Will update again for Northwestern -with a longer paradigm

I think the game is best when students are comfortable and presenting arguments at a high level. I will try my best to adjudicate the debate in front of me. Here are some things to keep in mind:

1. I'm decently versed in anti-blackness literature. So if that is your thing, awesome. I'm excited to hear your particular work. Just know because of my background I have a high threshold for that argument set. If it's not, that's ok but just know I expect arguments to have a certain level of depth to them and won't just vote on arguments that I don't understand.

2. I haven't judge alot on this topic. So different topic phrasings have to be parsed out for me.

3. I'm all about the link and impact game

4. Not a fan of the overly confrontational approach

5. Slow down on analytics

6. I'm very expressive judging debates so pay attention to the non-verbals

7. FW is cool with me - has to be impacted well.

8. DA/CPs are cool if explained well.

9. Will vote on condo - not a fan of conditional planks

Hope this helps.

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present)
Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011)
College Debater — Dartmouth College (2001-2005)
High School Debater — Blake (1997-2001)
maggiekb@gmail.com for email chains, please.

Meta Comments

1. Please be nice. If you don't want to be kind to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could enthusiastically show to my students, their families, or my principal. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. Please be clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Do your best to connect on meaningful arguments.

4. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), please don't. See "speech documents" below for a longer justification and explanation.

6. I am not willing or able to adjudicate issues that happened outside of the bounds of the debate itself — ex. previous debates, social media issues, etc.

7. In debates involving minors, I am a mandated reporter — as are all judges of debates involving minors!

8. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate and excited about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Be that student!

9. "Maggie" (or "Ms. B." if you prefer), not "judge."

What does a good debate look like?

Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently-prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.") If you're thinking "nbd, we'll just read the other four DAs on the case," I think you're missing the point. :) It's not about the specific number, it's about the depth of argument.

Do you read evidence?

Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Please read rehighlightings out loud rather than inserting them.

Do I have to be topical?

Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to prepare for a topic that is announced in advance. Affirmatives certainly do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy, however.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well-researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win. I've judged several "substantial" debates in recent years that I've greatly enjoyed.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?

If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, consider a little longer. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate. On the flip side, if the aff is reading non-intrinsic advantages, the "logical" counterplan or one that uses aff solvency evidence for the CP is much appreciated.

What about my generic kritik?

Topic or plan specific critiques are absolutely an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Kritiks that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?

I do believe there is absolute defense and vote for it often.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?

Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends.

I have some questions about speech documents...

One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates entirely off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

LD Addendum

I don't judge LD as much as I used to (I coached it, once upon a time), but I think most of the above applies. If you are going to make reference to norms (theory, side bias, etc.), please explain them. Otherwise, just debate!

PF Addendum

This is very similar to the LD addendum with the caveat that I strongly prefer evidence be presented as cards rather than paraphrasing. I find it incredibly difficult to evaluate the quality of evidence when I have to locate the original source for every issue, and as a result, I am likely to discount that evidence compared to evidence where I can clearly view the surrounding sentence/paragraph/context.

Impact Calc.

Show me why your argument is better

I will vote for anything as long as it is explained

I like ethos inside of the debate

please say "next" in-between cards

do some kind of impact interaction

explain why I should vote

if all is done u should win

Have good document organization and sign posting

Jordanbranch91@gmail.com for email chains

I'm a teacher and debate coach at Montgomery Bell Academy.

Put me on the email chain: abrown123564@gmail.com

Here is how you can make me want to give you a ballot + good speaks:

1. Make the debate comfortable and fun. I am not a good judge for you if you get super aggressive, snarky, or rude in round. I am a teacher - treat your partner and opponents the way you'd treat your classmates.

2. Please do not "cut corners" in your prep - I get very sad when I see incomplete DAs, incoherent T arguments, meaningless Adv CP texts, or evidence so un-highlighted it doesn't say anything, etc, deployed for the purpose of winning through out-spreading instead of out-debating. I generally don't think teams should be reading more than 6 off.

3. Do not forget you are in a public speaking activity. I am not evaluating the debate based off your speech doc. You should be clear, and you should flow. Please stop offering or asking for marked docs unless it is absolutely necessary.

4. Please do not abuse tag-team CX in either asking or answering questions.

4a. If you're not debating a new aff/debating as a maverick, and you decide to take CX as prep instead of asking questions, then I will allow the other team to keep reading cards for the remainder of CX.

Sorry if that all came across as grumpy. If you can do all of those things, then I'm happy and I look forward to judging you. I think that policy debate is good and that clash/fairness/etc. are all things which matter. I think debates should not exclude critical perspectives and we should seek to do what best improves the activity overall.

I am a tremendously bad judge for arguments advocating death, human extinction, or nuclear war. I probably just won't vote for them.

Have fun!

Conor Cameron
ccameron3@cps.edu
he/him/his
Coach, Solorio, 2012 - present

TLDR: Better for CP / DA / impact turn debates

I'll do my best to evaluate arguments as made.  When the way I make sense of a debate differs from the way debaters make sense of a debate, here seem to be some common sources of the disparity:

1) I'm pretty ingrained in the offense defense model.  This means that even if the NB is dumb, if the aff cannot generate a solvency deficit against the CP, and the aff has no offense against the DA, I am highly likely to vote negative.  

Some notes: a) I do not think a solvency deficit needs to be carded; b) more difficult, but I could envision voting on analytic offense against a DA, c) I'm willing to vote on zero risk of the DA, but we'd both benefit from you taking a moment to explain why the offense-defense model is inapplicable in the debate at hand

2) I still think I have a relatively high bar for voting negative on topicality; however, I've tried to begin evaluating this debate more from an offense-defense perspective.  In my mind, this means that if the affirmative does not meet the negative's interpretation, and does not have its own counterinterpretation, it is essentially arguing that any affirmative is topical and is conceding a 100% link to the limits disadvantage.  I'm highly likely to vote negative in such a debate.  

General argument notes:
3) I'm probably more sympathetic to cheaty process counterplans than most.  

4) While I may complain, I do vote on the standard canon of negative kritiks.  Things like cap, security, standard topic kritiks, etc. are fine.  Extra explanation (examples, stories, analogies, etc.) is always appreciated, all the more so the further from my comfort zone you venture.

5) FW vs K Affs: I lean negative.  However, I judge few of these debates.  Both teams would benefit from accepting that I know very little here, slowing down, speaking clearly, and over-explaining (depth, not repetition) things you assume most judges know.  

Other notes
6) I judge because:
a) I still really enjoy debate.
b) Judging is an opportunity to continue to develop my understanding of debate.
c) I am covering my students' judge commitment so that they too can benefit from this activity.

7) Quick reference
Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-------X----------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good----X------------------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-----X------------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Limits----------------------------------X------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

clara conry - she/her - Minneapolis South 22 - Emory University 26

cc.june20@gmail.com -- put it on the chain

tech > truth

offense-defense (if you are going for perm do both you need a defecit)

it is extremely obvious when you're not flowing. the amount of high school rounds i've watched this year where it is abundantly clear that not a single person is flowing is egregious. i'm not an ai. i can SEE you and i can SEE that you have paper out but not a word written.

all my argument biases don't matter as much as technical debating. i won't automatically kick the cp. i'm fine for basically any theory but condo is probably the only reason to reject the team. i find that long explanations of argument biases often don't help that much in mitigating judge bias. especially in policy v policy debates given they usually come down to dropped arguments/explanation.

k debates. i judge a lot of these. i am going to judge them technically ie even if i don't fully understand the minutia of the k as long as i understand what was dropped + there is judge instruction that explains why the argument matters i'm fine. i do think that debate is a game. I'm going to evaluate the flow on a technical level. i will always start evaluating aff v k debates with framework and framework is never a wash.

I need more judge instruction on how winning ontology means you win. "ontology means nuclear war is NUQ" isn't a full argument.

jmu '25

affiliations: berkeley prep (2022-), solon and saint ignatius (2021-22)

mconcon4@gmail.com

bprep-debate@googlegroups.com

tl;dr

tech>truth

I primarily run policy arguments and coach critical ones.

will vote on 0 risk

I have found that aff teams are just not sufficiently extending solvency to any of their advantages, internal links, etc., thus the I find myself having a lower threshold for neg offense

speed is fine (I will only "clear" you once and then ill flow what I can)

call me matty or matt not judge (he/him)

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

clipping = auto L and 0

unlikely to vote on things that happened outside of the round

K Affs/FW

I think K affs should have some relation to the topic and am less persuaded by debate bad arguments. you don't need a c/I to win. I am persuaded by both fairness and clash. the easiest way to my ballot is establishing external offense vs internal link turns and do real impact comparison. presumption isn't gone for as much as it probably should. contextualizing the links to how they specifically destroy the ability of the alt to happen will help you out a lot. don't assume I know any of your lit.

Ks

you can win without an alt, however I prefer if you generate UQ from somewhere else rather then going for the k as a linear disad. I think teams spend way to much time on fw, in almost every case the aff gets to weigh the 1ac and the neg gets reps links.

CPs

I like well thought out advantage cps. affs don't utilize their 1ac enough when answering cps. condo is good, multi-plank condo is good. pretty much all other theory is probably a reason to reject the arg.

DAs

The politics DA was most of my high school career. I enjoy complex stories with clear internal link turns to the aff or some form of cirvumvention/a solvency take out. teams who explain how the direction of x shapes the direction of y are much more likely to win a close debate. I will probably not read you ev during the debate, but if the final rebuttals include a DA, please send a card doc.

T

default to competing interps but its not hard to get me to vote on reasonability. the simpler the definition/the clearer the violation the better.

misc

organization/signposting is important

I enjoy impacts turns/traps/double binds etc.

have fun

He/him

These are most of the predispositions I have about arguments that I can think of, these are not ironclad as my views on debate are constantly in flux. However, without being instructed otherwise, the below points will likely influence how I evaluate the debate.

Top Level:

-Please add me to the email chain, fifelski@umich.edu and please make the subject something that is easy to search like "NDT 4 - Michigan DM v UCO HS."

-I prefer to flow on paper, but if you would like me to flow on my computer so I can share the flow after the debate, just ask.

-I read along with speech docs and prefer clear, relatively slow, and organized debates. I am still trying to hone flowing in online debate.

-I cannot emphasize enough how important card quality and recency should be in debates, but it requires debaters to frame arguments about that importance.

-If you break a new aff and you don't want to share the docs, I will chalk it up to academic cowardice and presume that the aff is largely a pile of crap.

-Evidence can be inserted if the lines were read in CX, but otherwise this act is insufficient. I will only look at graphs and charts if they are analyzed in the debate.

-I generally think war good arguments are akin to genocide good. I also think dedev is absolute nonsense.

-The past year of my life has been filled with the death of loved ones, please don't remind me of it while I'm judging a debate. I categorically refuse to evaluate any argument that could have the thesis statement of death good or that life is not worth living.

-Affs should be willing to answer cross-x questions about what they'll defend.

Topic thoughts:

-I'm not a fan of this topic, but I don't think "aff ground" arguments make much sense in terms of the topicality debates from fringe affs. The topic is not "adjust nuke policy" so even if "disarming" was a poorly choice word, it doesn't mean you can just get rid of a handful of bombs. Anything else makes the triad portion of the topic irrelevant. It sucks, but the negative should not be punished because the community came to consensus on a topic. Want to fix it? Engage in the thankless work that is crafting the topic.

-Russia is 100% a revisionist power, at war in Europe, and is evil. My thoughts on China are more complex, but I do believe they would take Taiwan if given the chance.

How to sway me:

-More narrativization is better than less

-Ev quality - I think higher quality and recent ev is a necessity. Make arguments about the qualifications of authors, how to evaluate evidence, and describe what events have happened to complicate the reading of their evidence from 2012.

-The 2nr/2ar should spend the first 15-20 seconds explaining how I should vote with judge instruction. If you laid a trap, now is the time to tell me, because I’m probably not going to vote on something that wasn’t flagged as an argument.

-I can flow with the best of them, but I enjoy slower debates so much more.

-More case debate. The 2ac is often too dismissive of case args and the neg often under-utilizes them.

-If reading cards after the debate is required for me to have comprehension of your argument, I’m probably not your judge. I tend to vote on warranted arguments that I have flowed and read cards to evaluate particular warrants that have been called into question. That said, I intend on reading along with speech docs this year.

-I think internal links are the most important parts of an argument; I am more likely to vote for “Asian instability means international coop on warming is impossible” than “nuclear war kills billions” OR “our patriarchy better explains x,y,z” instead of “capitalism causes war.”

-I like when particular arguments are labeled eg) “the youth-voter link” or “the epistemology DA.”

-If you're breaking a new aff/cp, it's probably in your best interest to slow down when making highly nuanced args.

Things I don’t like:

-Generally I think word PICs are bad. Some language obviously needs to be challenged, but if your 1nc strategy involves cntl-f [insert ableist term], I am not the judge for you.

-Overusing offensive language, yelling, being loud during the other team’s speech/prep, and getting into my personal space or the personal space of others will result in fewer speaker points.

-If you think a permutation requires the affirmative to do something they haven’t, you and I have different interpretations of competition theory.

-Old evidence/ blocks that have been circulating in camp files for a decade.

Critical Affs:

-I am probably a better judge for the K than most would suspect. While the sample size is small, I think I vote for critical args around 50% of the time they're the center of the debate.

-A debate has to occur and happen within the speech order/times of the invite; the arguments are made are up to the debaters and I generally enjoy a broad range of arguments, particularly on a topic as dull as this one.

-Too often I think critical affs describe a problem, but don’t explain what voting aff means in the context of that impact.

-Is there a role of the ballot?

-Often I find the “topical version” of the aff argument to be semi-persuasive by the negative, so explain to me the unique benefit of your aff in the form that it is and why switching-sides does not solve that.

-Framework: Explain the topical version of the aff; use your framework impacts to turn/answer the impacts of the 1ac; if you win framework you win the debate because…

Kritiks:

-Links should be contextualized to the aff; saying the aff is capitalist because they use the state is not enough. I'm beginning to think that K's, when read against policy affs, should link to the plan and not just the advantages, I'm not as sold on this as I am my belief on floating pic/ks (95 percent of the time I think floating PIC/Ks aren't arguments worthy of being made, let alone voted on)

-Alternative- what is the framework for evaluating the debate? What does voting for the alternative signify? What should I think of the aff’s truth statements?

-I’m not a fan of high theory Ks, but statistically vote for them a decent percentage of the time.

-When reading the K against K affs, the link should problematize the aff's methodology.

Answering the K:

-Make smart permutation arguments that have explained the net benefits and deal with the negatives disads to the perm.

-You should have a framework for the debate and find ways to dismiss the negative’s alternative.

Disads:

-Overviews that explain the story of the disad are helpful.

-Focus on internal links.

Counterplans:

-I am not a member of the cult of process. Just because you have a random definition of a word from a court in Iowa doesn't mean I think that the counterplan has value. I can be swayed if there are actual cards about the topic and the aff, but otherwise these cps are, as the kids say, mid.

-Your CP should have a solvency advocate that is as descriptive of your mechanism as the affirmative’s solvency advocate is.

Theory/Rules:

-Conditionality is cheating a lot like the Roth test: at some point it’s cheating, otherwise neg flex is good.

-Affs should explain why the negative should lose because of theory, otherwise I’ll just reject the arg.

-I'll likely be unsympathetic to args related to ADA rules, sans things that should actually be rules like clipping.

-I’m generally okay with kicking the CP/Alt for the neg if I’m told to.

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan

Head Debate Coach, University of Chicago Lab Schools

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23)

Last updated: April, 2024 (new FR thoughts in the Topicality section, random updates throughout)

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college nuclear forces topic and the HS fiscal redistribution topic. For fiscal redistribution, I gave the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp and I wrote both the Topicality and Job Guarantee Aff/Neg files for their starter pack

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive, and I still believe mine to be insufficiently comprehensive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them). I attempt to counter this practice with detailed disclosure of the various predispositions, biases, and judgment canons that may be outcome-determinative for how I decide your debate. Maybe you don't want to know all of those, but nobody's making you read this paradigm. Having the option to know as many of those as possible for any given judge seems preferable to having only the options of surprise and speculation.

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions, both in general and in specific contexts likely to emerge in debates. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow: I will take Casey Harrigan up on his flowing gauntlet/challenge any day (he might be able to take me if we were both restricted to paper, but on our computers, it's a wrap).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure precious few allegedly "dropped" arguments really are accurately described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable, especially for judges whose philosophies aren't as long as mine! But more importantly, drawing that line does profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by how persuaded judges were by competing presentations of analysis and evidence. With reasonability-style arguments, aff teams can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, and instead that they should win if their plan meets an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research parity/quality debate. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Answering "plan text in a vacuum" requires presenting an alternative standard by which to interpret the meaning and scope of the words in the plan. Such seems so self-evident that it seems banal to include it in a paradigm, but I have seen many debates this year in which teams did not grasp this fact. If the neg doesn't establish some method for determining what the plan means, voting against "the plan text in a vacuum defines the words in the plan" is indistinguishable from voting for "the eighty-third unhighlighted word in the fifth 1ac preempt defines the words in the plan." I do think setting some limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, especially in debates where large swaths of the 1ac would be completely irrelevent if the aff's plan were to meet the neg's interp. For example: if an aff with a court advantage and a USFG agent says their plan meets "enact = Congress only", the neg could say "interpret the words USFG in the plan to include the Courts when context dictates it---even if 'USFG' doesn't always mean "Courts," you should assume it does for debates in which one or more contentions/advantages are both impertinent and insoluable absent a plan that advocates judicial action." But you will likely need to be both explicit and reasonable about the standard you use if you are to successfully counter charges of infinite regress/arbitrariness.

For Fiscal Redistribution:

I'm probably more open to subsets than most judges if the weight of predictable evidence supports it. The neg is maybe slightly favored in a perfect debate, but I think there is better aff evidence to be read. I generally think the topic is extremely overlimited. Both the JG and BI are poorly supported by the literature, and there are not a panoply of viable SS affs.

Social Security and programs created by the Social Security Act are not same thing. The best evidence I've seen clearly excludes welfare and health programs, although expanding SS enables affs to morph the program into almost anything topically (good luck with a "SS-key" warrant vs the PIC, though). SSI is debateable, though admittedly not an extreme limits explosion.

Topicality arguments excluding plans with court actors are weaker than each of the above arguments. Still tenable.

Topicality arguments excluding cutting programs to fund plans are reasonable edge cases. I can see the evidence or balance of debating going either way on this question.

Evenly debated, "T-Must Include Taxes" is unwinnable for the negative. Perhaps you will convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I did quite a bit of research on this subject before camps even started,so if you think you have a credible case then you're likely in need of new evidence. I really dislike being dogmatic on something like this. I began the summer trying todevelop a case for why affs must tax, but I ran into a basic logical problem and have not seen evidence that establishes the bare minimum of a topicality interpretation. Consider the definition of "net worth." Let's assume that all the definitions of net worth state it means "(financial assets like savings, real estate, and investments) - (debts and liabilities)." "T-FR must include tax" is the logical equivalent of "well, because net worth means assets AND liabilities, cashing a giant check doesn't increase your net worth because you don't ALSO decrease your debts owed elsewhere." For this to be a topicality argument, you'd need to find a card that says "Individual policy interventions aren't fiscal redistribution if they merely adjust spending without tax policy." Such a card likely doesn't exist, because it's self-evidently nonsense.

Of course, I'll certainly evaluate arguments on this subject as fairly as possible, and if you technically out-execute the opposing team, I'll vote against them remorselessly. But you should know my opinion regardless.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is extremely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or by investing time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory/competition debating is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation. It's relatively easy for CPs to be written in a way that meets this design constraint, but that makes it all the easier to dispose of the CPs that don't.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and in truth if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a relatively workable debate relative to alternatives.

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. Generally, I prefer competition debates to theoretical ones, although I think both are basically normative questions (i.e. the whole point of either is to design an ideal, minimally arbitrary model to produce the debates we most desire). I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing.

That being said, "functional-only" is a very defensible model as well, and I think the arguments to prefer it over functional/textual hinge on the implication of the word being defined. If you say that "should is immediate" or "resolved is certain," you've introduced a model of competition that makes "delay a couple weeks" or "consult anyone re: plan" competitive. If your CP competes in a way that introduces fewer CPs (e.g. "job guarantees are admininstered by the states", or "NFUs mean no-first-use under any circumstance/possibility"), I think the neg's odds of winning are fairly likely.

Offense-defense is intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense, in this context, can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. Perhaps you can advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But absent any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but generally that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. the neg drops it), a significant skill discrepancy between teams, or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you.

I don't default to the status quo unless you explicitly flag it at some point during the debate (the cross-x or the 2nc is sufficient if the aff never contests it). I don't know why affs ask this question every cross-x and then never make a theory argument about it. It only hurts you, because it lets the neg get away with something they otherwise wouldn't have.

All that said, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is probably always the best option, I would generally also enjoy seeing a well-executed substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic). But please don't sacrifice your likelihood of winning the debate.

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "debate doesn't shape subjectivity" takes out clash/education offense, for example, is a reasonable and even threatening one.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad."

Fairness is an impact, though like any impact its magnitude and meaning is subject to debate. Like any abstract value, it can be difficult explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven via observation or testing. In other words, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to persuade me that I should care about fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity, such as expecting that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothing.

But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. Nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know... debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

So, I am a good judge for the fairness approach. It's not without its risk: a small risk of a large-magnitude impact to the ballot (e.g. solving an instance of racism in this round) could easily outweigh. But strong defense to the ballot can make it difficult for affs to overcome.

Still, it's nice to hear a defense of debate if you choose to go that route as well. I do like FWs that emphasize the benefits of the particular fairness norms established by a topicality interpretation ("models" debates). These can be enjoyable to watch, and some debaters are very good at this approach. In the aggregate, however, this route tends to be more difficult than the 'fairness' strategy.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than others, and they're related to why I value the debate activity. First, "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would). Second, "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Further, despite sympathies for and familiarity with much poststructural thought, I'm nevertheless quite easily persuaded to use utilitarian cost-benefit analysis to make difficult decisions, and I have usually found alternative methods of making decisions lacking and counter-intuitive by comparison.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Procedural Norms

Evidence ethics, card clipping, and other cheating accusations supercede the debate at hand and ask for judge intervention to protect debaters from egregious violations of shared norms. Those challenges are win/loss, yes/no referendums that end the debate. If you levy an accusation, the round will be determined based on whether or not I find in your favor. If I can't establish a violation of sufficient magnitude was more likely than not, I will immediately vote against the accusing team. If left to my own discretion, I would tend not to find the following acts egregious enough to merit a loss on cheating grounds: mis-typing the date for a card, omitting a sentence that doesn't drastically undermine the card accidentally. The following acts clearly meet the bar for cheating: clipping/cross-reading multiple cards, fabricating evidence. Everything in between is hard to predict out of context. I would err on the side of caution, and not ending the round.

'Ad hominem' attacks, ethical appeals to out-of-round behavior, and the like: I differ from some judges in that, being committed to minimal intervention, I will technically assess these. I find it almost trivially obvious that introducing these creates a perverse incentive to stockpile bad-faith accusations and turns debate into a toxic sludgefest, and would caution that these are likely not a particularly strategic approach in front of me.

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said. Bad takes were thrown into the memory hole.

Topicality on NATO emerging tech: Security cooperation almost certainly involves the DOD. Even if new forms of security cooperation could theoretically exclude the DOD, there's not a lot of definitional support and minimal normative justification for that interpretation. Most of the important definition debates resolve substantive issues about what DA and impact turn links are granted and what counterplans are competitive rather than creating useful T definitions. Creative use of 'substantially = in the main' or 'increase = pre-existing' could elevate completely unworkable definitions into ones that are viable at the fringes.

Topicality on Legal Personhood: Conferring rights and/or duties doesn't presumptively confer legal personhood. Don't get me wrong: with evidence and normative definition debating, it very well may, but it doesn't seem like something to be taken for granted. There is a case for "US = federal only" but it's very weak. Overall this is a very weak topic for T args.

Topicality on water: There aren't very many good limiting devices on this topic. Obviously the states CP is an excellent functional limit; "protection requires regulation" is useful as well, at least insofar as it establishes competition for counterplans that avoid regulations (e.g. incentives). Beyond that, the neg is in a rough spot.

I am more open to "US water resources include oceans" than most judges; see the compiled evidence set I released in the Michigan camp file MPAs Aff 2 (should be available via openevidence). After you read that and the sum total of all neg cards released/read thus far, the reasoning for why I believe this should be self-evident. Ironically, I don't think there are very many good oceans affs (this isn't a development topic, it's a protection topic). This further hinders the neg from persuasively going for the this T argument, but if you want to really exploit this belief, you'll find writing a strategic aff is tougher than you may imagine.

Topicality on antitrust: Was adding 'core' to this topic a mistake? I can see either side of this playing out at Northwestern: while affs that haven't thought about the variants of the 'core' or 'antitrust' pics are setting themselves up for failure, I think the aff has such an expansive range of options that they should be fine. There aren't a ton of generic T threats on this topic. There are some iterations of subsets that seem viable, if not truly threatening, and there there is a meaningful debate on whether or not the aff can fiat court action. The latter is an important question that both evidence and normative desirability will play a role in determining. Beyond that, I don't think there's much of a limit on this topic.

ESR debates on the executive powers topic: I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics: States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make some new rule apply throughout the entire area, e.g. all police are prohibitied from enforcing XYZ criminal law." Admittedly, there are better and worse variations for all of these violations. For example, Title 18 is a decent way to set up "T - criminal justice excludes civil / decrim" types of interpretations, despite the fact it's surprisingly easy for affs to win they meet it. And of course, aff teams often screw these up answering bad and mediocre T args in ways that make them completely viable. But none of these would be my preferred strategy, unless of course you're deploying new cards or improved arguments at the TOC. If that's the case, nicely done! If you think your evidence is objectively better than the aff cards, and that you can win the plan clearly violates a cogent interpretation, topicality is always a reasonable option in front of me.

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

Trump-era politics DAs: Most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

You can e-mail me at kimbrell@cbhs.edu.

I coached for Saint Ignatius High School for 10 years in the 90s. I coached for Case Western Reserve University from 1995-2006. I started coaching again in 2016. My current teams are mostly policy style debates which aligns with the regions in which we compete. I am fine with any type of argument, but I tend to enjoy fast, evidence intensive, traditional policy debates that collapse down well to a few clear reasons for me to prefer.

I do my best not to interject my opinions or perspectives into the decisions. I like being told how to sign the ballot and will try to pick either the 2NRs or 2ARs interpretation of the round. I like the analysis of warrants. The clash between competing warrants makes for the best debate.

Bravado is encouraged as long as it is done within the confines of fun, friendliness, and fairness.

DAs: Analysis of the evidence, comparison of evidence, and clear articulation of uniqueness, link, and impact are important to me.

TOPICALITY:I like topicality debates but rarely see them. I look to compare two competing interpretations. I probably have a lower threshold than most for having to justify it as a voting issue.

KRITIKs: They are fine. I treat them like any other argument. The more specific the link evidence and link story is to the affirmative, the more engaged I will be. Multiple links are exponentially more persuasive. Permutations need to be clearly explained. I am open to K is bad arguments. I am not deep into all of the literature.

COUNTER PLANS: Counter Plans are fine. Permutations need to be clearly explained. Solvency for counter plans matter.

FRAMEWORK:Clarity on Framework is helpful early on in the debate.

I have a bias towards new/odd arguments. Especially creative DAs and Counterplans. If you are looking to test something out, I may be a good judge to try it on. I'll make sure I give you all the feedback you need.

The most important thing to know about me is that while I would like to be included in the email chain, I will not read evidence during the round. I believe it risks too much judge bias even from the most experienced judges. I will read evidence at the end of the round if things are close or if the one of the debaters convinces me I need to look at one or two key pieces of evidence. Ultimately, I will vote on my flow. This means a minimum level of speaking articulation, clarity, and general ease of flowing does matter. If I can not understand a speaker I will verbally give a warning or two with no penalty.

I am currently an assistant debate coach with both Montgomery Bell Academy and George Mason University. This is my 15th year in policy debate.

I use he/him pronouns.

Last updated: 1/31/2024

Please put me on the email chain & make me an ev doc at the end of the debate. NJL1994@gmail.com.

Set up and send out the 1AC 10 minutes before the debate begins. Please avoid downtime during debates. If you do both of these things without me needing to say anything (send out the 1AC 10 minutes early + avoid downtime) you'll get higher speaker points.

If I'm judging you online, please slow down a bit and emphasize clarity more than normal.

Top level things:

I think about debate in terms of risk (does the risk of the advantage being true outweigh the risk of the disad being true?). I am willing to vote on presumption, particularly when people say really ridiculous stuff or people's cards are highlighted to say nothing.

I like specificity, nuance, and for you to sound smart. If you sound like you've done research and you know what's going on, I'm likely to give you great points. Being specific, having nuances, and explaining your distinctions is the easiest way to get my ballot.

Judge direction is a lost art. If you win the argument that you're advancing, why should it matter? What does this mean for the debate? What does it mean for your arguments or the other team's arguments? This is the number one easiest way to win my (and really anyone's) ballot in a debate. Direct your judges to think a certain way, because if you don't, your judges are likely to go rogue and decide things that make sense to them but not to you. So impact your arguments and tell me what to do with them. I think it's way more valuable to do that than include one more tiny argument and almost certainly the easiest way to get me to overcome any predispositions.

Decorum is very important to me. If your strategy is to belittle, upset, talk down to, yell at, escalate, curse at, or otherwise be rude or mean to your opponents, then you can expect me to give you terrible speaker points. I also reserve the right to end the debate early if I find the behavior particularly atrocious or potentially threatening to anyone in the room. I am very uninterested in the “I know what you did last summer” strategy or any personal attacks. You certainly don't have to be best friends with your opponents, but I do expect a sense of cordiality when engaging your opponents and their arguments.

"The existence of speech time limits, the assumption that you will not interrupt an opponent's speech intentionally, and the fact that I (and not you) will be signing a ballot that decides a winner and loser is non-negotiable." (taken verbatim from Shree Awsare).

I am incredibly uncomfortable adjudicating things that did not occur in the debate I am watching. Please do not ask me to judge based on something that didn’t happen in the round. I am likely to ignore you.

High school debaters in particular: I have consistently noticed over the past few years of judging that I vote for the team whose arguments I understand. If I cannot connect the dots, I'm not going to vote for you. This goes equally for kritikal and policy debaters. Most of my decisions in high school debates come down to this, and I will tell you that your argument makes no sense in my RFD.

How I decide debates:

First: who solves what?-- does the aff solve its impacts, and (assuming it's in the 2NR) does the negative's competitive advocacy solve its own impacts and/or the aff? In framework debates, this means the first questions I resolve are "does the aff solve itself?" and "does the TVA solve the aff sufficiently?"

Second: Who’s impact is bigger? This is the most important question in the debate. Do impact calculus.

Third: Whatever you have told me matters. Because I have started with solvency & impact calculus questions, everything else is always filtered along those lines (including framework/role of the ballot/role of the judge).

Other misc things:

1. A dropped argument is a true argument but it needs to be a complete argument to begin with or I will likely allow people new answers. For example, this epidemic with high schoolers reading aspec on the bottom of T flows to hide it: if it’s so quick I didn’t catch it in the 1NC, the 1AR gets all the new args they want. Additionally, an argument is not just a claim and a warrant, but a claim, warrant, and reasoning. In other words, your warrant needs to be connected to your claim in order for it to be an argument.

2. I am very flowcentric. Do not ask me to not flow, because I won't listen. Please do line-by-line. If you don't, I'll be frustrated and less likely to buy new extrapolations of arguments. Your speaker points will definitely drop if you don't do line-by-line. I do not like overviews ("overviews are evil"-- one of my labbies; "flowing is good for your health" -- another one of my labbies).

3. Show me that you care. Show me that you know things, that you've done research on this topic, that you want to win, and that debate matters to you. I love this activity and if you also love it I want to know that.

4. Judge kicking makes sense to me but I frequently forget about it, so if you want me to judge kick something you should tell me so in the block/2NR.

5. Cards and highlighting: Teams should get to insert rehighlightings of the other team's cards, but obviously should have to read cards if they're new/haven't been introduced into the debate yet. Two offshoots of this-- 1. You should insert rehighlightings of other team's cards if they suck 2. You should read cards that don't suck.

I do not follow along with speech docs during debates.

Please highlight your ev so it reads as complete sentences. This does not mean that I need you to highlight complete sentences, but if you are brick highlighting, I want to be able to read highlighted portions of your ev as complete sentences—it flows better to me. IE don't skip the letter "a" or the words "in" or "the." Just a random pet peeve.

If you do not have a complete citation or at least a full paragraph from your evidence I will not evaluate what you've said as evidence. Cherrypicked quotes with no context are not evidence.

I tend to not read a lot of cards after the debate unless things are highly technical or I think the debaters aren’t explaining things well. That being said, I’ll likely read at least some cards. Please put together a card doc for me.

6. Debaters parroting their partners: I usually just flow what the partner said. That, obviously, only exists within reason (you don’t get to give a third speech in a debate, but you can interrupt your partner to say something and I will flow it).

7. New 2AR args are bad for debate. I consciously hold the line against them as much as I can. I as a 2N feel as if I got a few decisions where a judge voted aff on an arg that didn't exist until the 2AR and it's the most frustrating. You can expect me to try to trace lines between args in earlier & later speeches. However, if I think the argument they're making is the true argument or a logical extrapolation of something said in the 1AR, I'm more likely to buy it. 2As-- this means if you're gonna do some 2A magic and cheat, you should trick me into thinking that you're not cheating.

Some specifics:

Disads: I’m better for the smart DAs than the silly ones, but I understand the value of bad DAs and will vote for them. I will likely reward you with higher speaker points if I think I understand your story really well and/or you have some cool/unique spin on it. I am fine with logical take outs to DAs that don’t require cards (especially if there’s some logic missing internally in the DA). Don’t just read new cards in the block or 1AR, explain your args (although also read new cards obviously).

I really do not understand how the economy works. I'm sorry. I've really tried to get it, but I just don't. You absolutely can go for econ DAs and/or econ case turns in front of me, but please be extra careful to explain (in lots of detail!) what you're arguing here.

Theory, CPs, and K Alternatives: I put these pieces together because my thoughts on these three args blend together.

Competition is determined off the plantext, not off cross-x, nor off the resolution. PICs & PIKs are only competitive if they PIC/PIK out of something in the plantext. I do not believe that you get to PIC/PIK out of a justification or non-plantext based word. The only way I will ever be convinced otherwise is if the aff allows you to do so.

Condo: It’s good. “They should get one less CP” is an arbitrary interp and makes no sense. The phrase "dispo solves" at the end of your bad 2AC condo block is not an argument and I will not be writing it down on my flow. I will vote on this if it's dropped, but I'm pretty persuaded by neg flex and education-style args.

"Performative Contradictions" is a term of art that has been bastardized to no end by debate. You're either saying the neg has double turned themselves or you're saying conditionality is bad; in my mind, perf con is not even worthy of being written on my flow.

Particular Theory: I’m better for this than most judges (and MUCH more persuaded by it than condo). States theory, international fiat, consult/condition, vague alts, utopian alts, etc—I have gone for all of these and actively coach my debaters to do the same. My predisposition is to reject the arg not the team, but I can be persuaded to reject the team on non-condo theory args (you should introduce the arg as reject the team in the 2AC, not CX, if you want this to be an option).

Theory can be a reason you get to make a cheating perm.

Counterplans/alternatives that use aff evidence as solvency advocates are awesome.

If the CP/alt links less I think it makes sense that I prefer it, but make that arg yourself because I won’t make it for you.

Case: I love love love case debate. You should make logical extrapolations that take out the internal link chains and make me question how the advantage makes sense. The block should read more cards but feel free to make logical case take outs without cards. I don't think you should have to go for impact defense to beat advantages-- uniqueness and internal link take outs are almost always the easier place to attack advantages. I tend to prefer a well-developed take out to the death by a thousand cuts strategy.

Affs-- 2NR that don't do well-developed case debate are generally overwhelmed by your "try or die"/"case outweighs"/"1% chance of solvency" args.

Topicality: I'm getting better for this as a strategy lately than I used to be. I do still generally think that it's about the plantext, but can be persuaded that I should think of the plantext in the context of the 1AC. Topicality is only ever a voter, not a reverse voter. I’m not great for silly/arbitrary T interps (I am very persuaded by the arg that these interps are arbitrary).

Kritiks: I like Ks that care about people and things. I'm optimistic to a fault. I certainly believe that things are still terrible for billions of beings, but it's hard to convince me that everything in the world is so absolutely irredeemable.

Your long overview is actively bad for debate and you will not change my mind.

Make your K interact with the affirmative. I want your links to be about the result of the aff as opposed to just the reading of the aff. Fiat bad links are bad. Your "state is always bad" links are slightly better, but also terrible. Don't just explain your theory of how power works, explain how the action of the aff is bad according to your theory of power.

I think that I am worse for structuralist style kritiks than I used to be for two reasons: 1) I feel more so that I want you to be responding to the action of the aff than I used to 2) I generally study poststructuralism and queer theory. I read a lot of Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler.

Grad school has taught me that theory is way more complex than I used to think it was. I will get annoyed if I know that you’re deploying the theory wrong. I'm not good for things like "death good," "meaning doesn't mean anything," or "language is meaningless" because I don't think those are questions even worth asking.

I have read some literature about antiblackness academically and have read a bit more from a debate standpoint. I would not call myself an expert by any means in this literature, but I do understand some of it better than I used to. I am still unwilling to fill in those blanks for you if you are lacking them (ex-- just saying the words "yes antiblackness ontological, natal alienation proves" is not an argument in my mind).

99.99% of the time I will entirely ignore your framework/role of the ballot args when you're going for the K against a topical aff. There's a high chance that I will just stare at you and not flow during your incredibly long and generic 2NC/2NR framework block on your K. I am serious, I may not even waste the ink in my pen flowing this. I do not know how to decide debates unless I'm weighing the merits of the aff against the merits of the K. For example, if the aff is an object of study, then to evaluate that object of study I have to weigh the aff's consequences. You are better off just saying "yes the aff can weigh the plan, we'll just beat it" in front of me. This also means that the role of the ballot/judge is only ever to vote for whoever did the better debating in every round I judge.

“Perms are a negative argument” and “method v method debate means no perms” are both not arguments. Despite judging for however long I have, I still do not know what a "method v method debate" even is or why it's different than every other debate. I will not write these words on my flow.

I also generally do not find the "voting for us gives us more wins/sends us to elims" as a solvency mech persuasive or that "X thing done in the debate is policing/surveillance/violence" (other than actual/physical policing/surveillance/violence) to be persuasive.

Ultimately, I evaluate K debates just like I evaluate policy debates. Technical line by line is key. Explain your args well. Put the debate together. Don't ignore the other side.

2NRs on the K that include case debate (with some level of internal link/impact defense; not just your security K cards on case) are substantially more persuasive to me.

Framework against non-topical affs: you should also read my section on Ks (right above this one) as well.

Framework is a strategy and it makes a lot of sense as a strategy. Just like every other strategy, you should try to tailor it to be as specific to the aff as you possibly can. For example, how does this particular aff make it impossible for you to debate? What does it mean for how debate looks writ-large? What's the valuable topic education we could have had from a topical discussion of this aff in particular? Same basic idea goes for when you’re answering generic aff args—the generic “state always bad” arg is pretty easily beaten by nuanced neg responses in front of me. The more specific you are, the more likely I am to vote for you on framework and the more likely I am to give you good speaks.

Stop reading huge overviews. They’re bad for debate. Your points will suffer. Do line by line. Be a good debater and stop being lazy. The amount of times I have written something like "do line by line" in this paradigm should really tell you something about how I think about debate.

I do not find truth testing/"ignore the aff's args because they're not T" very persuasive. I think it's circular & requires judge intervention.

I do, however, think that fairness/limits/ground is an impact and that it is the most important standard in a T debate.

T and/or framework is not genocide, nor is it ever rape, nor is it a microaggression, nor is it real literal violence against you or anyone else.

I’m a sucker for a good topical version. Teams seem to want to just laundry list potential TVAs and then say "idk, maybe these things let them discuss their theory". I believe that strategy is very easily beaten by a K team having some nuanced response. It makes way more sense to me if the TVA is set up almost like a CP-- it should solve a majority or all of the aff. If you set it up like that and then add the sufficiency framing/"flaws are neg ground" style args I'm WAY more likely to buy what you have to say (this goes along with the whole "I like nuance and specificity and you to sound like you're debating the merits of the aff" motif that I've had throughout my paradigm-- it applies to all debaters).

I oftentimes wonder how non-topical affs solve themselves. The negative should exploit this because I do feel comfortable voting neg on presumption. However, I won’t ever intervene to vote on presumption. That’s an argument that the debaters need to make.

Non-topical affs should have nuance & do line by line as well. Answer the neg’s args, frame the debate, and tell me why your aff in particular could not have been topical. You HAVE to have a defense of your model and not just say that framework is bad or else I will probably vote neg on presumption. The same basic idea applies here as it does everywhere else: the more generic you are, the more likely I am to vote against you.

Garbage/Hidden Stuff/Tricks: Nope. New affs are good, hiding aspec makes you a coward, death is bad, free will exists and I don't care if it doesn't. Make better arguments.

Cross-ex: I am becoming increasingly bored and frustrated with watching how this tends to go down. Unless I am judging a novice debate, questions like "did you read X card" or "where did you mark Y card" are counting as parts of cross-x. I tend to start the timer for cross-ex pretty quickly after speeches end (obviously take a sec to get water if you need to) so pay attention to that.

I pay attention & listen to CX but I do not flow it. Have a presence in CX & make an impact. I am listening.

Speaker points-- I do my best to moderate these based on the tournament I'm at and what division I'm in. That being said, I won’t lie—I am not a point fairy.

I will grant extra speaker points to people who number their arguments and correctly/aptly follow the numbering that has been established in the debate.

Paraphrasing from Shree Awsare-- I will not give you a 30.

29.8-- Top speaker
29.2-29.5-- You really impressed me and I expect you to be deep in the tournament
29-- I think you deserve to clear
28.3-- Not terrible but not super impressive
27.5-- Yikes
I will award the lowest possible points for people who violate the basic human dignities that people should be afforded while debating (e.g., non-black people don't say the N word).

I've also been known to give 20s to people who don't make arguments. I will not be giving you a 30; nobody gives a perfect speech.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the debate begins, or send me an email. I also do seriously invite conversation about the debate after it occurs-- post-rounds are oftentimes the most valuable instantiation of feedback, the best way to get better at debate, and important for improving intellectually. I know that post-rounds sometimes get heated, and I think we all get defensive sometimes when we're being pressed on things we've said (or think we've said) so I will likely consciously try to take deep breaths and relax if I feel myself getting heated during these times. This also means that I may take a second to respond to your questions because I am thinking. I also might take awkward pauses between words-- that's not because I don't think your question is important, I'm just trying to choose my words carefully so I can correctly convey my thoughts. I only post this here because I don't want anyone to feel like they're being attacked or anything for asking questions, and I apologize in advance if anything I say sounds like that.

Ethics Challenge Addendum:

I would strongly discourage ethics challenges in all but the most extreme instances. I don't want to adjudicate them, you don't want to be the team who makes the challenge, etc. If you notice something is wrong, please contact coaches and/or debaters and try to fix the problem rather than making it a challenge in round.

An ethics challenge is not a no-risk option for me. That is, when an ethics challenge is issued, the debate ends. I will clarify that the team issuing the challenge has issued one and then end the debate and adjudicate the challenge. I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward then and there. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances.

An ethics challenge may be issued along one of three lines: either you have accused the other team of clipping cards, of misciting evidence, or of misrepresenting evidence. Nothing else will be considered an ethics challenge for me.

Clipping cards is defined as claiming to have read more or less of the evidence than one actually has. Please note that I do not follow along with evidence as the debate is occurring. Missing a single word/a few words is not enough. I will decide what constitutes enough of the card to be considered clipping.

Misciting evidence is understood as providing the incorrect author and/or date as well as missing the first author, source of publication, and date (at least the year). Please note that putting something like "the New York Times" instead of "Nate Silver" is acceptable for an authorship. Source of publication can be broad (article title, URL, book title). If the article is easily accessible, then it is acceptable. Again, I will determine what constitutes an incomplete or miscited citation if this becomes a relevant question.

I do not consider missing credentials to be unethical but I do consider those pieces of evidence to be incredibly weak.

Misrepresenting evidence is understood as inserting evidence which is missing lines or paragraphs within the parts of the initial article/book being read. So, for example, if you want to read the first and third paragraph from an article, you must leave the second paragraph in the evidence you read in the debate. This means that, for me, ellipses to indicate that parts of the card are missing or stating something like “pages 4-5 omitted” is unethical. Cards need to be full paragraphs.

Providing a single quote from a book or an article is not a card. As such, I will not consider it as you having introduced evidence and it is not unethical for me. However, not providing full paragraph pieces of evidence means your argument is substantially weaker for me (because, again, then you have not read evidence).

I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances. Please note that I will take this seriously; an ethics challenge is not something to be debated out in a round.

The speaker points I will give are as follows: 28.6 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I vote for, 28.5 for the 1^st speaker of the team I vote for, 28.4 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I do not vote for, 28.3 for the 1^st speaker of the team I do not vote for. My assumption in the event of an ethics violation is that you made an honest mistake and that you were not intentionally cheating. I do not understand ethics challenges to be the equivalent of academic dishonesty or worthy of any punishment besides my ballot being cast in that particular debate (I do not hold these challenges against you in future rounds nor do I believe that you should be in trouble with your debate coaches or schools).

Please note that what I have written here is designed for varsity debate only; that is, when judging novice and JV debates, I will be more lenient and talk through what's going on with the students and, depending on the situation, allow the debate to continue.

These are thoughts that are still evolving for me as I talk with more people. Please bear with me as I continue to think this out. (Also note that this caveat goes along well with the first statement in this section: I would prefer you not introduce an ethics violation unless it is a serious issue in that particular debate).

Please also note that these rules do not apply to my standards for threatening violence against another debater (physical or otherwise) or hurling slurs at your opponent. I will immediately end the round and give the lowest speaker points that Tab will allow me to in that situation.

Maddie or Mads, not "judge"

any pronouns

maddiepieropandebate@gmail.com

Background/Affiliations: BVSW 2020, current KU debater; Coaching at the Berkeley preparatory school

TLDR: Do your thing, so long as you enjoy the thing you do. My favorite debates to watch are between debaters who demonstrate a nuanced understanding of their literature bases and seem to enjoy the scholarship they choose to engage in. Research should be a fun tool for you to explore new and interesting concepts, and debating is the manifestation of your process and progress in exploring new literature bases. The below paradigm is extremely long and in-depth--since I am largely in the back of clash debates, I feel the need to explain exactly how I decide debates so as to avoid confusion. I judge a ton of debates and I think judging is a privilege.

Prep Notes:

(1) I am very close to adopting Tim Ellis' prep practices. I've seen a major increase in people taking way too much time in between prep, CX, sending docs, etc---I will try and be as sympathetic as I can, but my patience is growing thin.

(2) "marked copy" does not mean "remove the cards you didn't read." you do not have to do that, and you should not ask your opponents to do that. If you must, that's prep (note: prep and not cx time). This is majorly pissing me off recently. (special thank you to holland bald for the wording)

Clipping: If an ethics challenge is forwarded, the debate will end and I will determine its validity with a loss and lowest speaks. If an ethics challenge is not forwarded but I believe clipping happened anyway, I will also give a loss and lowest speaks, but allow the debate to continue. Clipping includes being unreasonably unclear while spreading the text of a piece of evidence--I am willing to clear you three times before doing this.

Most important:

First --- I think most people would characterize me as a “clash” judge, which I’m okay with. I’m down for a good policy throwdown, but I’m best in terms of feedback for K v Policy, Framework, and K v K debates (and they’re the debates I enjoy judging the most). My voting record is pretty even.

Second --- I very passionately situate myself as an educator in debate. What I mean is I place quite a bit of value on my role as an educator, not in how I decide debates necessarily, but rather how I give decisions. I have previously held that I will put in as much effort into judging you as you do debating, but I have since realized that I tend to put in maximum effort into judging debates and give substantive feedback. I flow debates very carefully and care deeply about the post-round commentary and feedback I give, so be prepared for the RFD rants I have grown to enjoy.

Given that, I think the pedagogical value of this activity is tremendous and believe it should be acknowledged as such. If I deem that you have engaged in a practice that harms the community (read: don’t be racist, transphobic, misogynistic, or otherwise), I will not hesitate to dock your speaks, contact tournament directors and/or coaches, or simply end the round early as I deem necessary.

Third (this is important) --- Because I think debate is necessarily educational, I encourage debaters to be intentional in making arguments. Including arguments for the sake of including them is asinine and largely frustrating.

T-USFG/Framework

Things that matter to me:

1. Competing interpretations are more important to me than most others. This isn't true of all kritikal AFFs, but if the AFF is a critique of research practices, pedagogy, or orientations towards either, I am generally of the opinion that your angle vs framework should be one that posits a new model of engaging the activity/research that resolves your offense. The threshold to win an impact turn vs framework when reading an AFF about research practices tends to be difficult because it requires winning a threshold of contingent solvency that I don't think is usually achievable, or at the very least are typically poorly explained.

2. Both teams should identify what 2AC offense is intrinsic to the AFF vs the C/I, there are plenty of debates I watch in which the 2AR goes for a C/I that doesn't solve their impact turn to T, which is not persuasive. Negative teams should be taking advantage of poorly written C/I's.

3. Debate can certainly be characterized as a game, but I think it is better described as a competitive research activity--intuitively, debate is not yahtzee. Debate is a game is impact framing, not an impact.

4. Internal links matter more to me than others and I find this portion of the debate regularly is underdebated. That said, internal links and impacts are not interchangeable, your 2NR explanation should reflect that.

5. I have found myself giving many RFDs this year that are extremely frustrating because 2NR's and 2AR's alike are refusing to go for both offense and defense. Both teams need to extend an impact, do impact calcand impact comparison, and resolve residual pieces of offense with existing defense. If you do this, my life will be easier and your speaker points will be higher.

On the negative ---

----Clash is very persuasive – particularly:

1. Predictability > other internal links alone: Predictable clash is good and guided by resolutional wording. We rely on the resolution as a pre-season and pre-tournament research guide that allows us to determine what is and is not included in research areas under the resolution.

2. Contextualize it to the topic. Why is clash over the resolution good—what pedagogical, transformative, or reflexive potential does it have? I prefer these defenses of research to be personalized and about debate as opposed to spill-up arguments about enacting change – i.e. how does clash over the resolution change the ways we engage with the controversy surrounding the resolution rhetorically, educationally, and politically. These don't necessarily have to be "NATO good" but "studying NATO good" or something.

3. Turns case arguments are your friend, especially against AFFs that criticize debates research. Comparative internal link debating and impact calc are super important here --- contextualizing clash as a pre-requisite to actualizing the telos of the AFF, i.e. the epistemic shift the 1AC attempts to resolve.

----Fairness:

1. Good for this now. That being said, I often am hearing 2NR fairness explanations that end up being roundabout ways to get to a clash terminal, if this is the way you explain fairness, you would be better suited to simply go for clash in front of me.

2. Even when going for fairness, you need to answer AFF offense against your model of debate/content of research you mandate. Saying “debate is a game” and T is a “procedural question” doesn’t mean you are shielded from AFF offense against the content/research produced as a consequence of “fairness”

3. Its an impact, but one that is typically poorly explained.

TVA/SSD: My apparent “hot take” is that I think there are few scenarios in which it is strategic and beneficial to include both a topical version of the AFF and switch side in the 2NR. Usually, there is a blatant reason why either one solves the AFF, and you should pick that in the 2NR. The TVA and switch side are not ‘you drop it you lose,’ but impact defense, use it that way, and flag which piece of offense you think it is responsive against.

On the affirmative---

1AC Construction:

1. Be intentional: I want to emphasize this for those who read kritikal affirmatives. The 1AC should be a complete and cohesive argument in some capacity, I am not particular about the form through which this is conveyed (i.e. performance or scholarship or both), but I think many kritikal affirmatives lack an argumentative telos that is largely frustrating. The AFF should not be an 8 minute framework pre-empt, just as you should avoid including evidence that is not useful to you as offense. (this is a similar frustration to that I hold of policy AFF’s with K-pre empts and framing contentions)

2. You don’t need an advocacy statement, but if you do not have one, I should know what your argument is prior to CX of the 1AC.

C/I:

1. Prior to writing the AFF, you should decide if your angle vs fwk relies on offense that is intrinsic to the speech act of the 1AC or your counter-interpretation as a model of debate/research. You should make this distinction clear in the 2AC and establishes a threshold of what solvency mechanisms you have to win in order to access your framework offense.

2. Contextualize the C/I to the 1NC’s offense, anything the C/I doesn’t solve you should impact turn.

Misc:

1. I appreciate those who show me that they understand the academic context of the 1AC beyond the evidence included --- that includes history, examples, references to authors, etc.
2. If you are reading from a literature base from which you are unfamiliar with,I will know and I won't be happy. I do not care if you have skimmed the cards, if you cannot answer questions that your literature base has foundational answers to, I will be reluctant to give you speaks higher than 28.5
3. 1AR/2AR consistency is important --- you should be using similar language to explain your offense
4. Please defend things. Stop trying to avoid talking about the AFF, if you’ve read your lit base and are confident in your level of explanation, I don’t see a reason why you should be responding to every 1AC CX question with a variation of “we don’t do that,” especially when you clearly do.
5. ROB/ROJ arguments are very helpful for 2AR packaging and framing, you should use them
6. 2-3 well developed, carded DA’s to FW > shotgunning 8 DA’s that say the same thing
7. 2AR impact turn strategies need defense

Policy v K:

Misc:

1. I usually think AFFs get to weigh consequences/impacts, but you get links to discourse/rhetoric/scholarship, this is easily changed with good framework debating.

2. Framework probably matters to me a lot more than most. I think about debate a lot through its mechanics, not necessarily only through its content. I start here in most debates, unless told otherwise.

On the neg:

----The 2NR should always extend framework as a framing argument for how I evaluate consequences, otherwise you’ll likely take the L to a 2AR that moralizes about extinction. Explain what winning the framework means in context of the permutation/evaluating link arguments, I need contextualization and instruction of what you think framework does for you.

----You don’t need to extend 10 trillion link arguments, 1-2 is fine, impact them out and include link alone turns case arguments and specific contextualizations to the AFF---1AC lines or references to AFF speeches are rewarded.

----If you’re not going to the case debate, tell me why it doesn’t matter - I have been voting on extinction outweighsa lot recently

----I don’t think you need an alternative, but you do need to either win framework or links should have external offense and you should have substantial case defense

----Theories of power/structural claims mean nothing in a vacuum – you have to apply them where they matter and tell me what it means to win your theory of power

----I judge a lot of these debates and find that so many 2NR's overstretch themselves here. The 2NR should not be a condensed version of the 2NC, rather, you should make strategic decisions about whether to go for an alternative OR framework heavy strategy depending on the 1AR's decision

On the AFF:

----Like I said, framework matters a lot more to me, and you should use it to your advantage. The most persuasive way to articulate FW on the AFF in front of me is in the context of competition. Most framework debates devolve into weighing the AFF vs not weighing the AFF, which is always messy. Instead, contextualize your offense to how competition gets established and how that implicates link generation/alt solvency.

----The 2AC permutation explanation should contextualize the permutation to all of the links, explaining how you resolve it

----“Extinction outweighs” is not a defense of extinction rhetoric. You have to defend your research/scholarship by defending its academic/pedagogical value, because most of the time they are not critiquing securitization/extinction rhetoric in a vacuum, but rather the aff’s use of extinction rhetoric in an academic space for whatever reason.

----Asserting that something is a link of omission does not a link of omission make, this 2AC line is often a cop out for answering link arguments.

----Your FWK interpretation shouldn’t be “you don’t get K’s,” I’m far more persuaded by predictable clash style arguments like I explained above. That said, I think predictability and competition based framework offense is incredibly persuasive if you explain why it matters. Framework should always be in the 2AR, competition based offense makes winning a permutation a lot easier as well.

----If the K makes a structural claim or theory of power, you should read defense to it but also offer an alternate theory that explains [the thing]

----I’m not a fan of the 1AC structure that’s like [4 card advantage] [17 K pre-empts], nor am I a fan of the 2AC card dump vs 1 off strategies --- you should be thinking about how your aff interacts with the K and contextualizing 1AC evidence/scholarship vs the K

----I have judged a few debates now where the 2AC reads a link turn and an impact turn to the K. Please refrain from double-turning yourself.

K v K:

----If you have an advocacy statement, I generally agree that you get permutations, but I can be convinced otherwise

----I will be very impressed if you exemplify knowledge of how your literature base interacts with the other literature base your debating, most of the time scholars engage with one another by name and discuss their theories co-constitutively, and if you have read those theorizations and can explain them well I will be very happy.

----Comparative debating about structural claims/theories of power is really important here

Separate note about settler colonialism because I find myself in the back of these debates often:

----I agree almost whole-heartedly with Josh Michael’s paradigm here

----I have found that some people attempt to overadapt and go for settler colonialism in front of me, for whatever reason. If you aren’t familiar with the literature base and read this just for the sake of it, don't. That said, if this is a literature base that you are wanting to become more familiar with, I am more than willing to offer feedback, resources, and any other advice that might be helpful for you to continue exploring!

----I usually think that settler colonialism debates should be one-off debates, most importantly because I feel that it’s difficult to make a well-developed settler colonialism shell that is 3 cards

----GBTL/Material Decol > everything else

----Paperson doesn’t say legalism good.

----“Ontology framing bad” doesn’t disprove the structural claim of settler colonialism.

----You should be reading indigenous scholars. Geez.

In the unlikely event that you find yourself in a policy throwdown with me in the back:

Theory

----SLOW DOWN – I need to catch interps

----neg leaning, dispo is the only thing that solves your offense.

----Random procedurals are a waste of time and ruin speaks.

CP’s

----like these debates. good for PICS, bad for process. Competition debates that depend on legal intricacies are difficult for me to decide.

----Solvency deficits need impacts

----default judge kick

----stop getting to internal net benefits with 30 seconds left in the block.

DA’s

----the more specific your link ev is the better.

----turns case matters more to me than others, i think. tiebreaker in close debates will usually come down to this for me.

----I judge too many debates where the 2NR just doesn't extend an internal link, do that.

T

----fine for most t debates, bad for t debates that are particularly couched in legal distinctions.

----precision and predictability > debatability

----have judged a few of these debates recently that came down to insufficient violation ev---making this part of the debate clear to me makes deciding the rest of the debate a lot more clear.

Closing rants and pet peeves:

----Don’t use language/jargon that isn’t found in your literature base. Academic diction isn’t something you can mix and match to apply to your argument unless the evidence you're reading uses that particular language. If your evidence doesn’t use “communities of care,” “ontology,” or “social death,” don’t describe things as that.

----“Lengthy” overviews are the bane of my existence. I cannot remember the last time I gave a K 2NC with an overview, everything you do there can be done on the line by line. When I say lengthy I mean literally anything more than 25 seconds.

----I'll doc your speaks by .2 if you give a stand-up 1AR.

----(ONLINE SPECIFIC) Be respectful of everyone’s time. I am sympathetic to tech issues, but please make sure you aren’t having to send 3 different documents because you forgot to hit reply all, someone isn’t on the email chain, or you attached the wrong document.

----I hate the CX line of questioning that's like "if we win x,y,z does that mean we win the debate?" most of the time you're just asking "if we win the debate do we win the debate" and it gets you nowhere

----If you seem like you’re genuinely enjoying the activity, being respectful, and not taking things too seriously, chances are I’ll reward you with high speaks. My favorite debates to judge are those in which debaters are having fun!

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or otherwise, feel free to e-mail me and I’ll try and respond as soon as I can!

Sachi Reddy

NYU '25

Woodward Academy '21

Last Updated: 09/30/2023

Note for 23-24 Season

I have little topic knowledge, so make sure to explain any topic-specific acronyms.

Short Version

I have found debate to be an incredibly valuable activity, and I hope everyone makes the most of it.

Be respectful to others in the round. Debate should be fun!

Be clear, both when speaking and in communicating your overall position.

Logistics

I would like to be on the email chain: please add reddysachi@gmail.com

Send analytics.

Thoughts on online debate —

1. I will give a thumbs up or verbally communicate when I am ready for you to begin your speech.

2. Flowability is especially important now. That requires clarity and organized line-by-line.

3. During cross-ex, try to minimize talking over each other.

General

Demonstrate that you understand the arguments you have presented in the round and that you can clearly explain them. That is far more important to me than individual argumentative preferences.

Excluding morally reprehensible positions (like “death good”), I generally believe that most arguments are winnable if debated well. However, there are a few general principles that guide how I evaluate virtually any position.

1. Know your evidence. I like arguments that are well-supported by research. Be able to explain not only what your evidence says, but how it further proves your position. I will read cards after the round, especially ones that are emphasized in speeches. Evidence comparison is an essential part of argument comparison.

2. Be specific. Contextualize your offense and defense to the affirmative or negative team’s particular scenario. Specific, detailed explanation is far better than making sweeping, unwarranted claims.

3. Connect on important arguments. Do not forget line-by-line, but also remember to explain the implication of each argument, especially in the later speeches. Ballot framing is just as important as argument resolution. What does winning an individual argument mean for the other components of the debate?

4. Cross-ex should have a strategic purpose. Determine how you can use this time to further your position in the debate. I like when an argument traces from one speech to cross-ex to another speech.

update 4/30/24: made paradigm shorter. a more detailed judging record (including arguments read) is here, poached from David McDermott.

LD: familiar with trad, policy/larp, prog/K, not as much with phil or skep. theory is fine

must reads:

1. joe, not judge. i'm not that old. yes, email chain. joerhee779@gmail.com
2. email subject should be include tournament, round, teams, and codes. ex: 2021 TOC - Round 4 - Mitty AP (Aff) vs Little Rock GR (Neg)
3. safety and integrity are prior. do not touch each other, me, or anyone's property, say slurs, misgender, etc. outside help is prohibited. each debater must give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal, unless there's a maverick situation that has been pre-approved. speech times are non-negotiable. do not clip. clipping = misrepresenting evidence. if you skip a word on accident, don't worry. if you skip a sentence, several words, or even paragraphs, in more than one card, i will be less forgiving. these are an auto-L and lowest speaks possible.
4. send out the 1AC and be ready to give it at start time. deleting analytics and excessive downtime between the email being sent out will incur prep.
5. communication first. pausing for pen time, not spreading through blocks like they're cards, and being clear when reading cards is imperative. rehighlightings that explain warrants beyond the tag should be read.

me:

1. little rock central '22, vanderbilt '26. human and organizational development major, minoring in data science and asian american studies. you can ask me about vandy if you want after a decision has been made or through email.
2. read basically everything in high school as a 2A and 2N. did two tournaments in college. did the toc once. broke there. qualed twice. read about 55-60% K/45-40% policy args, so I'm familiar with most of what you'll say. i actively coach both K and policy teams for MBA, but I research more Ks and K answers than anything else. i judge about 40% policy v. policy, 35% policy v. K, and 25% K v. K debates (adjusted for varsity debates alone). i am probably ideal for an impact turn or policy v. K debate, but am confident i can evaluate anything.
3. my judging opinions are very similar to Debnil Sur, Daniel Gallagher, and Texas DK.

argument evaluation:

1. tech over truth. arguments must have a claim, warrant, and implication. i must be able to explain what i flowed to the other team, not agree with it. worse warrants should be (and are) easier to beat. yes, you can win death/war/warming good, no condo, racism outweighs T, fairness is an impact, etc. however, if i didn't hear/understand the argument (including clarity), i won't vote on it, so hide arguments at your own risk. debaters don't explain the implication of "true"/dropped arguments enough. explaining the importance of dropped arguments 1-3 is more important than extending dropped argument 4. if i can't resolve the debate using tech alone, something has gone horribly wrong.
2. i will not judge personal character. i lack the resources and willpower to discuss debaters' personal lives. barring a debater saying we ought to openly hate entire groups of people online on a publicly accessible website (screenshots are not evidence), i am unwilling to vote on minors' actions. if someone says something that could be problematic, i will likely correct it after the fact, not drop the debater. you are free to make this a link argument or voting issue, but i will evaluate it like any other argument.
3. evidence quality matters and is under-debated. a good analytic can beat a bad card, but no cards decreases the chance of a win. evidence comparison is underutilized, but if no one mentions it in the debate, i will not make it part of my decision, nor insert my personal opinion on the evidence unless someone only says "read it after the round" with no further explanation.
4. i am very expressive. if i don't like an argument, it will show, but i have still voted for teams i made faces at, so don't be discouraged.
5. debaters work hard, so i will not give a lazy decision. if you disagree post-round, please explain why and i will walk through my reasoning with you.

specific arguments:

1. Ks: i've read many, but won't fill in the blanks for you. framework is important, and i will only vote on an interp introduced in the debate. affs should either go for framework + case/impact turn outweighs or the perm/link turn. negs should go for a link that turns, outweighs, or brackets the case [with framework], or a mutually exclusive alt that solves an impact that outweighs. in K v. K debates, unsure why framework and impact calculus suddenly disappears and why "no perms in a method debate" is a truism.
2. K affs: you can read them if you justify it. vs. T, choose either a counter interp or impact turn strategy. i am ok with fairness, clash, or education when actually explained. TVAs are usually meh unless the aff is close to the topic. SSD is slightly better but may link to DAs. impact turns like heg/cap/state good are fine.
3. T: offense-defense. reasonability doesn't make sense without a counter-interp. thoughts on theory are essentially the same, except that because they lack evidence, most claims like aff and neg bias are usually unwarranted.
4. CPs: not as fluent as the Michigan bros of the world, but my thoughts are. a. solvency deficits must be real, otherwise write a better aff. b. most theory objections would be better phrased as competition c. i've heard enough competition debates to know what's happening. not sure why people aren't reading more advantage counterplans.
5. DAs/case: many DAs and affs are fake, especially the internal link. presumption/zero risk is possible, but is a high bar. 2As - during the 2AC please actually explain line-by-line warrants. half the time it is incomprehensible. 2Ns - exploit 2A posturing and bad evidence quality. read more than just impact d. impact and straight turns are fun, but stay organized.

speaks:

speaker point inflation is terrorism. i will use a wider range than the average judge.

below 27.0 - reserved for clipping and the like.

27.0 - 0.0 percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.5 - 17th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28.0 - 33rd percentile speaker at the tournament.

28.5 - 50th percentile speaker at the tournament.

29.0 - 67th percentile speaker at the tournament.

29.5 - 83rd percentile speaker at the tournament.

30 - 100th percentile speaker at the tournament.

this is the baseline based on your speeches. how to get higher or lower:

1. good CX. "tag team" cx is fine, but if one debater is taking every question, speaks will suffer. don't ask a bunch of questions like "what cards did you read" or "can you explain the aff". hard limit is 2 before speaks start dropping.

2.humor, kindness, and demeanor. don't have to be nice all the time because i get debate's competitive and tensions are high, but making a good joke, being generally respectful to others and making debate a better place are all great.

Current affiliation: director at Purdue & assistant at Head Royce.

Did you know Purdue is a public University with over 40,000 undergraduate students? Despite our excellent reputation for our engineering and computer science programs, as well as our success in the NCAA basketball tournament, we are in fact a public land-grant university in West Lafayette, IN. Tuition is less at Purdue than it is at Indiana University.

Past affiliations: Weber State, Wake Forest, Loyola Marymount, Idaho State, West Georgia, as well as College Prep, Georgetown Day, Bishop Guertin, Chattahoochee, and many other high school programs.

I love debate. I chose to return to debate after spending a few years working at a consulting firm. I make less money now, but enjoy the work much more. I appreciate your participation in the activity and will do my best to determine a winner, as well as help you improve in the time I spend judging your round.

I will default to flowing on paper. I appreciate efforts to be organized and go line-by-line; I will reward speakers that make flowing easier.

I will not read along with the speech doc. I believe debate should be a persuasive activity. I think following along with the speech doc is a poor practice, and I feel some type of way about it. I would like to be on the doc chain; everybodylovesjim@gmail.com& hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

If the round has started and there is no timer going, please don’t prep. I’ll kindly ask you to stop prepping if I notice you prepping while no timer is running. I think remote debate may have contributed to lax prep time standards, and I feel some type of way about it.

I’m a fan of multiple flavors of debate. I’m somewhat of a dinosaur at this point, but I still appreciate attempts at innovation. I’ve voted for and against all sorts of arguments. I’ve coached teams on various flavors of arguments. I’m generally agnostic. My best piece of advice for debating in front of me, or any other judge; debate powerfully, make the judge adapt to you.

I love cross ex! It’s generally my favorite part of the round. I usually flow it. I always pay attention to it. If you make gains in cross ex, please leverage those gains in your speeches. I will reward speakers for a well executed cross ex. I prefer you don’t treat prep time as cross ex time, I frequently leave the room during prep time and appreciate these opportunities.

I will reward speakers that focus on clarity over speed. If I ask you to be clear, please make an effort to adjust.

I start the process of deciding who won by establishing the most important issue(s) in the debate and determining who won the core controversies. I ask myself who won the round if both teams win their package of arguments. I frequently write a rough draft of a ballot and then try to argue against that decision to check against overlooking something. I try to edit my many thoughts to keep things more brief in delivering my RFD, particularly when on a panel. Sometimes when I sit I ask to give my RFD last - sometimes this is so I can get a sense of where the other judges are at, sometimes it’s to circumvent judges from editing their decisions when I’m confident in my RFD.

Email: jet.semrick@gmail.com

Coach @ ADL and Taipei American School | Debated @ University of Kansas 2019-2023 and Shawnee Mission East 2015-2019

______________________________________________

Summary:

--My goal is to render a decision without intervention. I will work hard to evaluate and provide helpful feedback for any arguments presented regardless of my opinions. I enjoy judging debates where debaters work hard. Currently, my full time job is to teach and research the high school topic.

--I believe AFFs should be topical and solve a unique problem. The NEG should argue the AFF is undesirable. I am a good judge for any strategy that demonstrates the plan is a bad idea.

--Quality of an argument matters. I am more likely to be persuaded by complete, sound, and logical arguments. However, technical debating can change this predisposition. A dropped claim is irrelevant unless accompanied by a warrant and explanation of how my decision should be impacted.

--Preference for fewer, but more developed positions over many underdeveloped ones. My ideal debate to judge is the topic disadvantage against the largest affirmative on the topic.

--Take the debate seriously. Be reasonable with down time, sending out emails, and please don't send out or ask for a marked doc if it's not needed.

--Ethos, clarity, and strategic decisions will be rewarded with speaker points.

______________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Plans

Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive defense of a non topical AFF.

Topicality debates where I vote NEG are generally not close because of truthful arguments that are difficult to overcome via technical debating. High quality interpretation evidence is important.

Prioritize the internal link over impact explanation. Give examples and context. Ground is the most compelling standard because a 'limits explosion' can be mitigated by the existence of predictable and high quality NEG ground.

Counterplans

Specificity is best. Evidence that compares the CP to the plan is the gold standard. 1AC re-highlightings are persuasive.

Competition debates are boring and I usually vote AFF because the NEG is reading and not debating. I sympathize with the need for process on bad topics, but economic inequality... give me a break.

I will judge kick counterplans unless told otherwise. I think conditionality is bad, but necessary. I am convinced that fiating out of solvency deficits and straight turns in the 2NC is not a good practice. In general, more counterplans equal worse debating and lower speaker points. In truth, I think dispositionality is a better model because it would require more strategic decisions and research on the part of both the AFF and the NEG. However, that does not mean I am more likely to vote AFF in a condo debate. I generally end up voting NEG because conditionality does not make debate impossible and NEG flex is important.

AFF on consult, delay, process, international, word PICs, and fifty state fiat. These are reasons to reject the argument. Debates with a partially intrinsic permutation versus a non-germane process counterplan favor the AFF.

Ideally, the NEG specifies net benefits and establishes competition in the 1NC.

Disadvantages

DA and case 2NRs are the best debates to judge. I enjoy debates about the economy and politics. Mechanically sound DA debating is a lost skill. Turns case is most persuasive when supported by evidence.

The AFF should read offense when answering DAs. If the NEG wins an uncontested link argument, AFF uniqueness arguments are less persuasive because there is always a risk the status quo is stable given the certain instability of the plan. The resolve this problem, disprove the internal link which is typically the weakest part of the DA.

Case

A block and 2NR that prioritizes the case is potent given the AFF trend to be efficient at any cost. Solvency deficits and alt causes are more compelling than impact defense.

If you decide to read a "soft left" AFF make sure the framing page is meaningful. Generic framing arguments are boring and generally still devolve to magnitude x probability. I am more willing than most to vote AFF for a small magnitude high probability advantage vs. a low risk high magnitude DA.

______________________________________________

Critique:

Topicality vs. K AFFs

I want to vote NEG in these debates. I have never been compelled by arguments for why the AFF should not be topical. If the NEG reasonably executes the argument they will receive my ballot.

Fairness is the best impact for T. I am also persuaded by impacts about iteration, research, and clash. Without a predictable AFF constraint, I don't think debate could exist. I think topicality is like a baseball strike zone, its boundaries are not perfectly defined or perfect for either team, but without it the game could not be played in a competitive manner.

In order for the AFF to win, they need to defend a model of debate that provides a valuable role for the NEG, solves AFF offense, and is mutually exclusive with the NEG model. If you are impact turning NEG standards, you must provide a compelling reason why voting for your advocacy resolves your offense.

Critiques vs. Policy AFFs

I will likely weigh the plan. To win, the NEG needs to win link turns case arguments, solvency deficits, or impact turns.

Both teams should have a reason for making a framework argument. The 2NR and 2AR need to give judge instruction for what I should do if you win or lose your framework interpretation. I default to weighing the impacts the plan can solves against the impacts of links that the alternative can resolve. I think the AFF is only responsible for impacts that they make worse.

I think the alternative should materially solve a problem, and am not persuaded by rejection style criticisms. I think linear DAs can be good and can be persuaded by an impact framing argument if you win a non-unique link to the plan.

I am persuaded that the NEG does not get to sever reps if other arguments are explicit contradictions. Examples of this are reading the cap K and growth DA. The AFF should exploit tensions between pages and generate smart DAs to alternatives or link turns.

______________________________________________

Ethics Violations:

I would prefer for debates to be completed and am not interested in judging the moral character of debaters or events that took place outside of the round. I value my role as an educator and will intervene or answer questions mid debate if that leads to an agreeable resolution that allows the debate to continue.

I would prefer to strike evidence rather than end the debate. Questions about qualifications, context, and argument representation should be argued in speeches to undermine the credibility of a position.

If there is a formal ethics challenge by a team, the debate ends. If the challenge is successful, the team who made the challenge wins and receives average speaks. If not, they lose and receive low speaks. I will defer to tab, my experience, and advice of others.

If the issue could have been resolved before the debate and is unintentional, I will likely reject the challenge. If I catch clipping, I will give a warning during the speech under the assumption that debaters are competing in good faith. If there is an egregious pattern or the warning is ignored, I will vote for the other team at the end of the debate.

add me to the chain: mariestebbings@gmail.com

last updated: 12/18/2023 (deleting outdated sections, reorganizing, expanding ethics)

background: minneapolis south ‘19 (toc, primarily ran kritikal arguments), light coaching for minneapolis south in ‘19-20. i judge a few national & udl tournaments every year.

online debate: 20% slower please! if my camera is off i’m not there.

tldr: you do you; i will be happiest judging whatever you find exciting/strategic and have spent quality team researching. tech > truth insofar as i try to stifle any lingering debate biases and give an objective decision based on the flow. i won’t write a ballot on an argument that wasn’t made in-round and i try not to impose my opinion on what is true, with the exception of violent/oppressive arguments*. i mostly judge clash debates and my voting record is pretty even.

--

below are some notes on evaluation rules i abide by & guidelines on how to explain arguments, win, & earn high speaks

general: arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact to be evaluated. i will always follow the ‘ballot of least resistance’ and make the laziest decision possible; tell me what my rfd should say. instructing me on what you believe the key issues are, how you believe arguments interact with each other, and engaging in comparative analysis will help you tremendously.

evidence comparison: i skim evidence throughout the debate. i won’t incorporate my thoughts on your evidence quality into my rfd unless it’s necessary to resolve an argument, but i think a certain degree of judge intervention is necessary in debates over evidence quality to maintain reasonable debate (ex. you can't blatantly lie about what a card says if the other team points out you're lying). i enjoy judging well-researched rounds and think debaters who spend time finding good evidence should be rewarded.

speaker points: ~28.6 is average, ~29.3+ is deserving of a speaker award. being clear, knowing your evidence, making strategic decisions, hard-hitting cx questions/answers -> high speaks. obviously not flowing the debate -> low speaks. if i catch you clipping (repeatedly skipping ~three or more words in cards), i will drop your speaker points regardless of whether the other team points it out.

please flow: i will think you’re silly if you ask for a doc with unread cards deleted unless the prior speech was egregiously skipping around, i will think you’re silly if you respond to an unread or dropped off case, i will think you’re losing the round if you don’t respond to substantive analytics or follow a line-by-line structure.

cx: is binding and i usually flow it.

framework: debates over counter-interps/models make intuitive sense to me. i’m not opposed to 2ars that solely go for impact turns to framework but you should invest hefty amounts of time in framing my decision.

t: i really appreciate model comparisons (caselists, lost/gained neg ground, etc.). please define what reasonability means if you go for it. i never have a ton of topic knowledge & will need extra explanation for acronyms and topic norms.

kritiks: tech > truth means i won’t create my own arbitrary framework interpretation. the more specific your analysis is to the opposing team’s arguments, the better chance you have of winning. aff teams could generally improve their link answers, and neg teams could generally improve their alt solvency.

cp theory: i default to judge kicking cps if asked. the more obviously abusive your counterplans are, the harder it’s going to be for me to suppress a gut-check reaction to cp theory.

das: specific/quality ev > recent ev (explain why the date matters) > quantity of ev.

case: i love case debates that dig into the ev and point out logical holes/inconsistencies in the aff’s ev and internal link chains.

theory: please don’t spread at max speed through your theory blocks. i find counter-interps helpful for framing the majority of theory debates.

misc: re-highlighted ev must be read, not inserted. sending exact text for perms, theory interps/violations, and/or framework interps is a good practice. strict on 1ar-2ar consistency, will give some leeway if the 2nr had new arguments/warrants. no new 2ar cross-applications across different flows.

be nice to new debaters: in clearly asymmetrical debates (ex. a team with 5 bids vs a team at their first varsity tournament), taking the time to slow down and 'over-explain' your arguments so all the debaters can engage with the round is a much more persuasive strategy for high speaker points than outspreading and out-jargoning your less experienced opponents.

--

*ethics: facilitating an environment where debaters are reasonably protected from immediate hazards to their wellbeing overrides my commitment to attempting to be a neutral arbitrator. i reserve the right to auto L with the lowest speaks possible if a debater’s in-round words or actions are oppressive or threaten anyone’s safety. however, i prefer to avoid using the ballot as a punitive instrument and assume fixable ignorance (not intentional violence) on ‘gray area’ issues.

while i strongly empathize with frustration over the community’s seeming inability to address intra-debate violence, including the continued presence of individuals who are oppressive or harm others, i refuse to adjudicate out-of-round grievances in a competitive context. if desired, i will assist any debater in talking to a tournament administrator, ombudsperson, or coach instead.

--

good luck, have fun! feel free to email me with any questions.

E-Mail: cstewart[at]gallowayschool[dot]org

Disclaimer #1:I am a mandatory reporter under Georgia law. If you disclose a real-world risk to your safety, or if I believe there is an imminent threat to your well-being, I will stop the debate and contact the Tabroom. Arguments that talk generally about how to engage systems of power in the debate space are more than okay and do not violate this.

Disclaimer #2: I am partially deaf in my left ear. While this has zero impact on my ability to flow in 99.9% of debates, exceptionally bad acoustics may force me to be closer than usual during speeches.

Speaker Points Update (November 2023):Moving forward, I will be following Regnier's speaker points distribution (see below). This should align my points with national trends and ensure I am not unfairly penalizing (or rewarding) debaters I am judging.

--- Fabulous (29.7 - 29.9) / Excellent (29.4-29.6)

--- Good (29.1 - 29.3) / Average (28.7 - 29)

--- Below Average (28.4 - 28.6) / Poor (28 - 28.3) / Very Poor (27.6 - 27.9)

Experience

Debate Experience

--- Lincoln-Douglas: 3 Years (Local / National Circuit)

--- Policy Debate: 4 Years of College Policy Debate (Georgia State University)

-- 2015 NDT Qualifier

-- Coached By: Joe Bellon, Nick Sciullo, Erik Mathis

-- Argument Style: Kritik (Freshman / Sophomore Year) & Policy (Junior / Senior Year)

-- Caselist Link (I Was A 2N My Senior Year): https://opencaselist.com/ndtceda14/GeorgiaState/StNa/Neg

Coaching Experience

--- Lincoln-Douglas: 4 Years (Local / National Circuit)

--- Policy Debate

-- University of Georgia - Graduate Assistant (3 Years)

-- Atlanta Urban Debate League (3 Years)

-- The Galloway School - Head Coach (3 Years)

Preferences - General

Overview:

Debate is a game; my strongest belief is that debaters should be able to play the game however they want to play it. I remain committed to Tabula Rasa judging, and have yet to see an argument (claim/ warrant) I would not pull the trigger on. The only exception to this is if I could not coherently explain to the other team the warrant for the argument I'm voting on. Unless told otherwise, I will flow the debate, and vote, based on the line-by-line, for whomever I thought won the debate.

What follows are my general thoughts about arguments, because for some reason that's what counts as a "judging paradigm" these days. Everything that follows WILL be overridden by arguments made in the debate.

Evidence:

Evidence is important, but not more than the in-round debating. Substantial deference will be given to in-debate spin. Bad evidence with spin will generally be given more weight than good evidence without.

Theory:

No strong predispositions. Run theory if that's your thing, there's actual abuse, or it's the most strategic way out of the round. I have no default conception of how theory functions; it could be an issue of competing interpretations, an issue of reasonability, an RVI, or a tool of the patriarchy. Given my LD background, I likely have a much lower threshold for pulling the trigger than other judges. Defaults such as X is never a reason to reject the team, RVIs bad, and a general disregard of Spec arguments aren't hardwired into me like the majority of the judging pool.

If you're going for theory, easiest thing you can do to win my ballot is to slow down and give an overview that sets up a clear way for me to evaluate the line-by-line.

Counterplans:

Read 'em. While I'm personally a big fan of process CPs/ PICs, I generally default to letting the literature determine CP competition/ legitimacy. If you have a kickass solvency advocate, then I will probably lean your way on most theoretical issues. On the other hand, as a former 2A, I sympathize with 2AC theory against CPs against which it is almost impossible to generate solvency deficits. 2ACs should not be afraid to bow up on CP theory in the 1AR.

DAs:

Specific DAs/ links trump generic DAs/ links absent substantial Negative spin. Love DAs with odd impact scenarios/ nuanced link stories.

Politics:

I functionally never read this as a debater, but my time coaching at UGA has brought me up to speed. Slow down/ clearly flag key points/ evidence distinctions in the 2NR/ 2AR.

Topicality:

Read it. Strategic tool that most 2Ns underutilize. Rarely hear a nuanced argument for reasonability; the T violation seems to prove the 1AC is unreasonable...

Kritiks:

I do not personally agree with the majority of Kritiks. However, after years of graduate school and debate, I've read large amount of Kritikal literature, and, if you run the K well, I'm a good judge for you. Increasingly irritated with 2ACs that fail to engage the nuance of the K they're answering (Cede the Political/ Perm: Double-Bind isn't enough to get you through a competently extended K debate). Similarly irritated with 2NCs that debate the K like a politics DA. Finally, 2ACs are too afraid to bow up on the K, especially with Impact Turns. I often end up voting Negative on the Kritik because the 2AC got sucked down the rabbit hole and didn't remind there was real-world outside of the philosophical interpretation offered by the K.

Framework (2AC):

I am generally unpersuaded by theoretical offense in a Policy AFF v. Kritik debate. You're better off reading this as policymaking good/ pragmatism offense to defend the method of the AFF versus the alternative. Generally skeptical of 2ACs that claim the K isn't within my jurisdiction/ is super unfair.

Framework (2NC):

Often end up voting Negative because the Affirmative strategically mishandles the FW of the K. Generally skeptical of K FW's that make the plan/ the real-world disappear entirely.

Preferences - "Clash" Debates

Clash of Civilization Debates:

Enjoy these debates; I judge alot of them. The worst thing you can do is overadapt. DEBATE HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DEBATE. My favorite debate that I ever watched was UMW versus Oklahoma, where UMW read a giant Hegemony advantage versus Oklahoma's 1-off Wilderson. I've been on both sides of the clash debate, and I respect both sides. I will just as easily vote on Framework as use my ballot to resist anti-blackness in debate.

Traditional ("Policy" Teams):

DO YOU. Traditional teams should not be afraid to double-down against K 1ACs,/ Big K 1NCs either via Framework or Impact Turns.

Framework (As "T"):

Never read this as a debater, but I've become more sympathetic to arguments about how the the resolution as a starting point is an important procedural constraint that can capture some of the pedagogical value of a Kritikal discussion. As a former 2N, I am sympathetic to limits arguments given the seemingly endless proliferation of K 1ACs with a dubious relationship to the topic. Explain how your interpretation is an opportunity cost of the 1ACs approach, and how you solve the 2ACs substantive offense (i.e. critical pedagogy/ our performance is important, etc.).

Non-Traditional ("Performance"/ "K" Teams):

As someone who spent a semester reading a narrative project about welcoming veterans into debate, I'm familiar with the way these arguments function, and I feel that they're an integral part of the game we call debate. However, that does not mean I will vote for you because you critiqued X-ism; what is your method, and how does it resolve the harms you have isolated? I am greatly frustrated by Kritik Teams that rely on obfuscation as a strategic tool---- even the Situationist International cared deeply about the political implications of their project.

AT: Framework

The closer you are to the topic/ the clearer your Affirmative is in what it defends, the more I'm down with the Affirmative. While I generally think that alternative approaches to debate are important discussions to be had, if I can listen to the 1AC and have no idea what the Affirmative does, what it defends, or why it's a response to the Topic beyond nebulous claims of resisting X-ism, then you're in a bad spot. Explain how your Counter-Interp solves their theoretical offense, or why your permutation doesn't link to their limits/ ground standards.

Fairness/ Education:

Are important. I am generally confused by teams that claim to impact turn fairness/ education. Your arguments are better articulated as INL-turns (i.e. X-ism/ debate practice is structurally unfair). Debate at some level is a game, and you should explain how your version of the game allows for good discussion/ an equal playing field for all.

Misc. - Ethics Violations

Ethics Violations:

After being forced to decide an elimination debate on a card-clipping accusation during the 2015 Barkley Forum (Emory), I felt it necessary to establish clarity/ forewarning for how I will proceed if this unfortunate circumstance happens again. While I would obviously prefer to decide the debate on actual substantive questions, this is the one issue where I will intervene. In the event of an ethics accusation, I will do the following:

1) Stop the debate. I will give the accusing team a chance to withdraw the accusation or proceed. If the accusation stands, I will decide the debate on the validity of the accusation.

2) Consult the Tabroom to determine any specific tournament policies/ procedures that apply to the situation and need to be followed.

3) Review available evidence to decide whether or not an ethics violation has taken place. In the event of a clipping accusation, a recording or video of the debate would be exceptionally helpful. I am a personal believer in a person being innocent until proven guilty. Unless there's definitive evidence proving otherwise, I will presume in favor of the accused debater.

4) Drop the Debater. If an ethics violation has taken place, I will drop the offending team, and award zero speaker points. If an ethics violation has not occurred, I will drop the team that originally made the accusation. The purpose of this is to prevent frivolous/ strategic accusations, given the very real-world, long-lasting impact such an accusation has on the team being accused.

5) Ethics Violations (Update): Credible, actual threats of violence against the actual people in the actual debate are unacceptable, as are acts of violence against others. I will drop you with zero speaker points if either of those occur. Litmus Test: There's a difference between wipeout/ global suicide alternatives (i.e. post-fiat arguments) and actually punching a debater in the face (i.e. real-world violence).

Ria Thakur

Johns Hopkins University '26

Woodward Academy '22

Last Updated: 07/20/2023

Please add me to the email chain: riathakur228@gmail.com

Top Level

Most important thing is to be respectful and have fun. We are all taking valuable time out for this activity, hopefully everyone learns something from the debate. Please send out a speech document — don't intentionally take out any analytical arguments. Flow. Feel free to ask me any questions and/or email me post round.

Online Debate

It is very important to speak slightly slower and more clearly with online debate. I would prefer that you keep your camera on throughout the debate.

Do not worry too much if you have a tech issue — it happens and I know it can be stressful. Don't steal prep.

[Side Note: Your speech starts on your first word. You know that. I know that. So you really do not need to do the whole "Starting in 3...2...1..." countdown or say "Beginning on my first word...". Just go for it. You got this!]

General

Explain your positions well; the better you do so, the more likely you are to win your arguments. Contextualize your arguments to the opponent's position and make sure to cite and extend your evidence with well warranted claims. Do line-by-line and signpost your speech. Don't forget to explain the significance of winning a particular argument—why does that mean you should win the debate? Also, important moments from CX should show up in your speeches.

Please do not read positions such as "death good" in front of me.

Case

Case debating is very important. I can vote on complete defense. Impact turns are fun, but please explain them well.

Kritiks

I am fine with you reading pretty much whatever you want, but I cannot guarantee that I will understand everything. I am particularly not good for high theory debates. I like when kritiks are more topic (or aff) specific.

Contextualize the links to the affirmative. Explain the alternative.

Counterplans

Read what you want. Please have a solvency advocate.

Disadvantages

Good, specific links will take you a long way. I love good impact calculus and turns case arguments. Not the biggest fan of the Politics DA, but can still vote on it.

Miscellaneous

Don't hide ASPEC; put it on its own flow.

If you have good/better evidence on an argument, point it out in your speech (make sure to explain why it is better). I'll make sure to look at it.

New block arguments justify new 1AR answers.

Try not to speak for or over your partner in CX unless they are seriously struggling.

top level predispositions (Update 2024 Emory):

I'd truly prefer that you don't debate if you're sick. If you must debate, I travel to every tournament with headphones and a laptop sufficient to allow you to debate from a hotel room or space separate from other judges and debaters. If you are symptomatic (nausea, persistent cough, runny nose, etc.) I will stop the debate and politely ask your coach to see if we can set up a remote debate setup for the round.

I won't be reading along with you, and won't spot either team args from pieces of evidence that weren't made in speeches. I'll resolve comparative evidentiary claims, if necessary, after the round. If you feel so compelled my team's gmail is hrsdebatedocs.

Plan texts nowadays aren't really descriptive of what the aff will defend and I think negative teams don't take advantage of that enough. I will expect aff teams not to dodge simple questions about jobs they provide, how the plan is funded, etc. I will also tend to read the debate through answers to such questions in CX. Being forthcoming and orienting your strategy around what the aff does is a much better basis for a win in front of me than trying to hide your hand.

I don't like generic neg strategies, if you're going to do this don't pref me please - - this means nonspecific process counterplans, disads, CPs with only internal net benefits, etc.

No, CX can't be used for prep lol.

I'm not going to judge kick. You make a decision about the world you'll defend in the 2nr and I'll follow accordingly.

For many of you reading this, speaker point inflation is the probably norm. I think the standard for what makes a good speech is a. too low and b. disconnected from strategy. My average speaker point range is 28.3-28.7, average meaning you're not doing any work between flows, not making the debate smaller for the sake of comparative analysis, not reading especially responsive strategies, not punishing generic strategies with pointed responses. On the other hand, I reward teams that have ostensibly done the reading and research to give me concrete analysis.

Given the above (and oodles of macrohistorical reasons), we probably are already in the world that the PRL warned us about. I'm more persuaded by empirical analysis of models of debate than the abstract nowadays.

Longer meditations below:

I've found that the integrity in which some high school debaters are interacting with evidence is declining. Two things:

1. Critical affirmatives that misrepresent critical theory literature or misrepresent their affirmative in the 1ac. I'm very inclined to vote against a team that does this on either side of the debate, with the latter only being limited to the affirmative side. Especially in terms of the affirmative side, I believe that a floor level minimum prep for critical affs should be that the affirmative clearly has a statement of what they will defend in the 1ac and also that they stick to that stasis point throughout the debate. If a critical aff shifts drastically between speeches I will be *very* inclined toward to any procedural/case neg arguments.

2. Policy affs that have weak internal links. I understand that a nuclear war scenario is the most far fetched portion of any advantage, but I've been seeing a lot of international relations scenarios that don't really take into account the politics of really any other countries. If your international conflict, spillover, modeling, etc. scenario doesn't have a semblance of the inner workings of another party to the conflict, I'll be *very* inclined to solvency presses and presumption arguments by the negative in that scenario.

I don't want to be on the email chain. If I want to, I'll ask. You should debate as if I'm not reading a speech doc.

I almost exclusively view debate as an educational / democratic training activity. I think rules are important to that end, however. This is to say that I ground much of what I think is important in debate in terms of how skills critical thinking in debate rounds adds into a larger goal of pursuing knowledge and external decisionmaking.

i've been in debate since 2008. at this point i'm simultaneously more invested and less invested in the activity. i'm more invested in what students get out of debate, and how I can be more useful in my post-round criticism. I'm less invested in personalities/teams/rep/ideological battles in debate. it's entirely possible that I have never heard of you before, and that's fine.

you should run what will win you the round. you should run what makes you happy.

Impact scenarios are where I vote - Even if you win uniqueness/link questions, if I don't know who's going to initiate a war, how an instance of oppression would occur, etc. by the end of the round, I'll probably go looking elsewhere to decide the round. The same thing goes for the aff - if I can't say what the aff solves and why that's important, I am easily persuaded by marginal negative offense.

Prep time ends when you email the file to the other team. It's 2024, you've likely got years of experience using a computer for academic/personal work, my expectations of your email prowess are very high.

Competing methods debates don't mean no permutation, for me at least. probably means that we should rethink how permutations function. people/activists/organizers combine methods all the time.

I've found myself especially unwilling to vote on theory that's on face not true - for example: if you say floating PICs bad, and the alternative isn't articulated as a floating PIC in the debate, I won't vote on it. I don't care if it's conceded.

I think fairness is an independent impact, but also that non-topical affs can be fair. A concession doesn't mean an argument is made. your only job is to make arguments, i don't care if the other team has conceded anything, you still have to make the argument in the last speech.

Affs I don't like:

I've found myself increasingly frustrated with non-topical affs that run philosophically/critically negative stances on the aff side. The same is true for non-topical affs that just say that propose a framework for analysis without praxis. I'm super open to presumption/switch-side arguments against these kinds of affs.

Affs that simply restate a portion of the resolution as their plan text.

I'm frustrated by non-topical affs that do not have any sort of advocacy statement/plan text. If you're going to read a bunch of evidence and I have to wait until CX or the 2AC to know what I'm voting for, I'll have a lower threshold to vote on fw/t/the other team.

Finally, I have limited belief in the transformative power of speech/performance. Especially beyond the round. I tend to think that power/violence is materially structured and that the best advocacies can tell me how to change the status quo in those terms.

Negs I don't like:

Framework 2nr's that act as if the affirmative isn't dynamic and did not develop between the 2ac and the 1ar. Most affs that you're inclined to run framework against will prove "abuse" for you in the course of the debate.

Stale politics disadvantages. Change your shells between tournaments if necessary, please.

Theoretically inconsistent/conflicting K strats.

I don't believe in judge kicking. Your job is to make the strategic decisions as the debate continues, not mine.

if you have questions about me or my judge philosophy, ask them before the round!

he/him/his

Last Updated: February 8, 2024

Assistant Policy Debate Coach @ Berkeley Preparatory School.

Debated at Little Rock Central High School (TOC Finalist '16) and Wake Forest University (NDT 1st round '19).

- Put me on the email chain: williamsd.j.jr@gmail.com

General/TLDR:

Please be CLEAR. I will not yell "clear" at you doing the round. If I can't understand you, having debated, judged, and coached at the highest level for 10+ years, then your speaking is egregious, and I WON'T flow it. I will also lower your speaks

I don't have an argument style preference and willing to judge everything. I primarily read Ks/K affs; however, I was introduced to debate as a "traditional" policy debater and read T, DAs, and CPs throughout my career. I prefer not to evaluate arguments about debater's character/behavior outside of the round, UNLESS you got receipts and it's relevant to the round. If it happens during the round, go for it.

Tech over truth; however, I find myself overly frustrated with the throwing everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy. I will not likely resolve an entire debate on an underdeveloped (i.e. no impact) "dropped" arguments unless the argument isn't answered in two speeches.

Personally, I view debate as a game. That being said, I do think there is value to debate outside of competitive success. Debate has changed and will continue to change many people's lives. I can be persuaded that something else is equally, if not more important, than wins and losses.

"Judge instruction, impact framing, comparison of evidence, authors, warrants, etc. or “the art of spin” is the most important thing for telling me how I should decide a debate. Making strategic decisions is important.

One of the things that makes debate truly unique is the research that is required, and so I think it makes sense to reward teams who are clearly going above and beyond in the research they’re producing. Good cards won’t auto win you the debate, but they certainly help “break ties” on the flow and give off the perception that a team is deep in the literature on their argument. But good evidence is always secondary to what a debater does with it." -- Sam Gustavson

Framework/Non-Traditional Affs:

I am a fan of clash debates, and I willing to vote for both sides.

I believe affs should be in the direction of the topic (i.e. at the very least questioning the assumptions undergirding the resolution). I am not likely to vote on aff that is completely unrelated to the topic, assuming the team goes for FW. Affs that discuss the topic and link turn FW (e.g. explain why they access education, clash, or fairness impacts) are more persuasive to me than trying to label framework as violent or impact turning everything. If you take the latter route, make sure to explain how voting aff solves. You will also need to win some defense to FW no matter which strategy you employ.

Fairness can be a terminal impact or an internal link, but it depends on how it's debated. Saying "debate is a game," "you follow certain rules," or "you expect the judge to adjudicate fairly" is not always enough for me, but at worst will be evaluated as defense to the aff's model of debate. I am more compelled by a team that clearly articulates all of the following: their conception of a fair debate, how the other team has impeded your ability to access fairness, how your interpretation ensures fairness, and why preserving fairness matters (e.g. participation, debatability, etc.). Winning fairness is an intrinsic good is be an uphill battle in front of me, though not impossible. These arguments sound circular and often lack a clear impact (e.g. "debate is a game, so it needs to be fair because it's a game"). I want to know why the game matters. Whether that's competition or some other external offense, it needs to be contextualized to the debate and the other team's offense.

I believe debate CAN (not does) shape subjectivity; however, I don't think this argument is unique offense for K affs because: 1) Other things influence our subjectivity as well. However, I am not persuaded by the neg just listing various things that influence our subjectivity and labelling them as alt causes. You will have to either read evidence or make arguments explaining why those other things have a greater/significant enough influence on subject formation. 2) Policy debates can also influence subjectivity for good. I am a fan of negative teams that take this route. Explain to my why your model of debate is preferable for crafting people who are ethical and possess the necessary skills to solve some external impact or the aff's impacts. 3) I don't believe all subjectivity crafted in debate is uniquely good. The onus is on you to explain which form of subjectivity is preferable.

I prefer testing/clash/education impacts because they serves as a better internal link to the why debate matters and encourages more interaction with the aff and vice versa. If you explain to me why having limited/ predictable debaters produces some external value/solves some external impact the aff can't, you will be in a great position. Even better, if this is combined with a specific TVA(s) or SSD arguments. This will force the aff to not only defend the intrinsic value of reading their 1AC but also why their model of debate outweighs, which I find is harder to do.

Counter-interpretations matter. You don't have to counter define specific words in the resolution, but I do need to understand the role of the aff and neg in order for me to evaluate offense and defense. I am not a fan of self-serving counter-interps (e.g. "squo + our aff" or "affirm X methodology"). I think you ended up linking to a lot of your own exclusion offense, and it requires you winning a specific uniqueness argument about the nature of debate or academic scholarship. Just articulate what your vision of debate is and why those debates are good.

Kritiks (vs. Policy Affs):

The more specific the better. I prefer you have specific links to the plan with clear impacts/turns case arguments. This allows you to win the debate without an alternative or winning FW. Nevertheless, I will evaluate links to the aff's rhetoric, reps, epistemology, impacts, etc. Generic links will require you at least winning FW (i.e. arguing that I should view the debate in some way other than "weighing the consequences of the plan vs. squo/alt"), and will find it hard to beat the traditional aff presses (e.g. case outweighs, try-or-die, alt fails, perms) in a close debate.

Make strategic 2NR decisions.Don't go for every link, DA to the perm, framework DA, etc.

Kritiks (vs. K Affs):

ESKETIT!!! May the more well read team win lol.

In all seriousness, too many of these debates devolve down to root cause debates or disagreements about scholarship without impacting out what it means one's analysis of the problem is wrong. Don't just try to out theorize the other team, but explain the significance of my ballot.

I'm pretty familiar with most critical theory. I primarily read arguments related to race, but I have a lot of experience in postmodernism as well.

Role of the ballot claims are typically too self-serving. I'd prefer these debates to mimic FW debates in plan v. K debates. Give me the guidelines for evaluating what's important (e.g. material solvency, ethics, epistemology, etc.) and why. I will default to whatever evaluating metric I'm given in debates in which the ROB is well-developed or completely dropped.

Perms usually win this debate for me, when the K is not specific to the aff. DAs to the perm need to be impact out in order for the vote on them. I might still vote on a perm if the neg just extends blippy DAs or perm theory that lacks an impact.

I typically end up reading a lot of evidence when deciding these debates, so make sure your arguments are extrapolating too much from the warrants in your cards.

Topicality:

I enjoy these debates. Just make sure to have a clear impact in the 2NR and not get too focused on just proving the violation. Give case lists, examples of ground lost under the aff's interp, explanation for why debates under your interp are better, etc. The aff needs to do the same.

T is being under utilized by everyone, especially by K teams going up against questionably topical soft left affs. I enjoy listening to debates where Kritikal teams extend topicality. I did this a lot in high school, and it was very helpful for setting up links because T forces the aff to clearly define what it thinks the aff does.

I typically default to competing interps rather than reasonability because any metric I would employ to establish that standard is arbitrary and infinitely regressive. However, I am open to voting on this argument, assuming the aff team explains why their interp is capable of providing sufficient ground for the aff and neg, equitable research burdens, and quality debates. This requires you establishing a threshold for your reasonability standard and explaining why it is a better model of debate for deciding topicality debates.

Saying the following: "plan text in vacuum" without explaining why this standard is best to interpret the meaning and scope of words in the plan, "functional limits check" without a warrant for why your interp preserves equitable ground, "intent to define" without justification, etc. mean nothing to me.

Counterplans:

Prefer CPs to be specific to the aff. Generics and PICs are fine though. Must have a net benefit. I prefer the net benefit to disprove the desirability of the plan (i.e. politics, spending DA vs. internal net benefit).CPs should be at least functionally competitive, but I would prefer them to also be textually competitive as well. I apply the same standard to permutations as well.

Aff should have offense against the CP (e.g. solvency deficit, DA to CP, aff/perm links less to the net benefit than the CP, etc).

Perms aren't advocacies, just a test of competition. Saying "perm do both," "perm do the cp," "perm do each," etc. means nothing to me without a warrants about how it's function challenges mutual exclusivity.

I am easily persuaded on conditionality being good (at least 1 CP/ 1 K is fine), but I am willing to vote on conditionality bad, especially when the neg has multiple contradicting positions. I'm not a fan of multiple plank counterplans, when each plank is conditional. This greatly skews the aff's strategy and disincentives them researching the CP or reading a 2AC add on.

Don't make a sufficiency framing argument without doing the work to explain why the CP does not need to solve the entire aff or why I should prefer it as long as it solves most/certain parts of the aff. You have to instruct me on what is "sufficient" and how that influences the way I should evaluate impacts.

Disadvantages:

Prefer aff/topic specific DAs to politics, but I don't really care if there's good link debating.

Please explain the DA in the overview whether or not it is conceded. Go through each part (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact) before the line by line.

Evidence quality matters. Many times in closed debates I will base my decision based on the warrants provided in the evidence.

Impact comparison is really important.Arguments about timeframe and probability are more persuasive to me than magnitude, assuming both teams have an existential impact. Neg teams that make quality turns case arguments are typically successful in front of me because it helps me weigh the significance of an impact.

Aff teams should attack the internal link more so than reading impact defense. I am more persuaded by the fact that economic decline doesn't lead to nuclear war, especially when teams don't articulate the specifics of their scenario (e.g. which countries go to war, what's unique about this economic downturn, etc.) rather than nuclear war/warming/etc. not causing extinction. The latter typically requires more scientific explanation that many teams (myself included) are not well versed enough to evaluate the truth of. The former requires more common sense, empirics.

Email: womboughsam36@gmail.com

UGA Law '27

Georgia Tech '23 (History and Sociology)

Woodward Academy ’20

Topic Knowledge: I have judged a lot of debates and worked at ENDI this past summer.

Last Substantively Updated: 1/7/24

ㅤ

Short Version + Novices (est. 45 sec. to read)

"Debate like an adult. Show me the evidence. Attend to the details. Don't dodge, clash. Great research and informed comparisons win debates." — Bill Batterman

Flow.

Be nice.

Be clear.

Have fun!

Time yourselves.

It’s probably not a voting issue.

If you read a plan, defend and clarify it.

Do not request a marked copy in lieu of flowing.

Be an evidenced, well-reasoned critic, not a cynic.

If you stop prep and then re-start prep, take off 10 seconds of prep.

If you don't have your video on in online debate, I will struggle to stay engaged.

An argument must be complete and comprehensible before there is a burden to answer it.

Focus on depth in argument. It's more engaging and is the only reliable way to beat good teams.

Write my ballot for me at the top of your late rebuttals, without using any debate jargon or hyperbole.

"Marking a card" means actually clearly marking that card on your computer (e.g. multiple Enter key pushes).

If you advocate something, at some point in the debate, you need to explain the tangible results of your advocacy without relying on any debate or philosophy jargon.

There has been a significant decline in the quality of speaking since online debate started because debaters became less familiar with speaking directly to the judge and because judges gave more leeway to the absence of clarity due to the computer instrument. Judges should never have to rely on reading along with the speech document in order to flow tags/analytics. If you have no intonation nor emphasis during tags/analytics/rebuttals, you are a bad speaker.

ㅤ

ㅤ

More Stuff (est. 1:30 min. to read)

ㅤ

Debate

I really enjoy debate. Debate is the most rewarding activity I have ever done. But debate didn't always feel rewarding while I was doing it. Accordingly, I hope that everybody prioritizes having fun, and then learning and improving.

From Johnnie Stupek's paradigm: "I encourage debaters to adopt speaking practices that make the debate easier for me to flow including: structured line-by-line, clarity when communicating plan or counterplan texts, emphasizing important lines in the body of your evidence, and descriptively labelling off-case positions in the 1NC."

Purging your speech documents of analytics and then rocking through them will be just as likely to "trick" me into not flowing an argument as it will be your opponents.

ㅤ

Case

I will vote on absolute defense.

ㅤ

Critiques

Explain; don’t confuse.

It is anti-black for debaters that are not black (team) to present afropessimist arguments. This practice exists because of the anti-blackness or cowardice of some non-black educators in debate. Frank Wilderson III claims that he "grieves over" debate's appropriation of his work (“Staying Ready for Black Study: A Conversation”).

Postmodernism— Debaters often mischaracterize ornamental absolutism in philosophical writings as almost-theological dogmatisms about how the world operates. This is anti-modern, not postmodern. <— I don't know if that paragraph makes any sense.

I've seen a few debates exclusively about personal identity that were extremely distressful for both sides. I think it's really weird when a high school student prompts a rejoinder from their peers to a pure affirmation of their identity. Please don't make me adjudicate it.

ㅤ

Non-Topical Debates

"No" to aff conditionality. Defend your aff and comparatively weigh offense.

Please stop referencing college debate rounds that you only know about thirdhand.

ㅤ

Theory

The more conditional advocacies there are in the 1NC, the worse the debate usually is.

I am sympathetic to affirmative complaints about process counterplans and agent counterplans that do nearly all of the affirmative. These counterplans, with the States-multi-plank CP in mind, tend to stagnate negative topic innovation and have single-handedly ruined some topics (Education).

ㅤ

Extra

I almost always defer to technical debating, but in close debates:

I am a degrowth hack. T: Substantial against a quantifiably small aff is fun.

I am easily convinced that Bostrom-esque "extinction first" is incoherent and can justify repulsive ideologies.

I strongly believe that China is not militarily revisionist. I think Sinophobic scholarship is festering in debate.

With respect to "Catastrophe Good" arguments, "we must die to destroy a particle accelerator that will consume the universe" is less convincing to me than a nihilism or misanthropy argument. I value accurate science.

Lastly, don't purposefully try to fluster the judge if you want quality post-round answers.

ㅤ

Cheating

In the instance that a team accuses the other of clipping, I will follow the NDCA clipping guidelines (2).

Strawmanning is an ethics violation as per the NSDA guidelines.

(1) https://the3nr.com/2014/08/20/how-to-never-clip-cards-a-guide-for-debaters/

(2) https://static.squarespace.com/static/53416a18e4b0aa2aaadf85e4/t/53665f81e4b03af4b79e088f/1399218049326/clipping.pdf

ㅤ

More References

https://the3nr.com/2009/11/03/judging-methodologies-how-do-judges-reach-their-decisions/

https://the3nr.com/2016/04/15/an-updated-speaker-point-scale-based-on-2015-2016-results/ (I inflate this).

https://new.debateus.org/to-consult-or-not-to-consult-on-the-theoretical-legitimacy-of-the-consultation-counterplan/

Former policy debater for MBA. I now study political science and philosophy at Loyola Chicago. I have worked for ModernBrain, OCSA, and MBA. I have been active in debate for 7 years and have judged ~50 debates on this topic and cut a few files.

jackyoungpqw@gmail.com

debatemba@gmail.com

Please add both to chains.

I don't do speech-by-speech comments, and I will probably be briefer than most in giving an RFD. I generally don't look at evidence unless it's a 'deep' debate, and take concessions seriously. I don't envision every outcome to vote for a certain side, and if one issue has already settled the debate, I will vote on that issue immediately.

I am a fundamentals judge. I like it when debaters flow and execute intelligent strategies. I don't like it when people say "Can we have a marked copy, including you deleting cards you didn't read?" or ask for cards not read before cross-ex. I view debate as a strategy game, which should reward good competitors. Spreading should be intelligible and line by line should be organized.

The purpose of a paradigm is to detail to debaters your biases. The goal of my paradigm is to indicate where I stand, and I often do so by saying "I dislike..." or something similar. This does not mean I will never vote for a K aff (look at my judging history), but that K debaters should know that I'm not generally persuaded by them. Don't be led astray by the language of my paradigm. I will do my best to vote technically.

I. Judging Framework

I flow tags of cards, authors, and analytic "arguments." If you want to make sure your analytic argument is flowed, put it in a numeric list or make it distinct from whatever else you are saying. My flowing ability is as good as your organizational ability. A lot of kids go too fast between flows or spamming analytics.

Obviously untrue statements can be, if dropped, true. This applies to statements about the debate itself, such as "they dropped x." Some of my decisions are awkward because I attempt to apply this principle unconditionally. I don't necessarily care what I vote on--spark, the extinction K, or the econ DA--so long as it is executed intelligently.

One relevant caveat is notably what constitutes an "argument" in this context. "Condo is a voting issue" is not an "argument" because it lacks a warrant, but "condo is a voting issue for aff ground" is. This goes away when discussing factual information--"the sky is red" is not an "argument" per se because it is a claim (it lacks an impact/implication). So, for instance, if someone said "Hell is upon us: the sky is currently red" then I could logically assume, given dropped, that doomsday is near.

I don't care what arguments I vote on, nor what values I am signaling by voting for them. Debate topics are generally unbalanced, so if a team defends an 'evil' impact turn, surely their opponent can articulate why it's evil.

Inserting highlightings is fine, most of the time.

II. K Affs

I think fairness is good, individual debates have no impact on our subjectivities, and most K affs are bad. Honestly, I don't love judging these debates, but I have adhered to all of my technical principles and on many panels have become the 'swing judge.'

My opinions derive from a valuation of debate's value: I think it's almost impossible to say particular rounds have a noticeable value on political practice. Merely proposing radical beliefs does not generate revolutionary potential. But when teams claim that T is "psychic violence," or that there was an "in-round violence" that occurred, usually I have no idea what they're talking about. It's as if teams reading an untopical affirmative are surprised their opponent is reading topicality. And it makes even less sense when teams say that topicality makes kids have headaches or cardiac arrest.

Fairness can be an impact of models or individual debates. I quite like when neg teams are fine with debating this "only this round" offense by saying "sure, and we still outweigh!"

I enjoy PIKS/CPs against these affirms and have a low bar for competition with K Affs.

The more persuasive K aff arguments to me understand that individual debate rounds likely have no value, but that the individual practices of exclusion over the long-run are bad. I don't think debate has zero impact on our subjectivities, it obviously has some impact over the course of many years.

III. Theory, Competition, T

I like these debates. Most topics demand some sort of aid for either side and in principle, these debates can equal the playing field. To succeed in front of me, you should treat these debates similarly to disads, where each side has links and impacts. "Neg ground" is not intrinsically an impact.

I am a conditionality maximalist and a competition minimalist. My general presumption is that process CPs are bad, even on aff-biased topics, and if they were to be universally accepted, debate would disappear. Conditionality is good, but aff teams don't need to prove an "in-round impact," so long as they're going for models. I'm fine with neg teams defending infinite conditionality, as there aren't infinitely many CPs and Ks to be leveraged against affirmatives, and if the CP/K is bad, the 2AC should be good at answering it.

Generally, I'm more deferential to predictability than debatability. This informs a lot of other things, too: "condo is a fake rule that doesn't matter" makes more sense to me than neg flex does. I would rather see a permutation with an "aff ground" standard than a theory argument. "Small changes in predictability" are, indeed, not so small to me.

"Err aff" vs "err neg" usually means nothing to me. It seems irreconcilable.

I'm not too fond of reasonability. Competing interpretations are intuitive to me. I don't like intervening, and so why would I say a neg's interp is "unreasonable?" Time is better spent logically advancing a counter-interpretation that is defensible. The "reasonability should become offense" crowd should thus call their offense what it is, whether it's predictability or otherwise, instead of "reasonability" if it is an offensive argument.

Not a fan of plan text in a vacuum, either. This is probably my least principled T-related take, but cross-ex, tags, and pieces of evidence seem inevitable without constraints on plan-text writing. I enjoy T debates when done well, and plan text in a vacuum seems to obfuscate them.

I dislike procedural arguments, including aspec and vagueness.

Process CP competition: I'd say I'm decently good at evaluating these debates. I generally think the aff is correct, and process CPs are junk. Sometimes, junk wins debates. That's ok.

IV. Ks vs policy

I almost always decide framework, then use that framework to adjucate the rest of the debate. This seems fairly obvious to me; indeed, "framework" means "the evaluating mechanism I should use for the debate." Linkscan andshould influence the framework, especially if the aff's interpretation devolves into "no Ks." It seems like the most reasonable approach is that neg teams can get links to the plan, and the aff team can leverage offense. But often I'm forced to judge debates on the extremes, like it's a matter of mooting the aff or mooting the neg. K teams let aff teams get away with murder on this issue.

Most of my framework opinions are transferrable. Some Ks might be more permissible, however. A demilitarization K vs a heg aff seems fairly logical, contingent upon the alternative.

I dislike ideological competition because it devolves into vibes-based competition.

V. Impact Calculus and Related Thoughts

If neither team instructs otherwise, I will defer to a consequentialist utilitarian framework that attempts to maximize value and minimize suffering. Utilitarianism is defensible and logical but has valid criticisms. Criticisms should have an alternative system of value.

I agree with KHirn in that most impact calculus is mediocre and non-consequential. Most debates are probabilistic questions: when voting for either team, what's the chance the world perishes? Differences in magnitude are irrelevant if both equate to extinction, and timeframe is unpersuasive unless it's wedged within a defensive claim (for example: "warming takes a while means intervening actors can check" is better than "1% risk of war that causes extinction matters more because its quicker than 99% risk of extinction due to warming").

I don't think everything needs to result in extinction to be bad. Perhaps extinction is categorically different than death of billions--but I think probability has a role to play there. Similarly, extinction is a few categories different than smaller structural impacts, but probability should have a role. The question is how much probability should have a role. The whole .000000001% risk crowd is pretty unpersuasive.

This has implications for impact turn teams: I think I'm more of a sustainability guy than an s-risks guy if that makes sense. I also am generally reluctant to sacrifice vast swaths of the world to prevent some nanotech.

VI. Politics

Politics remains a consistently decent arsenal in the negative's toolbox. That's good! I like politics, but don't read the minutia of politics every day. Somewhere in between Asher Maxwell and Marshall Green.

How do affs get passed? Probably not instantaneously, and probably not without discussion.

VII. Misc

Speaker Points

I disdain speaker points: they're arbitrary, no one knows what a "29 debater" is because the standard isn't universal. When someone complains about a 28.7, I think it's pretty funny--even when I started debate in 2017 inflation wasn't as high. But judging is a rigged game in which I either ruin your tournament by giving you what I thought the speaker point spectrum was, or I cave to the inflationary mob. I shall cave. My speaker points are placed on a standardly derived spectrum where 28.7 is the mean, ~.25 is the standard deviation. Top teams will earn themselves ~29.6.

Disclosure

It's universally good. There's zero scenarios in which disclosure is bad, and I will vote on disclosure theory. People that are petty about disclosure are crazy. If you don't disclose, strike me.