Tabroom.com

Isidore Newman School Invitational

2023 — New Orleans, LA/US

LD Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Clement Agho-Otoghile Hire 6 rounds

John AYMOND Teurlings Catholic High School 3 rounds None

Lucas Bailey Midtown High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu June 20, 2024 at 7:42 AM EST

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

What I Like

I've gotten a few notes from debaters that my paradigm is mostly about what I don't want to see, rather than what I do. In an attempt to remedy that, here is what I enjoy in a debate round.

Evidence Debate - I love when debaters actually engage with the internal warrants of their opponents evidence and arguments. Point out contradictions between pieces of evidence, expose evidence that is too specific or too general to apply, call out evidence that is just claims rather than warrants. Any engagement with evidence beyond "my opponent's evidence is wrong because my evidence is right" will greatly increase your chance of winning my ballot.

Meaningful Framework Debate - I love when debaters pick and choose their battles on framework and clearly impact the results of the framework debate to how I should evaluate impacts in the round. You will not lose my ballot solely for conceding your opponent's framework. Not all rounds need to have a framework debate, even with different values/value criteria, if those frameworks evaluate impacts in roughly the same way or if both debaters have the same impacts in the round (eg, people dying). Debaters who recognize that and focus on the areas of framework that will actually change how I judge arguments, then follow up with an explanation of what I should look for in evaluating the round based on that change will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Internal Consistency - I love when debaters commit to their positions. Many arguments, especially the more unusual philosophical arguments require commitment to a whole host of concomitant beliefs and positions. Embrace that. If someone points out that utilitarianism requires defending the interests of the majority over the minority, be willing to defend that position. If someone points out that Kantianism doesn't permit you to lie to a murderer, don't backtrack - explain it. Don't be afraid to say that extinction does not outweigh everything else. Conversely, if you argue that prediction of the future is impossible in order to answer consequentialism and then cite scientific authors to support your claims, I will be much less likely to believe your position. A debater who is committed and consistent in their ethical position will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Argument by Analogy - I love when debaters use analogies to explain or clarify their own positions, or to expose inconsistencies, absurd statements or flaws in their opponents arguments. I think analogies are underutilized as a method of analytical argumentation and debaters willing to use analogies to explain or undermine arguments have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Comparative Weighing - I love when debaters specifically compare impacts when weighing in the round. Rarely does a debater win every single argument in the round and weighing significantly assists me in making a decision when there are multiple impacts for both sides. While I like weighing arguments in the vein of "This argument outweighs all others in the round" more than no weighing at all, a more specific and nuanced analysis along the lines of "this argument outweighs that argument for these reasons" (especially when it explains the weighing in the specific context of the framework) will give a debater a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card in which case I will ask to see evidence after the round.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no action, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate. As with other arguments, I will evaluate a LARP round but will have a low-threshold to vote on evidentiary arguments, link/brink severance, and framework exclusion.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if no argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world or in debate. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts. That said, I will vote on pre-fiat Ks - a good metric for my preference is whether your link is specific to the aff's performance in this round or if it could link to any affirmative case on the topic (or any topic). If you're calling out specific parts of the affirmative performance, that's fine.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Totally fine to run. I have a slight bias towards genericist positions over specificist ones, eg "a means any" rather than "a means one".

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA because it doesn't link to the aff.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts because performance cannot be erased.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to risk of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true and the alts are often unclear. I will vote on them but run at your own risk.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments. I don't believe that disclosure as a norm is beneficial to debate and I see it used to exclude non-circuit debaters far more often than I see debaters who are genuinely unable to engage because they could not predict their opponent's arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

Jason Barton Albuquerque Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 20, 2024 at 9:14 PM EST

- For any round-related correspondence, please utilize the following email address: jasondbarton15@gmail.com.

Background:

- I am an assistant debate coach at Albuquerque Academy in ABQ, New Mexico (mostly coaching CX and LD).

- I recently finished my Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of New Mexico. I specialize in German Idealism, hermeneutic phenomenology, and Lacanian psychoanalysis.

- I debated CX, LD, and PF (though mostly PF) in Dallas, TX and the surrounding areas throughout high school (2011-2014), and I debated on the NPDA/NPTE circuit with Rice University more recently (2015-2019). My partner and I finished second at nationals (NPTE) our senior years. I consider myself to be comfortable with traditional and progressive styles of debate.

- My pronouns are he/him/his.

Crucial Points:

- Please attempt to be as courteous to one another as possible.

- In terms of argumentation, I do not necessarily have a preference for which kinds of arguments you present (e.g., policy affirmatives, DAs, CPs, Ks, Theory, etc.), but I would like them to be thoroughly explained, well-warranted, and impacted out (including weighing/impact calculus) throughout the debate.

- I gravitate towards evaluating framework very highly in the round (e.g., sequencing claims pertaining to competing methodologies). It is very likely that, if you are winning the framework debate, you are ahead in the debate (according to my assessment).

Theory/Topicality:

- I approach theory and topicality by analyzing the interpretation/violation layer first and the standards/voters layer second. If the opposing team wins a "we meet," they have effectively no linked the argument in my judgment (and thus need not even address the standards/voters).

- In assessing the standards/voters layer of the theory/topicality debate, I am looking for (a) extensive comparison between the respective standards of the interpretation and the counter-interpretation with respect to the voters (i.e., internal link analysis) and (b) priority claims in regard to voters (How do the voters interact with one another? Does one ground the possibility of another?).

CPs/Ks:

- On CPs and Ks themselves, I would prefer clearly marked solvency for both positions (I think CP/K solvency is pretty important - especially the question of "how do you solve the aff?" if this is an aspect of your position).

- I would like K links to be specific to the affirmative as opposed to more generic K links ("you use the state/capitalism/etc.") - if that's not the case, I am receptive to "no link" arguments from the affirmative.

- I think framework debates on Ks can be really educational, and I value framework pretty highly when considering which impacts matter in the round. Root cause claims can function as tiebreakers between competing frameworks.

DAs:

- I like DAs with precise/lucid uniqueness stories and specific links to the affirmative.

- I enjoy arguments from the affirmative about how the DA links to the CP. I think some valuable offense can be garnered from these.

Perms:

- I believe perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, but I'm willing to evaluate the contrary.

- Also, if the perm text doesn't make sense (e.g., "do both" when alt text says "reject aff"), I will consider this argument in relation to the viability of the permutation.

Garrett Bishop Cypress Bay High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 1:19 PM EST

I graduated from Cypress Bay in 2020, and have coached their LD squad since.

I would like to be on the chain: garrett.bishop2577@gmail.com

I'm probably pretty good for anything.

In order:

K, LARP, existentialism, other philosophy, theory-dense positions.

> Post-Yale update: You gotta understand that it's like, K > Policy >>>>>>>> Existentialism >>>>>>>>>>> Other philosophy >>>>>>> theory-dense positions.

Yes, I'm probably good for it, but it seems like I voted twice on phil positions and suddenly everybody has me down as a phil judge

>Bronx 24:If disclosure theory is a part of your main strategy, i should not be a high pref for you. it's a true argument but oh my god im so tired of listening to it. i'm also absolutely just about never persuaded by 1ac disclosure theory.

>SUNVITE 24: I'm in the policy pool. I am not often in the policy pool. I haven't done anything with the current topic. You should presume I know nothing (I don't know anything). I'm better for the K than for policy. I love the impact turn.

My disclosure of speaks depends entirely on my mood at the time, and if you ask me after I've already closed my laptop, I will not tell you (I forget about speaks, give or take, a single second after I submit my ballot).

If you care, I'm more of a high theory guy than an identity politics guy.

If you're super fast, feel free to tell me that I should flow on paper (before the round). I recently started flowing on my computer and I'm not super fast with it yet.

I've only made one decision that I didn't entirely agree with, and I'm unlikely to make a second.

I don't care what you read, as long as you read it well. If you expect me to judge your debate based on my circuit experience, then you should probably try to meet my circuit expectations. This means I'm particularly persuaded by disclosure and paraphrasing theory. The Bronx update doesn't really apply here - it isn't yet a norm in public forum to disclose and it definitely should be, so it's above my threshold of importance in this event.

nothing is sticky

Policy

This is kind of where my heart is tbh. I'm good to go for whatever goofy argument you want to read.

Any other event (speech)

I'm a big debate guy, please treat me like a parent lol.

Old paradigm here

the big cheese

Katrina Brownsberger Fort Walton Beach High School 3 rounds

Courtney Coffman Northland Christian School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 29, 2024 at 3:36 AM CST

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2024-2025 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last couple of years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds. I am not going to evaluate the round after a certain speech.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please be kind to your opponents and the judge.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

Juan Cruz Travis B. Bryan High School 3 rounds

Ryan Dickerson Little Rock Central 6 rounds

Mikayla Carmen Fairchild Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 1:14 PM CST

email: mikaylacfair@gmail.com

I competed in PF all four years of high school and went to nationals in PF. I also did OO and FEX for a year each. I currently compete in collegiate parliamentary debate, but I'm also learning policy debate in hopes of switching soon. I've also judged LD. I'm also currently an international relations major at Tulane.

Paradigm:

General- Please be respectful in and out of round. If you are racist, sexist, or homophobic to your opponent or to me, I will vote you down.

Public Forum-

Please do not argue in cross-examination, and bring up anything important from cross in your next speech as I don't flow cross.
Signpost (tell me what you're addressing on the flow).
Almost nothing should be considered common knowledge, you need to have evidence for your empirics, please do not assume I know all the details of one really specific event.
Ks/Theory: So long as you properly link it, I'm okay with it. I will warn you it is difficult to do K arguments well with pf time constraints so just be prepared for that.
Framework: Warrant your framework and weigh it against your opponent's fw. Everything should flow through this lens so be sure to link it back into your speeches.
Evidence Integrity: Please cite all your sources (last name & year). If you cite the same source twice please make it clear that this is a different citation of the same source. Do not power-tag evidence. Refrain from paraphrasing and if you do, it better say the same thing as your card and you better clarify that you are paraphrasing. You should be referencing fairly credible people.
Email chain/doc: Please add to me any email chains or docs you have. I won't pay much attention to the cards in those docs unless they are repetitively contested and I'm told to reference it.
No email chain/doc: Unless a card is readily disputed back and forth, I will not call for cards at the end of the round unless one team tells me to.
Please run reasonable arguments. I know it can be fun to do something kind of outlandish, but just be careful. Honestly, I'm okay with it so long as you explain it well and link it well.
In general, I'm tech over truth. The flow matters. Functionality matters, don't drop anything, especially your own arguments.
Spreading: Personally, I'm fine with SOME spreading in PF just because time constraints suck, but also everyone in round needs to understand you. You shouldn't be spreading as a means of abuse.
tech over truth
Please bring up framing every speech. Tell me why you won the round, not just the individual arguments.

Lincoln Douglas-

Please give proper backing for your value criterion and repetitively bring it up throughout the round.
The value proven to be most moral is the one I will prefer for the round so make sure you uphold this, and better yet, make sure you uphold both values in your case.
Please impact weigh. Sometimes arguments in LD get really broad, but it's important you apply those impacts in the round (aka. tell me what they mean in context, give empirics, numerics, etc.)
Ks/Theory: I'm totally okay with these. Link it well and make it loud. If you're running a K, this should almost always be the center of your debate and the first and last thing you discuss. At the same time, please don't ignore the case debate.
Evidence Integrity: Please use reliable sources and don't power tag anything. If you cite a source twice with two different cut portions please make it clear which is which or have a speech doc that can do the same. If you paraphrase anything please make sure you're actually
tech over truth
Please explain why you are overall winning the round, not just individual arguments. This should be connected to the value debate and general framing of the round.

Lastly, I understand that debate can be stressful and sometimes the decision of a judge may seem unreasonable or unclear, so if you have any questions about my decision/comments feel free to email me at mikaylacfair@gmail.com

Overall, spark clash and have fun!

Ashley Fleming Hire 4 rounds

Kari Fleming Hire 6 rounds

Patrick Dillon Fox Loyola High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 9:45 AM CST

Update: Harvard-Westlake '25 - i'm judging from the University of Houston debate room this weekend because my apartment was broken into and my desktop computer + wi-fi router were stolen. all the usual e-debate caveats apply, but historically i judge online with a much better headphone/mic setup than is currently available to me - focus a bit more on clarity than usual.

All chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com

and, please also add

HSPD: dulles.policy.db8@gmail.com

HSLD: loyoladebate47@gmail.com

CPD: uhoustondebate@gmail.com

please have the email sent before start time. late starts are annoying. annoying hurts speaker points.

Dulles High School (HSPD), Loyola High School (HSLD), University of Houston (CPD) - if you are currently committed to debating at the University of Houston in the future, please conflict me. If you're interested in debating at UH, reach out.

please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are all fine.

he/him/his - do not misgender people. not negotiable.

"takes his job seriously, but not himself."

safety of debaters is my utmost concern at all times. racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. not tolerated - I am willing to act on this more than most judges. don't test me.

debated 2014-22 (HSPD Oceans - NDT/CEDA Personhood), and won little but learned lots. high school was politics disads and advantage counterplans with niche plans. college was planless affs and the K, topicality, or straight turning an advantage. i'm a 2N from D3 - this is the most important determinant of debate views in this paradigm.

every judge thinks arguments are good or bad, which makes them easier or harder to vote on, usually unconsciously. i'm trying to make it clear what i think good and bad arguments are and how to debate around that. on average, happiest in debates with lots of cards for a disad or K + case vs aff with a plan, but high-quality, well-warranted arguments + judge instruction >>> any specific positions - Kant, planless affs, process counterplans, and topicality can be vertically dense, cool debates. they can also be total slop. i'm a full time coach and i judge tons of debates, but my topic/argument knowledge won't save bad debating. i flow carefully and value "tech" over "truth", but dropped arguments are only as good as the dropped argument itself - i don't start flowing until i hear a warrant, and i find i have a higher threshold for warrants and implications than most. i take offense/defense very seriously - debating comparatively is much better than abstractions.

Wheaton's law is axiomatic - be kind, have fun. i do my best to give detailed decisions and feedback - debaters deserve no less than the best. coaches and debaters are welcome to ask questions, and i know passions run high, but i struggle to understand being angry for it's own sake - just strike me if you don't like how i judge, save us the shouting match.

"act like you've been here."

details

- evidence: Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” Richard Garner: "I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting"

- organization: good (obviously). extend parts your argument as responses to theirs. follow the order of the previous speech when you can. hard number arguments ("1NC 2", not "second/next"). subpointing good, but when overdone speeches feel disjointed, substitutes being techy for sounding techy. debating in paragraphs >>> bullet points.

- new arguments: getting out of hand. "R" in 1AR doesn't stand for constructive. at minimum, new args must be explicitly justified by new block pivots - otherwise, very good for 2NRs saying "strike it".

- inserting cards: fine if fully explained indict of card they read – new arguments or different parts of the article should be read aloud. will strike excessive insertions if told if most are nothing.

- case debates: miss them. advantages are terrible, easily link turned. solvency can be zero with smart CX and analytics. executing this well gets high speaker points.

- functional competition: good, makes sense. textual competition: silly, seems counterproductive. positional competition: upsetting. competing off of immediacy/certainty: skeptical, never assumed by literature, weird interpretation of fiat and mandates. plank to ban plan: does not make other non-competitive things competitive. intrinsicness: fine, but intrinsic perms often not actually intrinsic. voting record on all these: very even, teams fail to make the best arguments.

- process counterplans: interesting when topic and aff specific, annoying when recycled slop. insane ideas that collapse government (uncooperative fedism), misunderstand basic legal processes (US Code), and don't solve net benefit (most) can be zero with good CX. competition + intuitive deficits > arbitrary theory interps.

- state of advantage counterplan texts is bad. should matter more. evidence quality paramount. CX can make these zero.

- judge kick: only if explicitly told in a speech. however, splitting 2NR unstrategic – winning a whole counterplan > half a counterplan and half a case defense. better than most for sticking the neg with a counterplan, but needs airtime before 2AR.

- "do both shields" and "links to net benefit" insanely good, underrated, require a comeback in the meta. but, most permutations are 2AC nothingburgers, making debates late breaking - less i understand before the block = less spin 1AR gets + more lenient to 2NR. solve this with fewer, better permutations - "do both, shields link" = tagline, not argument.

- uniqueness controls link/vice versa: contextual to any given arg. extremist opinions ("no offense without uniqueness"/"don't need uniqueness") seem silly.

- impact turns: usually have totalizing uniqueness and questionable solvency. teams should invest here on top of impact debate proper.

- turns case/case turns: higher threshold than most. ideally carded, minimally thoroughly explained for specific internal links.

- impact framing: most is bad, more conceptual than concrete. "timeframe outweighs magnitude" sometimes it doesn't. why does it in this debate? "intervening actors check" who? how? comparing scenarios >>> abstractions. worse for "try or die" than most - idk why 100% impact x 2% solvency outweighs 80% link x 50% impact. specificity = everything. talk about probability more. risk matters a lot.

- the K: technical teams that read detailed evidence should take me high. performance teams can also take me - i've coached this with some success, and i'm better for you than i seem. good: link to some 1AC premise/mechanism with an impact that outweighs the net benefit to a permutation, external impact that turns/outweighs case, a competitive and solvent alternative. bad: antonio 95, "fiat illusory", etc. devil's in the details - examples, references to aff evidence, etc. delete your 2NC overview, do 8 minutes of line-by-line - you will win more.

- aff vs K: talk about the 1AC more, dump cards about the K less - debate on your turf, not theirs. if aff isn't built to link turn, don't bother. "extinction outweighs" should not be the only impact calculus (see above: impact framing). perm double bind usually ends up being dumb. real permutation and deficit > asserting the possibility of one - "it could theoretically shield the link or not solve" loses to "it does neither" + warrant.

- framework arguments: "X parts of the 1AC are best basis for rejoinder/competition because Y which means Z" = good, actually establishes a framework. “weigh the aff”/“reps first” = non-arguments, what does this mean. will not adopt a “middle ground” interp if nobody advances one – usually both incoherent and unstrategic. anything other than plan focus prob gives the negative more than you want (e.g: unsure why PIKs are bad if the negative gets “reps bad” + "plan bad"). consequently, fine with “delete plan”, but neg can win with a framework push that gives links and alt without doing so.

- clash debates: vote for topicality against planless affirmatives more often than not because in a bad debate it’s easier for the negative to win. controlling for quality, I vote for the best K and framework teams equally often - no strong ideological bent. fairness or a specific, carded skills impact >>> “clash”. impact turns and counterinterps equally winnable, both require explanation of solvency/uniqueness and framing against neg impacts + link defense. equally bad for "competition doesn't matter" and "only competition matters". language of impact calculus (“turns case/their offense”, higher risk/magnitude, uniqueness, etc) helps a lot. both sides usually subpar on how what the aff does/doesn't do implicates debates. TVA/SSD underrated as offense, overrated as defense - to win it, i need to actually know what the aff/neg link looks like, not just gesture towards it being possible.

- best rounds ever are good K v K, worst ever are bad ones. judge instruction, organization, specificity key. "turns/solves case" >>> "root cause", b/c offense >>> defense. explaining what is offense, what competes, etc (framework arguments) >>> "it's hard to evaluate pls don't" ("no plan, no perm"). aff teams benefit from "functional competition" argument vs 1NCs that spam word PICs and call it "frame subtraction". "ballot PIK" should never win against a competent aff team. Marxism should win 9/10 negative debates executed by a smart 2N. more 2NRs should press case - affs don't do anything. idk why the neg gets counterplans against planless affs - 2ACs should say this.

- critical affs with plans/"soft left" should be more common. teams that take me here do hilariously well if they answer neg arguments (the disad doesn't vanish bc "conjunctive fallacy").

- topicality: for me, more predictable/precise > “debatable” - literature determines everything, unpredictable interpretations = bad. however, risk is contextual - little more precise, super underlimiting prob not winner. hyperbole is the enemy - "even with functional limits, we lose x and they get y" >>> "there are 4 gorillion affirmatives". reasonability: about the counterinterpretation, good for offense about substance crowd-out and silly interps, bad for "good is good enough". plan in a vacuum: good check against extra/fx-topicality, less good elsewhere. extra-topicality: something i care less about than most. extremely bad for arguments about grammar/semantics.

- aff on theory: “riders” to the plan, plan being "horse-traded" - not how fiat works. counterplans that fiat actors different from the plan (includes states) - a misunderstanding of negation theory/neg fiat. will probably not drop more than the argument. neg on theory: literally everywhere else. arbitrariness objection strong. conditionality is a divine right bestowed by heavenly mandate, so i defend it with religious zeal. RVIs don't get flowed. LD-esque theory shenanigans: total non-starter.

- disclosure: good, but arbitrary standards bad. care little about anything that isn't active misclosure. new unbroken affs: good. "disclose 1NC": lol.

- LD “tricks”: disastrously bad for them. most just feel like defense with extra steps. nobody has gotten me to understand truth testing, much less like it.

- LD phil: actually pretty solid for it. well-carded, consistent positions + clear judge instruction for impact calculus = high win-rate. spamming calc indicts + a korsgaard card or two = less so. i appreciate straight turn debates. modesty is winnable, but usually a cop-out + incoherent.

- if the above is insufficiently detailed, see: Richard Garner, James Allan, J.D. Sanford (former coaches), Brett Cryan (former 2A), Holden Bukowsky, Bryce Sheffield (former teammates), Aiden Kim, Sean Wallace, (former students) and Ali Abdulla (best debate bud).

procedural notes

- pretty bad hearing damage in my left ear (tinnitus) + don’t flow off the doc. still quite good at flowing, but clarity matters a lot – 2x "clear", then I stop typing. debaters go through tags and analytics too quickly – give me pen time, or i will take pen time. you can ask to see my flow.

- terrible poker face. treat facial expressions as real-time feedback.

- i have autism. i close my eyes or put my head down during a speech if i feel overstimulated. promise i'm still flowing. i make very little eye contact. don't take it personally.

- card doc fine and good, but only cards extended in final rebuttals – including extraneous evidence is harshly penalized with speaks. big evidence enjoyer - fire cards get fire speaks, but only when i'm told.

- CX: binding and mandatory. it can get you very high or very low speaks. i flow important things. "lying by omission" is smart CX, but direct dishonesty means intervention (i.e: 1NC reads elections, "was elections read?", "no" = i am pausing CX and asking if i should scratch the flow).

- personality is good, but self-righteousness isn't really a personality trait. it's a game - have fun. aggressive posturing is most often obnoxious, dissuasive, and betrays a lack of appreciation for your opponents. this isn't to say you can't talk mess (please do, if warranted - its funny, and i care little for "decorum"), but it's inversely related to the skill gap - trolling an opponent in finals is different from bullying a post-nov in presets.

- prep time ends when the doc is sent. prep stolen while "sending it now" is getting ridiculous. if you are struggling to compile and send a doc, do Verbatim drills. i am increasingly willing to enforce this by imposing additional prep time penalties for excessive dead time while "sending the extra cards" and such.

- there is no flow clarification time – “what cards did you read?” is a CX question. “can you send a doc with the cut cards marked” is fine, “can you take out all the cards you didn’t read” means you weren't flowing, so it'll cost you CX or prep. not flowing negatively correlates with speaks. be reasonable - putting 80 case cards in the doc and reading 5, skipping around randomly, is bad form, but objecting to the general principle is telling on yourself. flow.

- related to above, if you answer a position in the doc that was skipped, you are getting a 27.5. seriously. the state of flowing is an atrocity. you should know better. flow.

- speaks: decided by me, based on quality of arguments and execution + how fun you are to judge, relative to given tournament pool. 28.5 = 3-3, 29+ = clearing + bidding, 29.5+ = top 5-10 speakers + late elims, 30 = perfect speech.

- not adjudicating the character of minors I don’t know regarding things I didn’t see.

- when debating an opponent of low experience, i will heavily reward giving younger debaters the dignity of a real debate they can still participate in (i.e: slower, fewer off, more forthcoming in CX). if you believe the best strategy against a novice is extending hidden aspec, i will assume you are too bad at debate to beat a novice on anything else, and speaks will reflect that. these debates are negatively educational and extremely annoying.

- ethics challenges: only issues that make continuing in good faith impossible are worth stopping a debate. the threshold is criminal negligence or malicious intent. evidence ethics requires an impact - omitting paragraphs mid-card that conclude neg changes the argument; leaving out an irrelevant last sentence doesn't. open to alternative solutions - i'd rather strike an incorrectly cited card than not debate. ask me if i would consider ending the round appropriate for a given issue, and i will answer honestly. clipping requires a recording to evaluate, and is an instant loss (no other way to resolve it) if it is persistent enough to alter functional speech time (criminal negligence/malicious intent, requires an impact). inexperience grants some (but minimal) leniency. ending a debate means it will not restart, all evidence will be immediately provided to me, and everyone shuts up - further attempt to sway my adjudication by debaters or coaches = instant loss. loser get an L0 and winners get a W28.5/28.4. all this is out the window if tabroom says something else.

- edebate: it still sucks. i keep my camera on as much as possible. if wifi is spotty, i will turn it off during speeches to maximize bandwidth, but always turn it back on to confirm i'm there before speeches. assume i am not present unless you see my face or hear my voice. if you start and i'm not there, you don't get to restart. low-quality microphones and audio compression means speak slower and clearer than normal.

closing thoughts

i have been told my affect presents as pretty flat or slightly negative while judging - trying to work on this - but i truly love debate, and i'm happy to be here. while i am cynical about certain aspects of the community/activity, it is still the best thing i have ever done. debate has brought me wonderful opportunities, beautiful friendships, and made me a better person, and i hope it can do the same for you. i am very lucky i found it.

take care of yourself. debaters increasingly present as exhausted and malnourished. three square meals and sleep is both more useful and better for you than overexerting yourself. people underestimate how much even mild dehydration impacts you. it's a game - not worth your well-being.

i like music. i listen to a very wide range of it. HS debaters can recommend me a song to listen to during prep or decision time - enjoyable music gives everyone in the room +0.1. music i dislike receives no penalty.

good luck! have fun!

- pat

Stephanie Garrison Benjamin Franklin 3 rounds

Jackson Haber Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:40 AM CST

Background: Auburn '24/Mechanical Engineering/President of AEPi Theta (term ends January '24)/President of Hillel (May '22-May '23)/NROTC (will be a Surface Warfare Nuclear Officer upon graduation/commissioning in May 2024). I debated at Isidore Newman School in policy debate and LD debate for four years. I never became what one would deem "competitive" at the activity until I made the switch to LD late junior year. During my senior year, I had success on both the local and national circuits (broke at a couple bid tournaments, a round robin, and NSDA Nationals). Interpret that as you wish. My paradigm will be overwhelmingly LD related, but most, if not all, of my paradigm can be applied to policy.

Email Chain: bengalfrog14 at gmail dot com

The Basics:

1. Progressive or Traditional? I’m good with either. Did well in both.

2. Truth testing or competing worlds? This is an interesting question. Personally, I feel as though national circuit LD largely consists "competing worlds" arguments. However, I feel as though truth testing arguments can still win many rounds on the national circuit. I ran both "truth testing" and "competing worlds" arguments during my time in LD, and am fine with judging both.

3. Tech or Truth? “TRUTH AND TECH MATTER EQUALLY. IMO judges who say TECH>TRUTH are dumb and failing their duties as educators. Arguments which are deliberately false, inconsistent with the literature, etc. will face a bias against them.” – Anthony Berryhill.

4. Speed? I don’t care. Go fast or go conversational. However, I fundamentally believe that debaters far too often go faster than they think they can go. Your speaker points will suffer if you do this throughout the round repetitively. I will only yell clear twice, after that I will not flow.

Specific Arguments (For the affirmative and negative):

1. Disadvantages: Love them. As I transitioned into LD from policy, I was already used to running disadvantages, even though at the time I still wasn’t particularly good at running them. The biggest thing about the DA is that they need to be a) well warranted, b) have strong links and c) have an impact that competes with the affirmative’s impacts. If you have all of these three things, guess what? You have a good disadvantage. If you lack one of these things, you’re walking the line. If you lack any more, you should probably kick the disadvantage. My personal pet peeve are links that go along the lines of “X might lead to this.” Your cards need to be “confident.” Also, have good sources. AND SHOW AUTHOR QUALS!! For the affirmative, respond to the individual warrants of the disadvantage. Disprove the validity of the link chain and/or impact and weigh against the impact, or impacts, of the disadvantage.

2. Counterplans: I also love them. Again, I was pretty used to the concept of the counterplan as I made my way into the world of LD. I also believe that counterplans are not used enough in traditional debate, which frustrates me. If run correctly i.e. not saying the actual phrase “counterplan” and adapting to the judge, a counterplan can be run in front of half of all traditional judges. But let’s go into specifics. The counterplan has to have some sort of net benefit in order to compete with the affirmative. This can take the form of a disadvantage, case turn, etc. But if such net benefit fails to be well warranted, have strong links, or a notable impact, the counterplan begins to fall apart, as it does nothing better than the affirmative. What should you take from this? Simple. If you are going to run a counterplan, have a GOOD NET BENEFIT. For the counterplan proper, there needs to be a plan text or some sort of advocacy I can vote off of. I’m fine with planks, but don’t make them excessive. And the counterplan follows the same three rules as disadvantages for me (with the net benefit’s impact serving as the “impact” for the CP). For the aff, I have one word. PERM. Ok, maybe that’s not all I have to say. But, perming was something I as a debater struggled with. I lost an out round just because I didn’t make a perm. Unfortunately, I see others make the same mistakes. Perming is essential. Since it’s usually run as a test of competition against the affirmative, my personal view of the perm is to disprove the net benefit from being legitimate. In other words, if the net benefit has no offense, then the permutation works as a test of competition. If you use the permutation as an actual advocacy, beware that you are beginning to sever out of the affirmative’s advocacy in the 1AC. I will not consider this in my voting UNLESS the negative calls the affirmative out on this.

3. The K: Oh boy. Generally speaking, I have never been a big fan of the K. Although many Ks address issues that occur in our society regardless of what resolution is presented, I find too often that the same Ks are used for YEARS without any updates to what is currently happening. Given this, you should contextualize whatever K you plan to run in front of me with the topic in addition to making sure the literature is still acceptable, both from an academic and social standpoint. Moving on, I never really ran Ks in my time as a debater. That was probably because I was so used to policy arguments as I morphed into LD, but for me, a good policy argument with turns, take-outs, and net benefits just seemed cooler than a K. In the end, run whatever K you think you can win off of. Just make sure the K has strong links and has a good alternative. I will not vote for Ks that have no alternative. For K affs, I will not vote for ANY unless they have some sort of advocacy, text, or simply a restatement of the resolution. Call me old school. I don’t care. For the affirmative, make permutations. Additionally, I big flaw I find with affirmative counter-arguments to Ks is that they attempt to disprove the actual arguments of the K. This can be troubling in front of a lot of Ks. A much better method generally speaking is to disprove the method of the K. Basically, don’t tell me racism, sexism, antisemitism, xenophobia, etc. don’t exist. Tell me why the K's approach to such issues is flawed.

4. Theory and Topicality: I find that my stance on topicality and theory arguments tend to be quite similar. Although some enjoy these debates, I personally am not a big fan. I never really ran these arguments unless there was actual abuse (in which case I won those rounds), but I, for whatever reason, see too many debaters who run these arguments just to run the arguments. Don’t do that in front of me unless you want your speaker points to suffer and risk losing the round off a well warranted RVI from the other side. If there is actual abuse, whether it be in the form of no disclosure, a plan text that truly is not topical, or no plan text at all, I am more comfortable voting off these arguments. But be careful. I can usually tell when one’s faking with these arguments. In other words, don’t run four disadvantages and in your topicality shell then tell me that you are limited in your arguments. For the aff, calling out these fake arguments is key, in addition to running the typical standards arguments, counter-interpretations, etc. that you would usually find in these rounds.

5. Case Debate: One of the biggest problems that I see is that case debate is becoming non-existent. I see this in traditional debate and progressive debate. And when there is case debate, it’s usually just cross-applications of off-case positions. That is a poor strategy. If you want my ballot, you need to address most, if not all, of the warrants on the case and turn every one individually. Struggling to do that? Then run a disadvantage in the form of a turn on the case. You need to take out the case with multiple arguments that turn the affirmative’s warrants. Cross applications don’t do that. For affirmatives, don’t drop these case turns. If no turns are made on the case, call the negative out on it and use it to your advantage. Not making case turns is a drop in my book. And it’s almost a drop in my book with cross applications. Negatives, beware of this. Affirmatives, be attentive of this.

6. Tricks: I will either not flow, sleep, or walk out of the room if you run tricks. Don’t test me.

7. Framework: I like saving the best for last. Why is framework the best kind of argument in my opinion? Because it shapes the way one views the round. If you lose the framework debate and don’t do any weighing between values, value criterions, or whatever metric the round is being measured with, your chances of winning the round are slim. With that being said, the best framework debates are ones in which a) you explain why your framework (or more specifically value and value criterion) is better and why b) even if you lose the framework debate, you still win under your opponent’s framework i.e. weighing. This should be textbook debate, but I still see debaters who never weigh in the framework debate. It makes me very sad.

Conclusion: There’s a quote I’d like to share. Football coach Dutch Meyer once said, “Fight ‘em until hell freezes over. Then fight ‘em on the ice!”. If you debate with passion, energy, and the drive to win, I will reward that, whether it be in the form of speaker points, a win, or both. Debate is not just a game. It’s a competition. So compete.

J Hammons Christ Episcopal School 3 rounds

Chetan Hertzig Harrison 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 14, 2024 at 7:26 AM EST

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

Do not use profanity in round. I will lower speaker points if you do.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.

To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Richard Hood Conway High School 6 rounds

Scott Johnstone Southside High School 6 rounds None

Kristen Kirschner Episcopal HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 11:43 AM EST

Debate Judge Paradigm for Kristen Kirschner Introduction

With 8 years of experience as a debate coach, my familiarity lies primarily in Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas debate formats. My philosophy is deeply rooted in the belief that debate is a crucial educational tool, fostering mature and thoughtfully reasoned discourse. I view debate not just as a competition but as a platform for developing critical thinking, effective communication, and respectful disagreement.

Evaluation Criteria

Argumentation

Clarity and Coherence: Arguments should be clearly articulated and logically structured. I value debaters who can present complex ideas in an understandable manner.
Evidence and Empirical Support: Strong and relevant evidence is key. I look for quality sources and how well they are integrated into your arguments.
Depth of Analysis: Surface-level arguments are less persuasive. I appreciate deep analytical thinking that goes beyond the obvious.

Delivery

Speaking Style: I prefer a conversational style that maintains formality. Clarity of speech and effective pacing are important.
Non-Verbal Communication: Body language and eye contact can enhance the persuasiveness of your argument, though they are not primary factors in my decision.

Strategy

Case Construction: Don’t abandon the fundamentals of your specific debate LD MUST have a Value AND a Criterion. Logical and well-structured cases are essential. Each argument should be clearly linked to your evidence.
Rebuttals: I expect direct engagement with the opponent's case. Rebuttals should be structured, addressing key arguments methodically.
Cross-Examination: Effective use of cross-examination can significantly strengthen your position. It should be used to clarify, challenge, and advance your arguments. Your ability to handle the questioning and responses without the use of sarcasm, rhetorical questions, or hypothetical situations (i.e. not based on card-supported evidence) is required.

Decision-Making Process

Overall Assessment: My decision is based on the cumulative effectiveness of your argumentation, delivery, and strategic choices.
Respect and Decorum: Mutual respect is non-negotiable. Personal attacks against opponents will result in an immediate downvote, irrespective of the strength of your case.
Feedback: Constructive feedback will be provided, focusing on areas of strength and suggestions for improvement.

NOTE: I do not disclose at large tournaments that have a complex and tight schedule.

Crawford Leavoy Durham Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:36 PM EST

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Nethmin Liyanage Loyola High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 9:14 AM PST

tldr - do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; topic-specific research is good; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

about me:

she/her

i coach policy debate at damien-st. lucy's

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments. I am good for teams that do topic research and bad for teams whose final rebuttals sound like they could be given on any topic/against any strategy.

if i'm judging you in LD -- scroll to the bottom for LD-specific thoughts.most of my thoughts about policy debate are probably still applicable

Topic Knowledge: I don't teach at camp but I do keep up with the topic. I'm involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research.

email chains:

damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if i am judging you in ld -- don't add the team email please!

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the team email for these types of requests)!

non-negotiables:

1 - speech times - constructive are 8 minutes, rebuttals are 5, each partner must give one constructive and one rebuttal, cx cannot be transferred to prep.

2 - evidence ethics is not a case neg - will not vote on it unless you can prove a reasonable/good-faith attempt to contact the other team prior to the round.

3 - clipping requires proof by the accusing team or me noticing it. i'll vote on it with no recording if i notice it.

4 - i will not evaluate out-of-round events. this means no arguments about pref sheets, personal beef, etc. i will evaluate disclosure arguments.

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:) you must show me your flows before i enter the ballot!!

on a related note, i will never flow from the speech document.

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve theory arguments about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. Going fast is fine, being unclear is not. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

Disclose or lose. Previously read positions must be on opencaselist. New positions do not need to be disclosed. "I do not have to disclose" is a losing argument in front of me 100% of the time.

Evidence -- it matters and I'll read it. Judge instruction is still a thing here. Don't just say "read this card" and not tell me why. Ev comparison is good. Cutting good cards is good. Failing to do one or both of those things leaves me to interpret your bad cards in whatever way I want -- that's likely to not be good.

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra points for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus points for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

2ac add-ons must be coherent in the speech they are presented. You don't get to turn a random card on a random sheet into an add-on in the 2ar.

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have some kind of relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am better for the neg.However, most of these debates are not evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness. I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponent's strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

Theory arguments other than conditionality are likely not a reason to reject the team. It will be difficult to change my mind on this.

Theory arguments must have warrants in the speech in which they are presented. Most 2ac theory arguments I've seen don't meet this standard.

Conditionality is an uphill battle in front of me.If the 2ac contained warrants + the block dropped the argument entirely, I would vote aff on conditionality, but in any other scenario, the aff team should likely not go for conditionality.

Please weigh! Many theory debates feel irresolvable without intervention because each team only extends their offense but does not interact with the other team's offense.

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are very helpful.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

"Plans bad" is pretty close to a nonstarter in front of me (this is more of a thing in LD I think).

Kritiks (neg):

I am best for K teams that engage with the affirmative, do line-by,line, and read links that prove that the aff is a bad idea.

I am absolutely terrible for K teams that don't debate the case. Block soup = bad.

I vote for K teams often when they are technical and make smart big-picture arguments and demonstrate topic knowledge. I vote against K teams when they do ... not that!

In general, clash-avoidant K strategies are bad, K strategies that involve case debating are good.

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about counterplan theory other than that condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

Competition debates have largely become debates where teams read a ton of evidence and explain none of it. Please explain your competition evidence and I will be fine! I'll read cards after the debate, but would prefer that you instruct me on what to do with those cards.

LD-specific section:

-my ld topic knowledge is not as good as my policy topic knowledge. i cut a few cards and see a few ld debates every topic, but that's about it. best to over-explain topic-specific things

-you might think of cx judges in ld as people who despise judging ld and despise you for doing ld. i try to not let this be true about me. all of my issues with ld can be grouped into two general categories: 1) speech times/structure (not your fault, won't penalize you for it), and 2) the tendency to read unwarranted nonsense, such as "tricks," shoes theory, etc (you can avoid reading these args very easily and make me very happy)

-i am a horrid judge for tricks and frivolous theory. please just go for another argument!

-i do not judge philosophy-based arguments often, since i primarily judge policy. i am not ideologically opposed to these arguments but will need a lot of handholding-explanation. i am happy to judge these debates, i just need more explanation. as a note -- phil positions that contain tricks are not a winning strategy.

-i am not a good judge for the various flavors of ld theory arguments that say the affirmative should not get to read a plan

-you don't get 1ar add-ons -- there is no 2ac in ld

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-"tricks"

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

-new affs bad

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Jacob Lugo Hire 6 rounds

Adam Magnus Hire 1 rounds None

Jacob Nails Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 2:14 PM CST

My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com

Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

LD Paradigm

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Lisa Namikas Episcopal HS 2 rounds

Temitope Ogundare Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 7:42 AM EST

Newark Science + Rutgers-Newark (debated for both)

Katy Cat: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

P L E A S E - label email chains with the tournament, round + flight (if relevant), and teams. Something like "Newark Invitational R5 F2 - Newark Science TO [AFF] v RU-N OT [NEG]" would be great.

No SpeechDrop. Not kidding. I'm ideologically opposed. BUT I don't flow off docs (extra points if you don't either, it's a dying skill) so my opinion might not matter all that much but just gotta throw it out there.

Now the stuff you came for: If it matters, I've done basically every debate style, both HS and College, full spectrum of the library. I don't care much about what you read but there's some stuff at the bottom regarding that "much" part. Just remember, I'm an adult viewing the game, not participating in it. On this, you should enter the debate assuming I don't want to be there (you'll see why in the "Random" section) and that your job is to enter the room, not make me sad, win the debate, probably take some RFD notes, and then leave the debate -- all as efficiently as possible.

General things:

Spreading is fine. Open CX is fine. Flex prep is fine. Inserted rehighlightings are fine. Cards in the body are fine. K affs are fine. F the topic affs are fine. Policy affs are fine. DA 2NRs are fine. CP 2NRs are fine. T/heory is fine. Impact turns are fine. 12 off 1NCs are fine. Trad debate is fine.I really don't have particular gripes with anything but feel free to ask me specifics before round.

Good judge instruction please. Impact calc please. Make it as easy as possible for me to say "a win is a win and my flow is bond."

Be good people. I'm not a licensed therapist but will do a wellness check and offer an ice cream spot but I hopefully won't have to do that.

Random things I feel the need to emphasize...

Do not try to appeal to me as a person. I gave up my soul for a fun-sized Snickers bar years ago and anything that might've been left died when tournaments started abusing my obligation. In the same vein, I have a pretty good poker face because yes, I am probably bored with or apathetic to judging. Do not use my expressions, joyous or "angry" or otherwise as a meter for how you're doing.

Hilariously though, I actually love this activity in its best form. I consistently dedicate my summers to debate/camp (Summer 2024 -- I was only home from for 8 days between May and September and it was because of a family emergency). I think debate is important and everyone needs to act like it or please let me leave and coach my kids!

^ Tangentially related to this, I am okay with if someone/team doesn't want to have a traditional round (like they want the round to be a dialogue or they want to flip a coin to decide the winner). I am not okay with having my time wasted so everyone needs to get on the same page quickly about what my role is, how I should decide/vote, etc. so I can leave and be human for a bit.

The below thoughts are my attempt to change the panels I've been on/what I've been adjudicating...

Strategic thinking is good. Sometimes debates have to get a little bit messy to show the judge the whole chess board but as long as you're instructing, it's all good. Don't be afraid! If your speech ends and I'm thinking, "oh man, that was smart" or "that was silly but well executed," that's good and you'll probably be rewarded (even if it means I have to sit through a "they dropped condo" 2AR).
A lot of you believe that you can do tricks. You can't. It's annoying to hear. This is not an invitation to try and do it well in front of me. You're not that guy (general phrase, not a gender question) so I don't want to hear it.
Many of you lack a conception of time and the physical limits of the body. You think your judges aren't tired after judging double flights all day and can blaze at top speed and then that you're justified being upset at decisions. That's silly.

Jacob Palmer Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu May 23, 2024 at 10:38 AM EST

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I did 4 years of policy at Emory. I also did 4 years of LD at Durham and have coached at Durham since I graduated. I mostly judge LD but occasionally find myself in a PF or Policy pool, so most of this paradigm is targeted at LDers. Regardless of the event I am judging though, I will do my best to adapt to you and evaluate the round solely off the flow. TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. If you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate you will do well. I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity.

Specifics

Policy – Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. The 2nr in LD is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or sandbagging cards that should've been in the 1nc, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr should just be in the 1nc.

T – Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be very sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. You need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than some other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find most TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Cap and other kritiks can also be good. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love phil debates. I think these debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

Kristina Plunkett St. Mary's Dominican High School 3 rounds

Nanak Rai Hire 6 rounds None

Christopher Randall Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 10:17 AM EST

In an LD debate I will not flow more than 3 off case arguments!

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING

Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

SunHee Simon Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 5:12 PM EST

I'm the current assistant coach at Coppell High School where I also have the lovely opportunity to teach Speech & Debate to great students. I did LD, Policy, and Worlds in High School (Newark Science '15) and a bit of Policy while I was in college (Stanford '19). I'm by no means "old" but I've been around long enough to appreciate different types of debate arguments at this point. As long as you're having fun, I can feel it and will probably have fun listening to you, too!

WSD

This is now my main event nowadays. Given my LD/Policy background, I do rely very heavily on my flow. That doesn't mean you have to be very techy--you should and can group arguments and do weighing--but I try my best to not just ignore concessions. Framing matters a lot to me because it helps me filter what impacts I should care about most by the end of the debate.

If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask.

Also follow @worldofwordsinstitute on Instagram or check out www.worldofworldsinstitute.com for quality WSD content :)

LD/Policy

I'd love to be on the email chain. My email is sunhee.simon@gmail.com

Pref shortcut for those of you who like those:

LARP: 1-2

K: 1-2

Phil: 1-2

Tricks: 5/strike

Theory (if it's your PRIMARY strat - otherwise I can be preffed higher): 3

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

Credentials that people seem to care about: senior (BA + MA candidate) at Stanford, Director of LD at the Victory Briefs Institute, did LD, policy, and worlds schools debate in high school, won/got to late elims in all of those events, double qualled to TOC in LD and Policy. Did well my freshman year in college in CX but didn't pursue it much after that. Now I coach and judge a bunch.

LD + Policy

Literally read whatever you want. If I don't like what you've read, I'll dock your speaks but I won't really intervene in the debate. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round. Don't make arguments that can translate to marginalized folks not mattering (this will cloud my judgement and make me upset). I've also been mostly coaching and judging World Schools debate the past two years so you're going to need to slow down for me for sure. As the tournament goes on my ear adjusts but it's likely I'll say "slow" to get you to slow down. After 3 times, I won't do it anymore and will just stop listening.

Otherwise have fun and enjoy the activity for the 45 or 90 mins we're spending together! More info on specific things below:

Stock/Traditional Arguments

Makes sense.

I get this. The role of the ballots/framing is really helpful for me and usually where I look first.

I understand this. If reading against a K team I'd encourage you to make argument about how fairness/education relates to the theory of power/epistemology of the K. Would make all of our lives better and more interesting.

Theory

I also understand this. But don't abuse the privilege. I am not a friv theory fan so don't read it if you can (or else I might miss things as you blip through things).

Plans/CP/DAs

I understand this too. Slow down when the cards are shorter so I catch the tags.

I don't default to anything necessarily however I do know my experiences and understandings of debate were shaped by me coming from a low income school that specialized in traditional and critical debate. I've been around as a student and a coach (I think) long enough to know my defaults are subject to change and its the debaters' job to make it clear why theory comes first or case can be weighed against the K or RVIs are good or the K can be leveraged against theory. I learn so much from you all every time I judge. Teach me. Lead me to the ballot. This is a collaborative space so even if I have the power of the ballot, I still need you to tell me things. Otherwise, you might get a decision that was outside of your control and that's never fun.

On that note, let it be known that if you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afropessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds like you did this specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go. If you win the argument, I will give you the round though so either a) go for it if this is something you actually care about and know you know it well or b) let it go and surprise me in other ways. If you have a problem with this, I'd love to hear your reasons why but it probably won't change my mind. I can also refer other authors you can read to the best of my ability if I'm up to it that day.

Last thing, please make sure I can understand you! I understand spreading but some of y'all think judges are robots. I don't look at speech docs during the round (and try not to after the round unless I really need to) so keep that in mind when you spread. Pay attention to see if I'm flowing. I'll make sure to say clear if I can't understand you. I'll appreciate it a lot if you keep this in mind and boost your speaks!

Hannah Stafford The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 2:08 PM CST

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its a LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus it makes a a majority of my decisions. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech. Collapsing is important in the summary and final focus. Yes you can go fast if you are clear. I am open to theory and kritical argumentation - just ensure you are clearly warranting everything.

Joshua Stewart Holy Cross School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 2:31 AM CST

Please include me on the email chain at jstewartdebate@gmail.com. Feel free to ask questions always.

I competed for Barbe High School, McNeese State University and Western Kentucky University. I competed in IEs in both high school and college. I debated L-D and policy in high school on the local, Louisiana circuit. I also competed nationally in college in IE’s, Parli, NFA L-D policy and some CEDA/NDT. I have judged in Louisiana and around the region for the last 15 years.

TLDR: I was a policymaking type debater. Weighing net-benefits is what I am most familiar with. I try to be as “tab” as possible and will evaluate any argument. It needs to be well warranted, well impacted and well weighed against the rest of arguments in the round. You might need to do slightly more work fleshing out newer forms of argumentation with me, but I will vote on them if I feel like you are winning them.

I am self-professed “lazy” judge. I want to feel like I am doing the least intervening possible at the end of the round. I would love for you to tell me which arguments are important enough for me to vote on, what their comparative impacts are and why you are winning those arguments. I appreciate you telling me how I should sign my ballot.

I am still somewhat old school around paperless debating- it just wasn’t a thing yet when I was competing or judging the first go around. I use e-mailed/flashed evidence mostly for reading internal warrants. I will use this to follow along the speech, however I’m not a fan of reading speech docs/blocks in a vacuum. Signposting and clear organizational structure are important for me and I tend to award higher speaker points for them.

POLICY-

K/Kritikal Aff- I have a pretty good familiarity with critical theory/thought. I am probably less familiar with the intricacies of Kritik debate theory. You would probably be helping yourself out with me to spend a bit more time on setting up your framework and giving really clear impact stories. Explicit arguments about “how we win” or “the role of the ballot” would help me better understand how/why to vote for you on these types of positions. This is especially true if there are situations like perms put on the alternative. I want to know why the alternative alone solves best on its face, in addition to any theoretical objections to the perm. I also appreciate clear pre-fiat/post-fiat analysis. If the impact is post-fiat (“turns case”) and the alternative is pre-fiat (“discourse/radical space/etc”) I want you to tell me how to navigate the multiple levels of your advocacy.

T/Procedurals- I tend to have a slightly lower threshold on procedurals. I do not need an iron clad in-round abuse story necessarily. I will evaluate these more often than many.

LD-

I tend to vote on framework first. That is just how I was taught. But with more progressive styles I will evaluate framework in light of case advantages/disadvantages. As with the Kritik info above, you may need to do a little more hand holding with me around the alternative and/or role of the ballot. I tend to prefer crystallization at the end of the round with clear impact analysis and tend to give higher speaks to those that show good round vision and can ‘boil down’ the round effectively.

PF-

I’m comfortable with the newer trend of giving an explicit framework at the top of case. If you don’t give me one then I’ll default to something like policymaking/comparative advantages. I tend to appreciate probability over magnitude in PF because of the lack of depth of evidence. Things that are intuitive and make sense on their face seem like a more natural fit to this style of debate. I will evaluate anything that is argued in front of me, though. It needs to be well warranted, well extended (including extending the warrants), well impacted and well leveraged against the other argumentation in the round for it to be most persuasive. I like final focus speeches that crystallize the round for me and give me good impact analysis. Feel free to take the ballot out my hands by telling me what arguments are most important, how they function in the round and why you are winning on them.

IE’s-

I tend to think about most IEs in terms of argumentation. This is more obvious for events like Extemp, Impromptu and Original Oratory. But even interp events use a text to craft a narrative with a unique point of view for each competitor. I usually evaluate IE’s on the clarity of your thesis (argument) and then how well you do at expressing/supporting it (advocacy). The more you can distill down an idea into its clearest form and then use multiple rhetorical tools to express it, the better chance you will have of getting higher ranks and higher speaks from me. FYI I’m a big fan of variety as a rhetorical tool (fast and slow rate, loud and soft volume, high and low intonation, etc). These tend to keep me more engaged in the speech/performance and tend to make me trust you more as a speaker/performer.

Samuel Theriot Southside High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 8:53 AM CST

If you are one of those debate kids, heres my email if an email chain is going around or if you really don't like my decision and want to get your thoughts out there: theriotsam84@gmail.com

Hello!

I am a current student at LSU and debated for three years in high school, but have transitioned to more of an Extemp/Impromptu kind of guy. I also have a good grasp of acting events, but never did them myself.

For Debate Events:

Don't spread please, for my and your opponent's sake.

Articulate your case well in the 1AC and 1NC, with solid arguments and frameworks established for rebuttals.

Pre-Speech roadmaps are the best way to go, so you and your opponents don't get lost in the flow.

IMPACT WEIGH AND SIGN POST PLEASE. If I don't know where you are in the flow, I may get lost in it. Impacts are key in all forms of debate, and if you can weigh with solid links and warrants while attacking your opponents, you pretty much guarantee my ballot.

I will always give verbal feedback, and I view this event as crucial for your future, so please, if you have any questions about my feedback, feel free to ask. Although I have to pick a winner, that's not the purpose of this activity: its for us to educate each other, be respectful, and develop our skills as speakers and debaters. In that regard, I am always here to help and want to be someone you can lean on for advice on future rounds!

Have fun, be respectful, and be quick on your feet!

For IEs/Acting Events:

Most importantly: let your personality shine!

For memorized pieces, make sure it's clear for me to understand the piece and that you have a good grasp of it before you perform.

Extemp/Impromptu, seem well prepared and organized with your thoughts.

Always have an organized structure.

I will provide time signals, let me know whatever you prefer!

If you have any questions either before or after the round, please let me know, I'm here to help and am not your enemy!

David Ulloa Christopher Columbus High School 3 rounds

Ruiting Wu The Awty International School 3 rounds

chaz wyche Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:14 AM EST

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.

FW

I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.

Kritiks

These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.

CPs

CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.

1. No judge kick

2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.

Plans

YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.

Presumption.

Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.

LD Specific

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Qing Yang Clear Lake High School 3 rounds

Blake Ziegler The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 4, 2024 at 11:55 AM EST

About Me

(he/him)

10 years in debate

Background in political science (democratic legitimacy/decline, religion and politics, antisemitism) and philosophy (Rawls, Kant, virtue ethics)

Conflicts:

- Varsity LD Coach, James Logan High School

- former Director, The Delores Taylor Arthur School

- Mavericks RS, University AN

Email Chain: bzdebatedocs@gmail.com(Subject: TOURNAMENT---ROUND---AFF vs NEG)

Disclaimer

Before anything else, I’m an educator and mandatory reporter. Debate is an extension of the classroom. I view my ballot as an endorsement of whatever strategy I vote for. If I find your strategy morally repugnant, problematic, or not conducive to educational debate, I’ll vote it down without hesitation. In addition to bigotry, this includes arguments in the 5/S category below. Additionally, if I find or am told that any behavior threatens someone’s physical or mental safety, I’ll end the round and report it appropriately.

Email chain/pre-round stuff should be done before the start time. The 1AC should begin at the start time.

Spreading is fine, but please start slow and build up. I’ll say “clear” twice before I stop trying to flow.

I'm flowing off my laptop but am not flowing off the doc.

Pref Shortcuts

1 - Ks, K-affs/topicality, trad

2 - policy args, soft left affs

3 - phil* (read below), theory

5/S - tricks, friv theory, wipeout/spark, death good

General Thoughts on Debate

The aff’s burden is to resolve some harm through a change in the status quo that matters under some framing mechanism. The neg’s burden is to meaningfully engage the aff and show that it’s a bad idea. Run whatever you’re comfortable with and please don’t overadapt. I genuinely enjoy judging debates where the competitors are meaningfully engaging on an important issue, regardless of the content. I don't think it's productive when the round is treated as a "joke," arguments are not produced with the intention of educational clash, or the debate devolves into high school drama. I like good arguments and below are what I consider to be qualities of good arguments.

Every argument should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact. The larger the impact, the higher the threshold for the evidence. I think it’s a missed opportunity when debaters don’t address their opponents on the warrant or structural levels. Please weigh.

I tend to evaluate K rounds in terms of an ethical binary. If the K's theory of power is true, the round is a question of whether the aff links to the K's structural analysis. As such, you should make the link debate as clear and specific as possible (rehighlights, specific behavior, etc.). Generic links likely require overexplanation and you should give a strong reason why some larger structure being true is a problem for the aff. The alt doesn't necessarily have to solve, but the perm may take out the flow.

*Phil debate is good, but mainstream approaches to it are disappointing. There's significant misrepresentation/misinterpretation of the literature that indicates debaters aren't reading their source material. That frustrates me and is why I put phil at a 3. If you haven't read your literature or can't explain the theory without buzzwords, this applies to you. If you think this doesn't apply to you, I'm likely a 1 or 2 for you.

Theory is only for legitimate abuse. I won't evaluate blippy shells and will only consider interpretations that are in the file or email chain. These debates honestly get confusing for me, so please be clear and slow down on judge instruction. I find this is especially true when a bunch of standards get extended or answered, but I'm not told how they interact with each other.

I think stock T positions are good. I don't find T-FWK as a viable route to test a non-topical aff unless it's an "option of last resort" (Smith, 2021). If this is your strategy, you need a robust defense as to why you're not engaging the aff. With that said, if you're running a non-topical aff, you should have a clear explanation as to why wemust reject the topic (e.g., no TVA), what the ballot does to resolve your harm, and how offense gets weighed under your framework.

Don’t run tricks - auto loss and 20 speaks. In general, I consider tricks to be blippy arguments intentionally tailored to deceive your opponent and avoid engagement to generate independent offense.

Disclosure is good. New affs don't need to be disclosed.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

debate is a performance

tech > truth within reason

brief off-time roadmaps please

>30 seconds to send the dock = running prep + docking speaks

flex prep = dock speaks

going over time = dock speaks (finish your thought, but don’t push it)

judge kick = dock speaks

Speaker Points

30: Flawless argumentation, solid delivery, and I learned something from the debater

29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery

29-29.4: Same as above but needs work on delivery

28.5-28.9: Good debate skills and decent delivery; shows promise

27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills

<27: You did something morally repugnant or concerning.

Stop Entering Unqualified Judges

I'm increasingly frustrated by the lack of quality judging that some programs provide to cover their obligation. Debaters work hard for high-level competition and that effort becomes futile when the judge pool lacks quality judging. If you're a progressive debater or your team regularly competes on the national circuit, but your judges are not of that level, expect me to give less in terms of my investment in judging you. Yes, some programs cannot provide these judges for a variety of legitimate reasons, but the lack of training or preparing the judges you do provide irks me. If you are providing judges for a national tournament that have little experience in debate, especially circuit debate, and it is clear they are not properly trained, this note applies to you. I will invest in judging you as much as you invested providing quality judging for the tournament. If you have a problem with this, please strike me.

A non-comprehensive list of judges like this include (from Colton Gilbert):

- parent judges

- lay judges

- judges who refuse to listen to certain arguments because they don’t like them (excluding tricks)

- judges who would prefer high school kids capitulate to what THEY want and not what the kids want to discuss

I am NOT against parent/lay judges in progressive debates, IF they are trained to adjudicate that type of argumentation. If you want to talk about it, I'm happy to have a civil discussion about it AFTER the RFD.

People who’ve significantly influenced my views on debate: Byron Arthur (especially), Aaron Timmons (especially), Jonathan Alston (especially), Bennett Eckert, Colton Gilbert, Chetan Hertzig, Anna Myers, Temitope Ogundare, Chris Randall, Elijah Smith, Hannah Stafford, Chris Vincent, Ed Williams

Login to Tabroom

Isidore Newman School Invitational

2023 — New Orleans, LA/US

LD Judges Paradigm List

Judges