Joana Arvanitis

Carrollton Sacred Heart '21 (2a/1n) // Boston University '25

please add me to the chain: carrolltonaa@gmail.com

see Ariana Arvanitis' paradigm for more :) https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=69072

conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

Add me to the chain: zbpolicydebate@gmail.com and smdebatedocs@gmail.com

Top Level: I debated for St. Mark's from 2019-2022. I am a current student at Georgetown.

Tech/Truth, but that doesn't mean abandon all truth--I'll listen to each "if they drop x then we win the debate" argument and be as fair as possible, but I will try my very best to give the benefit of the doubt to well thought out arguments rather than silly shots for the ballot.

I really value impact analysis, you should draw the impacts of the debate out and tell me what I should value more.

I'll love it if you do good case debating, and reward you with high speaks. Prioritize case in the block, it goes a long way.

K's: I am probably not the best judge to pref if you are a high-theory K team. With regards to security, set col, and cap k, I know my way around, so you should be fine. If you run a K-aff, I do buy into T-USFG a little more, but I can be swayed, as with anything ig.

DA: Impact framing is important. I do not want to judge intervene on whether great power war is more important than nuclear terrorism.
I will lean towards 1% chance of the DA. You have to have a very solid, airtight plan if you want to win 0% risk (i.e. DA already happened/impact is impossible)

CP: Counterplans rarely solve 100% of case, but too often AFFs let it happen. Compare solvency deficit impacts with the DA, do not leave that work up to me please. Please EXPLAIN sufficiency framing, don't just say it otherwise I will assume any argument in the 2AR for why CP doesn't solve disproves sufficiency framing.

T: Resolutional debating is hard and confusing, but I will reward teams that do it really well with good speaks. Love watching good T debates, but make sure to have solid understanding of your interps and how they relate to the topic vision.

Closing thoughts: I am pretty open to most arguments. Debate better than the other team and you will win.

Hey y'all

Debated policy for 2 years and change at Notre Dame High School

Dartmouth '27

Roll Trees

Yes chain please – colsonduncan@gmail.com

TL/DR – Do what you do as long as its good and be satirical not snarky

CP's

Need a Solvo Advo and Net Ben.

Some CP's dont belong on the topic (or any topic) – if this is the case the perm debate will most likely be an uphill battle for the neg but other than that I enjoy these args

Ev indichts work wonders for the solvency page

DA's

I love a good disad – please explain the story clearly especially when it comes to the links of like a ptx DA, which tend to be pretty contrived. Indichts and good analytics go a long way in the block esp when reading generic links

Please do impact calc – great neg debating has been done on the link debate without giving a reason why that link means literally anything and this is losing

K's

I've gone for cap and security, and am relatively familiar with antiblackness, set col, and fem. Explain the link well, do case debate, and if you are extending an alternative please explain how it solves the aff. High theory has gotta be clear and contextualized (but im probably not the best judge for that stuff)

^ on the aff

I've gone for a lot of fun stuff against them but mostly T, so feel free to read them but know that if I can't explain what the aff does to the neg why I voted for you, I simply won't. And the closer to the topic the aff is, the easier it is for me to buy it, especially against FW

Case

Underutilized and essential sometimes if you are going for a K; a part of most of my 2nrs. Case turns are so much fun, especially on this topic. I firmly believe that this part of the debate can be by far the most in-depth and warranted by both teams, and it's always nice to see that.

T

in the words of ian mackey-piccolo:

"T is for cowards, but maybe going for it in front of a judge who says this makes you not a coward? I’m not sure. I’d happily vote for a technically proficient coward."

Other than that caselists are helpful

Theory

I think general that condo is probably good aside from egregious 1ncs or new block condo.

And please dont spread through blocks written years ago by your coach and hope to win – you gotta answer the speech – same goes for FW (all topicality tbh)

Shannon Feerick-Hillenbrand

2n/1a

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart'22

Brown University '26

Add me to the chain please - shannon_feerick-hillenbrand@brown.edu

Read whatever you are most comfortable with, I'd rather see a debate where you are confident than one where you read something to impress me.

TLDR - Tech>truth, Clarity>speed, Quality>quantity, Debate is a game, Fairness is an impact, Turns case are amazing, Be nice, Have fun!

T - I like T and think it can often be the best strategic option if the aff makes it very difficult to find a link to your generics. I ran T a lot on both the cjr and water topics but I don't know if there are good arguments for this topic. That being said, I default to competing interpretations - if you can convince me that your interpretation creates better debates and have good enough evidence - I will vote for you.

Counterplans - I don't know anything about specific cp's on the NATO topic but I will read the evidence and defer to the team that explained their evidence better. Process CP and PICs have a place on this topic but you have to defend them against theory. If you tell me to judge kick the cp I will unless the aff tells me not to.

Theory - I will probably reject the argument and not the team except for conditionality. Answer each other's arguments and contextualize them to the debate - please don't just read generic blocks. IF you want to go for condo on the aff it needs to be a large part of the 1ar!

Disads - I love a good DA and CP or DA and case strat. Politics, T, topic DAs and CPs were most of my 2nrs during my career. Turns the case arguments are great but they should be supported by evidence and have logical warrants. In the 1ar please try to make an answer to these otherwise they can come back to bite you. Impact calculus is a must! For the aff, attack the link and internal link starting in 1nc cross x.

Ks - I don't love k v. policy but if you can contextualize your link to the aff and explain how your alt actually solves or why your framework is preferable I will vote for you. That being said I don't think people actually meet this threshold that often. I generally think that the aff should get to weigh their impacts but I will listen if you say they can't. All that being said I am not the best judge for the k.

K affs - I honestly don't really like them and err very neg on T USFG - that being said if you read one and you win the debate I will still vote for you but you have to explain why no other model of debate can resolve your impacts.

Case - engage with the case - framing arguments on BOTH sides should be contextualized to answer the other team's arguments. advantages are usually not awesome point out logical inconsistencies in cross ex and rehighlight evidence if it doesn't support the thesis of the advantage (you must read rehighlightings)

42fryguy@gmail.com

I debated at KU and Blue Valley Southwest, I am currently coaching at Glenbrook North

FW

I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense. The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Counter interpretations can be useful, but the goal of establishing a new model sometimes exacerbates core neg offense (limits).

K

I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.

T

I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation.

CP

CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.

I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.

If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.

Debated 2 years at Downtown Magnets High school and 1 Year in College. I am familiar with both LD and Policy Debates.

Email: sebastiangandionco@gmail.com

I'm not the most experience debater, but I have a grasp of most concepts in debate. Explain at the end why your winning the debate.

· Add me in the email chain before the round starts

· I will not keep track of time and flashing evidence is not considered prep time, but don’t be slow

· I am experience enough, but find the middle ground in speed for important arguments later in the round.

· Flush out arguments and explain high theory well including the importance of the debate

· I’m more techy

· I like performance and K’s and T

· Framework needs to be clear and concise.

Kritik’s/K-Affs:

I like performances and kritikal affirmatives, that’s basically summarizes my preference on K-affs. I am not well versed in most hard theory kritiks. I ran Cap K mostly, but I’m fine with any other kritik’s if you explain them. Don’t be intimidated to run any hard theory kritik’s, but take the time to explain the arguments.

Policy Affs:

I like all policy aff’s except the most generic ones. The more unique the affirmative is the more likely I will like the aff and probably vote on it.

DA’s CP’s:

Disadvantage links is what I focus a lot on. The structure for the DA should stay the same and answering them should stay the same not tangled in a mess. I will consider who has a more a updated Uniqueness card. Uniqueness is the foundation of the DA, so the card must be relevant. I like all Cp’s even consult, Cp w/ planks, and 2nc cps are okay. Give me a good reason why to outweigh the Cp against the aff and answer the perm. A good net benefit could be the very reason you win on the CP.

Theory/Topicality:

Any theory is fine. Topicality is one of my favorite arguments so make sure to extend interpretation and counter-interps. I want to see both negative and affirmative topicality to be contested. If you run T as a time skew that is also fine. Debate is all about strategy and using the tools you have.

I dislike trick debate

Speaks/other:

My RFD's can sometimes be unclear so ask questions

Don’t be toxic. (less speaks). I always give high speaks so don’t worry about speaks to much

Hello my name is Axel Garcia

I'm currently attending GCU (Phoenix, Arizona) and Majoring in Forensic Psychology. I debated in high school for 3 1/2 years as a debater/competitor. I am a debate Coach/Judge (3 years now) for Damien High School if they need help. I debated in public forums and policy debates in high school. I mostly Judge Policy.

Please add both emails

damiendebate47@gmail.com

and

aagarcia22@damien-hs.edu

Please add to the email chain. Thank you

--

I am 100% honest, really don't know a lot about the topic this year, focused on school. What you can do is this, Explain... ---> https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/71257ee5-18d7-461e-b39b-3277361953dc

-- I am a policy judge

Policy

- I prefer Policy

- I allow tag team CX

-I like any type of argument you run!

- I Love and huge fan of Spreading as long as you articulate and are clear.

- Don't like K's, I will try my best to flow it.

- Everything else I'm good with.

LD

- I rarely do LD debate, Spend a lot of time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time just in case I missed something.

PF

- Sometimes I would do PF but not always. I prefer PF

- Remember to Spread as long as you articulate and are clear.

- I rebuttal speeches show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had rebuttal speeches and 2 crossfires (PF).

- I appreciate puns in rounds.

- Tag team cx is allowed

Big Question

Big questions once during high school don't know much about it. Except to do your best and I value one overarching argument that's successfully upheld throughout the round over winning on the flow. Big picture analysis

Random bonuses like things that would boost your points

- Using your time wisely. ( not just sit there and do nothing. Think about what you are going to do next )

- Try to act confident, even if you're not, by making eye contact with your opponent and standing up straight, which can make your argument appear more believable.

- Remain calm at all times, and never shout or get angry since it will only make your argument seem weak.

- Always have your camera on when speaking and stand up when speaking

What not to do:

- If you intentionally make any racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low-speak and notify your coach.

- Try not to clip, if you do and other teams catch it. you lost the ballot, if you are wrong another team loses. But the debate will keep on going.

- Don't play games when you are done speaking or when your opponent is speaking

- Don't go on your phone, to call, chat, or play games, ( you can use your phone to be in call your partner and or if you are using prep time ) <--- on only zoom

-Have Fun!!!

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=171692 Other Profile can see my record and past judging if needed

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.

All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.

1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.

Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.

2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".

How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.

On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.

Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.

3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."

I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.

But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.

4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.

5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.

6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.

7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.

Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).

This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.

Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.

And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.

There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.

2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.

3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.

4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.

5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.

What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

About me:

Add me to the chain: tielladebates@gmail.com

I am currently a senior at ND. It's my fourth year debating. I coach MS debate at St. Francis De Sales

Y'all can call me Tiella (tea-ella) or judge, I don't care.

General notes:

clarity > speed

tech > truth

depth > breadth

Fairness and education are impacts.

Please clearly signpost.

Tagline extensions are not extensions.

You need to be flowing.

Tag team cross is fine.

I will only judge kick if you tell me to.

Be nice to your opponents. I will tank your speaks if you're mean. That being said, I love a sassy CX so long as it's respectful.

Case:

Case is extremely important in the debate. Offense and defense are equally important on the case flow. If the negative doesn't provide me with a reason not to, I will err aff.

CPs:

Make sure it's either textually/functionally competitive. PICs, process, and actor CPs are all legitimate. Your CP needs to have a net benefit in order for me to vote on it. I tend to err neg on sufficiency framing.

DAs:

Prove you outweigh on timeframe, magnitude, or probability and I'll probably vote on it, but you need a clear link argument. PC args that aren't specific to the aff are probably insufficient. Show me why the plan is a bad idea. Ptx DAs need to have recent evidence or I won't vote on it. Defense and offense should be read on both sides.

Ks:

I will vote on FW. Tell me why your FW outweighs. I need to hear a clear link argument in order for me to vote on your K. Ideally, you should be reading more than one link. It's hard for me to buy a link of omission arg. If that's your only link, it will be an uphill battle for you. I will vote on a reps link, but if you're going for one, you better have rehighlighted aff cards. You also need to defend these links in your FW. I want to hear a clear, impacted-out root cause debate. I love an alt solves the case claim. That will make it easy to vote for your K, but I will vote on the K as a DA. With that being said, it will be hard for you to get my ballot without substantial case debate.

K affs:

Go for it. Ideally, you should have a clear connection to this year’s topic. You should have 1ar/2ar consistency. I need a clear explanation of your solvency mechanism. If you only solve for in round, fine, but don't claim to solve for more than you can reasonably affect. If you have a spill-up claim, I need a clear extrapolation of how my ballot will result in that.

K v K:

Love this debate. I will likely grant the aff a perm, but I can be persuaded otherwise. If you're going for the perm debate, your perm and link defense needs to demonstrate interactions between lit bases. Neg - I need a clear answer as to why the perm is impossible. A quick mutually exclusive is probably insufficient. Explain how the aff harms whatever you're going for. Obviously, specific links > links of omission.

K v FW:

Go for it. I need a clear extrapolation as to why the aff is uniquely violent. I think K affs are inevitable so you need to prove why it's cheating and impact out that debate.I want a clear explanation of why the W/M is insufficient and why the C/I explodes limits and harms ground.

T:

Note for packet-restricted rounds: I will not vote on a violation that is not in the NDCA packet

No interpretation = no win. You need to explain the impacts of topicality. I buy that T is a prerequisite to case, but you should say those words in the debate. Tell me why T is the most important voting issue. To win my ballot you need to prove why your interpretation is the best model of debate. There needs to be an internal link debate (ground, limits, etc.) and an impact debate (fairness, education). Aff you should have a W/M and a C/I in the 2ac. Explain why you're affirmative is reasonable, but most importantly explain why the negative doesn't lose ground.

Theory:

Explain why it is important with internal links and impacts. You need specific line by line. I have an equally high threshold for the aff and neg on fairness. Whoever does the better debating will get my ballot. If you are going for theory in the 2nr/2ar the whole speech should be theory.

Email chain: bmnushkin@gmail.com

I have done no research on the topic and have been out of the activity for 6 years, assume I have no knowledge of acronyms on the topic.

Judge intervention is horrible - tech always determines what is true.

I am not a good judge for affirmatives without a plan.

As for going for the k on the negative, my biggest piece of advice is to go for unique offense. Your links to k things should be a predicative statement that doing the plan will cause something bad to happen. Links that aren't about the plan need to be resolved by the alt but not the perm.

Try to impress me with your understanding of the material, execution of the strategy, or stylistic ability and I will do my best to adjudicate.

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

blaine montford---they/them

blaine, not judge

Kickapoo HS '23, Missouri Revival '23 (ROLL MO), Michigan State '27

email 2 add:

bmntdb8@gmail.com

----

TLDR:

i flow on paper. give me pen time.

clarity + speed > clarity > speed

tech + truth > tech > truth

----

debate nihilist--do whatever makes you happy, comfortable, or what you think would help you win. Debate is a communicative activity, probably, and thus if you can communicate your argument well, there should never be a world in which you would ever need to adapt to me.

currently unhappy about the rise of blatant fascism in the community--if this upsets you or you think it is not an issue strike me. i likely won't be good for you anyway.

i read a lot of critical literature--i'm not well versed in the specifics of your theory, even if i am, no i'm not. i am not an ideologue for k debate. i will vote for whoever presented the better arguments.

irrespective of how you choose to approach the round argumentatively, i will always default to well-explained and warranted arguments over anything else. bonus points if you make me laugh. thus, i really don't care what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, I prefer if both teams engage with their opponents' arguments. I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash. i dislike having to read your evidence to figure out what your arg is trying to say. i do not open docs unless your debate was very close and i need to actually adjudicate something about your ev or something went incredibly wrong and nothing either side said made sense.

----

i prefer k debates that either:

1] contain robust explanations of each team's model and pedagogies in debate and why that is good/preferable to the other or

2] center around questions of which side's praxis is best to resolve certain impacts. what that entails is up to you.

reading an un-contextualized link wall straight down in the block is not good link debating. making a theory of power claim about the world and then saying "The 1AC is complicit in it!" is not good link debating. links of omission can be good if you have a persuasive reason that matters. the cap k link into the k-aff that "the 1AC didn't talk abt capitalism so vote neg" is usually not persuasive, a link, or worth anyone's time to debate. if you read a k please know the literature around it. very tired of hearing people butcher people's work.

I judge k debates like 2004 Jason Regnier.

----

i prefer policy debates centralized on da/case strats---not the biggest fan of teams who proliferate counterplans to minimize engagement from the aff. Katsula's ideology is something i can easily get behind, but i won't vote you down if you "break the rules" per se. i subscribe to the cult of negative flexibility [I'll still vote on condo tho] and still understand the strategic value in both approaches. you do you but if adjusting matters see previous. people like Astrid Clough, Jeff Buntin, Kevin McAffery, Will Repko, and Bill Batterman share a lot of debate hot takes I do in this regard.

----

you should disclose. policy teams saying silly voting issues is frustrating and i have a low bar for the other team answering them unless you can explain why it isn't.

don't be racist, a bigot, ableist, or violent to another person in the room. infringing on the safety of your opponents is bad and i will likely have to step in and make it tabs problem.

clipping needs proof and you have to stake the round on it.

don't steal prep. prep ends when the email is sent.

please flow. people who ask "can i get a marked doc/can you list the cards you didn't read?" when the other team clearly marks cards/a low number of cards are marked.

I am currently a sophomore at Emory university. I debated public forum at the quarry lane school for four years.

tech > truth

please add me to the email chain - snellian@student.quarrylane.org. Send speech docs before each speech !

I'm fine with speed, but make sure you're clear. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Any offense you're going for in final focus should be extended completely (uniqueness, links, impacts) in summary. Cross is binding but doesn't matter unless it's in speech. Please collapse !

Start weighing as early as possible and definitely focus on comparative weighing (both link and impact level if possible), when I'm looking at the arguments, I'll start with the one with the strongest weighing.

Always be respectful towards your opponents. I won't evaluate arguments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. Lastly, debate can be stressful but make sure to have fun :)

Regarding prog arguments, I have little to no experience with Ks (I’ve debated a K maybe once or twice). If you want to read a K, I think it’s super interesting but I probably won’t be able to evaluate it well and am not a great judge for that. I’ve debated/read theory before, and have more experience with it than Ks, but I’m not extremely experienced with it either.

Good luck and feel free to email me before or after the round if you have any questions.

Read the bold stuff if you're in a hurry.

Logistics: 1) Add me to the chain: knj522@gmail.com, and 2) both teamscan insert re-highlighting of the other teams' evidence if they give a brief explanation of what they think the evidence actually says.

2023-2024 Topic Update: I'd love to see some wonky economics debates, whether it be a novel cap k or whacky interest rates DA. I'll bump speaks and I'll be able to give you targeted feedback, including ideas for argument innovation and specific authors. This was my major and how I enjoy spending free time.

SLC West '19
Trinity '23

About me: I am a full-time immigration paralegal, primarily in removal defense & visa processing. I regularly read the American Prospect and economic historian Adam Tooze's substack, so I have a working knowledge of the day's news that one could fairly say has a 'technocratic lefty' bias. This bias shows as interest in the cap k and its variants; lefty, small courts affs; hegemony good/bad & growth good/bad; and, radical, sweeping whole-resolution affs (e.g. open borders on immigratiom, UBI on economic redistribution, and withdraw from NATO on alliances). I occasionally discuss rhe topic with friends, but do not judge as often and do not currently coach. I studied economics, politics, and math, and very much enjoy whenever debates touch on these topics.

Past Affiliations: Glenbrook North High School, Casady High School

Background and Thoughts on Debate:

I endeavor to be maximally impartial in making decisions. If judges interjected their beliefs into my debates, I got quite annoyed. Consequently, I won't consciously interject my beliefs into debates, with two exceptions.

First, be nice: interpersonal hostility sucks, especially in debate. I won't hesitate to nuke your speaks if you're rude. Debaters should show each other mutual respect for the work they put into the activity. Conversely, making small chat before the round and during dead time in the debate will boost your speaks.

Second, I (and everyone) will inject their unconscious biases into debates. There's three you should be aware of:

First, I'm an economics and political science data nerd whose primary debate strategies were tiny aff's, the cap k, multiplank advantage counterplans, politics, whatever the topic DA was, and impact turns. Consequently, my knowledge of much critical literature - especially critical literature authored by old, white, French guys - is lacking. But, knowledge is not strategic ignorance: I can recognize the structural thesis claims of most popular critical arguments, have a basic familiarity with the authors, and can assess supporting evidence. If I were a critical team, I would pref me above "no plan, no ballot" judges but below most clash judges.

Second, my primary skill in debate was evidence production, not speaking. Good cards will have an undue influence on how I see the debate. Nonetheless, I acknowledge this is a bias: I strive to focus on what debaters, not the cards, say.

Third, I take a more big picture/embedded clash view of debate than many critics. Debate is about telling compelling stories. Far more important than the fact that 2NC #3b was dropped is how 2NC #3b fits into the narrative you're weaving. This has two consequences for you. First, isolating, weighing, and explaining how your external offense turns your opponents' external offense is critical. Second, I'm much more willing to "zero" DAs or advantages than most judges. If an advantage or DA is bunk for a very specific reason, tell me. Even good analytics can zero a DA or advantage.

Besides that, I see debate as a game that I evaluate based on the flow. From planless affs to process CPs - I'll strive to ensure the win/loss evaluation is based on who debated the issue better.

However, my evaluation of speaker points will be quite subjective. In addition to rating debaters' speaking quality, I use points to reward strategies and practices which I believe make debate fun and educational. These strategies and practices include:
1. Novelty in general, but especially in clash/framework debates
2. Methodological indicts of your opponents evidence (minimal sample size, correlation vs causation, etc) and methodological prodicts of your evidence (explaining the specific methodology and why it's reliable, reading a meta analysis of studies) - this is an underutilized argument in critical debates, especially ones with big thesis claims. Arguments like 'scientific studies' of racial bias prove afro-Pessimism, or scientific models of the environment proving dedev - are incredibly underutilized.
3. Really good cards - on anything. Be loud about it if you believe your evidence meets this threshold.
4. Unique, specific variants of the cap k (not just reading the cap k - finding a specific, weird Marxist tradition/thesis that rebuts the aff)
5. Impact turns - I love dedev and war good debates.
6. Straight turning an advantage or DA
7. Tiny, clever aff's with tricks (esp. so-called 'soft left' affs with straight turns of bad DAs)
8. Huge, whole-rez style aff's

An aside - large language models (e.g. ChatGPT/GPT 4o, Claude, and Bard) seem incredibly underutilized in debate, especially for tasks which are repetitive, like generating round reports (you can ask it to use Python to read titles like "1NC - DA - 2024 Elections," "1NC - K - Cap," etc.) and scanning speech docs or underlying articles for 'link' anguage (e.g. ableist language or a solvency advocate discussing the plan's political/public unpopularity). LLM's are like power tools the community should start utilizing.

Updated way too early for my preliminary thoughts on the IP topic.

Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school mail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien 05, Amherst College 09, Emory Law 13L. This will be my seventh year as the Assistant Director at Damien (part-time), and my second year as Director at St. Lucy's Priory (full-time). I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.

Topic Knowledge: I will be a very good judge for evaluating high-tech arguments that depend on nuance. I went to law school, was a recipient of an IP law scholarship, and have published on novel developments in IP law (specifically, the interaction between trademark and copyright rights over community designed maps in video games). I do not teach at camp, so I will be a very poor judge for arguments that rely on community meta norms established by camp.

Debate: I believe that the point of the resolution is to force debaters to learn about a different topic each year, so debaters who develop good topic knowledge generally out-debate their opponents because they can use that expertise to make better arguments and decisions. However I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game. Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate, either more fair or more pedagogically valuable, compared to your opponent's. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better; I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the round, whether that was at camp or a previous round.

I run a planess aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am predisposed to the neg, but I try to leave bias at the door. I do end up voting aff about half the time. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack" out on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off fewer painted cards than multiple under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, can beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Debate Ideologies: I think that judges should reward good debating over ideology, so almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents. You can limit the chance that I intervene by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions; the 2NR and 2AR are competing pitches trying to sell me a ballot.

Accommodations: Please email me ahead of time if you believe you will need an accommodation that cannot be facilitated in round so that I can work with tab on your issue. Any accommodation that has any potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable (e.g., "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases") versus vague generalities ("Good is good enough").

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think there should be a mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew).

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness but the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.

- The aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity.

- The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding.

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors).

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round.

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric. You can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo.

- ASPEC is checked by cross. The neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC. If the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse. Potential ground loss is abuse.

Kritiks

TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission or reusing generic criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you. If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs/strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt). A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for treating the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I'm more likely to give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than I am to give it to you because epistemology and pedagogy is important.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

- Process CPs: I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases; I will vote aff on CP flaws if the neg's attempt to hot-swap between these processes produces a structural defect.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments will have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Capital on a courts counterplan is a disad but CP gets circumvented is not). Negative teams with case negs (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.

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

Pronouns: she/they

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

Statement on Racism (& other Prejudices) in Debate

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

General Philosophy

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

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

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

Argument Specific preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For rookie/novice debaters:

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

yes, I want to be on the chain: katiepham770@gmail.com

reagan ‘20

northwestern ‘24

I coach for LASA

Updates can be found at the bottom of the page

tl;dr: do what you do best. I’ll accommodate for you

almost none of the following paradigm is set in stone: these are mostly just my preferences. I can be convinced otherwise on most of these things, it just depends on how you spin it and frame it. I will always do my best to put my personal convictions and preferences aside for a debate because arguments ought to be what the debaters make of them. I tend to think that bad arguments ought to lose, regardless of what category or style they are. If there is something you’re still unclear on after reading this, feel free to ask questions.

firstly, the things that ARE set in stone: don’t clip. don’t steal prep. don't be mean to anyone. don’t say death good, racism good, sexism good, etc. I know most of you probably won’t, but I feel like it needs to be said. if your strategy relies on being sneaky (intentionally omitting things, relying on them messing up because you tricked them, etc.) do not pref me. there is a difference between being strategic and being sneaky.

a couple notes:

- I have a face when I’m focusing that looks as if I hate you or I am very confused. I don’t hate you, and I’m not confused. I promise its just my face. I’ll do my best to control it because I know it can be off-putting, but if it happens, its nothing you did.

- I don’t like small talk at all. Please don’t do it if we don’t know each other.

- being called "judge" feels weird. just call me kathryn (not katie, i know the email is misleading).

- I am very sensitive to the way that non-men and trans men are treated in debate, and this especially goes for non-men of color and queer people of color. I will never hesitate to call you out and contact your coach(es).

Top Level

- I really appreciate when the 2AR/2NR give me a way to frame the debate and make it really easy to write my ballot. "Even if" statements are cool.

- When evaluating a debate, I always start with questions of solvency: what do I think the aff solves? What do I think the alternative/counterplan solves? I do this by analyzing how the debaters explain their solvency, how they answer solvency deficits, evaluating solvency advocates, etc. I then move to questions that were highly contested in the 2AR (if the aff presses the internal link of the disad, I evaluate that part of the debate. I'll do this for every part that was in the 2AR/2NR (so long as I can trace it back to earlier speeches, if I can't trace them back, I will not evaluate them)) until I conclude one way or the other for every issue. After that, I'll use your framing, impact calc/comparison, and what I've concluded from your explanation and evidence to assign risk of the aff/disad and that helps me decide. This process is subject to change because I'm sure my judging process will change as I get more experience.

- When in doubt, I default to data, empirics, logic. I look at the studies in your cards and weigh them pretty heavily, especially with politics. Charts, graphs, tables, all cool. I find that biases in evidence and methods by which your author comes to their conclusion are really necessary to account for and really relevant to what the card says and why.

- Your arguments need to be complete. Make sure your claims have warrants. Make sure your disads are complete shells.

- Mark your cards. Send a marked version. If you raise an ethics violation, you need to have proof. Accusations of clipping that turn out to be true get an immediate L and a 25 in speaks for the team that clipped. Accusations of clipping that turn out to be false get the same thing for the team that accused.

T-USFG/Framework (I put it at the top. You’re welcome.)

- When evaluating the 2NR/2AR I look first for impact comparison/what do I think the aff solves with their model vs. what do I think the negative solves with their model. This part is especially hard to adjudicate when both sides don’t do the comparison between the two models, so please do that for me.

- I tend to think that people ought to affirm topical action, however if you have a defense of your model I’m willing to hear it. You're much better off going for a couple of solid impact turns to framework rather than a terrible we meet argument and 6 disads that are all the same thing just tagged slightly differently. I don't even wanna hear your interp + our aff.

- I conclude aff in more debates that I’ve watched than I’d like to, usually because the negative spreads themselves too thin or doesn’t do enough impact comparison in the 2NR. I conclude neg in debates where I would have liked the aff to win for the very same reason. There ARE compelling aff arguments against framework, but the trouble usually comes from not responding to the tricky neg defense/tricky internal link turns/not doing impact comparison.

- I’m more persuaded by limits/fairness arguments than I am about education or ground. It’s also not hard for me to conclude that debate is a game and competitive merits matter. However, these are not reasons to skimp on explanation.

- I like switch side. I think do it on the negative resolves a lot more offense than teams think it does, especially when affirmative answers to T-USFG seem to be more about excluding their scholarship rather than affirming a topical plan.

- Teams should press the subjectivity debate more than they do – it implicates a lot of the answers that aff teams make. Not contesting the subjectivity level when a lot of the affirmative strategy depends on it is an easy way to lose.

- T-USFG is not genocide, the Iraq war, or anything else you say it is. I'm unwilling to conclude that.

T

- I lean to competing interpretations, but reasonability is a lot more underrated than it ought to be.

- Predictable limits are your best shot at getting my ballot. I like caselist comparisons a lot, I wanna know what their model justifies and what yours justifies and compare them.

- Much like framework, I like fairness/clash type impacts here. I am unpersuaded by ground and education.

- I think that precision/intent to define/field context is more important that other people do. If your interpretation doesn’t actually define anything and instead you’ve cherry-picked your evidence to say what you want, I will likely be more lenient towards the other team.

Ks

- While I was not K-savvy in high school, I went to a school that was K-heavy so I am very familiar with a lot of the literature of antiblackness, settler colonialism, fem IR, security, and have had some exposure to Baudrillard (though not willingly, lol). I have my own conceptions of all of these things, but I will always default to the debaters’ explanation of it.

- The affirmative should get to weigh the aff against what the negative wins that the alternative solves by the end of the debate. I think that’s probably the most reasonable frame for both teams in terms of fairness, so any “weigh the aff” type arguments takes a lot less work for me to lean your way. On framework of the K, "you don't get K's" and "you dont get the aff" are both equally unpersuasive.

- I’m uncomfortable voting for K alts that I don’t know a whole lot about, as in the question “what does the alt do/look like” was never really clearly articulated. Please take extra time to do that. otherwise, you may not be all that happy with my RFD when I distort your alternative to be what it isn’t.

- Like all people, I like link specificity. It makes the aff’s job harder and my job easier. The more specific the better. I think in K debates its important to fuse the link and impact debate together so that each link is packaged with a particular impact. It’s more coherent that way. Consider only going for one or two very fleshed out links instead of like 6 really bad ones in the 2NR

DA

- Tech > Truth. Spin is cool, but you have to have a reasonable evidence backing for it.

- Evidence comparison is important. If you don’t do enough of it, I will either default to your opponent’s characterization of it or come up with my own convictions that do not match to the way you think of your evidence. Either way, you will not like the result. This is not talking about author quals. You need to compare warrants.

- I am a huge fan of straight turn debates, particularly impact turns. Do with that what you will.

- More evidence isn’t always better. I think fewer pieces of good quality evidence are more valuable than more pieces of terrible evidence. You ought to apply your evidence and unpack all the warrants rather than reading a million new cards. Quality is so much better than quantity.

- Impact comparison is necessary. Do a good amount of it. No, this is not the same thing as impact calc. It's "even if they win their impact, here's why you prefer ours anyway"

- If your disad does not have uniqueness/link/whatever in the 1NC and you read that in the block, the 1AR gets new answers. You need to have a complete argument.

- Zero risk exists.

CP

- Every time you say “see-pee” instead of “counterplan,” a kitten dies and I hate you a little more.

- I like counterplans that are textually and functionally competitive, but your counterplan by no means has to be. I mostly just think you should have a solvency advocate.

- Theory is fine, and I’ll let y’all decide which counterplans are cheating. I lean negative on most theory except for conditionality, on which I am a true neutral. I can obviously be convinced otherwise.

o On conditionality, I find qualitative interpretations much more convincing than quantitative ones. I don’t know why 4 is worse than 3 which is worse than 2 and so on.

o Judge kick is the logical extension of conditionality, so I’ll do it unless the aff contests it and y’all debate about it. Then I will decide whether to or not.

- I like process counterplans with nuanced internal net benefits, PICs, and techy debates of these type.

Case

- Very underutilized! I love nuanced case debate so please do a lot of it. If youre not doing 2-3 minutes of case work, you’re doing it wrong. I think that you ought to give me judge direction when doing case debate, tell me what it means for the debate if you do win this argument.

- One thing that makes me sad is when you ask really good questions in CX about case and then they never make it into the 1NC. You can use analytics to rip apart a lot of the aff internal link chains -- any logical hole in the affirmative should have at least an analytic in the 1NC.

- Case turns are cool. Unpack the warrants.

- I reward good case debating because its not very often that people really do case debate in the block like they should, and when they do, its often done poorly.

Miscellaneous

- I reward clever strategies, organization, being funny, and clarity. Clarity > Speed always. I also reward open sourcing, so I’ll check if you do. If you open source, +.2 speaks for y’all both.

- I hate ASPEC. Viscerally. I really struggle to reconcile the idea that dropped arguments are true and just how much ASPEC sucks. I suppose I'll vote for it but only if in the doc and dropped. Otherwise, no chance. If it's dropped, but it wasn't in the doc, I don't care, I'm not voting for it. If you unironically do this and get mad at me when I vote aff, you are likely bad at debate and I will have no remorse voting against you.

- This is directed at everyone, but mostly cis men in debate: stop yelling. we are in a small room and no one else is talking while you're talking. there is no reason to shout. please stop.

- I cannot stress this enough: be. nice. I said it earlier, but I will say it again. I genuinely hate watching debates where y'all are mean to each other. I enjoy nice and polite debaters more than I enjoy good debaters, hopefully you’re both. I am unafraid to call you out if you are mean. I am unafraid to contact your coach if you are excessive.

- Respect your opponents. Respect their pronouns. Put a trigger warning on your stuff. Don't cut each other off. Generally, just be respectful.

- If you have further questions, I think about debate very similarly to Yao Yao Chen, Sruthi Ilangovan, and Brian Box. Andrew Xiang and Haaris Siddiqi are people who have influenced the way I approach debate and probably judge as well.

****Updates****

- TOC 2021 UPDATE - zoom can be glitchy and the quality of mics on computers tends to be rather bad, so its important that you slow down and be more clear than you think you need to be. additionally, do not delete analytics from your docs. i will be so much more lenient with your opponents if your "aff slaying argument" is a 3 second blip in the 1NC that sounds scratchy and unclear via zoom is dropped in the 2AC.

yes, i'd like a card doc of the cards you find relevant at the end of the debate. negs, during 2ar prep you should start compiling the card doc for the neg, just for time's sake. i don't want the limited time i have to decide to compromise the quality of my decision.

brt.damiendebate@gmail.com

i don't know much about the topic

do whatever you'd like as long as your arguments have warrants

im expressive during debates so pay attention

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/

Debater for Georgetown (2024-)

Assistant Coach and Researcher for Banneker/Washington Urban Debate League (2023-)

American University '27 (Public Health)

Woodward Academy '23

Email Chain: jayyoon35@gmail.com

Jay, not judge.

Individuals who have influenced parts of my paradigm:

Maggie Berthiaume

Bill Batterman

Sam Wombough

Zaria Jarman

Jack Hightower

David Trigaux

Liv Birnstad

Top Level

Good luck!

Be nice, have fun, don't clip, and learn something from the round.

Extinction first/extinction good is unethical and never prioritized.

Send analytics.

If I cannot flow an argument, it does not count as one.

If an argument does not have a warrant, it is not an argument.

Clash > Tricks

Truth = Tech

Accessibility

Have a way to share ev if one team is using paper.

Don't read args with graphic descriptions unless everyone in the round is fine with it.

Don't spread if speed is not accessible to your opponents.

Biases

As debate is a persuasive activity, confidence and intelligent arguments are important. While every judge has their own biases, which are subject to change over time, here are some of mine:

Death/suffering is bad

War is bad

Climate change is real and exacerbated daily

Discrimination and violence in any form is bad.

1NC

Hiding ASPEC is bad; therefore the aff is permitted to briefly address it and move on. not auto-neg even if dropped.

Case

I will consider voting on complete defense if there is minimal/no risk of aff solvency.

Case turns are good.

Don't forget about impact framing.

Disadvantages

If the DA is incomplete, it is not an argument. The 1AR gets new answers when the missing part/s are added.

The link is the most important part of the DA. I will not disregard the importance of the UQ and impact despite that.

Politics DAs are structurally flawed and rely upon a flawed model of politics. The aff can easily mitigate the risk by pointing out and emphasizing these flaws. Intrinsic DAs are better for neg ground and clash throughout the round so I might not be the best judge if your 2NRs are mostly politics.

Turns case is useful but it needs to be developed further in the overview/line-by-line.

Impact/Case Turns

I enjoy them, assuming they aren't offensive/morally objectionable. Winning an impact turn will require some defense to mitigate the risk of the case.

Counterplans

States: Don't leave D.C. out of texts or advocacy statements. Uniformity is unrealistic

Have a relevant solvency advocate in the 1NC; if the neg reads a specific solvency advocate in the block (as opposed to the 1NC), the aff gets new answers.

CPs should fiat a specific policy, not an outcome.

Process and Agent CPs: Arguments on the competition flow are likely more persuasive than theory but theory args can complement competition args if warranted out properly.

Critiques

Ks are particularly significant for this year's topic. The Ks I'm most familiar with include degrowth/growth bad (both as a K and DA/impact turn), settler colonialism, capitalism/neoliberalism, and security. Moving toward higher theory literature such as Psychoanalysis or Baudrillard is where I might start to get lost.

I will default to weighing the aff/perm against the alt. Neg teams can read links stemming from the aff's actions , defense of impacts, as well as the mechanism/ representations (without becoming a PIK). I think that PIKs out of the aff’s reps are only competitive if the neg proves that the aff’s reps are bad. If the aff wins their reps are good, I’m much more like to vote aff on a perm.

Explain the links and alt level and distinguish them from a vague and potentially utopian outcome.

K Affs

I have only been negative against critical affs.

Defend the entirety of your 1AC, including your authors and concepts forwarded.

There is a higher threshold for perms when the neg has specific links/the aff has a vaguer advocacy.

Fairness can be an impact depending on how it's argued. Even if not, it is a large internal link to other impacts.

Topicality

Not the best judge for T vs policy affs.

Plan text in a vacuum is a bad argument.

T is not a reverse voting issue.

Procedurals

Likely not a voting issue unless dropped and warranted.

Disclosure is good.

Plans should not be vague to the point where it is undebatable.

Hiding APSEC/theory is a good way to lose speaker points.

Theory

Condo: I'm comfortable voting aff if there are at least two conditional advocacies. It's also the only reason to reject the team unless warranted out in explicit detail. Condo also becomes more persuasive when combined with args like perf con. Make sure to distinguish between conditional (judge kick is not permitted) and the status quo is a logical option (judge kick is permitted) when stating the interp.

Good theory debating requires good line-by-line.

If you still have questions, feel free to ask before the round starts.