning, it's your own fault. GOOD QUESTIONS CAN UP YOUR RANKING! GOOD ANSWERS TO GOOD QUESTIONS CAN TOO! For amendments, I like them, but that doesn't mean your chamber will. If you're going to try to pass an amendment, it needs to actually fix an inherent issue within the bill, and I need to hear a reason articulated in a speech (whether it's a neg -> propose amendment or an amendment speech) for WHY the amendment is necessary. If your amendment passes I will factor that into your ranking. ALSO: if other people in your chamber have said "hey, let's get as many speeches as possible by not passing amendments" that doesn't mean you can't try, but that does mean it probably won't pass. And failed amendments ARE a waste of time for the chamber. ALSO ALSO: splits are not binding. They are a verbal agreement in the chamber. Do what's best for you.

On jargon: I've honestly never been a big fan but you literally cannot be competitive in certain circuits without it. I won't hold it against you, unless I hear "Senator ___ hasn't proven an internal link for their third impact." You can talk about links, warrants, impacts, uniqueness, etc., but remember this isn't a policy round. This is a mock congress, so try your best to sound like it.

Prog LD

Speed is fine just put me on the speechdrop, don't spread your tags/analytics or you risk them not being on my flow. Also don't spread your opp out, I think it's bad for the activity and I am willing to vote on T shells/speed ks that prove that. That being said if you spread your opp out and they just take it you'll probably win, but you'll have bad speaks and I will tell you that the way you debate makes our community worse. I'm not fond of TRICKS but I'll vote for them if explained. T is fun. I really like K's and K affs, both ontological and epistemological, just explain them throughly (especially for your alt or how the K-aff solves). I think it's important to link to the aff/res with a k, but if you think otherwise prove it in round with evidence. I love method debates on alts. Performance is fun, just please have cards that support how your method of performance is good/neccesary for whatever argument you're making. CP's/counteradvocies that aren't the squo are great on neg, just show me mutual exclusivity and a net benefit the aff can't achieve. I really enjoy framework heavy debate, LD should be about philosophical defenses or attacks of argument. Tech = Truth, you should be telling me in round whether I should value truth>tech or tech>truth if it's important for the decision. I don't judge kick. If you're kicking an arg, tell me that. If you kick an arg with unresolved offense, RIP you. I may not be super familiar with all topics/arguments, but as long as it's explained well, I'm willing to vote for it. Extinction args are fine, I'm just as willing to vote for them as I am for SV based args (again, framing is important!). Evidence is important, but critical thinking is more important. You don't always need a card-for-card response if you have some crispy rhetoric that can cook. Also, READ STUDIES!! Read how a study was conducted, who it was conducted by, what it found, how it warrants its conclusions, the whole schbang. This will give you immensely more topic knowledge and allow you to engage in in-depth conversations. Jargon is fine, it's debate, it happens. Speak well and have rational arguments and you will do well.

Trad LD: Speak clearly and concisely, warrant your args, have good value/criterion debate. I am willing to vote for pretty much any position, so don't feel constricted by your circuit. Run the args YOU want to run.

PF

Evidence matters a lot. Context of evidence matters more, so contextualize it. Partner dynamic is also important, I want to vote for the winning team, not the winning person and partner they carried. CLASH CLASH CLASH! Clash wins rounds. Win where it matters on clash, too--if that means framing, win there and make the rest of the round easy. If it's impacts, do some impact calc to show me where I need to be voting in the round. First speakers, your job is to assert your team's worldview, problems in the squo/aff, and solutions to those problems that your team provides. In the defense speech you certainly should prop up your own points, but the best first speakers I've seen also begin the process of cross application of evidence for your your partner. Second speakers, your job is to tear apart the opponent's case, expose how and why their case doesn't solve/matter, and enforce how your opponent's reality is net worse than your reality in the final focus. I also flow cross, but it doesn't impact my decision unless you tell me where to apply it. Speak well, be respectful but assertive, and explain arguments well. I HAVE NEVER AND WILL NEVER ACCEPT THE POLICIFICAION OF PFD. IT LITERALLY HAS PUBLIC FORUM IN THE NAME. IT'S A FORUM OF DEBATE FOR THE PUBLIC. ANY SPEED/K/PLAN/CP/ANY SHENANIGANS WILL MAKE ME VERY SAD.

CX

I'll vote for anything, just explain and warrant your arguments. See my LD paradigm for techy/prog things.

University of Central Florida Alumnus

Four years of LD for Fort Lauderdale HS and former policy debater for UCF.
Pronouns: he/him/his

Email: delondoespolicy@gmail.com

***Avoid graphic explanations of gratuitous anti-black violence and refrain from reading radical Black positions if you are not Black.***

If you're rushing to do prefs here's a rough cheat sheet:

1- K and performance debates
2- framework debates, general topical debates
3- LARP debates and util debates
4- Theory/ Tricks debates

I will evaluate any argument so long as they are not morally repugnant, actively violent, or deeply rooted in foolishness. I can handle speed but due to the online setting, please go slower than you usually do. Also, be sure to properly extend and implicate your arguments in the debate as well, saying "extend X" and moving on doesn't really do much. In short, tell me why your arguments matter and why I should vote on/evaluate them. At the end of the day do what you do best—unless it's tricks and/or frivolous interps— and have fun doing it.

Email: gabrielgelsheimer@gmail.com

Hello welcome to my paradigm! First let me explain my experience to give you insight on how I will judge this round. I'm currently a NDT debater for Missouri State, I did policy debate in high school for two years. I did youth court for 5 years and have over 300 community service hours. I was also the mock trial team team captain. I did forensics debate my freshman year and senior year. I loved congress debate, and world schools was pretty cool. Below is what I'll be focusing on.

1. Debating harms, actual on case is what I would love to focus, make sure your link story makes sense, write my ballot for me
2. My background screams CX, I love it, it simplifies the debate, and where people can shine, lead people down a trap and sting them in their next speech, strong CX questions is a big focus for me
3. If you cant spread then don’t try. Mumbling really fast isn’t debating. With that said I don’t mind judging a spreding debate at all just make sure your clear when you speak. If one team is lay and the other spreads the spreading team has to conform to the lay team, otherwise the dynamic would be crazy.
4. I lean tech over truth. If you tell me the sky is red and the other team drops its, the sky is red.

All and all best of luck to you all during this debate and please be respectful towards each other

Hello! I'm Atticus Goswick (they/he). I've done Public Forum in high school, and NDT in college. With that being said, I love argumentation. I want the better argument, take what you need to convince me your side is better. Without being mean to your opponent. I hate it when people are mean. If sharing documents, I want to be in on it. Please add me at this email: oliver.goswick@gmail.com

I have an auditory processing disorder so I like to read what you're saying as I flow. I will flow CX, as it is binding. Overall be a good human and make good arguments.

email fyi: jlelandgranger@gmail.com

I will flesh this out more later. This paradigm is mostly geared toward policy but is somewhat applicable to LD/PuF as well.

Top-level: Read what you want. Judge instruction is key. I expect you to tell me why something should matter in a debate round -- this is especially true for K/T/Theory debates. I debate for MoState starting 2022, and did policy debate at MRH in a very lay St. Louis circuit 4 years in high school - as a result I'm more accustomed to policy-oriented debates but I don't necessarily have a strong preference for it.

Kritik: I'm not super well-versed in most K literature but I'm totally willing to listen to it, and I'll vote on it -- just be aware of that and be explicit in your explanations of things. I also find myself preferential to kritiks with a well-articulated alt - if I don't know or understand what the alt does I'll be hesitant to vote on it. In that sense, Ks that make the most sense to me may viably be described as a CP with some non-unique disadvantage, plus a framework for why I should prefer it. Kicking the alt and going for framework in front of me is fine, but I might be hesitant to vote on it if I think it's poorly explained, or you don't explain why 'they link' is sufficient for the ballot.

T: I think topicality is important. Bear in mind that doesn't necessarily obviate K affs, but at minimum I think that the Resolution should be a reference point - i.e. related in one way or another. Even if that 'relation' is just "the resolution is bad for X reason." Go for framework if you want. Debate about it. A lot of teams get away with reading policy affs that are either borderline or blatantly non-topical, so I'm more than comfortable with topicality in the 2NR.

Pretty much every other theory thing: I'm not thinking about a rulebook in a round I'm judging. Ever. You just follow speech times and don't do anything sketchy with evidence. Beyond that what is permissible is mostly up to you (i.e. theory debates).

Debaters should generally be nice to each other -- particularly outside of round. Unwarranted hostility or nasty remarks will impact your speaker points.

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Jovan Hernandez - LD Debate Judge

School Affiliation - Homestead High School

Email: chidori4444@gmail.com

Experience with Debate: I have competed in LD Debate for 3 years of my high school career and have gone on to compete in both State and Nationals. With that being said, I have 1 year of judging, so I hope to give out insightful and constructive ballots that'll help in the future. Also, to make sure, I am NOT a policy or PF judge, so, if I do judge that category, excuse my ignorance.

How I Judge:

Speed - I do not like speed, but as long as you're not spreading and going at a pace that Eminem would be jealous of, then we're good.

Framework - Your framework should relate to your case meaning that how your case goes has to be able to link into both your value and criterion. Frameworks should be relatively easy to understand and be easy to debate, however, if you're able to explain a hard-to-understand framework in rebuttals, then go for it.

Theory Cases - Do not do them. If you do a Theory case, do so at your own risk because I have little understanding of them and if you can't clearly define each parts of the case and how your case is better, Im not likely to pick it up.

K's - The most crucial thing for me is that the alternative has to be able to solve your opponent's harms and whatever you present as being flawed within the Status quo, if you can't do that and the opponent is able to argue that your alternative doesn't work, then it will be weighed heavily against you.

Clash - Clash should be both a battle of analysis and card attacks. Addressing the evidence within a card and the argument that surrounds the cards presented is crucial, so, being able to explain each card's faults and the faults of the case is needed, otherwise it's two debaters spewing facts(which do not care about your feelings) at each other.

Topicality - There has to be something that the debater (either NEG or AFF) has done within their cases that goes against the resolution meaning that the debater cannot use this argument because it's going against the resolution and can be disregarded.

Evidence Reading - This is absolutely HUGE. When reading your evidence, please, I mean PLEASE, read your tag, author, and date BEFORE you read the actual evidence. If you read your tag in conjunction with the evidence, it all blends together until you get to your author citation, so, it'll sound all the same and having a subheading for the evidence allows everyone to clearly define what card you are reading and make the read be a lot more structured. This is just something that helps me out with flowing your arguments better and keeping everything in a orderly fashion

Competed:

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)

Coached:

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).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

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*

tl;dr:

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.

Speaker Points:

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.

Online debates:

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.

Disads:

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.

Counter Plans:

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.

Case Debates:

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.

Topicality/procedurals:

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.

Steal prep.

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.

Disclosure thoughts:

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.

Debated policy in high school and parli at Columbia University

judging for over 4 years

email: cyrusjks10@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

2/17/24 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

2) LARP

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks (unless tied to social advocacy)

IHSA 2022 Update:

Debate Philosophy: Generally, I default to voting for the team that has done the better debating, in terms of proving the merit of the arguments they make against some comparative (opponent's arguments, status quo, etc.). Offense is always appreciated, and I normally vote for the team that has the best warranted / impacted out offense.

UK Digital TOC Speech & Debate #2 Edit:

What debaters should do more of: give roadmaps, sign post, slow down on taglines, do impact calculus/weigh, do line-by-line analyses, compare evidence, collapse on key args in final rebuttal speeches, and say why you are winning/get the ballot (write my ballot for me)

What debaters should avoid doing: spreading through overviews and theory shells (if need to spread please send out a doc), saying they have proved something to be true, bringing up that something was dropped/conceded without explaining why it matters or is a critically important to evaluating/framing the round, jumping all over the flow (please sign post so I can accurately flow/ keep track of your arguments), and sending out speech docs that can't be downloaded or copied from. ALSO please no postrounding and no sending me emails before a round is scheduled to occur nor after a round has occurred, as judges are not allowed to have contact with debaters except during a round.

1/7/22 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) LARP

2) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks

Miscellaneous

Kritiks I like to hear (in order): Afropess/antiblackness, afrofuturism, set col, cap,

I am a parent judge with limited exposure to Varsity LD Debate.

Please go slow to allow me to follow.

Email: knnmbd@yahoo.com

She/they

kimmerle.debate@gmail.com

About me: Currently debating for Missouri State University in NDT/CEDA & coaching at Greenwood Labs and Liberty North High School. I'm an NFHS topic author for HS policy debate which gives me an interesting insight into debates. My views about what debate looks like/should be are constantly evolving to keep up with my experiences and community 'norms.'

About me as a judge: I'm pretty open to any argument or style. I'll go off of my flow when making my decision focusing on impacts and clash. The best way to win my ballot is to "write it for me." Show me through evidence why your [case/impacts/alt/etc] are more important and then tell me how you better resolve [insert issue here]. This can vary based on each round or position so I will try to address these below.

DA: Yes. A good disad with a CP is probably my current go-to when I'm negative. Read your best link cards in the constructive(s), the more specific the better.

CP/PICs: Yes. As I said above, love a CP/DA combo. Make sure you outline how it solves the aff and doesn't link into your other offense. I think the neg can get away with 2 CPs before conditionality becomes a major voting issue (remember: you should always condense down for the 2NR!!).

K: Sure. I'm comfortable with K arguments but I might not be super familiar with the literature. I do think you need an alt with your K because I need to understand what happens if/when I vote for it. If you have a performative component to your argument, explain its function and utilize it as offense throughout the debate -- you read it for a reason, tell me about that reason!

Theory: Maybe?? I'm going to assess topicality separately (below) since I weigh it differently. As I have progressed in my career, my opinion on theory has changed significantly. I find myself voting less and less on funding, enforcement, over-specification, or whatever else you can come up with. I just feel like it's incorrectly used to try and win my ballot in a 'slimy' way. I'd rather you run it as a solvency analytic without the interp, violation, standards, etc.

With all of that said, I understand that many participants view theory as a key part of debate so I will continue to weigh it the same as other arguments.

Topicality: Yes. Against policy aff, I think T is a viable option. The neg should define words in the resolution in the 1NC, and then put any [TVAs/ExtraT/FXT/impact] framing issues in the 2NC/1NR block. The 2NR should specifically go between explaining the disadvantages to the aff interp and line by lining the 1AR responses.

My decision will consider holistically how well you back specific arguments with specific evidence and data.

Best to not base your entire case on outweighing frame.

Naming specific current (living) politician/govt official or political office will make your case feel more about politics than morality. Avoid!

With emailed cards, 300 WPM is my preference. Please don't spread, unless you send me your case & cards. Also, even if only one side spreads, I'd prefer that both sides send cases & cards.

Repetition ≠ extension. Use time effectively and efficiently. Arguments made past time will likely be struck. Please monitor your own time (prep as well). I will only jump in if there is a discrepancy or if time is significantly exceeded.

During prelims, I will not reveal my decisions, unless tournament rules specify otherwise. For rounds after prelims, I will reveal my decisions, unless tournament rules specify otherwise.

RFDs will always be written.

Add me to the email chain: phlw7@hotmail.com unless you're using Tab's file share. Speech drop feels like a waste of time.

Email: Briajia.l@gmail.com

Bri (She/her)

Policy/LD rounds

Background- Debated policy for 6 years. LD/Policy judge over 6 years.

Speed

Spreading is fine, please be sure to slow down on the tagline and when quoting evidence so I can properly flow the arguments in the round. I also recommend that debaters share the files before each speech just in case I miss anything on flows during the speeches. I also do not recommend fully spreading in the rebuttal rounds. At the end of the day, just try to be as clear as you are able to.

Adjudicating rounds

I am very traditional when it comes to policy debate and my judging style is very straight forward. If you are Aff please convince me how the Aff solves for its impacts. Be very cautious to extend solvency and impacts throughout the round. I would also recommended an overview at the beginning of the second affirmative speech.

Neg team should be careful not to be abusive and run frivolous off case arguments only as a time advantage. When there is multiple off case arguments in a round, the neg needs to let me know what they want me to vote on. Make sure all off case arguments have the components needed to win, a dis ad needs a strong link and impact and a counter-plan needs to have a net benefit for me to vote on it.

Kritik Rounds

I am open to non traditional Affs but are very hesitant to vote on them if they are not ran properly or explained in a way that I am able to understand. I think it is very important for the team to explain to me why running non traditional Aff is a better move than policy. Other than that I am open to all arguments and case types, as long as I have something to vote on at the end of the round. I really enjoy fun and creative K affs. I am very big on solvency and even though an Aff may not be policy it still needs to solve in some way. Please run what you like, it just needs to be clear. I have heard K affs for the first time that have completely changed my perspective on judging/debate. If you feel confident in your K aff then please run it. I always keep an open mind.

Neg teams that run Ks need to do a good job at explaining the K, also if there is an alt , you must convince me how the world of the alt solves and there needs to be very clear explanation. In other words, the alt needs to make sense. I do not recommend running a K that you do not fully understand, it will likely cause you to lose the round.

Assigning Speaks

I assign speech based on the clarity of the debaters in the round and the overall quality of the speeches from each debater. Debaters who are more convincing and strategic are more likely to get higher speaker points.

I sometimes doc speaker points if debaters are rude to each other in cross ex, there is nothing wrong with being aggressive or strategic in cross x but it needs to have a purpose. Let's have fun and be respectful.

Kritiks I like to hear: Afropess/antiblackness, settler colonialism, Security, Cap K, Anarchy, Disability K, Black Fem

FYI-(Please do not send me emails outside or after a tournament, Judges are only allowed to have contact with debaters during a round/tournament.) it’s fine to ask questions after a round on clarification or how to improve but please don’t post round me, especially coaches! Please be respectful. Decisions are final and I’ve already submitted the ballot before giving feedback per tournament rules.

I did four years of PF and graduated in 2018. I won’t know anything about the current topic, so please be clear and define topic jargon! I am also a speaks fairy in a way. SIGNPOST!!!!!

I'd like to think as little as possible, pls do the thinking for me : - ) You can make this easier by signposting, warranting every argument, implicating what each argument means, and collapsing early in the round.

I'm good with average fast PF speaking but prob not spreading (do not worry about speed if you are good with it) - I will flow off a speech doc but please don't abuse it to spam turns. I'll say clear twice

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline; defense sticks through first summary if it's not touched in the rebuttal (but it's good to extend terminal defense).

Weigh as early as you can; I won't look to new weighing in the FF.

I'll only call for evidence if it’s disputed or sketchy/someone explicitly tells me to call for it.

I never did progressive debate so I have a very sparse understanding of how it works; if you read progressive args, please be very clear & try to frame them as traditional arguments. I'll do my best to evaluate them (although I don't prefer to).

other stuff:

Do not argue in cross it doesn't help anyone

Keep your own time please!

down to skip grands

do not come off as overly tryhard and condescending i WILL tank your speaks, debate honestly and cleanly

Don't be rude/sexist/ableist/racist/etc, respect pronouns, and use content warnings. Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me (kennethhlin1@gmail.com) if you feel at any point unsafe in round.

Debate is hard - be cool, have fun!

Hi, I'm Meghan!

I debated at Millard North High School in Policy and LD. I mainly ran stock arguments and frameworks dealing with Util.

In terms of what arguments I will evaluate, I tend to favor truth over technical. This is pretty much true for all argument types. I'm willing to try to evaluate any argument, as long as there is a solid explanation and justification in the round, but as I stated before, I may struggle to fully grasp things that are technical.

Speed: I would prefer normal to moderately fast speaking. I would only spread in my rounds if you have extremely clear enunciation and emphasize the card taglines and authors.

Theory: I don't know much about theory, and I would advise against running it in my rounds.

Ks: I like kritiks; I ran a few when I was in Policy. Again, the technical aspects may be challenging for me, so clearly explain it.

Philosophy: I find it interesting; just thoroughly clarify how it applies to the round and why I should care in the context of the debate.

Policy: CPs, DAs, and PICs are fine.

Speaks: As long as you're respectful and considerate of your opponent, I'll more than likely give you pretty high speaks. I acknowledge that debate, while very rewarding, can be stressful, and everyone is going at their own pace, so try your best and have fun!

Eric Morris, DoF - Missouri State – 29th Year Judging

++++ NDT Version ++++ (Updated 10-22-2019)

(NFALD version: https://forensicstournament.net/MissouriMule/18/judgephil)

Add me to the email - my Gmail is ermocito

I flow CX because it is binding. I stopped recording rounds but would appreciate a recording if clipping was accused.

Be nice to others, whether or not they deserve it.

I prefer line by line debate. People who extend a DA by by grouping the links, impacts, UQ sometimes miss arguments and get lower points. Use opponent's words to signpost.

Assuming aff defends a plan:

Strong presumption T is a voting issue. Aff should win you meet neg's interp or a better one. Neg should say your arguments make the aff interp unreasonable. Topic wording or lit base might or might not justify extra or effects T, particularly with a detailed plan advocate.

High threshold for anything except T/condo as voting issues*. More willing than some to reject the CP, K alts, or even DA links on theory. Theory is better when narrowly tailored to what happened in a specific debate. I have voted every possible way on condo/dispo, but 3x Condo feels reasonable. Under dispo, would conceding "no link" make more sense than conceding "perm do both" to prove a CP did not compete?

Zero link, zero internal link, and zero solvency are possible. Zero impact is rare.

Large-scale terminal impacts are presumed comparable in magnitude unless you prove otherwise. Lower scale impacts also matter, particularly as net benefits.

Evidence is important, but not always essential to initiate an argument. Respect high-quality opponent evidence when making strategic decisions.

If the plan/CP is vague, the opponent gets more input into interpreting it. CX answers, topic definitions, and the literature base helps interpret vague plans, advocacy statements, etc. If you advocate something different from your cards, clarity up front is recommended.

I am open to explicit interps of normal means (who votes for and against plan and how it goes down), even if they differ from community norms, provided they give both teams a chance to win.

Kritiks are similar to DA/CP strategies but if the aff drops some of the "greatest hits" they are in bad shape. Affs should consider what offense they have inside the neg's framework interp in case neg wins their interp. K impacts, aff or neg, can outweigh or tiebreak.

Assuming aff doesn't defend a plan:

Many planless debates incentivize exploring important literature bases, but afer decades, we should be farther along creating a paradigm that can account for most debates. Eager to hear your contributions to that! Here is a good example of detailed counter-interps (models of debate). http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,2345.0.html

Impact turns are presumed relevant to kritikal args. "Not my pomo" is weak until I hear a warranted distinction. I prefer the negative to attempt direct engagement (even if they end up going for T). It can be easier to win the ballot this way if the aff overcovers T. Affs which dodge case specific offense are particularly vulnerable on T (or other theory arguments).

Topicality is always a decent option for the neg. I would be open to having the negative go for either resolution good (topicality) or resolution bad (we negate it). Topicality arguments not framed in USFG/framework may avoid some aff offense.

In framework rounds, the aff usually wins offense but impact comparison should account for mitigators like TVA's and creative counter-interps. An explicit counter-interp (or model of debate) which greatly mitigates the limits DA is recommended - see example below. Accounting for topic words is helpful. TVA's are like CP's because they mitigate whether topics are really precluded by the T interp.

If I were asked to design a format to facilitate K/performance debate, I would be surprised. After that wore off, I would propose a season-long list of concepts with deep literature bases and expect the aff to tie most into an explicit 1AC thesis. Such an approach could be done outside of CEDA if publicized.

This was too short?

* Some ethical issues, like fabrication, are voting issues, regardless of line by line.

Last edited on 5/27/23 to rewrite the sections on experience, Statement on Racism, and K Affirmatives.

Pronouns: she/they

Experience: I have spent my entire life in the debate community one way or another. That said, I spent five years debating middle school/high school, took a break from debating in undergrad, then came back to judge and coach for a variety of schools.

Statement on Racism (& other Prejudices) in Debate

Debate should encourage students to see themselves as agents capable of acting to create a better world. We will not achieve this vision for our activity so long as we pretend it is in a realm separate from reality. Judges have an ethical obligation to oppose prejudice in round including but by no means limited to: racism, queerphobia, antisemitism, sexism, Islamophobia, ableism, and classism, among others. Debate, as an activity, has its fair share of structural inequities. We, as coaches and judges, need to address these and be congnizant of them in our decisions.

General Philosophy

I see the role of the judge as that of an educator concerned primarily with what teams learn from the experience. Therefore, the most important aspect of being a judge, to me, is to provide good constructive criticism to teams about their arguments and performance, and to promote the educational qualities of debate. When teams are using prep time, I am usually writing speech by speech feedback for my ballots––which I very much hope teams and their judges will read. As a judge, I want you to come out of the round, win or lose, feeling like you learned something worthwhile.

As an educator concerned with what can be learned from the round, I think the quality of arguments are much more important than their quantity, and whenever possible prefer to reward well researched and articulated arguments more than arguments will few warrants that might be read in the hopes of their being dropped. I prefer to decide rounds based upon the meaning of the arguments presented and their clash rather than by concession.

I flow the round based on what I hear, preferring not to use speech documents. For this reason, clarity is more important than speed. For an argument to exist in the round, it needs to be spoken intelligibly. Rounds that are slower typically offer better quality arguments and fewer mistakes.

Argument Specific preferences:

Plan-less critical affirmatives: I am happy to judge and vote on them. K affs are a useful tool for contesting the norms of debate, including those which are the most problematic in the activity. Over time, I have changed my threshold on their topicality. These days, my position is that so long as they are clearly related to the topic, I am happy to consider them topical. When aff teams argue critical affirmatives, I strongly prefer there be a specific solvency mechanism for their interpretation of the role of the ballot. For negative teams arguing against K affs, I have a strong preference for specific case answers. Given that K affs are a fixture of debate and are generally available to find on open evidence and the caselist wiki, prepping to specifically answer them should be possible. While I am unlikely to vote in favor of arguments that would outright eliminate K affs in debate, counter kritiks are a strategy I am amenable to.

Kritiks: At its most fundamental level, a kritik is a critical argument that examines the consequences of the assumptions made in another argument. I love well run kritiks, but for me to decide in favor of a kritik it needs a specific link to the assumptions in the 1AC and a clearly articulated alternative that involves a specific action (as opposed to a vague alt). Experience informs me that K's with generic links and vague alternatives make for bad debate.

Framework: Lately this term seems to have become a synonym for a kind of impact calculus that instead of focusing on magnitude, risk, and time-frame attempts to convince me to discard all impacts but those of the team running this argument. Framework, as I understand it, is a synonym to theory and is about what the rules of debate should be. Why should it be a rule of debate that we should only consider one type of impact? It seems all impacts in debate have already boiled themselves down to extinction.

Topicality: Please slow down so that I can hear all your arguments and flow all their warrants. The quality of your T arguments is much more important to me––especially if you argue about the precedent the round sets––than how many stock voters you can read. I may prefer teams that offer a clear argument on topicality to those that rely on spreading, however tactically advantages the quickly read arguments may be.

Counter plans: The burden of demonstrating solvency is on the negative, especially with PICs. PICs are probably bad for debate. Most of the time they are just a proposal to do the plan but in a more ridiculous way that would likely never happen. So if you are going to run a PIC, make sure to argue that changing whatever aspect of the plan your PIC hinges on is realistically feasible and reasonably advantageous. Otherwise, I will do everything I can to avoid deciding the round on them.

Conditionality: I have no problem with the negative making a couple conditional arguments. That said, I think relying on a large number of conditional arguments to skew the aff typically backfires with the neg being unable to devote enough time to create a strong argument. So, I typically decide conditionality debates with a large number of conditional arguments in favor of the aff, not because they make debate too hard for the aff, but because they make debating well hard for everyone in the round.

For rookie/novice debaters:

If you're reading this, then you're already a step ahead and thinking about the skills you will need to be building for JV and varsity debate. What I want to see most in rookie/novice debates is that teams are flowing and clearly responding to each other.

Glendale ‘21

Missouri State ‘26

rauhoffdebate@gmail.com---yes chain---please include tournament, round, teams debating, and sides in the subject line.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE:

Education (HS, debater)

Immigration (HS, debater)

Arms Sales (HS, debater)

Criminal Justice (HS, debater)

Water (HS, coach)

NATO (HS, coach)

Fiscal Redistribution (HS, coach)

Nukes (NDT, debater)

I was exclusively a policy debater in high school and I’m exclusively a policy debater in college. Debating the college nukes topic now. Currently coach for Glendale and cut lots of cards for them, so I will be up to date on the vast majority of the topic lingo.

FOR MISSOURI:

If I am judging you and you want to spread, I love it! You all don't get that opportunity much, and I remember being ecstatic in HS when I'd get a flow judge/panel at a Missouri tournament. However, there are a few things to note:

1---I very much dislike spreading that sounds horrendous. This looks like debaters mumbling through cards incomprehensively, making it impossible to distinguish tags/analytics from the body of a card, attempting to speak faster than you can read, etc---you should prioritize clarity over speed.

2---Your opponents should be able and/or willing to participate in a round with spreading.

3---I will flow, and will decide the debate based off of said flow.

I've noticed some debaters in MO bragging about not taking as much prep time as their opponents or making it a goal to not take prep time at all. I will audibly laugh if you stand up for the 2NR/2AR without prep, and immediately after the debate, tell you several things you could've used prep time for to improve your speech. Prep time is useful. It's there for a reason, and no debater that has ever stepped foot in a debate round is too good for prep time.

FIRST THINGS FIRST:

Will vote on whatever, just impact it out & tell me why your argument matters more than/outweighs your opponents’ argument. Don’t care if you read death good in front of me, but just know that the threshold for beating that argument is pretty low. Same goes for ASPEC/FSPEC/whatever weird stuff you feel is necessary to read.

I try not to be a very expressive judge, because I find these judges to be extremely annoying.

Clarity is more important to me than speed---go however fast you want, but make sure I can hear taglines/analytics, regardless of whether they’re in the speech doc or not. If you want to blaze through cards, that’s fine, just make sure I can hear like every fifth word or something.

Condo is good (within reason), judge kick is good, reasonability is stupid, utopian alts are stupid.

I will not adjudicate out-of-round events, regardless of the situation. My role is solely as an educator, not as an executioner. If you bring up an issue to me that has happened outside of the context of the debate round that involves your opponents and you refuse to debate the round, I will give all debaters involved a 27.5, immediately stop the round, and report the issue to tab/let them deal with it.

ONLINE:

Could not care any less if you have your camera on or off.

Slow down slightly.

Include analytics in the doc (don’t care if you do this in-person, but tech issues makes it important).

Use an external mic if possible.

TOP LEVEL:

Probably about 60/40 on tech v truth. If you explain to me why one matters more than the other, I will evaluate the debate that way. I lean slightly more tech, because you can’t just answer an extinction impact with “extinction won’t happen!” with no ev or warrants to substantiate that claim.

I typically vote pretty quickly, but this doesn’t mean the debate was bad or lopsided. All it means is that I feel as if the debate was clear enough argumentatively that I was able to adjudicate it without putting pieces together at the end or looking at evidence. This is my ideal situation. Debates are long and we all want to move on. That said, if I need to take 20 minutes to decide a debate, I will do so.

If you’re rude, it’ll affect your speaks in a negative way, though I might have a higher threshold for what I constitute as “rude” than most. For example, if you’re giving a long, drawn-out answer to a question and your opponent cuts you off, they’re not being rude---they have more questions to ask and you don’t get to use CX as 3 minutes of extra speech time. Calling an argument “trash” or something isn’t rude, but calling your opponents “trash” is. If you’re REALLY rude, it is possible for me to vote you down, but this is an extremely high bar that I’ve only come CLOSE to crossing once.

I will only intervene if neither side has made the arguments they’ve gone for clear. This is my least ideal judging situation. The more I have to intervene, the lower your speaks will be.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I do not pretend to have a strict rule for speaker points, and they are adjusted on a tournament-by-tournament basis. What this means is that my average will be contingent upon various parameters of the tournament (i.e. size, pool, length, etc.). My average is a 28.5 and you’ll go up or down from there.

DISADVANTAGES:

They’re great and ½ of my favorite 2NRs.

Politics DAs are awesome.

COUNTERPLANS:

They are also great and the other ½ of my favorite 2NRs.

Textual v functional competition can be debated out. I don’t have particularly strong thoughts about either. Competition is more impactful than theory.

Conditionality is definitely good, but I’ll vote on condo bad if you decide to go for it. That will, however, require lots of work done on the line-by-line and there should probably be an example of in-round abuse.

Advantage CPs are great and underutilized at the high school level.

Multi-plank CPs are fine.

Probably better for Process CPs than most.

PICs are good, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Plan-plus counterplans are bad 99% of the time---not from a theory perspective, but from a substance perspective---just stop reading these

TOPICALITY:

Pretty bad for T vs policy affs, unless

1---The violation is obvious or

2---It’s a new aff.

In situations where your opponents break a new aff that has not been read commonly on the topic, I understand T as a last-ditch strategy and will give the negative some more leeway. That being said, if the aff IS clearly topical, it will still be difficult to get my ballot on T.

While I don’t consider myself a good judge for T, I do place importance on having good interps/reasons to prefer. It is possible for the aff to get my ballot with just a “we meet” argument, so make sure your violation actually applies.

Fairness & clash are not independent impacts---but rather internal links to impacts like education---this is especially true for T against K affs.

T is not an RVI.

Will not flow an ASPEC shell or any other theory shell if it's hidden inside a T shell---stop doing this

KRITIKS (on the aff):

In my ideal debate, the affirmative will defend a hypothetical plan through the USFG and the negative will negate the effects of said plan’s implementation. If I was a critical debater creating my pref sheet for a tournament, I would likely place myself in the 70% range. I personally believe that in an equally debated framework v framework debate, I am likely more easily persuaded by the negative.

In order to get my ballot, you will have to convince me of three primary things by the end of the debate:

1---My ballot in this particular round is key for the solvency of the affirmative.

2---The world of the affirmative creates a better model of debate than the negative, or at the very least, does not create a worse model of debate than the status quo.

3---The affirmative out-teched the negative team and voting affirmative outweighs the offense that the 2NR has.

If you think you are unable to convince me of these three things, you should not read a critical aff in front of me. While it may be harder to win my ballot than some judges, it will not be anything close to impossible. I will reward good debaters, regardless of the arguments they read.

Having a strong framework argument is integral to getting my ballot. In order to prove to me that the model of debate you produce is better or equal to the status quo, you will first have to win that debates over the resolution are bad.

KRITIKS (on the neg):

The three questions from above also apply to this section. In order to win my ballot, you will have to convince me that my ballot in this round is key to solve, that you create a better and/or equal model of debate than the squo, and that you have out-teched your opponents.

If your kritik is a DA, i.e. just “aff perpetuates x, no alt”, refer to the DA section.

I think that the Cap K is extremely strategic on this year’s HS topic---and I’m more than willing to pull the trigger on it if there’s a viable link to the aff. I think that it is extremely strategic to run this as more of a linear DA, too.

Speech Docs: MoStateDebate@gmail.com
Asst Coach at MoState.
2x NDT Qualifier for MoState, Graduated in 23'.
3rd at NFA Nationals 2021, 4x NFA Nationals Qualifier

Random Thoughts:
- "I'm going to flow your speech. There is nothing you can possibly do to stop this short of concede. What's worse, I'm even going to decide the debate based on said flow and said flow alone."

- I do not care what you do, Everything is up for debate (besides objectively wrong things).

- Please keep track of your time, I want to keep track of your speech and the docs, not the time.

- You will often do better if you debate how you feel rather than adjusting to this paradigm.

- Pen time is GREAT, make it easy to flow your speech and you will be rewarded.

- I'll probably take a long time to decide as I try to be respectful of the time and energy that we put into this game. I really try to invest in debate as much as everyone else does, and love to reward bold strategic choices (no, not spark).

- My decisions are going to be what's exactly on my paper, and speaker points will be how well you articulated the thing from the flow to being understood + clarity.

- Evidence Quality is under rated. I'll 1000% read your evidence during, and after the round. You should probably tell me HOW to read it. If it does not say the thing that you think it does, things will not go well for you.

Specific ?'s:

Policy v. K ideological divide (the stuff that matters for prefs).

- I tend to like both for different reasons. I think that being strategic is the best thing that you can do in front of me, be bold and embrace your decisions whole-heartedly. My first 2 years of college debate, I debated exclusively the K (pomo, cybernetics, queerness, etc.), and the last 2 1/2 years, I debated mainly policy. With that in mind, that means I don't have ideological underpinnings that assist either side.

- I think that the strongest part of the K is the Link, and weakest part is the Alt. Policy AFF's tend to have more warrants for how they solve things, than why they actually do. I think that it behoves both teams to play to the others weakness. K's are better at why, and Policy stuff is better at how, explain to me which is better.

Policy:

- I tend to think that offense is where I always start, and the place that teams should always spend the most time on. Impacts tend to be the things that decide debates, and make everything else important as they leak out of that.

- Case debating is a lost and dead art, please bring it back. Hyper specific case negs or good impact D debating is the best stuff to watch.

CP's:

- CP Texts for Perms >>>>

- Fine with Judge Kick, if it makes sense. Should be more than a 10 second blurb.

- PICs are cool, and often strategic.

DA:

- Turns Case is ESSENTIAL, and is usually the difference between a Win that can be easily sought out, and a Win that I scratch my head for a while at.

Topicality:

- T should have a case list, of what is and isn't T.

- Reasonability is probably bad, unless you have a good argument about why your AFF is essential to the topic thus -> Competing Interps !

- Quals are better than no Quals

Theory:

- I think there is a sharp divide between the neg being strategic, and just trying to make the 2AC's life hard by not really debating stuff. I think hard debate should be rewarded, and cowards shouldn't. The best strategies that we always remember were never the 12 off with the 9 plank CP, but the 4-5 off with the impact turns etc. With that said, I think 3 condo is probably my limit (each plank counts as 1 unless stated otherwise by the neg), and contradictions are fine until the block.

K's:

- Telling me why your links mean that I should weigh the AFF and how that implicates their research is probably much better than just stating why your model of debate is better. Vice Versa for AFF, telling me why your research praxis is good, and should be debated is better than telling me why it's a pain you can't weigh the AFF. I think that fairness is an impact, but we have been on the fairness spiel for like 20+ years.

- More impact analysis > no impact analysis.

K AFF's/FW:

- I think that teams should probably read a plan text, and talk about the resolution. But if you want to read a AFF without a plan text, go for it as long as you do it well. Usually, negative teams going for framework do so poorly.

- I usually prefer fairness as an externalization of education, and how it impacts the game of debate in terms of making us better people and/or better educators.

- Definitions are under-used, and I think that the best AFF's make us really ponder how we should collectively view the topic.

I am an Assistant Professor and Assistant Director of Debate at Missouri State University. I have 8 years of experience as a competitor: 4 years of experience in high school policy debate (@ Oak Park River Forest High School, in Oak Park, Illinois), and 4 years of experience in college policy debate (@ Trinity University, in San Antonio, Texas). After graduating, I’ve coached college teams for the past 7 years including 4 years @ the University of Georgia, and 3 years @ Trinity University.

The Judging Process:

I see myself as a technical* judge with an important caveat that I prefer debates, and my decisions, to be simple and explainable. What do I mean by this? The short version is that I put a lot of value on explicit refutation and clash. If one side advances an argument and the other team does not answer it, the other team will be forced to deal with the consequences of not answering it. The argument that is won (either through clash or the absence of it) will be given its full weight as introduced and explained by the team that has won it. But if I cannot explain the argument either to myself, or the losing team, or if I think you have done a poor job of explaining it then its relative weight or consequence may vary. I have said in the past that I am “tech over truth,” but also think that good tech needs to look true from afar. I stand by this.

Because I see myself as a technical judge, I will do my best to rid myself of my preconceived biases and presumptions about what is true, just, and moral and attempt to evaluate the debate based on the substance of what it is said. This is, of course, impossible. I often like to “put on hats” and pretend to be a coach of the teams I am judging, asking questions of myself like, “Ooooh, that was a good argument, I wonder what would be a persuasive/intelligent/challenging response to it?”, and if debaters make those arguments (or surprise me with arguments I had not yet considered) I find myself siding with them in the exchange over their opponents. The end result is that while I begin judging by aiming to rid myself of my biases I often judge the round in a kind of back-and-forth involving a certain amount of baton tossing that—if the debate would go on forever—would inevitably end up with me voting on and making decisions reflective of those biases I aimed to disabuse myself of previously. Thankfully, for you, debate rounds are limited—and that provides you the opportunity to win my favor provided your opponents don’t “one up you” with regard to whatever my biases are.

I will look at evidence if instructed, or if I need to use it to clarify something in the debate (usually this isn’t a good thing as it signifies you didn’t do the debating that your evidence was there to support). If possible, however, I try to make my decisions based on what was said in the debate rather than what was referenced.

I often write RFDs for both teams in the process of judging, and I spend most of my decision time pondering which RFD seems more defensible. I have yet to judge a round where I couldn’t see myself voting the other way. This means that even if you won my ballot you should know I spent quite a bit of time rationalizing to myself why you should lose it. I sometimes write an RFD, deliver it, and have some remorse about it (shout out to Wake Semis, Harvard vs Kentucky). In the end, I’d like us both to be happy about my decision so do your best to crush your opponent and remove any shadow of a doubt I might have about it.

What I Expect of You, The Debater: At the level of substance, I want you to read and advance whatever arguments you like. I will do my best to judge them in the manner so described above.

At the level of form, I want you to:

1) Speak when it is your turn to speak. Prompting is fine, but I will not flow your partner speaking during your speech. It is a team activity and we must live and die as a team.

2) Be kind and respectful to your opponents. I love trash talking, and I love a competitive debate. If you do too, however, make sure your opponents and you agree about the tone/intensity of the debate! You should approach your opponents as friends engaged in a spirited discussion, rather than bad apples/bad actors who need to be vanquished. Some of your friends are probably ok with reciprocal name-calling, others might not be. If you choose to engage in behavior that is “on the line,” make sure that your opponents are ok with that. The more personal the debate comes, the more replete with character attacks, name calling, or otherwise vicious and callous behavior, the more frustrated I will be.

Thoughts on Counterplans:

I often approach counterplans centered around the question of opportunity cost because, outside of debate, that is where I see the “real world relevance” for counterplans. As a consequence, I often feel that counterplans must present themselves as an opportunity cost for the actor to whom the initial plan was offered.

Let’s consider a real-life example. You and your friend Jolean have purchased tickets for a concert a few months in advance. You are both excited to go. Unfortunately, Jolean has failed their math test and now their parental figures have decided to punish them by not letting them go to the concert. Jolean proposes to you: “I’m going to go anyway, I’m going to sneak out of the house!” there are a number of advantages and disadvantages to this proposal, but there are, also, a number of counterplans available should you both wish to pursue something other than sneaking out.

Some of them might be PICs in terms of how Jolean has specified their policy proposal (e.g. Don’t sneak out of the house, tell your parents that it’s a study night instead and we can leave from my house), others might be more optimistic trying to solve the root cause of the problem (e.g. Don’t sneak out, try and convince your parents to let you go; OR don’t sneak out, work with your teacher and try to make up the grade for the test), and others still might cut losses and try to solve the advantage area in another way (e.g. Well, let’s go to another concert for a different band the following month instead). All of these counterplans are attempting to solve the aff’s harms, and whether or not they are competitive depends on them avoiding certain disadvantages to Jolean’s initial proposal. There is a debate to be had on this question (as well as the solvency of the counterplans), but I have no theoretical objections about the nature of the counterplan.

There are, however, another set of proposals you can pitch to Jolean. Perhaps, instead of sneaking out, the band should simply reschedule their concert date to be a month later. Or, instead of sneaking out, Jolean’s parents should rescind their punishment and drive the both of you to the concert. Or, maybe, Jolean’s teacher should drop the test and send an email to all the students clarifying that the test was written incorrectly, and all grades were wrong. All these proposals do seem to solve the problem! One way of decrying these proposals is to say they are “utopian”, but the real root of the problem is that they are outside the purview of the actors engaged in the initial policy discussion. If you told your friend Jolean that instead of sneaking out, that any of the above proposals should take place they would look at you confused and say, “Ok but I’m not them?” In policy debate we often see a number of counterplans that are theoretically illegitimate for these reasons.

Aside from this rant about actors, I have few problems with negative counterplans. The only final caveat I will make is that there is often a very ironic disconnect when the negative explains how important their CP is for education, all the while to establish competition they then force the aff to be (using self-serving definitions of words in the resolution) the most blunt-forced, un-nuanced kind of policy proposal. Education for me, and not for thee, I suppose.

Thoughts on Advantages and Disadvantages:

The link to most politics DAs rests upon a number of contradictory assumptions about fiat. Supposedly, the plan happens immediately (the negative says this so they can claim that it interrupts the agenda), and yet apparently the debate on the plan is a multi-week fight involving a significant expenditure of political capital and good will? Ok. Another one: plan is passed through normal means of sorts—but they completely reshuffle the agenda in the process? Ok. The only time I’ve ever seen these make sense is at the cusp of a new administration who are bright-and-bushy-eyed with a number of policies as their priority (then, I believe, the case can be made persuasively that the plan sucks all the air out of the room). Aside from these time-sensitive politics DA, most versions of this DA are absurd. Last quibble: the quality of evidence in this debate is generally D+.

Claims about UQ determines the direction of…. Or Link determines the direction of….. rarely ever makes sense to me. In fact, they seem to show the hand teams who make them revealing they have strong arguments/evidence in column A and weak arguments/evidence in column B.

Terminal defense is possible, but most defense is far from terminal. Even the most sympathetic read of most arguments only offer a small amount of mitigation rather than outright mitigation. I think the best case defense is the type that says, ‘X is fine now’ or ‘X is being taken care of now’. These arguments are UQ and I/L defense all wrapped up into one.

If evidence is introduced in a debate that is contradictory to what the tag claims it to be, I think it is sufficient to talk to your judge about what the evidence says rather than re-highlighting the Frankenstein monster to make it accurately depict what it actually says. I am probably going to look at the card after the debate either way, so you’ll save some time if you just debate what was said/the un-underlined portions of the card rather than introducing it into the debate.

Thoughts on Kritiks:

I have more than a passing familiarity with most critical literatures. In addition to my own academic interests (I hold a PhD in Rhetorical Studies and have a MA in the same content area), I greatly enjoy reading philosophy in both the continental and analytic tradition in my own free time.

That being said, I often have a bone to pick with theory and its uses/abuses in policy debate. I believe you can and should lean on theory and concepts that are a step-beyond mainstream political discourse, but you also must translate and explain that theory and those concepts so that they can become a short-hand aid for you. With this means is that jargon filled speeches assuming I speak a common-critical language with you is likely going to be a road-to-nowhere. Not because I don’t understand what you are saying (although I might not), but because I need to be sure you understand what you are saying and can explain it to me in its most persuasive form.

As long as the debate is about the hypothetical enactment of the plan vs. a competitive policy option, I think that most kritiks are very hard to win absent some brutal drops by the affirmative (root cause, serial policy failure, floating PICs, etc.). On the flip side, if the negative wins their frameworks most affs become reduced to basically nothing. This is quite a conundrum that a number of judges and teams solve through some nonsensical statement like, “They get their K we get our aff.” What exactly is either side getting? These ‘permutations’ between mutually exclusive frameworks end up being a shitty deal for one of the parties involved (e.g. Ok you get to weigh your aff but we get mindset shift and you can’t perm or make alt solvency arguments). My only advice to both teams is to recognize the olive branch as the trojan horse that it is—otherwise, someone is going to get their feelings hurt.

Final thought: the perm is a defacto loser 9/10 for precisely this disconnect between frameworks. Since debate prioritizes offense over defense, for the perm to ever be a viable offense you will already need a significant amount of compelling offense against the kritik and I usually find that if you are at that point the offense is enough to win you the round anyway.

Thoughts on Topicality/Framework

Fairness is, of course, an impact. Anyone that enters into a game agrees to be bound by rules. If a player departs from those rules, they will obtain some competitive advantage at the expense of another. Preserving that competitive balance is often essential to extracting any of the other myriad benefits one may gain from playing a game.

That being said, it is important to be honest and acknowledge that very rarely (VERY RARELY, I cannot stress enough) do claims about fairness actually come into play in a debate round. This is because appeals to fairness truly only emerge when a player violates rules, not norms. When players introduced dunking into basketball a number of players cried afoul but such complaints rang hollow. Unless rules are modified to ban a practice, appeals to norms alone are not persuasive because your own "meta" strategy in a game can change as your opponent did.

One of the best parts about debate (I believe) is that the activity is so light on rules and so heavy on norms. Its what makes the game so dynamic. In few other games do you get to imagine and defend what sorts of norms players ought to be bound by. In my own debate career, while I would find myself often reading Framework against kritikal affs, I never did so with malice. In fact, when I look back on my debate career these were some of the most meaningful, challenging, and thought provoking rounds I had. While I certainly find arguments like topicality or framework persuasive, in truth I have no sympathy for folks that wish to codify something like topicality or framework into a governing rule for the activity. I always found these approaches to be a noxious combination of hubris and cowardice. If your model of debate is so good, surely it can/should win in the marketplace of ideas? And if those ideas are so indefensible before judges, why run to an enclave and protect bad arguments with institutional support?

While fairness is overused by the negative often in these debates, I think the constitutive features of the debate game are substantially underutilized. Most critical affs do not have a defense of the debate game as such, or a theory of how the gamified elements of debate (win/loss, speaker points, etc.) match up/interface with their kritiks. Another way to put this is to ask: what does your aff gain/lose being placed in a competitive arena, where opponents must disprove it to win the favor of judges? Most K affs are a defense of a good idea, not a defense of a model of debate that puts that good idea in front of opponents and asks them to prove why its a bad idea. This is a huge problem that negative teams do not focus on.

I think if K affs counter-defined words in the resolution on T and defended the educational/ethical benefits of that model of debate most neg teams (given the way they currently debate framework) would be in a really, really, really, rough spot.

About me:

Anjan Roy(he/him). Add me to the email chain: anjanroy.debate@gmail.com

NDT/CEDA

Senior, Missouri State University

DON'T CALL ME JUDGE PLEASE, I HAVE A NAME!

Debate history: Competed in a couple of tournaments (including four nationals), and have decent success. I believe i am more than capable to judge any rounds even the arguments I am not familiar with. I did both policy and K debates, so whichever ones you do I am okay with it. I will lean more toward an actual debate round than my own set of personal preferences.

Aff with a plan:

I will flow everything that is only said by the speaker, and not what is on the speech doc. Given that, you should prioritize giving a clear speech over a speedy unclear speech. Please ensure all evidence/cards are in your docs. You don't need to flush your analytics if you don't want to. Always ask yourself, how you can beat a neg argument with your affirmative if you cannot find cards specific to their evidence. The last four speeches are the ones that matter. Refer to your 1AC/NC 2AC/NC arguments more instead of going through the trouble of reading newer cards. Tell me what matters most. "x" can definitely outweigh "extinction" but how? The final two rebuttals should begin with "Anjan, you should vote on aff/neg because..." and "prefer our evidence over their because....". Framing the debate in your terms. Be bold smartly. There is always a way to win even when you think you are losing.

Fairness is of course an impact. Given that being said, you should disclose your affirmative before the round. You know your aff more than the neg knows your aff, therefore, you should allow them enough pre-round time to prep against your aff. Neg makes a big deal out of it, I will err on their side.

Aff should never drop a straight turn on one/any of their advantage/s.

There is nothing more pleasing than a good case debate. If you are neg, and you clash on their case, I am enjoying the debate more than any from the back of the room. Case debate generates more clash and there is a high threshold for aff to prove that the 1AC is a good idea. Case turns, DAs on case are equally damaging for the aff like any other off case positions. The most damaging case turns are the ones that looks like the kind of arguments neg is more likely to drop/undercover. Timeframe and magnitude debate should be utilized more in a debate space. Imagine a world where both aff and neg saying their impact is extinction. Tell me which comes first or it is just a great debate that's a waste of time. I hate nothing more than deciding a equally well debated set of arguments with a coin toss.

Aff without a plan/ K-Affs:

I used to do K-debates in the earlier years and I believe in my ability to judge a full K debate. K debates get really tricky because there are traps set up by the affirmative throughout the round which forces neg to be more careful. Neg might be winning the round but aff pivots on Role of the judge or Role of the ballot which the neg drops--can be damaging for the negative. According to Dr. Eric Morris, a smart way to answer this arguments when you are not sure is to make the ROJ/ROB argument as "The ROJ/ROB is to vote for the team after evaluating all arguments."

I think any affirmatives, regardless of K-affs, need to be 100% topical. But, case can always outweigh topicality. Neg should have more offense other than just Framework. It's a great way to win, but not a fun way. Debate should not only be about winning, rather it should be about having fun as well.

A golden rule for the negative--whatever the aff says is good/bad, you should say that's bad/good.

Neg with a CP:

Counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive. Aff theory arguments are more persuasive in the competition debate. Aff theory against Con Con and similar CPs are more persuasive than most. I think those are just bad counter plans and steals the aff scholarship. But I can be convinced otherwise given that neg don't debate well.

CP must solve more on case than the affirmative. CPs with net benefits are always good ones. Aff should utilize CP competition as this is a very underrated strategy that’s getting popular everyday.

Conditionality is a voter issue. Neg reasonability is persuasive. Aff needs more strategy than just saying "the squo is always a logical option". Sometimes dispositional/unconditional CPs have some strategic values in a debate round.

Use Permutations wisely. If your aff does "X" and the CP does "Y", permutation do both is just laughable given that X and Y are polar opposites.

Neg with an Alt:

Cool with any/all Kritik as long as it's coherent and makes sense in a given round. Need to know why the impacts of the K outweighs the impacts of the aff. Having more than one links is strategic, but going for all is not.

Neg should get out of the framework blocks and write blocks compatible with the aff in-round.

In my opinion, Aff needs three things to beat a K--Framework, Util debate, and case outweighs.

DAs:

Always love a good DA. What's the DA? What's the link? What's the impact? These three questions need to be answered in the 1NC.

Theory/Topicality/Framework:

ANY/ALL AFFIRMATIVE NEEDS TO BE 100% TOPICAL unless otherwise debated. Any risk of aff not meeting the neg interp means I will err negative no matter how well the affirmative is.

Clash and fairness are of course impacts. Debate to point out how being negative has become impossible under their model. Get off the blocks and write your analytics that syncs well with the given affirmative.

Any affirmative that explodes limits is bad because we are human being and we cannot prep against 100 different affs for a given tournament. In my opinion, limits is best used as a DA to the aff's counter interp, but I can be otherwise convinced.

If you are a K team and you don't care about clash and fairness, I need to have an explanation why those doesn't matter but it's probably an uphill battle.

I am still struggling with the question of debate being a game or is it more than a game? Any topicality impacts can shift and change meaning depending on this very question and how it is being played within the space.

Theory probably comes before topicality, but it can also be the other way around.

P.S: I don't care if you read death good/ suffering good/ or whatever as long as you prove your point. TECH OVER TRUTH!

Hi, debaters! My name is Ananya Sharma. My pronouns are she/her/hers. I was a debater for all four years of high school, and I am very passionate about debate.

(If you're speed reading this before a round, read the bolded sections:))

1. Reminders: I want you to give it your all. Do not give up mid-round. You should speak with passion and pride: you've worked hard to be here today! Also, use all of your time for cross-ex and rebuttals. There's always more you can add to set yourself up for successful voters, especially during your first rebuttals.

2. Speaking: Speed is never an issue with me, as long as I understand you. That being said, remember to be respectful. There is a difference between assertive and rude. Stand your ground, but please do not be disrespectful.

1. Do not be racist, homophobic, misogynistic, sexist, etc. If this is perpetuated throughout the round, I will immediately down vote. I doubt this will be an issue, but I want to put it out there just in case.

2. I have done low point wins. Basically, even if you do not win, you can still get higher speaks than your opponent. Speaker points are not synonymous with my decision. Keep that in mind!

3. NEW: Be passionate. I give my highest speaks to the most passionate speakers—whether you are talking fast or slow, if you care about what you are saying, you have my attention.

3. The Debate & What I Value:

1. I want you to walk me through everything. Tell me why I should flow that point across the flow. Tell me why your impacts matter.

2. I value links. (LD)—Link back to your FW and your impacts. Though I'm not a "FW is vital to the debate" judge, I have recently seen FW being neglected. It is important to talk about FW, as that becomes the foundation of how I weigh your impacts, but don't spend too much time there, especially if your FW can easily link with your opponent's. (General)—Links within args should be logical/clear—if there is no internal link between the inherent arg and your impacts and your opponent calls you out on it, I will catch onto it. I won't invalidate that arg on my flow if it isn't called out, but if I have to compare args in my decision making and yours was not strong or substantiated well, it will likely tip the ballot in your opponent's favor. In other words, if you understand how your arguments connect to the topic/impacts you are running and if you have done good quality research, you should be fine.

3. Remember to connect this to the bigger picture. Your arg should be outside of just "extending Subpoint B." Tell me the scope, scale, etc that this affects.

4. I appreciate clash! Link turns and impact turns are very time efficient and strategic for this.

4. More Information:

1. I'm open to hearing different kinds of args like disads/ads, kritiques, cps, condo/perm inclusive debates, a little theory (if appropriate), etc. I don't love tricks, but if they are well explained, I am open to them. **THAT BEING SAID, I was on the trad circuit, and I love a good trad round, so don't feel pressured to run anything "complex" just because I am familiar with this stuff! I am looking forward to judging whatever you've worked hard to bring today.**

2. I don't make my decision until the end of the round. That means you have chances for recovery in your second rebuttals. (LD, this does not mean I will buy new args in the 2NR or 2AR. I will, however, take every speech into account—including any weighing and voters towards the end.)

3. I do give verbal feedback that will be applicable and helpful to your future rounds during tournament day. For instance, if I see you completely neglecting FW while judging you round 1, I will tell you that you need to do that after the round is over. You can take that advice and improve for round 2. However, if you do not want verbal feedback, let me know! I totally get it.

4. I don't disclose unless you want me to. If 1/2 of you don't want me to disclose, I will not. If the tournament does not allow me to disclose, I will not. Rounds can be stressful, and even if disclosing is allowed, ignorance can be bliss. I get it. I've been there, and I understand how being in round feels.

Okay that's everything! Take a deep breath. You can do this. If you need anything or have any questions at all, let me know! I'm so excited to hear your cases!! Good luck today!!

(FW= framework, arg=argument:))

Feel free to reach out to me—> akishusharma@gmail.com

I'm the head coach of speech and debate at The Pembroke Hill School in Kansas City, MO. I competed as an LD and Policy debater in high school. I coach all events. My team competes in the Kansas City region as well as national circuit tournaments (on occasion).

Universal things:

Extensions: in order for an argument to be properly extended in the debate, the warrant of that argument must be extended through the necessary speech. It is not enough to say, "Extend Smith '20". You must extend the warrants as well.

Respect/decorum: debate is historically an unequal place for women, non-binary students, and BIPOC. Debate is also an activity that is meant to educate and empower young people. You are allowed to make mistakes, and you should apologize when that mistake disrespects an opponent/judge. You are not allowed to make debate an unsafe space for anyone, and you deserve to lose if you do. While all debaters deserve your respect and professionalism, you should pay extra attention to ensuring that you are not engaging in culturally normalized behavior that makes spaces unsafe for the people I've listed above. I will happily listen to and vote for arguments I disagree with. I will not allow debaters to demean or dehumanize their opponents.

Policy

I am not fast enough to flow fast TOC rounds, I will not flow off of speech docs unless technical issues require me to do so--If I can't hear the tag/author/warrant, it doesn't go on the page. So, fast is fine, slower spreading is fine, but I don't judge enough super fast rounds to keep up with you. If you are concerned about this, two tips: 1. watch me, if I'm not holding my pen I'm not flowing. 2. Ask for verbal cues to slow if you want them.

I'll listen to every argument with the exception of positions that advocate racism/sexism/bigotry in the debate space.

Ks-Its fine to argue and go for Ks in front of me, but you must be able to articulate your warrants/impacts through both the warrants in the card and your own words. If you can't explain the K, you can't extend the K. Generic Ks are fine, but I prefer link/uniqueness debate over impact debate. Obviously, impact calculus is essential as the debate crystallizes.

T-I'm happy to watch a 2NR completely focused on T, don't be shy about reading T in front of me. Sub T should have specific, contextual language on the interp and violation.

DAs-I tend to give very little access to "any risk of the link" arguments on generic DAs. I much prefer link debate and uniqueness debate over impact debate. Obviously, impact calculus is essential as the debate crystallizes, but the arguments I am most persuaded by are link and uniqueness arguments.

ROTB-I try to be as open to ROTB claims/arguments from both teams as possible, but your position must make an AFF ballot possible in the 1AC and a NEG ballot possible in the 1NC. Debate is a game, but its purpose is educational.

Language/Abuse/Rules-I am persuaded by arguments that call for a stop to the debate for immediate adjudication on these issues. If you are accusing your opponents of breaking a rule/doing something abusive or disrespectful at a level in which you believe they should lose the round then I encourage you to advocate for that position. If that is your true point of advocacy, call for a stop and adjudication when appropriate.

LD

LD is a Value debate. I tend to favor cases with specific values and value criterions.

Speed: See policy

Plans and CPs: Totally fine, make sure you have solvency evidence in the case

Ks: I don't really get Ks in LD, the structure of LD as a V/VC debate allows debaters to make these arguments inside of the traditional structure. That's what I'd prefer. I'm not opposed to voting for a K in theory, but I think my barrier to voting for that position is higher than if it was advocated for inside of the traditional framework. You are welcome to change my mind, but tell me why the presentation of this position as a K is important and how I should weigh it against the V/VC framework of your opponent.

Impacts: I'm happy to evaluate LD under a deontological or consequentialist framework, but you should be consistent with your advocacy. While I default to "LD is a debate of moral questions" the reality is many topics ask debaters to imagine the moral calculus of policymakers. So, how to frame these impacts is up for debate.

PFD:

Plans and counter plans are against the rules in PFD. Period. Now, I know topics frequently put the PRO team in the position of advocating for a plan, and in those cases, supporting the resolution is functionally supporting a plan. That does not mean the CON is afforded CP ground. The CON (in these situations) is welcome to advocate for the status quo or the opportunity/loss of endorsing a PRO plan when alternative plans may be available.

Example: let's say PRO ground is the US passing Medicare for All. The CON may not advocate for Medicare for most with a private option--that's a CP. But, the CON may argue that voting PRO costs the opportunity of Medicare for most with a private option as Medicare for All explicitly forbids a private option. They can even try to establish that the status quo (in terms of solvency) will ultimately lead to Medicare for most with a private option if we just wait it out and don't pass Medicare for all. But they can not endorse the advantages of a private option as a function of CON ground. In these cases, you must establish these positions as general advocacy or solvency arguments.

Role of speeches: I believe the role of the first speech is to present the case, the second is to attack the case, the third is to defend the case, and the fourth is to crystalize and weigh the debate. I will not punish you if your interpretation is different (just please signpost so I know what's coming), but I will also not punish a second speech that doesn't extend the case nor a third speech that doesn't extend attacks).

Role of the ballot: it is the job of the debaters in the round to frame the role of the ballot in the final speech. You tell me what I'm supposed to weigh/vote for.

email chain/contact info: stoutmalicia@gmail.com

about me: recent graduate from truman state university where I debated for four years. I coach policy debate at pembroke hill in KCMO. in undergrad i studied polisci & ir, postmodern philosophy and women & gender studies.

housekeeping: doc should be sent within 30 seconds of ending prep barring unusual circumstances. signpost well (VERY CLEARLY, "NEXT OFF"). you should send analytics. card dumps and expecting me to cross apply the cards for you to the LBL is a risky game. "clean docs" that are sent that are not actually "clean" are slimy. lack of distinction between your card reading voice and your tag/analytic voice also can result in mishaps on the flow.

Debated: Immigration(CX), Arms Sales (CX), Immigration (NFA), Counterterrorism (NFA), Elections (NFA), Nukes (NFA)

Coached: Criminal Justice Reform (CX), Water (CX), Fiscal Redistribution (CX)

TLDR: Speed is cool. Signposting is necessary. Ks on the aff and neg are a vibe and procedural debates are fun.

ETHICS ISSUES: Don't scream. Be kind. Don't cheat! Don't card clip. Repeated Interrupting and yelling in CX is a voter.

Policy:

Tech > Truth: I am anti-judge intervention, 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. Will vote on the Speed K if pertinent. 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. Tix aren’t my favorite but like I said tech over truth.

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/Conditional Advocacies (General): One condo CP/K is fine. The more conditional CPs/Ks you run, the lower my threshold gets. In most cases a CP/K combo is perfcon -- which I absolutely will vote on. 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.

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 I like alts that do something. FW is important. (IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHAT THE K DOES I HAVE A VERY LOW THRESHOLD FOR K SOLVENCY!!!)

Kritiks (Aff): I've ran K affs without a plan text. they need an advocacy statement/clear alt text. I've voted neg and aff on framework plenty of times in these debates. tell me why the debate space solves, and how that outweighs fairness claims and such. What does my ballot do? What am I voting for? Am I a policymaker? Is fiat real? If I am left not knowing the answers to all of those questions I probably won't vote on the K aff.

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 :)

Missouri State Debater (NDT-CEDA) 2007-2011; Judged NDT - 2011-2014; 2023-present

Greenwood Lab School - Middle and high school coach - 2011- 2023

Crowder College Director of Forensics (NFA-LD and IPDA debate formats) - 2015-2023

Missouri State Tournament Update

I have spent the last decade being around basically every other kind of debate besides NDT. I have judged at primarily regional and end of year national policy tournaments (NSDA and NCFL) for middle/high school and a ton of NFA-LD at the college level.

I have been working with novices and the packet this past month so I have some exposure to the topic (I also debated nukes) but you should assume I need a bit more explanation than the average judge about your argument.

Things I know to be true about myself as a judge:

1) I have a higher threshold for explanation and explaining how arguments interact than others. That is likely supercharged by the fact I haven't been around NDT in a few years. There are arguments that are just understood to mean certain things and I might not know what that is. Defer to explaining WHY winning an argument matters and interacts with the rest of the debate, even if you think it is obvious.

2) I don't have a lot of tolerance for unnecessary hostility and yelling (I am not talking about you being a loud person. You do you. I am talking about this in the context of it being directed towards others) in debates. There are times you need to assert yourself or ask a targeted series of questions, but I would much prefer that not to escalate. There is very little that is made better or more persuasive to me by being overly aggressive, evasive, or hostile.

3) Debate is an educational activity first, competitive second. I will judge the debate that happens in front of me to the best of my ability. Full stop. However, I believe in the educational value of what we learn in debates and will likely defer to the education side of things when in conflict.

4) My debate knowledge base is primarily shaped by NDT norms circa 2007-2012. I know some of those norms have changed. I will do my best to adapt the way the community has.

5) Policy arguments are more comfortable to me and what I know best. I would not consider myself particularly well versed in the nuances of most "K" literature that is read these days. However, with proper explanation and connections, I think I can judge any debate that I am presented with.

There is a ton not covered here. Feel free to ask questions or clarify. As I judge more, I am sure I will have more specific thoughts about specific parts of these debates and will add more.

Kiara Tooley- she/her

If there is an email chain, please add me to it: tete.bete33@gmail.com

My experience is 5 years of policy debate.

Misc: When referring to me please use my name, not "judge". Make sure I'm ready before starting the timer.

Speed: Cool with speed though clarity is important. If I can't understand you, I can't flow. If the round is online, this is even more difficult so make sure clarity is top priority.

Time allotments: Time yourself and do not go over by an obscene amount. It is so annoying to me when I have to tell people their time is up and it looks so unprofessional for the speaker. If you do this, it will make me not want to vote for you especially if your opponents are following their timer. I do time for this exact reason. When the timer beeps, finish your sentence and then you're done.

Also, make sure to utilize all speech time. Every second you have is an additional opportunity to make your stance more competitive. Just try your best here and it will make me like you!

Evidence: Make sure that you can share all of your evidence. I'd prefer you not to present any evidence than not be able to share it. If you refuse to share evidence or even feign tech-issues to avoid it, I will assume you're hiding something. Your opponents shouldn't even have to ask you to share.

Dropped Args: I flow everything that is said. I also know from my experience in the lay circuit that sometimes when you don't know how to address something, it's simpler to just say that the opponent dropped it, especially in the last speeches. You're wasting your time with me here if you do this. Also, I prefer for you to talk about what the opponents did say instead of focusing on what they didn't. I feel like this provides more ground for argumentation and good clash.

CX: Prep questions during the speech, don't scramble during cx time. This makes you look more professional and prepared and also allots time where you can utilize your opponents knowledge or lack thereof to your advantage. On that note, use all of the cx time. At the very least, cx time is time extra time for your partner to prepare their speech (if applicable)- nothing is more frustrating to me than seeing this time cut short.

Prep: Don't be scared to take it, it's there for your benefit. I would much rather you take all of your prep and give a great speech than take no time and give one that needs better preparation. Take the time to look over your args before you present them, it makes you seem more convincing during the speech. I also don't think there's any harm in using all of your prep. Make sure I know that you're taking prep before you start the timer. Please count down from your time, I know you don't want to do that math. There's no excuse since you can use your phone for a timer.

Generally, have fun with the round and prioritize learning. Don't be disrespectful to your opponents and don't try to cheat the round. Making jokes and showing me that you're here to have fun will make me increase speaker points.

If you have any questions for me about anything on my paradigm, feel free to ask.

I'm a Senior at Missouri State University and have done a bit of everything. Be nice, have fun, I'll adapt to you!

Add me to the chain, linnzoppolin@gmail.com

I don't know a lot about the highschool topic outside of the camp files I helped cut, do with that what you will.

I take pride in being thorough, and feel that it is my duty as the judge to have thought through my decision to do my best to make the right one, and to be able to tell everyone involved why I decided it how I did.

Top level: If you make me start figuring things out at the end of the round you are going to be upset because I almost certainly think differently about debate than you do. The easiest solution to this is to spend time doing impact calc (be it for an extinction scenario, some form of structural violence, theoretical debate standards, etc) and to write your ballot for yourself in the 2nr/2ar. I really do mean that you should probably say, "You vote aff/neg BECAUSE _____."

Disclosure is a norm not a requirement, but it is also a reflexive responsibility we have to each other so you should probably do it. I am noticing it less in person now, but I am not a perfect flowing computer who will write every word you say, having things in the doc means that I don't have to just shrug and say, "I missed it" if I end up seeing something out the window and lose focus for a second while you're spreading a T block. If you don't send analytics or disclose before the round I to a certain degree implicitly assume that you aren't convinced that it can really stand up to rigorous testing which won't affect my decision, but will make me sad. I haven't had a lot of time/experience to figure out how I really feel that disclosure affects the round from a theory perspective, but if you think its strategic to read I'll listen and figure it out based on the round.

tech over truth usually, tell me if I should decide things differently. Warming good is almost certainly not true, but I'll listen and flow accordingly.

"AND!" (+.1 speaks if you do it [at least almost] every time)

Policy affs - cool, you should solve something.

In "Policy" debates writ large I'd suggest slowing down a touch, with boatloads of cards being tossed this way and that I tend to get a little bit lost. Same goes for flagging where you are, "Answer to ___x___ ---" will go such a long way to helping me give you credit for what you've said.

K affs - cool, I like these either as much or a teeny bit more than policy affs. You should be tied to the rez and should solve something be it in round, in debate, or in the world.

K V Policy - I am a bit of cap hack if I'm being honest with myself... That said, don't adapt to me and do something you aren't confident in, I've been apart of enough K rounds and read enough of the lit base on lots of stuff to say that I can come up with a coherent decision so long as you make sure to tell me what the alt is, what it does, and how that solves a thing. My FW for the K thoughts are pretty generic, if you lose the fw debate as the aff you probably lose absent some really good offense that doesn't require me to weigh the aff, which also means that I am very willing to not consider the 1ac if you're behind there. I have been told lots of times what an intrinsic perm is, still not really sure how its all that different from severance. A lot of perms are severance. Same as everything else, if you think its a winner to extend it, go for it.

K V K - I really like these rounds. Same as the other K section, I've read enough stuff to be reasonably confident rendering a decision on anything from Baudrillard type high theory, to identity arguments. More explanation is almost always good especially as we enter the rebuttals, "how does the aff/alt solve? what does that mean and look like?" are questions I find myself asking and if I have to end up answering for you, prepare to be disappointed. I don't really understand, "no perms in a methods debate."

T - I like T debates. You should have an impact that voting negative solves (IE education, fairness, something else) Limits over ground is my lean on T. See FW for more thoughts.

FW - Debate is a game that has a lot of real life effects and consequences that often reach the level of being more than "just a game." Having gamified portions of our activity isn't always a bad thing, but I can be convinced to that it is for the purpose of the RFD. Oftentimes people treat fw as if it was ONLY T which isn't (or doesn't have to be) the case. Usually these rounds come down to two different visions or models of debate that I have to compare based on what the 2nr/2ar tells me. I do think that predictable limits are good, and that fairness and education are important, but also that there should be room for affs that aren't just, "USFG should." Interps that bracket out K debate from the activity are going to be harder to win than an interp that tries to level the playing field and allow people to do what they want within a reasonable topic. Reasonability is a thing, but I am not really sure how "reasonability solves" means that I shouldn't evaluate your interps versus each other. It does modify how I see those interps.

CP- I know what the words mean, please tell me why they matter. CP to solve the aff and avoid a disad is a winner. They can solve/be the whole aff, or just an adv, do impact work, tell me why the thing solves, and why I pref it over the aff (usually a net benefit)

Disad - politics, cool; other things, cooler. It should outweigh the aff, and tell a solid warranted story of what happens post aff.

Case debate - do it, do it more, it's great. I LOVE impact turns, not sure about how ethical wipeout style args are but I will evaluate it like basically everything else absent a good warranted reason to reject it

Theory - I'm not very experienced in these rounds, a lot of condo is probably bad. (3+ advocacies modified by perf con or other warrants you think should change how I feel) I will accept the challenge of figuring out the round if you think it's strategically right to go for it.

The rest - I will stop the round if you do something really horrible (incredibly offensive, physically violent, etc) I will probably not stop the round for much less than that but will make a decision around something that meets those general guidelines but doesn't rise to the level of my needing to immediately intervene. (IE reject the team args are things I will evaluate, but they should have an impact and be warranted out for me to vote on them.)

I am probably a bit better of a judge for K, by that I mean that the way I just don't have the intuitive knowledge of "policy" jargon which makes some spells less dangerous sounding when cast by a 2nc. Spend time explaining your impact framing, and I especially mean that in DA rounds, try or die is not enough to explain what I should consider when evaluating the round.

Jaggard Williams

Me:

- Assistant coach at The Pembroke Hill School.

- I have history in Public Forum, (HS) Lincoln Douglas, and collegiate NPDA.

Preferences for round:

- Be polite. I don't vote for rude people.

- I can handle about half-flow speed, but super flow speed does not work for me. If you choose to run uber-fast speed, I will do my best to keep up, but I cannot guarantee anything. :)

- Utilize jaggardwilliams1@gmail.com for the chain.

- Give me roadmaps before speeches so I can get my flow in order.

- I don't love K debate, but if you can articulate it well, go ahead.

Here's my blurb:

I want to see genuine clash in the round. If you completely disregard your opponent's arguments just because you want to run some off-the-wall argument, I'm throwing it out the window. If you can link it to the round, then by all means run with it. If you haven't figured it out, I'll listen and ponder anything you throw at me, it just has to be clearly relevant to the round. Also - please don't be debate robots. I would love to see some humor, personality, and charisma in the round - in your speeches, arguments, articulation, mannerisms, whatever. Make it fun! Please, for the love of God, make it fun.

I am a parent judge of a debater.

I prefer calm and logical debates with believable arguments.

Dont like over exaggeration to extinction

Dont really care about framework but you cab read it if you want.

Good luck and have fun!