Glenbrook South '24

aayanalidebate@gmail.com

Time everything -- speeches, cross ex, prep -- I am not timing for you.

Run whatever you want. Don't care about how many off-case.

The important things here:

• Lean slightly NEG in framework debates, but will probably vote aff if the neg doesn’t have good external offense like fairness.
• Dropped arguments are true, even if they aren't true in real life, and I'll vote on them.
• Reward strategies with deep research with great speaker points.

Theory/topicality:

• These debates have an inherent ceiling in terms of how much of your skill they demonstrate. I'm generally receptive to the idea that the never-ending race to the "best for debate" theory interp causes arbitrariness and substance crowd-out.
• No strong opinion on the "other issues perm," besides that it's hard to decide a winner if near-evenly debated. Because perm do the CP involves evidence, I prefer that debate.
• Theory is a better route than competition for answering most "cheaty" counterplans. This is a controversial take, but if you disagree with me, I implore you to tell me your answer to "nuke China if and only if the plan." I heavily prefer interpretations like "uniform 50 state fiat is bad," or "fiating a non-policy action is bad," over "process CPs bad" or "agent CPs bad."
• Default to predictability being the gold standard. It determines what an in-round unfair practice is. Reasonability is not separate from the interps debate nor does it mean T is non-viable. Instead, it’s the impact to predictability, and also reduces the threshold for aff offense on the interp debate.
• Evenly debated, I'll probably judge kick, but only if the neg tells me to.
• Condo? The number definitely matters. Around 5 or less will always be fine, but it’s hard to tell the aff that they need to prove the aff is a better solution than 15 planks with 30 ways of solving each advantage.

Critiques:

• Better for the K on the neg than my high school argument choice may suggest. I don't think it's very hard to defend the 1AC's justifications; state/heg/cap good arguments obliterate most kritiks that boil down to "you did a government."
• I'll never create a middle ground framework that the debaters didn't propose. Generally, don't think the middle ground framework makes sense -- a plan's consequences don't trade off with its logic.
• Clever permutations and alt theory are underutilized against the cap K. Teams shouldn't have to rejoin "everyone becomes happy communists."
• Hard to win "ontological" claims unless there are dropped warrants.

Substance:

• The best debates are ones that use more evidence and less unsubstantiated spin.
• Default to risk = probability x magnitude.
• I care a lot about terminal impacts.
• Reverse causality matters. "The IRS is key to democracy" being highlighted in a card doesn't matter if the card doesn't explain why, absent the IRS, democracy wouldn't exist.
• I love studying statistics and love debates comparing studies.

Email: anadebate6@gmail.com

Glenbrook South '24, Dartmouth '28

Fifth Year Policy Debater, 2N/1A

Tech over truth: I strongly believe debate is more about the articulation and presentation of arguments rather than the actual validity of them. However, if the debate is even on the tech level, I will default to truth based on evidence as a tiebreaker.

Please don't call me judge - you can just call me Ana (pronounced like Ana from Frozen)

General hot takes:

1) Stealing prep: don't do it. I will dock your speaks. This is extremely frustrating. Trust me, the few extra seconds are never worth it. It's very obvious what you're trying to do. This also includes prepping while your opponent is sending out their speech docs. Needless to say, if you're having tech issues, I understand.

2) Cross ex: I find cross ex to be one of the most important aspects of a debate, since it's the only time you are able to interact with the other team and truly expose how much they really know what they're talking about. Take advantage of this. I value teams who cross ex strategically as a way to set up future arguments they plan to make in the debate.

3) Judge instruction: This is when you provide the judge with an exact path (or preferably multiple paths) of how a ballot for your side is warranted, typically provided in the last rebuttal by both sides (2AR/2NR). I love judge instruction because it helps show me the debaters' interpretations of how to frame my ballot and helps give me an more accurate picture of what exactly I should vote on. Generally, this skill is incredibly rare for novices and much more common in varsity division, so if you can do it correctly, I will massively boost your speaks and give you a higher probability of getting the ballot.

4) Timing: Please time both your speeches/prep time as well as your opponents'. I will probably time them too, but just in case I don't, you should be keeping track of your own time and stopping yourself as needed.

5) Courtesy: Please don't be rude to your opponents, even if you think the argument they are making is dumb or doesn't make sense. Instead, articulate that in your speech using warrants from evidence.

6) Using your evidence: A lot of the quality of your evidence is what you make of it. Draw out specific warrants from your evidence. Even if your evidence is of better quality than your opponents', if they explain theirs better, I will be more inclined to buy their argument. Just reading cards and not expanding on them in later speeches isn't enough to get me to vote on that argument.

7) Clarity: Please be clear in your speeches. I should be able to flow by ear rather than have to look at your speech doc to understand what you're saying. I would much rather prefer you slow down, are clear, and read less cards over spreading through a bunch of cards when no one understands what you're saying.

8) Line by line: It's very obvious when you're simply reading your team's blocks, especially in the later rebuttals. While this is fine and inevitable to an extent, I encourage you to do line-by-line for the later rebuttals. This means going through the arguments you have made and are going for and acknowledging/responding to why those arguments are better than your opponents'.

9) Flowing: Please flow. A lot of novices don't understand the importance of flowing, which causes them to drop arguments. Flowing will make you a substantially better debater and help improve your speaker points. Trust me that it is very obvious when debaters aren't flowing. I will increase speaks if you're flowing well.

10) Tag team cross ex is great, but try to avoid talking over your partner.

11) I don't evaluate arguments said after the timer goes off, but cross ex is binding.

12) Have fun!: I know debate can feel stressful, but it's important you also enjoy yourself while you're doing it and think back to why you're in the activity in the first place. Experiment with new arguments, be kind to others, and recognize that you have many rounds ahead of you and opportunities to get better.

Specific Arguments

T vs. Policy Affs

Pretty terrible on this topic. Needless to say, I generally am a really big fan of topicality and love judging these debates when done correctly. Make sure you have standards in your 1NC. Make sure to have a we meet argument and a counter interpretation in the 2AC, as well as reasons to prefer your interpretation. Also, clearly articulate your impacts and why they outweigh any sort of in-round impacts and are a reason to reject the aff and team. If you have the same impacts, explain to me why you access them better than your opponents.

T vs. K Affs

I doubt I will be judging many of these debates at the novice level, but I generally err neg on T against K affs, especially when affs have nothing to do with the topic. However, that doesn't mean that if the 2NR is framework that I will automatically vote for it. Also, if affs have at least some connection to the topic, I am more inclined to give the aff more leeway.

DAs

I love DAs! I frequently go for DA and case in the 2NR. I am more than willing to vote on DA outweighs case if you do enough impact calc in the 2NR. Needless to say, I am a sucker for good 2ARs that are able to find unique ways to leverage the case to access the DAs impacts, provided that analysis is not entirely new.

If you're reading the politics DA, make sure you're reading updated uniqueness cards from within the few days or week following up to the tournament, since I'm unlikely to vote on a completely non-uq DA if the other team reads more updated non-uq evidence.

CPs

Generally, I'll lean neg on theoretical questions on CPs. I feel that, unless dropped or completely mishandled, things like PICs bad and International Fiat bad are reasons to reject the argument not the team, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to vote for them if dropped or not adequately responded to by the neg team. However, I wouldn't rely on theory for CPs as your main offense, except if the CP is clearly cheating. I understand International Fiat will be big on the NATO topic, and it's tough to find neg ground, so I probably will err neg on it unless the aff makes a definitive claim as to why rejecting the team is important, and the neg doesn't have a sufficient answer.

Ks

I am definitely familiar with the lit base for Kritiks to an extent but do not have much experiencing running Ks other than cap. However, if you're reading a high theory kritik or one that is not a core generic, make sure you spend extra time clearly outlining the thesis of the kritik to me. I think a common mistake novices make is reading kritiks they don't understand at all. I would advise against this, since it seems like you don't really understand what you're talking about, thus lowering your ethos. Try your best to read all of your evidence and familiarize yourself with it before each tournament. I am definitely more than willing to vote for kritiks if articulated properly, and it's clear what exactly you're critiquing.

Theory

I'll vote on anything, but I generally think that most theory arguments with the exception of condo aren't reasons to reject the team. Condo is generally good but I can certainly be convinced otherwise, especially if there is apparent substantial in-round abuse, like multiple multiplank advantage CPs with kickable planks. Nevertheless, I won't hesitate to pull the trigger on dropped theory arguments, as long as constructive speeches have reasons why they're a voter.

Speaker Points

Generally, I will give you high speaks if you understand your evidence and are familiar with it, which will definitely show in cross ex and your speeches. Also, dropping the least amount of arguments possible and doing line-by-line is great. Being nice to your opponents and flowing will boost your speaks as well!

Bonus points for being funny in your speeches!

ajbyrne1018(at)gmail.com

New Trier ‘16

Northwestern '19

Coach at New Trier: 2016-2019, 2023-Present

Hierarchy of how I want you to refer to me: "AJ">>>> "Mr. Byrne" >>>>>>>>>>"My Dude" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Judge"

Background: I debated at New Trier for four years (2x TOC qualifier) and then at Northwestern for three years. In the "real world" I am a pursuing my MEd in School Counseling from Loyola University Chicago.

I have judged 90+ debates on the Fiscal Redistribution Topic

*****NCFL FOLKS YOU DO NOT READ PAST THIS POINT UNLESS YOU ARE JUST CURIOUS, I WILL GLADLY LISTEN TO WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO SAY*****

Judging is one of my favorite things to do. 99 out of 100 times I would rather be judging than have a round off.

I value debaters that show enthusiasm, passion, and respect for the game. I am eager to reward preparation, good research, and debaters WHO DO NOT FLOW OFF THE SPEECH DOC. I have nothing but contempt for debaters who disrespect the game, their opponents, or (most importantly) their partners.

Debate is a communication activity. I am not flowing off the speech doc and will not reward a lack of clarity or debaters who think it is a good idea to go 100% speed through their analytic blocks. I will be very lenient for teams that are on the opposing end of such practices.

Planless is fine but you absolutely need to defend that choice. I think that my voting record is slightly neg leaning but that is because I do not think aff teams go for enough offense or they struggle to explain what debate looks like under their interpretation.

I am not voting for any argument regarding your interp being “good for small schools”

Default is no judge kick – I need specific 2NR instruction for me to do that for you. “Sufficiency framing” is not the same as judge kick.

Process CPs are fine (except Conditions I mean c’mon). Probably neg on most theory questions but also not going to let the neg get away with murder just because they are neg. The less generic and more germane to the topic the CP is, the better the neg is. If you are thinking about reading commissions or an advantage CP, I think you should probably read the advantage CP.

Zero risk of the DA is real, zero risking a DA without needing to read evidence is possible.

Plan Popular is not an argument that link turns an agenda DA.

Kritiks are rad. Kritiks that rely entirely on winning through framework tricks are miserable. If I am not skeptical of the aff's ability to solve their internal links or the alt's ability to solve them then I am unlikely to vote negative.

Other things:

Tag-team CX is fine but also sometimes very frustrating to evaluate. If I think someone is not adequately participating in CX, their points will suffer greatly.

Only Mavs and Neg teams debating new affs get to use CX as prep time. If a team wants to use CX as prep time under any other circumstances, the opposing team will be able to read additional evidence during this time.

CX begins at the first question asked, even if that question is something like “What card did you stop at?” (The only exception is “are you ready for cx?”)

Debates need to start on time, please!

More Debate Thoughts

These aren’t intended to be relevant to your pre-round prep. Just some opinions after spending 4 years away from the activity and then judging over 70 fiscal redistribution debates.

1. Please stop starting your speech at 100% speed. It guarantees that I am going to be unable to flow you for the first 10-15 seconds.
2. To go off that, why is it considered common practice to have T as the first off in the 1NC? That basically guarantees that I won’t be able to flow an entire offcase position and that doesn’t seem good.
3. Debaters that try to go fast as possible tend to end up being very slow. Your debate speaking voice should be your regular speaking voice, but faster.
4. I usually flow on paper, so I take a second to flip between flows. This usually means in every 2AC I miss roughly six perms on the CP because it has become common practice to just dump all the perms at the top of the block instead of the MUCH BETTER practice of spreading them throughout your block.
5. Seriously, please slow down.
6. I don’t care if you highlight in purple. Standard highlighting and consistent formatting are a BARE MINIMUM for a speech doc. Otherwise I will assume that you did not prep well for the tournament.
7. If it can be demonstrated from your wiki that you suck at disclosing I will spend a significant amount of my decision making fun of you. People who suck at disclosure are bad and should feel bad.
8. From the 2AC onwards, if you are speaking from a computer and not even referencing your flow, you are not debating the right way.
9. If the 1AC isn’t ready to start at start time, a puppy dies.
10. Anybody who uses the term “Speaks” to describe speaker points should have more respect for themselves.
11. Thinking about making it my policy that if I think you are stealing prep, I just give you a 26 without telling you.
12. Why does nobody read add-ons anymore?
13. I am pretty sick of <2 minutes of the block being spent on the case pages.
14. Tournament days are less grueling than they used to be but that has been in spite of debaters best efforts to be as slow as possible. Filling up the debate with dead time means less decision time which is only bad for you. As a wise man once said: “Keep ‘er movin”

Pronouns - him/he\they
Email(s) - abraham.corrigan@gmail.com, acorrigan1@glenbrook225.org, catspathat@gmail.com

Hello!

Thank you for considering me for your debate adjudication needs! Judging is one of my favorite things & I aspire to be the judge I wanted when I debated, namely one who was flexible and would judge the debate based on arguments made by debaters. To do that, I seek to be familiar with all debate arguments and literature bases such that my own ignorance will not be a barrier to judging the arguments you want to go for. This is an ongoing process and aspiration for me rather than an end point, but in general I would say you should probably pref me.

I'm fun!

Sometimes I even have snacks.

<*Judging Quirks*>

- I have absolutely zero poker face and will make a lot of non verbals. Please do not interpret these as concrete/100% definitive opinions of mine but rather as an expression of my initial attempts to place your argument within the particular context of the other arguments advanced in a debate.

- All arguments are evaluated within their particular context - Especially on the negative, as a debater in high school and college I went for and won a lot of debates on arguments which would be described, in a vacuum, as 'bad.' Sometimes, all you have to say is a turd and your rebuttal speeches will largely be what some of my judges described as 'turd-shinning.' This means (unless something extreme is happening which is unethical or triggering my mandatory reporter status as a public school employee) I generally prefer to let the arguments advanced in the debate dictate my view of what is and what isn't a 'good' argument.

- I am not a 'k' or 'policy' judge. I just like debate.

<*My Debate History*>

I am a 2a. This means, if left to my own devices and not instructed not to look for this, the thing that I will implicitly try to do is identify a way to leave stuff better than we found it.

High School

- I debated at H-F HS, in Illinois, for my first two years of debate where I was coached by creeps.

- My junior & senior year in HS I transfered to Glenbrook South where I was coached most by Tara Tate (now retired from debate), Calum Matheson (now at Pitt), & Ravi Shankar (former NU debater).

My partner and I largely went for agenda politics da & process cps or impact turns. We were a bit k curious, but mostly read what would be described as 'policy' arguments.

College

- I debated in college for 4 years at Gonzaga where I was coached by Glen Frappier (still DoF at GU), Steve Pointer (now [mostly] retired from debate), Jeff Buntin (current DoD at NU), Iz-ak Dunn (currently at ASU), & Charles Olney (now [mostly] retired from debate).

My partner and I largely went for what is now be described as 'soft left' arguments on the affirmative and impact turns and unusual counterplans when we were negative.

Coaching

- After graduating, I coached at Northwestern University for a year. My assignments were largely 2ac answers & stuff related to translating high theory arguments made by other teams into things our less k debaters could understand.

- I then moved to Lexington, Kentucky and coached at the University of Kentucky for two years. My assignments were largely aff & all things 2a & answering k stuff on the negative.

- I then coached/did comm graduate work at Wake Forest for two years.

- I then took a break from debate and worked as a paralegal at a law firm which was focused on civil lawsuits against police, prisons, whistleblower protections as well as doing FOIA requests for Buzzfeed.

- I then came back to debate, did some logistics for UK, then Mrs. Corrigan got the GBS job & the rest is history!

FOR NOVICE STATES: IF YOU DO NOT SEND ANALYTICS IN THE 1NC/2AC, SPEAKS ARE CAPPED AT 28.5. Not sending in the block or 1AR is fine.

shrutikde93@gmail.com

please add: kaylanfdebate@gmail.com

direct all questions and complaints to WayneTang@aol.com

Non-Negotiables:

add me to the email chain or I WILL dock your speaks to 27.1

Kritikal affirmatives will NOT be read in my round--you may NOT express your identity, EVER!

If I ever catch you stealing even a PICOSECOND of prep time, I WILL talk to your coaches and remove you from the tournament. Stealing prep counts as the time is takes to bring your computer to the podium, sending the documents, time it takes for the document to travel through the internet and land in my inbox, and time it takes for my to open the document, download it, and send it to the rest of my team. If you need to use the restroom, I will take prep time. You should have gone before.

Capitalism is GOOD. I will NOT be convinced otherwise. If you even ATTEMPT to spew that PINKO COMMIE LIBERAL GARBAGE I will contact tabroom and remove you under suspicion of espionage.

How I Judge/Prefs:

Pref me a 1 for every kind of debate (I am extrimeley smartt:)

I was born in the royal house of the Riad and therefore have been surrounded by the wonderful works of critical authors such as Wayne Tang, Brian Roche, Cole Weese, Jack Hightower, ZIDAO WANG (ZIDAO ZIDAO ZIDAO ZIDAO), and Trufnananv.

I am very wealthy (as a result of my genius) and have no time to listen to the grievances of debaters who think economic "inequality" (if everyone would just work hard, they would obviously succeed). If all were up to me, I would prefer debate centers around discussions of how to maintain corporate profits (reverse redistribution would be a prime example). But if you must, I will listen to discussions of economic "inequality". My decision will involve a rating of the socioeconomic setting your school is in (the richer the better, of course) and your ability to explain the benefits of capitalism and the unvaiability of nationalization of the means of production. I will also give a decision based on evidence not introduced into the round and arguments I have written down on flows of the past round I have debated in (possibly from my extremely successful novice year under the Criminal Justice topic (I won our impact calc tournament after school)).

Reasonability is possibly the greatest argument ever created (aside from cap good). I am an extremely reasonable person (my notes above reflect this) and generally agree that if the Affirmative defends the word "fiscal", or "money" they are Topical.

After the round I will ask for a document of all pieces of relevant evidence that will influence my decision. I will permit debaters to add evidence not read in the round that helps their position (especially if it is cap good) and I will thoroughly read through it come to myown conclusions based on said evidence (typically will be that cap is good). If I see the words "CNN", "MSNBC", "The Guardian", "New York Times", or another information source that clearly fabricates lies on a daily basis in a speech document with your school's name on it (regardless of if you read said evidence in the round) I will immediately vote you down and report you to tabroom.

I am especially fond of T-Reverse Federalism versus Dispositionality Turns T debates.

I think Topicality debates that boil down to standards about standard deviations are my favorite to judge.

I am extremely intelligent and am able to adjudicate any kind of debate. My favorite debate is AFF CP vs NEG DA, with the CP being the complex 50 states CP and the DA being the Supreme Court Political Capital Tradeoff DA and the Federalism DA.

Speaker Points:

I determine speaker points based on your outside knowledge of real world happenings. This includes your score on a 50 question MCQ about the principles our President Donald Trump stands for that you have 49 minutes to complete, a random number generator from 1-30, the number of letters in your last name, your ability to use Euler's Theorem to calculate the area of a oblate spheroid to then find the size of the apothem of a three dimensional pentagon, and your ability to explain an auxillary theorem in a minimum of 300 words. This all must be done during your final rebuttal or your speaker points will be capped at 27.

As a genius, I have many thoughts from previous topics I feel are relevant and should be archived in more grand settings, but as the Library of Congress has denied my petition, I submit these thoughts to you as the following:

NATO Topic:

I determine speaker points based on your outside knowledge of real world happenings. This includes your score on a 50 question MCQ about all articles of the North Atlantic Treaty that you have 49 minutes to complete, a random number generator from 1-30, the number of letters in your last name, your ability to use Euler's Theorem to calculate the area of a oblate spheroid to then find the size of the apothem of a three dimensional pentagon, and your ability to explain an auxillary theorem in a minimum of 300 words. This all must be done during your final rebuttal or your speaker points will be capped at 27.

Pursuant to Article 21 of the North Atlantic Treety (novices, it would behove you to memorize the text of every treaty of NATO as that will be very relevant for your speaker points), I will quickly give a decision based on evidence not introduced into the round and arguments I have written down on flows of the past round I have debated in (possibly from the Criminal Justice topic).

Reasonability is possibly the greatest argument ever created (aside from cap good). I am an extremely reasonable person (my notes above reflect this) and generally agree that if the Affirmative defends the word "Cybersecurity", "Artificial Intelligence", or "Biotechonology" they are Topical.

kaylanfdebate@gmail.com

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.

Email: nheftman@gmail.com

New Trier 25'

He/him

I will try to be as tech over truth as possible, and I will evaluate the round as such. Exceptions are listed below.

Please do not be mean in the round, don’t physically touch/attack your opponents, don’t use slurs against your opponents, don't clip, generally be friendly people. I will not vote on Racism Good or Death Good, and reading them will result in minimum speaks and an automatic loss, as will doing any of the other actions listed previously in this paragraph.

Topic Thoughts:

When debating a topic like economic inequality, it is important that we all remember that there are real people suffering from the impacts we read in the debate round. This isn’t another topic about the one in a million possibility of a nuclear war, poverty is something many, many people experience every day, and it behooves every debater to be respectful and thoughtful about these issues.

Policy:

Case: On the aff, please know your aff. Especially for the 2AC and 1AR, being able to quickly know what arguments and cards you can field against miscellaneous case arguments both improves your ethos and your time efficiency. Ideally, every part of your affirmative has a strategic use later on in the debate, and knowing how to use your affirmative can be hugely helpful. On the negative, if you know your opponent’s aff better than they do, good on you, you’ll probably be getting good speaks this round if you can translate that into success. Aff specific strategies and arguments are very snazzy too.

Counterplans: I just had a whole year on a topic with no neg ground, so I’m fine with process counterplans, although I’m going to be rolling my eyes if it seems silly. If you actually debate competition well though, good on you. For competition specifically, if you think it’s getting tangled, please clarify your standards. For PIC’s, like disadvantages, the more specific they are to the aff, the better.

Disadvantages: There isn’t much to say. I like them. They’re pretty cool. Explain your links, explain your internal links. Do impact calculus. The more specific your links/the DA as a whole is to the affirmative, the better.

Kritiks: I default to the judge weighing the desirability of the aff or a permutation vs a competitive alternative, but I am open to any other framework that’s debated well. I have done a lot of debating with the Capitalism K, a decent amount with the Psychoanalysis K and Security K, and I probably have a half decent grasp of most other things as well like SetCol, Biopower, etc. If you want to read high theory/pull a snazzy K trick, please articulate it well. Floating PIK’s are fine, but will make me sad and probably lead to low speaks.

Kritikal Aff’s: I’m not a “no plan you lose” judge, but I’m probably not the best person to have in the back if you’re a K Aff. I’m fairly amenable to most K’s but I have done a lot more policy than K. If you get me, please explain things clearly for both sides, especially if it’s K vs K. Check the section about kritiks for my knowledge of the literature. I’m definitely not the best person to pref if you’ve got a tournament that’s good for K’s, but I for sure like to think I’m not the worst.

Topicality: You need to explain and compare your standards and impact for topicality as you would for impact calculus. Plan Text in a Vacuum is not a magic wand you can wave at the negative to make their topicality argument go away, it’s a real standard which I frankly don’t think is half bad. I will vote on it, but you actually need to warrant it out like you would any other interp.

Theory: I will vote on any theory that is debated well enough (A-Z Spec has a very high threshold for being debated well, if you want to go for it, have fun, but know what you’re doing.) If the theory argument IS something silly like Neg Fiat Bad, I’m much more likely to be ok with short responses and new answers if it is blown up later. Standards shouldn’t just be whining, you should articulate your theory standards very clearly, along with all other parts of your argument, as you would with any other. I will give you the ballot on these arguments but unless I genuinely believe the other team has done something abusive, you will probably be getting very low speaks. I default to weighing topicality/neg theory over aff theory, a word from the neg on this will probably cement that point if it comes down to it. For conditionality, infinite condo is good unless debated otherwise, I think dispo is pretty neato.

Cross: Please be chill in cross, it’s totally alright to be intense and a little combative, especially in an activity like debate, but it reflects bad on everyone when there’s unnecessary conflict in cross. If you ask your opponent a question, don’t immediately interrupt them, and conversely, don’t keep talking if your opponent wants to ask another question. I will lower speaks for both of these. Asking “what cards did you read” and the like will count as cross time, and I will start the timer if you ask a question of this variety. Sending out a marked copy before cross is alright, but you better be using the benefits you get from those and talking about their ev.

Novice Policy:

Note: Check policy for my opinions on arguments, this is really more for a couple specific things for novice debate.

To begin, great job checking the paradigm, that’s an excellent habit to get into, and will put you in a better spot for debating, especially against opponents who don’t.

Remember to debate well and be friendly, your opponents are most likely just starting out in high school debate, as are you, so try and build a good relationship. Everyone around you is part of a community, and it's not one any judge takes lightly.

Also, if your varsity gave you this big scary theory folder with things like ASPEC in them and told you to read it, you can, but you sure as heck be able to explain it or I am going to be very very annoyed, and the round will reflect as such.

Middle School:

If you are in middle school, the most important thing you ought to take away from the round is better speaking skills, and a big part of that is being able to respond to opponents arguments with your own. You can read arguments that just pass by without clashing, but arguments that prove a point while disproving opponents are going to be better. As new debaters, I don't expect you all to speak fast or make spectacular analytical arguments, so if you speak well, make arguments that counter your opponents, and use your cross-examination time to the fullest, you will get good speaker points. I really encourage you to write down your opponents arguments (flowing), so you can make arguments that clash against your opponents, and know what to extend into later speeches if you're opponents don't respond to your arguments. Next, concerning background knowledge, if you have an argument that you know but isn't in the packet, you need to explain it very well. If you use so much jargon that your opponents cannot engage you on this point, I'm not going to look favorably on the argument, and if you use so much jargon that I cannot understand it, I literally cannot weigh the argument at all, because I don't know what it means. Lastly, please just be nice people. No judge I know likes to vote for someone who is rude or aggressive during debate, especially cross examination. If you clearly won the debate, you will get my ballot, but if you are rude, don't expect high speaker points. You all are entering the activity, you will be debating with those around if you stick with the activity, and most likely, you will be going to the same school as them as well. Building friendly competition is much better than aggressive rivalry.

P.S. If you tell me a joke when the debate is over, you'll get an extra .1 speaker point. If you find a typo in this paradigm, that’s another .1 speaker pt. (I don’t think there are any but want to make sure.)

add me to the email chain! auddebater@gmail.com (yes it's a pun)

non-negotiables

1. have fun and don’t be afraid to make mistakes — that’s how we learn
2. be respectful and conscious of everyone in the round
3. cross-examination is open and binding
4. every argument should have a claim, warrant, and an impact. (for example, you can tell me the sky is green, but I’m not going to vote for it until you tell me where in your evidence points to that conclusion, why I should prefer your evidence over your opponents, and what it means for the argument as a whole [included scope, magnitude, probability, etc.])
5. flow

Misc procedural things:

1. He/him/his; "DML">"Dustin">>>"judge">>>>>>>>>>"Mr. Meyers-Levy"

2. Debated at Edina HS in Minnesota from 2008-2012, at the University of Michigan from 2012-2017, and currently coach at Michigan and Glenbrook North

3. Please add me to the email chain: dustml[at]umich[dot]edu. College debaters only: please also add debatedocs[at]umich[dot]edu (note that this is not the same as the community debatedocs listerv).

4. Nothing here set in stone debate is up to the debaters go for what you want to blah blah blah an argument is a claim and a warrant don't clip cards

5. Speaks usually range from 28.5-29.5. Below 28.5 and there are some notable deficiencies, above 29.5 you're going above and beyond to wow me. I don't really try to compare different debaters across different rounds to give points; I assign them based on a round-by-round basis. I wish I could give ties more often and will do so if the tournament allows. If you ask me for a 30 you'll probably get a 27.

6. If you're breaking something new, you'll send it out before your speech, not after the speech ends or as it's read or whatever. If you don't want to comply with that, your points are capped at 27. If you're so worried that giving the neg team 9 extra minutes to look at your new aff will tip the odds against you, it's probably not good enough to win anyway.

7. You will time your own speeches and prep time. I will be so grumpy if I have to keep track of time for you.

8. Each person gives one constructive and one rebuttal. The first person who speaks is the only person I flow (I can make an exception for performances in 1ACs/1NCs). I don’t flow prompting until and unless the assigned speaker says the words that their partner is prompting. Absolutely no audience participation. If you need some part of this clarified, I’m probably not the judge for you.

9. I am a mandatory reporter and an employee of both a public university and a public high school. I am not interested in judging debates that may make either of those facts relevant.

10. If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

11. Online debates: If my camera's off, I'm not listening. Get active confirmation before you start speaking, don't ask "is anyone not ready" or say "stop me if you're not ready," especially if you aren't actually listening to/looking at the other participants before you check. If you start speaking and I'm not ready or there, expect abysmal speaker points.

TOC notes:

I cannot express just how bad I am at economics. It is my kryptonite. I am an extremely unreliable judge for any debate that involves treating anything more complicated than the supply-and-demand graph as a given. What's a bond? No idea. Keynes? Never heard of him. Gini coefficient? Sounds like a bad coffee shop. I will be lost in any debate that is more complicated than your freshman year econ class (I'm talking pre-AP) without a lot of explanation. Conversely, it will be much easier to impress me by walking me through your arguments and breaking them down as simply as you possibly can, telling me what it means when your evidence references basically any economic concept, etc. More explanation can only help. This also means you can probably convince me of just about anything if you make it simple enough and line it up with what your evidence says.

Good judge for:

• Process counterplans that are topic-specific, especially versus new affs.
• Presumption arguments against affs without a plan. I prefer depth over breadth--I'm more likely to vote for one well-developed presumption argument that sets up a clear burden for the aff than I am three or four "vote neg on presumption" one-liners scattered across the flow without a warrant.
• K affs that explicitly redefine what being "topical" means, especially when paired with reasonability arguments about what I should choose to understand as a "reasonable" affirmation of the topic. I think affs should be topical, but I'm open to arguments about why being "topical" doesn'tneed to be based in definitions.
• Ks with developed alternatives that you're willing to defend the details of. I'm an easier sell on Ks that let the aff weigh the plan and give the neg some leeway on what they get to defend with regards to the alt than "you link you lose"-adjacent framework pushes.

Not a fantastic judge for:

• Complicated econ DAs. I'm very sorry. While you were studying the markets, I studied the blade (by which I mean Deleuze).
• 1ACs/1NCs that are largely opaque or obfuscatory, especially when the team in question is unwilling to clarify in cross-x. If you aren't willing to answer basic clarification questions about your argument from an opponent who isn't following, strike me.
• Neg framework blocks that don't change based on the aff. I think framework is best deployed as an internal link turn to the aff's method and appreciate when neg teams use the aff's language/phrasing to explain that. When that's not happening, I think it's a lot easier for the aff to characterize the neg's arguments as exclusive.
• Arguments about anything other than the things that both teams say during the span of the round that I'm judging. If you can connect some external thing to an argument that your opponent is making, that's fair game. If you want to win (or your opponents to lose) based purely on that external thing in a vacuum, you may want to focus on the other judges on the panel.
• Fiat Ks.

Top-level:

When making my decisions, I seek to answer four questions:

1. At what scale should I evaluate impacts, or how do I determine which impact outweighs the others?

2. What is necessary to address those impacts?

3. At what point have those impacts been sufficiently addressed?

4. How certain am I about either side’s answers to the previous three questions?

I don’t expect debaters to answer these questions explicitly or in order, but I do find myself voting for debaters who use that phrasing and these concepts (necessity, sufficiency, certainty, etc) as part of their judge instruction a disproportionate amount. I try to start every RFD with a sentence-ish-long summary of my decision (e.g. "I voted affirmative because I am certain that their impacts are likely without the plan and unlikely with it, which outweighs an uncertain risk of the impacts to the DA even if I am certain about the link"); you may benefit from setting up a sentence or two along those lines for me.

Intervention on my part is inevitable, but I’d like to minimize it if possible and equalize it if not. The way I try to do so is by making an effort to quote or paraphrase the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR in my RFD as much as possible. This means I find myself often voting for teams who a) minimize the amount of debate jargon they use, b) explicitly instruct me what I need in order to be certain that an argument is true, and c) don’t repeat themselves or reread parts of earlier speeches. (The notable exception to c) is quoting your evidence—I appreciate teams who tell me what to look for in their cards, as I’d rather not read evidence if I don’t have to.) I would rather default to new 2AR contextualization of arguments than reject new 2AR explanation and figure out how to evaluate/compare arguments on my own, especially if the 2AR contextualization lines up with how I understand the debate otherwise.

I flow on my computer and I flow straight down. I appreciate debaters who debate in a way that makes that easy to do (clean line-by-line, numbering/subpointing, etc). I’ll make as much room as you want me to for an overview, but I won’t flow it on a separate sheet unless you say pretty please. If it’s not obvious to me at that point why it’s on a separate sheet, you’ll probably lose points.

Consider going a little bit slower. I prefer voting on arguments that I am certain about, and it is much easier to be certain about an argument when I know that I have written down everything that you’ve said.

Presumption always initially goes negative because the affirmative always has the burden of proof. If the affirmative has met their burden of proof against the status quo, and the negative has not met their burden of rejoinder, I vote affirmative.

I am "truth over tech." I will not vote for something if I cannot explain why it is a reason that one side or the other has done the better debating, even if it is technically conceded by the other team. Obviously, this is not to say that technical concessions do not matter--they're probably the most important part of my decisionmaking process! However, not all technical concessions matter, and the reasons that some technical concessions matter might not be apparent to me. A dropped argument is true, but non-dropped arguments can also be true, and I need you to contextualize how to evaluate and compare those truths.

I appreciate well-thought-out perms with a brief summary of its function/net beneficiality in the 2AC. I get frustrated by teams who shotgun the same four perms on every page, especially when those perms are essentially the same argument (e.g. “perm do both” and “perm do the plan and non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt”) or when the perm is obviously nonsensical (e.g. “perm do the counterplan” against an advantage counterplan that doesn’t try to fiat the aff or against a uniqueness counterplan that bans the plan).

I appreciate when teams read rehighlightings and not insert them, unless you’re rehighlighting a couple words. You will lose speaker points for inserting a bunch of rehighlightings, and I’ll happily ignore them if instructed to by the other team.

I prefer to judge engagement over avoidance. I would rather you beat your opponent at their best than trick them into dropping something. If your plan for victory involves hiding ASPEC in a T shell, or deleting your conditionality block from the 2AC in hopes that they miss it, or using a bunch of buzzwords that you think the other team won't understand but I will, I will not be happy.

I generally assume good faith on the part of debaters and I'm very reticent to ignore the rest of the debate/arguments being made (especially when not explicitly and extensively instructed to) in order to punish a team for what's often an honest mistake. I am much more willing to vote on these arguments as links/examples of links. Obviously, there are exceptions to this for egregious and/or intentionally problematic behavior, but if your strategy revolves around asking me to vote against a team based on unhighlighted/un-underlined parts of cards, or "gotcha" moments in cross-x, you may want to change your strategy for me.

K affs:

1. Debate is indisputably a game to some degree or another, and it can be other things besides that. It indisputably influences debaters' thought processes and subjectivities to some extent; it is also indisputably not the only influence on those things. I like when teams split the difference and account for debate’s inevitably competitive features rather than asserting it is only one thing or another.

2. I think I am better for K affs than I have been in the past. I am not worse for framework, but I am worse for the amount of work that people seem to do when preparing to go for framework. I am getting really bored by neg teams who recycle blocks without updating them in the context of the round and don’t make an effort to talk about the aff. I think the neg needs to say more than just “the aff’s method is better with a well-prepared opponent” or “non-competitive venues solve the aff’s offense” to meaningfully mitigate the aff's offense. If you are going for framework in front of me, you may want to replace those kinds of quotes in your blocks with specific explanations that reference what the aff says in speeches and cards.

3. I prefer clash impacts to fairness impacts. I vote negative often when aff teams lack explanation for why someone should say "no" to the aff. I find that fairness strategies suffer when the aff pushes on the ballot’s ability to “solve” them; I would rather use my ballot to encourage the aff to argue differently rather than to punish them retroactively. I think fairness-centric framework strategies are vulnerable to aff teams impact turning the neg’s interpretation (conversely, I think counter-interpretation strategies are weak against fairness impacts).

4. I don't think I've ever voted on "if the 1AC couldn't be tested you should presume everything they've said is false"/"don't weigh the aff because we couldn't answer it," and I don't think I ever will.

5. I think non-framework strategies live and die at the level of competition and solvency. When aff teams invest time in unpacking permutations and solvency deficits, and the neg doesn’t advance a theory of competition beyond “no perms in a method debate” (whatever that means), I usually vote aff. When the aff undercovers the perm and/or the alt, I have a high threshold for new explanation and usually think that the 2NR should be the non-framework strategy.

6. I do not care whether or not fiat has a resolutional basis.

Ks on the neg/being aff vs the K:

I am getting really bored by "stat check" affs that respond to every K by brute-forcing a heg or econ impact and reading the same "extinction outweighs, util, consequentialism, nuke war hurts marginalized people too" blocks/cards every debate. That's not to say that these affs are non-viable in front of me, but it is to say that I've often seen teams reading these big-stick affs in ways that seem designed to avoid engaging the substance of the K. If this is your strategy, you should talk about the alternative more, and have a defense of fiat that is not just theoretical.

I care most about link uniqueness and alt solvency. When I vote aff, it's because a) the aff gets access to their impacts, b) those impacts outweigh/turn the K, c) the K links are largely non-unique, and/or d) the neg doesn't have a well-developed alt push. Neg teams that push back on these issues--by a) having well-developed and unique links and impacts with substantive impact calculus in the block and 2NR, including unique turns case args (not just that the plan doesn't solve, but that it actually makes the aff's own impacts more likely), b) having a vision for what the world of the alt looks like that's defensible and ostensibly solves their impacts even if the aff wins a risk of theirs (case defense that's congruent with the K helps), and/or c) has a heavy push on framework that tells me what the alt does/doesn't need to solve--have a higher chance of getting my ballot. Some more specific notes:

1. Upfront, I'm not a huge fan of "post-/non-/more-than/humanism"-style Ks. I find myself more persuaded by most defenses/critical rehabilitations of humanism than I do by critiques of humanism that attempt to reject the category altogether. You can try your best to change my mind, but it may be an uphill battle; this applies far more to high theory/postmodern Ks of humanism (which, full disclosure, I would really rather not hear) than it does to structuralist/identity-based Ks of humanism, though I find myself more persuaded by "new humanist" style arguments a la Fanon, Wynter, etc than full-on rejections of humanism.

2. There's a new trend of Ks about debt, debt imperialism, etc. I may not be the best judge for these arguments, simply because of my difficulty with understanding economics on its own terms, let alone in the context of a K. It's not for lack of trying to understand or familiarize myself, I just have tremendous difficulty understanding even basic economic concepts at a fundamental level, and this is seriously amplified when those concepts are being analyzed by relatively complex critical theory. This isn't to say these arguments are unwinnable in front of me (I've voted for them this year and in past years), but you may want to consider something else and/or investing a really large amount of time in explaining the fundamentals of your arguments to me.

3. I also don't really get all these new Ks about quantum physics in IR and stuff. Again, it's me, not you. I was an English major; every time I try to read these articles I get a headache. I'm interested, I promise, and if you can explain it to me I'll be very appreciative! But for transparency's sake, I think it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to both explain the argument to me in a way that I can comprehend AND invest the time necessary to win the debate in your 36 collective minutes of speaking time.

4. I'm quite interested in emerging genres of critical legal theory. I think I would be a good judge for Ks that defend concrete changes to jurisprudence and are willing to debate out the implications of that.

5. I think that others should not suffer, that biological death is bad, and that meaning-making and contingent agreement on contextual truths are possible, inevitable, and desirable. If your K disagrees with any of these fundamental premises, I am a bad judge for it.

6. I don't get Ks of linear time. I get Ks of whitewashing, progress narratives, etc. I get the argument that historical events influence the present, and that events in the present can reshape our understanding of the past. I get that some causes have complex effects that aren't immediately recognizable to us and may not be recognizable on any human scale. I just don't get how any of those things are mutually exclusive with, and indeed how they don't also rely on, some understanding of linear time/causality. I think this is because I have a very particular understanding of what "linear time" means/refers to, which is to say that it's hard for me to disassociate that phrase with the basic concept of cause/effect and the progression of time in a measurable, linear fashion. This isn't as firm of a belief as #5; I can certainly imagine one of these args clicking with me eventually. This is just to say that the burden of explanation is much higher and you would likely be better served going for more plan-specific link arguments or maybe just using different terminology/including a brief explanation as to why you're not disagreeing with the basic premise that causes have effects, even if those effects aren't immediately apparent. If you are disagreeing with that premise, you should probably strike me, as it will require far longer than two hours for me to comprehend your argument, let alone agree with it.

7. "Philosophical competition" is not a winning interpretation in front of me. I don't know what it means and no one has ever explained it to me in a coherent and non-arbitrary way.

8. There's a difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism. I'm open to critiques of the former; I have an extremely high burden for critiques of the latter. I'm not sure I can think of a K of consequentialism that I've judged that didn't seem to link to itself to some degree or another.

Policy debates:

1. 95% of my work in college is K-focused, and the other 5% is mostly spot updates. I have done very little policy-focused research in the preseason.

For high school, I led a lab this summer, but didn't retain a ton of topic info and have done exclusively K-focused work since the camp ended. I probably know less than you do about economics.

2. “Link controls uniqueness”/“uniqueness controls the link” arguments will get you far with me. I often find myself wishing that one side or the other had made that argument, because my RFDs often include some variant of it regardless.

3. Apparently T against policy affs is no longer in style. Fortunately, I have a terrible sense of style. In general, I think I'm better for the neg for T than (I guess) a lot of judges; reading through some judge philosophies I find a lot of people who say they don't like judging T or don't think T debates are good, and I strongly disagree with that claim. I'm a 2N at heart, so when it comes down to brass tacks I really don't care about many T impacts/standards except for neg ground (though I can obviously be persuaded otherwise). I care far more about the debates that an interpretation facilitates than I do about the interpretation's source in the abstract--do explanation as to why source quality/predictability influences the quality of debates under the relevant interpretation.

4. I think judge kick makes intuitive sense, but I won't do it unless I'm told to. That said, I also think I have a lower threshold for what constitutes the neg "telling me to" than most. There are some phrases that signify to me that I can default to the status quo by my own choosing; these include, but aren't necessarily limited to, "the status quo is always a logical policy option" and/or "counter-interp: the neg gets X conditional options and the status quo."

5. I enjoy counterplans that compete on resolutional terms quite a bit; I'd rather judge those than counterplans that compete on "should," "substantial," etc.

6. Here are some aff theory arguments that I could be persuaded on pretty easily given a substantive time investment:

--Counterplans should have a solvency advocate ideally matching the specificity of the aff's, but at least with a normative claim about what should happen.

--Multi-actor fiat bad--you can fiat different parts of the USFG do things, and international fiat is defensible, but fiating the federal government and the states, or the US and other countries, is a no-no. (Fiating all fifty states is debatably acceptable, but fiating some permutation of states seems iffy to me.)

--No negative fiat, but not the meme--counterplans should take a positive action, and shouldn't fiat a negative action. It's the distinction between "the USFG should not start a war against Russia" and "the USFG should ban initiation of war against Russia."

--Test case fiat? Having osmosed a rudimentary bit of constitutional law via friends and family in law school, it seems like debate's conception of how the Supreme Court works is... suspect. Not really sure what the implications of that are for the aff or the neg, but I'm pretty sure that most court CPs/mechanisms would get actual lawyers disbarred.

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

Emma Mitic, she/her

Maine East '25

Add me to the email chain: emitic@s207.org

CX is a speech-- please stand up and face the judge :)

Calling me Judge or Emma is fine

General philosophy: I tend to lean more toward Policy in my argumentation, but that doesn't mean you can't read Ks in front of me just make sure to explain it extremely well and don’t drop case unless u have proper framework.

Obvious rules: Cheating or racist, homophobic, or sexist comments will result in an immediate L and low speaks.

Don't clip cards, please

I won't take time out of your prep if a team asks for a marked version of the doc, u should give it to them. however, if u need to ask the other team clarification questions after the cross, you do need to take prep for that. stealing prep will make you lose speaks. Don't prep after the doc is sent out. If a debater needs to use the bathroom during a round that is totally fine i will, however, most likely ask you to close your computers if nobody in the room is taking prep time. I will do my best to time every speech along with you and keep track of everybody's prep, but I'm human and have made mistakes before so keeping track is never a bad idea.

Generally, my RDFs are short and don't include a lot of debate tips and tricks because I understand that people want to go to their next round or to lunch or whatever, but I do like it when debaters ask me questions after the round, and im happy to answer them. If im answering another team's questions, you don't need to wait if you do not have any additional questions after the RDF.

DA's:

I really like them...as long as they're well thought out. I tend to prefer DAs with strong links, otherwise, there's no way for your impacts to happen. That being said, please make sure you tell a story with a DA and contextualize your evidence to the round.

Counterplans:

I tend to lean against perf con, do with that what you will. However, I will need a team to point it out within a round in order for me to vote on it. ALWAYS PERM A COUNTERPLAN!! Please show me how the perm solves for the counterplan, but as neg tell me why your counterplan avoids an impact and how it solves for the aff. I lean neg on counterplan theory unless it's condo against more than 3-4 off.

Kritiks:

As a more policy-leaning person, I need you to have quite a strong alt and I find it hard to vote for a team without an alt. Please contextualize your links to this specific aff, especially if the other team points out that it's generic. Please make sure there is an impact on your K and that you extend it, otherwise there's no reason to vote for it.

don't run death good k pls

Topicality:

Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize!! them into this round. Extend your impact throughout. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round. Im not 100% familiar w the topic and all its terms yet so explaining terms or interps is never a bad idea. ur interp needs to make logical sense at least a little bit.

Email: ttate@glenbrook225.org

I had a much longer judging paradigm when it was on the old wiki but I will try to give you the highlights.

I was an active Director of Debate at GBS from 2003-2014. I would judge a significantly high number of rounds each year (both on the regional and national circuit). Since 2014, I have still been active in debate. I used to teach the Debate classes at South, teach at Institute, and watched practice debates. I don't judge many rounds at tournaments since I don't travel much anymore. I would say that my technical flowing abilities are at about 80% of what they were when I was judging 100+ rounds a year. I am not actively involved in the literature base in regards to research.

What does that mean to you?

1 - I don't have many preconceived notions entering the debates about which team is having a more successful season or what arguments are the cool/hip thing. That can be good and bad for you. :)

2- I would consider myself a moderate right judge in regards to policy vs. K debates. Here is the thing - I am very liberal in my beliefs and academia, especially in regards to issues of identity. My Masters' thesis was a black women's criticism of mainstream feminist discourse. I will often understand and believe many K arguments in front of me. The question is whether the arguments presented in front of me provides an opportunity for deliberative dialogue between two opposing teams. Convince me of that in round (and many have), you will find me to be more left-leaning in regards to K arguments than people perceive.

3 - I love a good Politics debate that has super recent evidence and an interesting spin to a typical politics story.

4 - I believe coming into the debate that uniqueness drives the direction of the link.

5 - I default Negative coming in to many debates in regards to CP theory and competition issues.

6 - I have a high standard for both evidence and what makes for a complete argument.

20250944@student.nths.net - New Trier ‘25 - they/she/he

tldr:

• Be kind, above all.
• Tech > truth, except in certain circumstances below
• Explain your violation and impacts under theory
• you should probably strike me in a K aff debate
• My tech > truth ideology peaks in T
• explain your Ks
• CPs + DAs are chill
• I won't vote on death good
• constructives are for constructing, rebuttals are for rebutting
• relax. have fun.

people who have significantly impacted my thoughts on debate, in no particular order, include Aaron Vinson, Tim Freehan, Dave Weston, Margaret Jones, Rocky Shapiro, Nick Wilson, Josh Clark, Scott Phillips, Becca Steiner, and Whit Whitmore. do with that what you will

First and foremost:

I will never tolerate racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, or general xenophobia. I will email your coach, auto-L, and give you the lowest speaks possible. Debate should be a safe space for people to have fun, not to be attacked. I will stop the round if you do anything that makes the debate space unsafe.

Death good = auto-L, lowest speaks possible, email to your coach. 2Ns, don’t look at this and think ‘but could it be a throwaway?’ Don’t force debaters to deal with that, you have no clue what people are going through and making the debate space violent and unsafe is the antithesis of why I do debate in the first place.

Theory:

In this instance, you really need to explain to me why what they did screwed you over and probably the farthest I get from tech>truth. Why did a neg generic PIC make it so unfair that you should win the round because they ran it? Is 1 condo advocacy that bad? Should your one-sentence hidden aspec be given enough weight to earn a whole ballot? You can win this, but know that the more teams that have won against it, the more the odds are stacked against you. In-round abuse will change this, though. If the neg ran 15+ condo, weaponized perfcon, or ran ten new 2NC CPs with no justification other than ‘condo!’, something like that, run theory and you have a decent shot.

If you're doing a condo 2AR when the neg didn't drop condo, I probably already mentally voted neg, and if the aff takes over 20 seconds of prep for the 2AC, I won’t like it if you try to argue infinite prep time.

Case:

read a good aff, please.

I'm a 2N, but I also see no way around this if I'm team 1% risk---if the 1AR stands up and tagline extends case, there is now a risk of case. A small risk that a DA should be able to outweigh, but a risk nonetheless. I know a good block case strat when I see one, and if you pull it off I will be extremely impressed, but you need offense, not just defense.

Also, exception to team 1% risk, I will vote on presumption if case is a crush and I can't give the aff more than 5% risk, or if the DA is a crush and I can't give the neg more than 5% risk.

K affs:

I should know what your aff does coming out of the 2AC at maximum, and preferably out of 1AC cx. Especially here, I won't penalize speaks for 2Ns saying 'what is this' and you should respond with something that would be understandable to someone who hasn't read your lit(e.g. don't say 'we advocate for a method of corporeal care', say 'we advocate for creating a space for caring about the condition of humans')

Topicality is capital T true, maybe one of the most true arguments in debate, and both teams know it. Please, act like it. I don’t care whether you go for clash or fairness, as long as you have an impact. Most of the time I go for clash, so if you choose that route, I’m better versed there. I’ll still vote on the flow, so aff teams, you can win.

If you say that your survival hinges on an aff ballot, I will be uncomfortable for the rest of the debate.

But honestly, if you read a k aff, you should probably strike me. I don’t believe that these arguments should be ran in novice debate.

T

In general, I don’t like these debates, and reading dictionary definitions after a round isn’t that fun. But if an aff is genuinely untopical and you're sure that their strategy against all of your offense will be 'no link', go for it!

Ks:

I default to the judge is a policymaker, the aff can weigh the plan, and the neg gets whatever fiat they want, but can be convinced otherwise with good debating and warrants. I'm more familiar with cap and security, so other Ks need more explanation. Side note, if you use words that wouldn't be recognizable to anyone who hasn't read your literature(like simulacra in Baudrillard) then please explain them in the block, not the 2NR, otherwise the aff's job is much harder.

read me if you’re actually considering running a K: I come from a hyper-policy school. While I don’t think that this biases me against K arguments, I cannot stress enough how much I will not vote on an argument that I don’t understand. I will appreciate it and spend extra time to try to understand it during decision time if you’re clearly trying your best to explain a K to me. but at the end of the day, you should strike me if you’re running high theory K arguments.

pronounce kritik like critic or cricket and I'll boost your speaks +0.2, and ask Len Livshits or Lindsay Ye why.

CP + DA + ! turns:

For process CPs, I’m aff-leaning on perms, and neg-leaning on theory. For all other CPs, I’m neg-leaning on theory and perms, and aff-leaning on solvency or offense. You need to tell me to judgekick and use sufficiency framing. It’s two sentences and is probably already in your 2NC O/V. If you think that the competition debate is messy, just go to why your standards outweigh theirs(ie- neg bias) and what your standards are.

If your adv CP doesn’t have a solvency advocate, you are the solvency advocate, and I treat the CP’s solvency as such. fyi ;)

100% or 0% risk only exists if the argument was dropped or kicked.

but like...who dislikes adv CP + innovation DA?

2Rs:

Be nice, don't lie, framing my ballot at the beginning of the speech is always a good idea- don't let your opponents decide what the round is about.

Arguments need a claim and warrant in earlier speeches for you to win extending them. eg. ‘CP can’t solve i-law, moving on’ in the 1AR without ‘it’s not a clear signal’ means that I won’t give the 2AR ‘it’s not a clear signal’. I’ll auto-strike new arguments off my flow for the 2AR, so 2Ns, don’t worry. This also goes for the 2NR- you’re not allowed to make up new net benefits or add a fw DA.

This is technically the 1AR, but honestly idk where else to put this- my bar for a warrant in the 1AR is significantly different from the 2AR. For example, states CP(this wouldn't work on the IP topic, if you say this word for word I will be extremely annoyed). If the 1A says the words ‘extend perm do both - looks like federal follow-on so it shields the nb, done by federal funding and state implementation’ and then answers the neg’s reasons why pdb fails, that is all the explanation I need and the 2AR is clear to extend pdb. I’m a 1A, I get it, 1ARs are hard.

If your 2R is less than five sentences and you win, you’re getting a very high 29. If you lose, medium to very low 28. If the 2NR is less than five sentences and is about to win, but the 2AR somehow pulls off something amazing, both speakers are getting high 29s :)

Speaks:

Arguing with your partner will shred your speaks- especially if they're giving the final speech. I don't care if they dropped condo, took 1NR/1AC/1NC(especially 1NC prep can be quite useful, if used well) prep, or went for the thing you think will lose you the debate. You're not helping them nor yourself.

It is very, very, very easy to make me laugh, and this is under the speaks header. Do with that what you will.

I’m a very expressive judge, to the point where if you look at me during the other team’s speech, I’ll probably look back and signal if I buy the argument they’re making or not. Also, I LOVE eye contact during your speeches bc it makes me feel like we’re friends, pls do that and your speaks will look like you’re my friend :)

But I will give high speaks. My baseline is 29, and if you ask post-round I’ll tell you what you got

CX:

Speaking over and then proceeding to repeat exactly what your partner would have said in cx will hurt speaks and almost always what the 1A speaking during 2AC cx or 1N during 2NC cx is like.

Yes open cx, don’t abuse that. The 2N shouldn’t answer all of the questions in 1NC cx.

I will never dock your speaks for asking 'what is this' questions in cross, but it will hurt your ethos if you ask the 1N to explain a core neg generic.

CX is binding, UNLESS the team goes back on what they said immediately and unanimously. Otherwise, you're tied.

I can tell when your varsity just gave you a list of cx questions and told you to ask them, and it’ll hurt your speaks if you do that. Yes, cx is hard, but you need to start out by struggling through it, and ultimately you’ll get way better!

Other:

I’m cool with sending cards in the body of the email.

The more prep time you steal, the less time I have to make my decision, and that favors the team that didn’t steal prep. you’re not just cheating, you’re hurting yourself.

Uncarded arguments are still arguments, but they will probably lose to carded ones. You're a high schooler, 'i’m the solvency advocate' arguments require a LOT of ethos.

Please please please, if you have a blippy 1AC/1NC/2AC, come back from it. This is why I love debate- things can change so quickly and I love being in rounds where people do. your speaks will reflect this, too.

Run what you're cool with, kick what you're not, and make your 2R the best it can be!

glhf :)

current bias:

Policy v policy: 11-9 neg

Policy v K: 1-1

K v policy:

K v K: 1-0 neg

I'm currently a head coach at New Trier Township High School outside of Chicago, IL. I've been at New Trier since 2012. Prior to that I was the director of debate at Cathedral Preparatory School in Erie, PA. I debated at the University of Pittsburgh ('07) and at Cathedral Prep ('03).

Here are some defaults into the way I evaluate arguments. Obviously these are contingent upon the way that arguments are deployed in round. If you win that one of these notions should not be the standard for the debate, I will evaluate it in terms of your argumentation.

*I evaluate the round based on the flow. Technical line by line debating should be prioritized. That's not to say that I'm always a "tech over truth" judge. I'm willing to listen to reasonable extrapolations, smart debating, and bringing in some context. However, I don't think I can interpret exactly how an argument in one place should be applied to another portion of the flow/debate unless the debater does that for me. To me, that injects my understanding of how I would spin one argument to answer another and I don't want to do that.

*Offense/Defense - I'm not sure if I'm getting older or if the quality of evidence is getting worse, but I find myself less persuaded by the idea that there's "always a risk" of any argument. Just because a debater says something does not mean it is true. It is up to the other team to prove that. However, if an argument is claimed to be supported by evidence and the cards do not say what the tags claim or the evidence is terrible, I'm willing to vote on no risk to that argument. Evidence needs to have warrants that support tags/claims.

*I prefer tags that are complete sentences. The proliferation of one word tags makes with massive card text (often without underlining) reduces the academic integrity of the activity.

*Evidence should be highlighted to include warrants for claims. I am more likely to vote on a few cards that have high quality warrants and explained well than I am to vote on several cards that have been highlighted down to the point that an argument cannot be discerned in the evidence.

* Teams are getting away with some real scholarly shenanigans on evidence. I've seen cards that run 6-7 pages long and they are highlighted down to a few sentences. I think it is up to the debaters to exploit this, but I'm less and less impressed by the overall scholarship in the activity.

*Arguments require claims and warrants. A claim without warrant is unlikely to be persuasive.

* A note on plan texts: start defending things. I find that most plans are extraordinarily vague and meaningless. They are "resolutional phrase by X." There's no plan text basis for the fiat claims AFF teams are making. All of the sudden, that becomes some wild extrapolation on how the plan is implemented, what a Court decision would look like, that it is done through some random memo, etc. all in an effort to avoid offense. I've just grown a little tired of it. I'm not saying change your plan because of me, you need to do what you need to do to win the round, but the overall acceptance of plans that do not say anything of substance is trend a frown upon.

*Performance/Non-traditional Affirmative -

I can still be persuaded to vote for an AFF that doesn't defend the topic, but it's become much harder for me. I find myself being increasingly on the side of defending the resolution.

My old paradigm read as follows: I would prefer that the debate is connected to the resolution. My ultimate preference would be for the Affirmative to defend a topical plan action that attempts to resolve a problem with the status quo. I think that this provides an opportunity for students to create harms that are tied to traditional internal link chains or critical argumentation. Teams should feel free to read critical advantages, but I would prefer that they access them through a topical plan action. For example, reading an Affirmative that finds a specific example of where structural violence (based on racism, sexism, heteronormativity, classism, etc.) is being perpetuated and seeks to remedy that can easily win my ballot. Debaters could then argue that the way that we make decisions about what should or should not be done should prioritize their impacts over the negative's. This can facilitate kritiks of DA impacts, decision calculus arguments, obligations to reject certain forms of violence, etc.

Teams who choose not to defend a topical plan action should be very clear in explaining what their advocacy is. The negative should be able to isolate a stasis point in the 1AC so that clash can occur in the debate. This advocacy should be germane to the resolution.

I am not wedded traditional forms of evidence. I feel that teams can use non-traditional forms of evidence as warrants explaining why a particular action should be taken. An Affirmative that prefers to use personal narratives, music, etc. to explain a harm occurring in the status quo and then uses that evidence to justify a remedy would be more than welcome. I tend to have a problem with Affirmative's that stop short of answering the question, "what should we do?" How a team plans to access that is entirely up to them.

*Kritik debates - I like kritik debates provided they are relevant to the Affirmative. Kritiks that are divorced from the 1AC have a harder time winning my ballot. While I do not want to box in the negative's kritik options, examples of kritiks that I would feel no qualms voting for might include criticisms of international relations, economics, state action, harms representations, or power relations. I am less persuaded by criticisms that operate on the margins of the Affirmative's advocacy. I would prefer links based off of the Affirmative plan. Kritiks that I find myself voting against most often include Deleuze, Baudrillard, Bataille, etc.

*Theory - Generally theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. The exception is conditionality. I find myself less persuaded by conditionality bad debates if there are 2 or less advocacies in the round. That is not to say I haven't voted for the AFF in those debates. I am willing to vote on theory if it is well explained and impacted, but that does not happen often, so I end up defaulting negative. Avoid blips and theory blocks read at an incomprehensible rate.

*CP's CP's that result in the plan (consult, recommendations, etc.) bore me. I would much rather hear an agent CP, PIC, Advantage CP, etc. than a CP that competes off of "certainty" or "immediacy."

*Case - I'd like to see more of it. This goes for negative teams debating against nontraditional Affirmatives as well. You should engage the case as much as possible.

Other things
*If your strategy is extinction good or death good, genocide good, racism good, patriarchy good, etc. please do all of us as favor and strike me. These arguments strike me as being inappropriate for student environments. Imagine a world where a debater's relative recently passed away and that student is confronted with "death good" for 8 minutes of the 1AC. Imagine a family who fled slaughter in another part of the world and came to the United States, only to listen to genocide good. These are things I wouldn't allow in my classroom and I would not permit them in a debate round either. Since I can't actually prevent people from reading them, my only recourse is to use my ballot.

Glenbrook South 25'

xe/they (they/them is fine)

Call me by my name please, not judge.

email chain -> junioryongdebate@gmail.com

*****

the stuff you really want to know :

- Clash is good, responding to the other teams args is better, doing both earns you a double thumbs up

- Impact calc is appreciated, tell me why you should win, why does your argument matter more than the other teams

- Arguments that you can explain and understand well >>> strange "(not) funny" blocks that your Varsity wrote for you

- Fine judging most arguments, as long as YOU can explain them. This gets a little weird if you're reading something no one knows. It needs to be explained thoroughly only if you want me to vote on it, do not assume I know what you're talking about, especially since we're off-packet now.

- I will adapt to you, debate in the way that is most comfortable to you.

*****

other things that you should also know :

- Don't steal prep, that means when the timer is up, your hands need to be off the device unless you're sending the doc.

- Stand facing me, not the other team when speaking, same during cx

- Speak clearly, your face should not be buried in your screen.

- PLEASE DO NOT GO FASTER THAN YOUR LIMIT. I know some novices like to go fast cause its cool, but no one will understand you, which means I won't either. If I cannot understand or hear you, I will not flow, meaning I will not vote on that arg cause you were unclear.

- Be nice. Yes, be competitive, but we're human.

- Don't make any offense jokes, comments, etc. I do not take homophobia, transphobia, racism etc. lightly and will lower your speaks to the ground.

(if you get me a black milk tea with boba -> +.3 speaks)