Tabroom.com

Alta Silver and Black

2023 — Sandy, UT/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ian Beier College Prep 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 5:02 PM UTC

**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character based on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. clipping - i sometimes read along with speeches if i think that you are clipping. i will prompt you if i think you are clipping and if i think you are still clipping i will vote against you even if the other team doesnt issue an ethics challenge.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

tyler bettilyon Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 12:13 PM MST

General Things:

In absence of a framework debate I'll default to a somewhat arbitrary combination of policy making and in-round educational value (or harms) forged by my personal experiences in debate. But that's not what anyone wants, so tell me how to vote and why.

I will call for evidence in very few cases and I do not want to be on the email chain. Take the time to actually develop your own arguments and the arguments of your authors in the rebuttals.

In the rebuttals I prefer depth to breadth. Explain and develop the arguments you're going to go for rather than saying "extend my ______ evidence" 50 different times without any further analysis about why those extensions matter.

My ears are slower than they used to be. I'm comfortable with spreading, but please make your taglines clear and clearly distinguished. I will tell you if I cannot understand you by loudly saying “clear” during your speech.

It’s critical for me that I understand the argument before I vote on it. That means you'll need to explain it to me in clear and understandable terms. Assume I know nothing about your [aff, K, CP, etc.] prior to the round.

What follows are my defaults regarding various positions in the absence of an explicit framework debate.

Specific Arguments:

T - I'm willing to vote negative on T, and genuinely enjoy a good T debate. I don't think my threshold on this argument is particularly high, but for a neg to win T there are a few things that are important to me:

1. The definition and violation. Tell me in detail why the aff isn't topical.
2. The standards debate. Tell my why your interpretation of the topic is preferable.
3. Specific abuse is not a must-have for me. If you can prove that your interpretation of the round is good for debate and that an interpretation including the aff as topical is bad for debate you can win even in the absence of abuse.

DA's - It is easier to win 100% defense in front of me than most judges. This doesn't mean you can't win on "risk of a link" arguments, but it does mean that risk has to be significant for me to give significant weight to your impact. Don't expect a .001% risk of a nuclear war to outweigh smaller but more likely impacts (unless of course your framework explains why that's the best way to evaluate risks...). Having a clear and realistic internal link story is important to me.

Case - Similar to my feelings on D/A's it is easier to win no solvency arguments in front of me then many judges. It’s important to me that there is at least some extension of the case in the 2AC if you want to get full weight of it in later speeches. Don't expect to get much weight in the 2AR on a magically resurrected advantage that no one has mentioned since the 1AC.

CP’s - Winning the net benefit is similar to winning solvency or D/As in terms of defensive arguments: strong defense on the net benefit is a potential reason to prefer the permutation, or just the plan alone. Perms are also viable round winners for me. I default to test of competition rather than advocacy, but feel free to specify (or demand that the aff specifies). Specific comparisons about the world of the counter plan versus the world of the aff plan and/or the world of the perm are important to me.

K's - I tend to buy the representations F/W arguments that what we do and say in the round matters enough to be a voting issue. That said, if the aff is winning reasons why the plan is a good policy that helps people then that could very well mean their representations while advocating for it are also good. If your alt represents an action within the world of fiat then comparisons of this action to the world of the plan are important to me. Otherwise, make sure you establish a framework so that I know how to evaluate the arguments in your K against the arguments your opponents are making.

Theory - I'm willing to vote on theory. If you genuinely believe your ability to debate is being hurt by decisions the other team has made you can probably win on theory in front of me. You should have an interpretation on theory, and explain in clear terms whats wrong with the action of the other team.

While I’ve certainly voted in opposition to my personal views many times before, both on theory and other arguments, here is a short list of things I think are generally true:

Slow WAY down when you read your theory blocks. I’m not going to read them and there’s no way I can type them as fast as the fastest debaters can say them.

Everyone should be disclosing, but without an explicit rule enforced by the tournament I don’t think failure to disclose is a voting issue. Sometimes in life you’re gonna be surprised, learning to adapt on the fly is a good skill that debaters should be developing.

Performative contradictions are bad, and might sometimes be a voting issue.

Conditional arguments are okay, maybe even necessary for effective negative strategy. But the more of them there are and the more contradictory they are with each other, the more abusive they become. For example, reading a capitalism K and an economic DA rooted in capitalistic ideology in the same round is a bad idea. Adding in a CP that solves the DA while linking to the K is a potential voting issue.

Affirmatives should be topical. Switch sides debate and the existence of other educational programs and activities solves pretty much all the offense I’ve ever heard on this point.

Mike Brown Corner Canyon High School 3 rounds

Sarah Cole Hire 6 rounds

Maria Cook George Washington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 16, 2022 at 8:13 AM MST

Maria Cook (she/her)

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

I debated policy in high school for four years, ending with the water topic.

General Thoughts– I try to be as tab as possible. However, I think everyone inevitably comes in with some preconceived notions about debate. Please don’t feel like you have to adapt to my preferences--you should do whatever you do best. But if what you do best happens to be judge adaptation, here are some of my thoughts:

Framework – Please try to engage each other's interpretations and arguments instead of just extending your own. Look to my comments on topicality if you're interested in how I try to evaluate standards-based debate.

Case Debate– I think the case debate is really under-utilized -- case-specific strategies that integrate intelligent on-case arguments into the 1NC can be really compelling.

DA/CPs– The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.

Critiques– I did mostly critical debate, but please don't assume that I'm familiar with your literature base -- I'll evaluate your arguments as if I'm hearing the literature for the first time. I think critiques are most persuasive when they interact explicitly with the 1AC/2AC, so I appreciate specific 2NC link analysis (doesn’t necessarily need to be carded) that points to arguments being made in the 1AC/2AC, and I like 2NC attempts to gain in roads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency. I like critical affirmatives so long as you explain the significance of voting affirmative.

Topicality– My threshold for T is the same as any other type of argument, but like all other positions, there are central issues that the 2NR needs to resolve in order for me to vote on T. If neither team articulates a framework within which I can vote, then I’ll default to competing interpretations. Assuming I’m voting in a competing interpretations framework, I think of standards as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means comparative impact calculus has a huge place in a 2NR that’s going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative.

Theory – Please engage the other team's arguments -- don't just read blocks and talk past one another. If you expect to win on theory (independently), you should probably give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits rejection of the team, and not just the argument.

Nontraditional Debate– As long as I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that I feel both teams can reasonably be expected to meet, you can do whatever you'd like.

In Round Decorum– Don’t be mean. Try to have fun.

Speed– As long as you’re clear, I’m fine with speed.

Speaker Points– 28.5 is average. I'll add points for things like clarity and efficiency, and I'll subtract points for particularly messy debating.

If you have any specific questions, please ask! Feel free to email me after round with questions :)

Norma Delgado Marlborough School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:02 AM PST

2017-2019 LAMDL/ Bravo

2019- Present CSU Fullerton

Please add me to the email chain, normadelgado1441@gmail.com

General thoughts

-Disclose as soon as possible :)

- Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't make sense of the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, that's on you.

-Speed is fine but be loud AND clear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow your arguments. Don’t let speed trade-off with the quality of your argumentation. Above all, be persuasive.

-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long or I’ll resume the timer. (I’ll let you know before I do so).

Things to keep in mind

-Avoid using acronyms or topic-specific terminology without elaborating first.

-The quality of your arguments is more important than quantity of arguments. If your strategy relies on shallow, dropped arguments, I’ll be mildly annoyed.

-Extend your arguments, not authors. I will flow authors sometimes, but if you are referencing a specific card by name, I probably don’t remember what they said. Unless this specific author is being referenced a lot, you’re better off briefly reminding me than relying on me to guess what card you’re talking about.

-I don’t vote for dropped arguments because they’re dropped. I vote on dropped arguments when you make the effort to explain why the concession matters.

- I don’t really care what you read as long as you have good reasoning for reading it. (ie, you’re not spewing nonsense, your logic makes sense, and you’re not crossing ethical boundaries).

Specific stuff

[AFFs] Win the likelihood of solvency + framing. You don't have to convince me you solve the entirety of your impact, but explain why the aff matters, how the aff is necessary to resolve an issue, and what impacts I should prioritize.

[Ks/K-affs] I like listening to kritiks. Not because I’ll instantly understand what you’re talking about, but I do like hearing things that are out of the box.

k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I love seeing offense on case. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.

k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make creative solvency arguments. Give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.

[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate you propose (impacts that happen outside of round).

[T/Theory] I have a higher threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory.

I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to procedural fairness. It’s not that I will never vote for procedural fairness, but I want you to contextualize what procedural fairness in debate would look like and why that’s a preferable world.

[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have good answers to theory.

[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.

I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here. Make me skeptical of your opponent’s impacts.

Colson Duncan Notre Dame High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 5:18 AM PST

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.

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)

Malcolm Gordon The Meadows School

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 7:42 AM PST

malgor.debate@gmail.com

A quick guide to getting good speaker points:

-get to the point, and be clear about it
-"extinction" or "nuclear war" is not a tag
-a well explained, logical, argument trumps an unexplained argument merely extended by it's "card name"
-Ks need alts- i have a low threshold for voting aff when the neg is kicking their alt and going for a framework argument
-cross x is a speech-i figure it in as a substantial factor in speaker points

Here is an explanation of how I evaluate debates at a meta-level:

While I think there is value in the offense/defense framework for evaluation, for me to vote on offense there has to be substantive risk. Second, quality trumps quantity.

Also, "extinction" is not a tag line. I don't even like tag lines like "causes nuclear war." I need complete sentences, with claims and warrants.

Where does the evidence come from? there are not enough debaters talking about the quality of research their opponents are quoting.

Get to the point. On any given controversy in debate, there are relatively few arguments at play. Get to the core issues quickly. Point out the central logical/argumentative problems with a given position. I am much more compelled by a speaker’s ability to take the 2-3 core problems with their opponent’s position and use those fallacies to answer all of the other team’s advances. It shows you have a grip on the central issue and you understand how that issue is inescapable regardless of your opponent’s answer

Calling for cards: I will do this, but I don’t like to read every card in the debate. If you opponent is making well explained arguments you should be very wary of just saying “extend our smith evidence”.

Theory/topicality:

Arbitrary interpretations are one of the worst trends in debate right now. If your interpretation of debate theory is wholly arbitrary and made up it doesn’t seem very useful for me to uphold it as some new norm and reject the other team.

Conditionality is good, it would take a very decisive aff victory with a very tangible impact (in policy debate).

While I'm fine with conditionality, I am persuaded by other theoretical objections (multi actor fiat, uniform fiat without a solvency advocate, etc). I also think that a theory argument that combines objections (conditional multi actor CPs) could be a reason to reject the team.

My personal belief is that the negative can only fiat the agent of the resolution, and that competition based off the ‘certainty’ of the plan (consult/conditions) is not productive. This does NOT mean I have an incredibly low threshold in voting aff on agent/actor cps bad, but it does make my threshold lower than most. To win these theory debates on the aff, see above point about cutting to the core 2-3 issues.

On topicality-you need tangible impacts. You’re asking me to drop a team because they made debate too unfair for you. “limits good” is not an impact. “They unlimit the topic by justifying x types of affs that we cannot hope to prepare for” is an impact. There must be a very coherent connection between neg interpretation, violations, and standards in the 2nr.

Counterplans: I spoke above about my theoretical beliefs on counterplans. I think counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. I am sometimes persuaded that purely functional competition (normal means/process counterplans) should probably not be evaluated. If you’re aff and theory-savvy, don’t be afraid to go for theoretical reasons the process cp goes away.

Floating Pics/Word PICs- I’m great for the aff on these. I believe that every position has theoretical reasons behind it related to education and competitive equity. The aff counterinterpretation of “you can run your K/word K as a K without the CP part” generally solves every pedagogical benefit of those positions-this means the aff just needs to win that competitively these positions are bad for the aff, and it outweighs any ‘educational benefit’ to word/floating pics. I'm persuaded by those arguments, making it an uphill battle for the neg if the aff can explain tangible impacts to the competitive disadvantage the PIC puts them in.

Politics:

The story must matchup. I will vote on such non-offensive arguments like: your uq and link evidence don’t assume the same group of politicians, you have no internal link, passage of that bill is inevitable, Trump has no PC etc. Of course I don’t vote on these in isolation-once again, refer back to my meta-approach to debate-you need to explain why that core defensive argument trumps everything else the neg is saying.

Ks:

I’m generally not compelled by framework as a voter against a Neg K-I think all Ks have a gateway/framing issue that is much easier and more logical for the aff to attack. For example, if the neg reads an epistemology K you are much more likely to win reading a card that says “consequences outweigh epistemology” or “epistemology focus bad” than you are to win that the other team is cheating because of their K. Focus on answering the gateway issue so that you can leverage your aff against the K and get the decision calculus of the debate back in your favor. Subsequently for the neg the issue of ‘framing’ is also very important.

That being said, I don't like Ks that are just framework arguments. Ks should have alternatives that actually resolve link arguments. I'm not going to weigh a K impact against the aff if the K can't resolve it.

In the 2ac, don’t make a bunch of perms you have no hope of winning unless they are conceded. Perm do the alt is not a perm. Make 1 or 2 permutations and EXPLAIN IN THE 2AC how the permutation overcomes neg links/risks of the impact.

Ks are a great example of the “there are only 2-3 arguments” theory I subscribe to. If you’re debating a 1 off team, it’s much better for me if you don’t read 40 cards in the 2ac with as many different caveats as possible. Instead, read a good number of argument but take the time to explain them. What part of the K do they refute? How do these arguments change the calculus of the round? When you do this I put much more pressure on the neg block to get in depth with their explanations, which I find usually helps the aff.

K affs:

T > Framework. Given that most impact turns to T come from pedagogical reasons, you need to prove that your interpretation provides space for the ‘good education’ the aff thinks is key to stop genocide/war/racism/turkeys. Topical version of your aff is compelling, as well as giving other examples of topical action that prove the aff could have accepted the parameters of the resolution and gained the same educational benefits. Then it’s just a matter of proving that competitively the K aff hurts the neg. Also, prove how your competitive equity impacts implicate their education impacts.

Case debate:

These are great. Impact defense is kinda meh unless it's real specific. Solvency and internal link answers are where it's at. Make alt causes great again!

Disadvantages:

It’s all about probability-magnitude is ok but only when you’re discussing it in terms of “our impact causes yours”. Extinction outweighs is trite because by the end of the debate all impacts are extinction or nuclear wars that easily result in another impact in the debate that has been claimed as extinction (nuke war hurts the environment, aff said that causes extinction). Probability is key. Establishing risk is where it’s at. A higher risk trumps a higher magnitude in most instances.

Cross Examination: it’s a speech, I grade it like a speech. Be funny if you can. Base the cross x on core issues in the debate, and base it on quality of evidence and establishing risk/threshold for various arguments.

Abhi Harikumar West High School SLC 2 rounds

Kimberly Hunter Hire 2 rounds

Lorilei Lassen The Meadows School 6 rounds

Stephanie Marquez Marlborough School 2 rounds

Adam Martin Sonoma Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 2:18 AM PST

My paradigm was too long. Here is a good one that should make preffing easier.

“If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose.” - Calum Matheson

Email for chain: adam.martin707@gmail.com

First: Qualifications

Competing: St Vincent ‘16, UC Berkeley ‘20
3x TOC, 14 bids, coach’s poll, tournament wins, speaker trophies, etc
Coaching: South Eugene 16-18, Analy 22-23, Sonoma Academy 2023-Present

Second: Argument Preferences

I try very hard to be a judging robot. I will vote for any argument with a warrant. ASPEC, Process CPs, Death K, Set Col, Time-Cube - they are all as good as the warrant you give.
I read a kritik on the aff and went for framework on the neg. I truly don’t have any emotional attachment to a particular argument.
While I don’t have argument preferences, there are things I know more or less about.

Debate things I know a lot about: Baudrillard, Deleuze, Bifo, Set Col, Queerness, Afropess, Framework debates, really any K
Life things I know about: Philosophy, politics, tech, mushrooms!
Debate things I don’t know a lot about: Most topics, competition theory norms, process CPs, general policy tricks. By don’t know “a lot” I just mean I’m not an expert - I still have a pretty solid understanding of all of this, but I generally prefer you explain more on competition shells rather than just reading 30 definitions and expecting me to know the norms of how to interpret them

My lack of argument preferences applies to theory, meaning I’m more likely to vote for straight up “condo bad” than most judges. Just as I’m willing to listen to any arg, I’m equally willing to hear that an arg is unfair.

Third: Notes on How I Judge

I flow what you say, not what I read in your doc. For the most part, I do not open speech docs during the round. I will not read your doc to understand something that didn’t make sense in your speech. This means you need to slow down on theory arguments and counterplan texts. I am a techy judge so if I don’t understand the CP because you went too fast, you don’t have a CP.
Arguments need warrants. I will very quickly vote on 0 risk if you don't say "because" in your arguments and instead just extend author names. I am very strict about this so don't be surprised when my RFD says "you had no reason for this claim".
Do not try and bring up anything that happened outside of the round. I cannot verify any claim about something external to the round. The only exception is disclosure. I will check the wiki to see if you disclosed if that is relevant to the round.
Normal means is a thing and you should know how that works. If you write a vague plan text, you don’t get to define what it means. I assume that congress will pass the most likely interpretation of what your plan text says. You do not get to read a generic “federal jobs guarantee” plan text then say it just means bunny daycare jobs on Mars.
New arguments in rebuttals are becoming the norm. I now hold the line for you in the 2nr and 2ar, but it is up to the 2nr to point out how certain 1ar args were completely new and explain why that means I should reject them. Flagging “no new 1ar args” in the block can help get ahead of this.
Until an argument is made to the contrary, I think of voting for an advocacy as me signifying that that thing would be a good thing if done, not that the negative or affirmative has actually performed said advocacy.
I will kick the CP for you if condo is never mentioned or won by the neg and I decide that the aff is a bad idea. This is something I am going to think about a lot but as of now, I will presume judge kick.
Cross-applications are not new arguments. If the 1ar says reasonability on one T violation, and the 2nr goes for a different one, the 2ar can cross-apply it legitimately. However, this does assume that there was a reason why their c/i is reasonable in the 1ar.
You can have my flow: I always wished that it wasn't awkward to ask the judge for their flow, so this is me telling you that it is not awkward for you to ask me for mine. I think that reading someone's flow of your speech is incredibly educational and so I will happily send you a copy.
I may be standing for some or all of your speech. Yeah I know it’s weird, but sitting sucks. I promise I am paying better attention than the half-asleep judge sitting comfortably in their chair.
Contradictions are only abusive if the negative asserts two opposing truth claims neither of which did the affirmative explicitly defend. This standard usually means it is more strategic to just cross-apply one of their claims to take out the other then spend your time no-linking the first position. To give an example, I do not think that it is abusive for a team to read a death reps K and then read a disad that has death impacts if your affirmative also had death impacts. I just can't conceive of how that could be abusive. There is no functional distinction between '1nc - Death K, DA, Case' and '1nc - Disease Reps K, DA, Case' in terms of abusing the affirmative. However, reading the cap K and then a DA that says the aff hurts cap and cap is good against an aff that is about emission reduction and doesn't mention capitalism is obviously abusive. The negative has made two competing truth claims, neither of which did the affirmative defend. HOWEVER, this rant is just my thoughts, and can be used by either team in the round but it does not mean that I won't vote for con if the neg reads a Death K and an extinction-level DA, I'll still evaluate it like any other round.
Always send cards in docs, not in the body of the email. Otherwise it's hard for me to steal them.

You can ask for a marked copy outside of cx, but any question about which arguments were read is cx.

Speaker Points – (I inflate/curve points depending upon the difficulty of the tournament)

To me, speaker points are where I get to reward quality debating. Quality debating means the following: understanding of your argument, clear speaking, smart choices, and kindness. My speaks may surprise you. A team who is less technical but clearly communicates their argument may get a 29.5, while a highly technical team who shadow-extends arguments without warrants may get a 28.5. I heavily punish being mean - there is no reason for it.

- Above 29.5: I will spend tonight crying about how beautifully you debated

- 29.5: I will tell my friends about you

- 29 – 29.5: You should get a top 5 speaker award

- 28.7 – 29: You should probably break

- 28.5 – 28.7: You gave solid speeches

- 28 – 28.5: You are a good debater, some strategic errors

- 27.5 – 28: You are decent, but made many errors

- 27 – 27.5: You made many mistakes, and probably lost the debate for your team

- 26.5 – 27: You made many errors and should end 1-5 or 0-6

- 26 – 26.5: You shouldn’t be in whatever level of debate you are

- Under 26: You were literally incomprehensible or offensive

Jonathan Meza Marlborough School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 23, 2024 at 12:34 PM PST

Add me to the chain: speechdrop[at]gmail.com

tldr: My name is Jonathan Meza and I believe that at the end of the day the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want this paradigm is just for you to get an insight on how I view debate. One thing is I won't allow any defense of offensive -isms, if you have to ask yourself "is this okay to run in front of them ?" the answer is probably no. I reserve the right to end the debate where I see fit, also don't call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Meza or Jonathan.

Pref Cheat sheet:

Policy: 2-3
K: 1
Phil: 1
trix: 4-5
K aff/Performance: 1-2
T: 1
Theory: 1
about me: Assistant debate coach for Harvard Westlake (2022-). Debated policy since 2018 that is my main background even tho I almost only judge/coach LD now. Always reppin LAMDL. I am a big fan of big words but I don't always know what they mean.

inspirations: DSRB, LaToya,Travis, CSUF debate, Jared, Vontrez, Curtis, Diego, lamdl homies, Scott Philips, Kwudjwa, Cat, and Krizel

theory: Theory page is the highest layer unless explained otherwise. Aff probably gets 1ar theory. Rvis are "real" arguments I guess. Warrant out reasonability. I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. explain impacts, don't just be like "they didn't do XYZ voter for fairness because not doing XYZ is unfair." Why is it unfair, why does fairness matter I view theory a lot like framework, each theory shell is a model of debate you are defending why is not orientating towards your model a bad thing. Oh and if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance extend warrants and the story of abuse. Theory v Theory debates are fun but I need judge instruction as to how to evaluate the theory shells against each other and comparison between the scope and magnitude of the violations or which interpretation is best for debate or else I default on which ever violation came first.

Topicality: The vibes are the same as above in the theory section. I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).

Larp: I appreciate creative internal link chains but prefer solid ones. Default util, I usually don't buy zero risk. For plan affirmative some of you are not reading a different affs against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K. as per disads specific disads are better than generics ones but poltics disads are lowkey broken if you can provide a good analysis of the scenario within the context of the affirmative. Uniqueness controls the link but I also believe that uniqueness can overwhelm the link. straight turning disads are a vibe especially when they read multiple offs.

K affirmatives: I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic but feel free to do what you want with your 1ac speech, This does mean that their should be defense and/or offense on why you chose to engage in debate the way that you did. I think that at a minimum affirmatives must do something, "move from the status quo" (unless warranted for otherwise). Affirmatives must be written with purpose if you have music, pictures, poem, etc. in your 1ac use them as offense, what do they get you ? why are they there ? if not you are just opening yourself to a bunch of random piks. If you do have an audio performance I would appreciate captions/subtitles/transcript but it is at your discretion (won't frame my ballot unless warranted for otherwise). In Kvk debates I need clear judge instruction and link explanation perm debate I lean aff.

Framework: I lean framework in K aff v framework debates. These debate become about debate and models defend your models accordingly. I think that the aff in these debates always needs to have a role of the negative, because a lot of you K affs out their solve all of these things and its written really well but you say something most times that is non-controversal and that gets you in trouble which means its tough for you to win a fw debate when there is no role for the negative. In terms of like counter interp vs impact turn style of 2AC vs fw I dont really have a preference but i think you at some point need to have a decent counter interp to solve your impact turns to fw. If you go for the like w/m kind of business i think you can def win this but i think fw teams are prepared for this debate more than the impact turn debate. I think fairness is not an impact but you can go for it as one. Fairness is an internal link to bigger impacts to debate.

Kritiks: I am a big fan of one off K especially in a format such as LD that does not give you much time to explain things already reading other off case positions with the kritik is a disservice to yourself. I like seeing reps kritiks but you need to go hard on framing and explain why reps come first or else the match up becomes borderline unwinnable when policy teams can go for extinction outweighs reps in the late game speeches. ~~Generic links are fin~~e ~~but~~ you need to contextualize in the NR/block. Lowkey in LD it is a waste of time to go for State links, the ontology debate is already making state bad claims and the affirmative is already ahead on a reason why their specific use of the state is good. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

Phil:I have warmed up to this style of debate in the past couple of months and believe it is a valuable aspect of LD, that being said over explanation and Judge instruction is very important for me in these debates. I lean towards epistemic confidence. phil innovation is cool.

Trix:Honestly explain your offense even if its silly and I'll vote for it I'm just not a big fan of a bunch of hidden args everywhere.

speaker points: some judges have really weird standards of giving them out. if I you are clear enough for me to understand and show that you care you will get high speaks from me. I do reward strategic spins tho. I will do my best to be equitable with my speak distribution. at the end of the day im a speaker point fairy. +.1 for brain rot reference (doesn't stack I got my limits)

Joshua Michael Notre Dame High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 12:10 PM EST

Debated for UWG ’15 – ’17; Coaching: Notre Dame – ’19 – Present; Baylor – ’17 – ’19

email: joshuamichael59@gmail.com

Online Annoyance

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when one card was marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take CX time for it.

Policy

I prefer K v K rounds, but I generally wind up in FW rounds.

K aff’s – 1) Generally have a high threshold for 1ar/2ar consistency. 2) Stop trying to solve stuff you could reasonably never affect. Often, teams want the entirety of X structure’s violence weighed yet resolve only a minimal portion of that violence. 3) v K’s, you are rarely always already a criticism of that same thing. Your articulation of the perm/link defense needs to demonstrate true interaction between literature bases. 4) Stop running from stuff. If you didn’t read the line/word in question, okay. But indicts of the author should be answered with more than “not our Baudrillard.”

K’s – 1) rarely win without substantial case debate. 2) ROJ arguments are generally underutilized. 3) I’m generally persuaded by aff answers that demonstrate certain people shouldn’t read certain lit bases, if warranted by that literature. 4) I have a higher threshold for generic “debate is bad, vote neg.” If debate is bad, how do you change those aspects of debate? 5) 2nr needs to make consistent choices re: FW + Link/Alt combinations. Find myself voting aff frequently, because the 2nr goes for two different strats/too much.

Special Note for Settler Colonialism: I simultaneously love these rounds and experience a lot of frustration when judging this argument. Often, debaters haven’t actually read the full text from which they are cutting cards and lack most of the historical knowledge to responsibly go for this argument. List of annoyances: there are 6 settler moves to innocence – you should know the differences/specifics rather than just reading pages 1-3 of Decol not a Metaphor; la paperson’s A Third University is Possible does not say “State reform good”; Reading “give back land” as an alt and then not defending against the impact turn is just lazy. Additionally, claiming “we don’t have to specify how this happens,” is only a viable answer for Indigenous debaters (the literature makes this fairly clear); Making a land acknowledgement in the first 5 seconds of the speech and then never mentioning it again is essentially worthless; Ethic of Incommensurability is not an alt, it’s an ideological frame for future alternative work (fight me JKS).

General: 1) Fairness is either an impact or an internal link 2) the TVA doesn’t have to solve the entirety of the aff. 3) Your Interp + our aff is just bad.

Aff v FW: 1) can win with just impact turns, though the threshold is higher than when winning a CI with viable NB’s. 2) More persuaded by defenses of education/advocacy skills/movement building. 3) Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere.

Reading FW: 1) Respect teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movement building. 2) “If we can’t test the aff, presume it’s false” – no 3) Have to answer case at some point (more than the 10 seconds after the timer has already gone off) 4) You almost never have time to fully develop the sabotage tva (UGA RS deserves more respect than that). 5) Impact turns to the CI are generally underutilized. You’ll almost always win the internal link to limits, so spending all your time here is a waste. 6) Should defend the TVA in 1nc cx if asked. You don’t have a right to hide it until the block.

Theory - 1) I generally lean neg on questions of Conditionality/Random CP theory. 2) No one ever explains why dispo solves their interp. 3) Won’t judge kick unless instructed to.

T – 1) I’m not your best judge. 2) Seems like no matter how much debating is done over CI v Reasonability, I still have to evaluate most of the offense based on CI’s.

DA/CP – 1) Prefer smart indicts of evidence as opposed to walls of cards (especially on ptx/agenda da's). Neg teams get away with murder re: "dropped ev" that says very little/creatively highlighted. 2) I'm probably more lenient with aff responses (solvency deficits/aff solves impact/intrinsic perm) to Process Cp's/Internal NB's that don't have solvency ev/any relation to aff.

Case - I miss in depth case debates. Re-highlightings don't have to be read. The worse your re-highlighting the lower the threshold for aff to ignore it.

All of my thoughts on policy apply, except for theory. More than 2 condo (or CP’s with different plank combinations) is probably abusive, but I can be convinced otherwise on a technical level.

Not voting on an RVI. I don’t care if it’s dropped.

Most LD theory is terrible Ex: Have to spec a ROB or I don’t know what I can read in the 1nc --- dumb argument.

Phil or Tricks (sp?) debating – I’m not your judge.

Joshua Dale mitchell Hire 6 rounds

Tommy Mounarath Rowland Hall 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 1:25 AM PST

Please include me on the email chain: tmounarath@gmail.com

NOV 2024 update:

I've only judged one tournament on this topic, so I'm vaguely familiar with some arguments but if there's a couple of acronyms, maybe explain what they are to me (I have yet to have someone explain what Mayo-Alice is to me).

Also, you need slow down so I can actually flow your arguments. I am NOT as fast as I use to be, that or send your analytics. Otherwise, very high chance I will miss some of your arguments on the flow. If you spread your analytics like you do your cards, I will not be able to flow your speech. Your best bets are either send your analytics or slow down. Best tip I can give you for my ballot is to explain your arguments to me like I am 5, I'm not as fast as I use to be. The more clear you are, the better I'll understand your argument and the more likely I may vote for you. A lot of times I miss things on the flow because I'm just not catching up to the first couple speech docs until at least around the 1NR. So just realize what's more important! Finishing your card or making sure I even caught it in the first place? Although it doesn't really matter if I end up flowing everything as debaters tend to drop 80% of arguments by the 1AR anyways as I have noticed ( I have only seen like 3 teams not guilty of this in the past year).

I usually end up understanding what's happening in the debate by the 1AR. But again, I'm pretty rusty, tend to lean more towards truth over tech (unless its something really bad like a dropped perm in the 1AR), and the best way to get me to vote for you is to make sure there's like 3 clear voters why you win, a very very clear internal link chain scenario or well fleshed out link work and impact calc, and overall just confidence that it makes more sense to vote aff or neg. CLEAR INTERNAL LINK CHAIN SCENARIOS ARE THE EASIEST WAY TO GET MY BALLOT.

P.S. I like jokes, gets ya extra speaks in my book. Also using my name I tend to find persuasive.

Recent voting decisions worth noting:

Voted aff on condo when Peninsula LL went against 11 off.

Voted neg against condo as the 1ar claimed it was dropped but the negative ran 1 off so I ended up not buying the argument as I'm more of a truth voter rather than tech. It really came off as more of a cop out to because the aff got out debated on the k flow which to me just made an aff ballot that much less persuasive to me.

Voted neg on econ disad in octos at meadows simply because I felt the neg did good enough solvency takeouts on case with better internal link chain scenarios. Both teams didn't do a good enough job explaining some of the evidence mentioned in the 2NR/2AR so I even went through the effort of reading the evidence and then applying it to the arguments made in the debate.

Identity:

I am a 2nd generation Laotian American male with ADHD, my parents are refugee's from the Vietnam war. I grew up in a middle class home around Salt Lake City, Utah and I love a good joke.

I currently study aerospace engineering at Cal Poly Pomona, and my favorite hobby is freestyle street dance.

Experience:

High school: 2 years.
Went to camp at the Weber State Debate Institute in 2015 (Lab leaders: Mike Bausch, Jazmine Pickens, and Sam Allen). After my first year debating, started doing open Policy my senior year @Copper Hills High School under Scott Odekirk.
I mostly ran straight up policy arguments and plenty of Marx.

College: 2 years.
My mentors were: Ryan Wash, Omar Guevara , Ryan Cheek, and Liz Dela Cruz.
Mostly did Marx, disability, and model minority k debate.

Procedurals:

I'm fine with speed, but my ADHD does make it a bit harder for me to catch phrases. So if your spreading is really high pitch and quiet, my best advice is to speak up and slow down maybe 15% every time I say "clear"

Flex prep is fine.

Prep ends once you finish sending your speech docs.

Talking to your partner and reorganizing documents count as prep.

Argument preference:

I love a good straight up policy debate. That was my strong suit in high school. So straight up debate is fine.

I ran a lot of critical arguments in college like Marx, model minority, disability, etc. So K debate is fine for me as well.

However, the only K's I'm not the best for high theory ones. I don't know anything about Baudrillard, Berlant, Lacan, Nietzche, etc. At best, I only know surface level information about them. So unless you can argue your K and explain it to me like I'm a 5 year old, you might be better off going with a different strat.

I know what it's like to have a bad judge and so my goal when it comes to giving an RFD is as as follows:

- When it comes to dropped arguments, I default to the burden of rejoinder meaning dropped arguments are considered true. The only exception being that you have claimed why some dropped arguments won't matter in context to what you are already winning. HOWEVER I tend to be more of a truth over tech type of judge. So if there was a 30 second theory blip in the neg block the 1NR dropped, unless the violation is super obvious I probably won't buy it.

- If the 1AR clearly dropped something, then it's up to the negative to protect the 2NR from any new arguments in the 2AR, otherwise I end up buying unfair arguments. (Unless they are outrageously new).

- If both teams have consistently clashed on the same argument that sways my decision one way or the other, then I depend on my own knowledge of the argument as well as how nuanced each teams arguments were.

I usually vote aff when:

- It makes sense to me what the aff does

- I buy the permutation

- I buy the aff outweighs any negative offense

- I don't buy the negative's link work

- I don't buy that the CP/K solves the aff

I usually vote neg when:

- I buy the links AND that the impacts outweigh the aff

- I buy the alt solves the K/aff

- I don't think the aff actually does anything

- I buy the aff is untopical and should thus lose because they make debate/their own impacts worse.

Isaiah Ortiz West High School SLC 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 12:38 PM EST

chocolatecookieswirl@gmail.com

West High 2020'

University of Utah 2024'

B.S Economics

B.S Political Science

One of my core principles about debate is accepting a variety of arguments, so I encourage that students have in their strategy whatever they are comfortable running and won't let any of my predispositions or bias of an argument affect my views of the debate, so I default to tech > truth unless told otherwise.

BUT over the few years I have encountered two positions that seem to be an uphill battle for me.

1) Conditionality -- I have a firm belief that conditionality is vital for negative teams to have an effective strategy in any debate. Please posit a reason why

2 Ks without ANY case defense -- Unless you are making you link you lose arguments on framework. I have a hard time evaluating the K when there is a huge risk of the aff.

Debate is a game at its core but can be easily convinced otherwise. I have run primarily k affs during my junior and sophomore year and only well versed in cap and security. I typically went for policy arguments and framework as a 2N. I enjoy watching the affirmative make clever counter interpretations to eliminate or at least minimize offense on framework, coupled with link or impact turns to the negative model of debate.

Labeling of arguments has become increasingly important to me. It is the clearest way to communicate what argument you are extending for me.

I try to follow this rubric for deciding speakers.

http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html

Specifically, I look for line by line clarity and organization, overall argument deliberation, and awareness in the debate, in that order. I also reward good disclosure practices on your caselist and in round, so let me know if you believe you meet those criteria, so I can reward you. :)

I have not debated in years, and judge on and off, but I try my hardest, and I am not Michael Wimsatt BUT I do take Judge instruction VERY seriously.

Miles Owens George Washington HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:42 AM EST

General Thoughts – I try to be as tab as possible. However, I think everyone inevitably comes in with some preconceived notions about debate. Don’t feel like you have to adapt to my preferences--you should do whatever you do best. But if what you do best happens to be judge adaptation, here are some of my thoughts:

Framework – All I ask is that you engage each other's interpretations and arguments--don’t just read and extend. Look to my comments on topicality if you're interested in how I try to evaluate standards-based debate.

Case Debate – I think case-specific strategies that integrate intelligent on-case arguments into the 1NC can be really compelling.

DA/CPs – The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.

Critiques – Most persuasive when they interact explicitly with the 1AC/2AC. For example, I like specific 2NC link analysis (doesn’t necessarily need to be carded) that points to arguments being made in the 1AC/2AC, and I like 2NC attempts to gain in roads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency. I'm fine with critical affirmatives so long as you explain the significance of voting affirmative. A general note: given that I'm trying to evaluate your arguments as though I'm hearing them for the first time, please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other type of argument, but like all other positions, there are central issues that the 2NR needs to resolve in order for me to vote on T. If neither team articulates a framework within which I can vote, then I’ll default to competing interpretations, but I’d much rather not have to default to anything. Assuming I’m voting in a competing interpretations framework, I think of standards as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means comparative impact calculus has a huge place in a 2NR that’s going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative.

Theory – Please engage the other team's arguments--don't just read blocks and talk past one another. If you expect to win on theory (independently), you should probably give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits rejection of the team, and not just the argument.

Nontraditional Debate – As long as I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that I feel both teams can reasonably be expected to meet, you can do whatever you'd like.

In Round Decorum – Don’t be mean. Try to have fun.

Speed – As long as you’re clear, I’m fine with speed.

Speaker Points – 28.5 is average. I'll add points for things like clarity and efficiency, and I'll subtract points for particularly messy debating.

If you have any specific questions, please ask. Feel free to email me after round with questions: miles.owens43@gmail.com

Dwayne Paul Brophy College Prep 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 11:18 AM MST

Email Chain

Add me: dgpaul8@gmail.com

Please include tournament and round number in the subject line of the email.

T/L

Tech > Truth always - There is a lower threshold for refuting an "argument" that is clearly untrue, but it is your burden to clearly explain why it should be evaluated as false

I will make the least interventional decision, meaning:

T is the highest layer - the rest is up for debate, but you better deliver a very solid T
What's conceded is true, but will only have the implications as argued by you
More judge instruction - Communicate the locus of your offense and defense clearly. If the final rebuttal is thoughtlessly extending and answering arguments without a unified argument, your likelihood of winning is low. Have intent - I will not grant any logic or rational to you if not explicitly said.
My vote is always influenced based on how the round goes down - I have no preconceptions

DAs

U/Q is up for debate - my vote is influenced based on how you debate

No preference over specific links vs. generic ones - just tell me why your link is relevant

Don't drop straight turns, and don't double turn yourself - that being said, you have to tell me they did it for me to evaluate

As the affirmative, if you drop a disadvantage, I'm still willing to hear weighing arguments from the rebuttals as to why you outweigh, but I will assume 100% risk of it happening

CPs

I think sufficiency framing is a valid argument - that being said, you must explicitly make it, and if you can't defend it, I won't buy it

'Judge kicking' the counterplan is merely to evaluate the disadvantage against the plan, in order to test whether the plan is in fact better than not only the counterplan but also the status quo. The ONLY burden of the negative is to disprove the desirability of the plan. The desirability of the counterplan should be irrelevant if the status quo is better.

I will assume judge kick, but if presented with reasons not to, it's up for debate

The threshold for winning against frivolous T-interpretations is lower, but you better be sure that it really is frivolous

Won't vote on RVIs

I'll view your standards however you debate them - ie. show me why fairness o/w education

T v. K-Affs

The negative needs to have good reasons, argued effectively, why being topical is a good thing. Consequently, the affirmative needs to have good reasons, argued effectively, why it's not - I'm not preconditioned to vote either way.

Ks On the Neg

I'm fine with all kritiks - whatever you want to argue, argue it - my only brightline is that you argue it better than the other side

Argue whatever framework you want to - the team that wins framework decides how I view the kritik debate - doesn't equate to an automatic win or loss - just depends on the framework interpretation

Extinction o/w is a good debate - show me why it does, and show me it why it does not - I'm open to swinging either way

What matters most is that you make your point - these debates boil down to a battle between positions

Theory

No preconceptions on whether conditionality is a good or bad thing - A good affirmative can explain why it's bad, and a good negative can explain why it's not - if it is completely 50/50, which I personally do not believe it, that means the negative won on conditionality - the affirmative is burdened with proving it is bad (51/49).

Most condo 2ARs are new - if you really want to go for it, make sure your 1AR sufficiently covered it - blowing up a a little blip in the 1AR is a hard sell

Debate the standards - don't just read down blocks

All other theory arguments are fine - exception to incredibly frivolous theory arguments - even if dropped, if they hold no arguable, serious, realistic weight, I'm not going to vote on it

Cross-Examination

I do not flow cross-x

It can be fun to watch

Bring up anything you would like me to evaluate from cross-x in your later speeches - I won't automatically assume anything

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being engaging to watch, being smart, being clear = higher speaks

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making bad arguments, not being clear = lower speaks

30 = best debater I've seen

29.6 - 29.9 = top debater at the tournament

29.1 - 29.5 - break deep into outrounds

28.6 - 29.0 - capability to break

28.0 - 28.5 - solid team, some learning to do

< 28.0 - some work to do

Ethics

Being racist, sexist, or violent in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate is bad.

Role as an educator outweighs role as a disciplinarian - I err on the side of letting things play out and correcting ignorance after the fact - This ends when it threatens the safety of round participants

You should give this line a wide berth

Kiara Pengue Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 7:12 AM MST

Please include me on the email chain: kiarapengue@live.com

You’re also welcome to email me for whatever else as well.

Pronouns: she/her

Update For Alta:

This will be my first tournament on this topic. I have been out of debate for about three years now. With that being said, I will do my best to keep up, but you will have to do a bit more work on topic specific args in explanation/etc. Write my ballot for me please and thank you :D

Background:

I debated three years at Copper Hills, debated for a bit at Weber State under Ryan Wash.

I was primarily a K debater; running arguments focusing on fem/intersectional fem and critiques of debate. I'm open to any type of new argumentation as well.

(Conflicts: Copper Hills High School)

Shorter version:

You can run whatever you want, but I'd rather you run what you're good at, K or trad. With that being said, I have a HIGH burden on you explaining whatever argument you choose to run. Don't just assume I understand your theory (this is much more applicable to K debate over trad policy.) Write my ballot for me, please (what are you winning and why do you deserve to win?)

For the Aff:

For topical affs:

Contrary to what it may seem, I'm down with a good policy aff and traditional debates as a whole. However, I need some solid case debating, impact calc, etc. Alt causes and good case turns are also favored.

For K Affs:

No, your aff doesn't have to have a plan text and no, it doesn't *technically* have to have any relation to the topic (though it is preferred).

If I don't understand what the K aff is or does, then I'm likely not voting on it. Y'all can't just say "K aff :)" and call it good.

K v K debates = :)

On that note, I'm real picky about the perm in a K v K debate so make sure you do enough work on it

In FW debates, K affs need to prove why debate is necessary for your specific methodology as well as prove that the educational/etc impacts of the aff are the most important thing to weigh in the round.

For the Neg:

DA’s:

cool.

CP’s:

cool.

pics: if you're going to take the aff away from the aff, tell me why that's a good thing and something that I can vote on.

K’s:

I think the best K debates are ones that are specific and that have a meaning to them. I don't particularly like generics such as cap and security, but if it's done well I'll still vote on them. I feel the best part about K debate is that you get to specifically show your individualism and passion within the debate space. I don't have a high burden on alt solvency so long as the link is strong and clearly explained. But with all of that being said, I’d still rather see a traditional policy debate than a poor K debate.

I actually really like topicality debates, my only comment for this is to make sure in your last speeches to give me clear voters, don’t expect me to just extend what you already said in your previous speeches.

For FW, I feel the TVA is especially important as it's your job to prove that the aff makes debate impossible.

Performance:

Yes, love this, read it, but that also means you have to explain it!! Make sure that the performance doesn’t get dropped in the debate.

other theory:

things I don't like: new affs bad, disclosure, speaks k, and prefs theory. I don't have any strong feelings about other theory args.

Speaker points:

I base a lot of my speaker points off of CX and your presence in the round. Everyone does debate for their own reasons, so let that show. If you are memorable and if you are passionate about what you’re talking about, you’ll probably get higher speaks. I think cross ex is valuable, I will be paying attention to it. This means that you could be losing the round but be getting better speaks.

I feel like this goes without saying but…

Please don’t be racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. there’s also no need to be overly aggressive. This is a space where everyone is supposed to feel safe and comfortable, not a space where they feel that they aren’t welcome.

ec powers Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 7:51 AM MST

Joint Winner of the Harvard College Tournament Costume Contest 2023

Debated

Jeff City 16-20

UWyo 20-24

Coaching

Niles West 23-

KU 24-

ec [dot] powers [dot] debate [at] gmail [dot] com

rockchalkdebate [at] gmail [dot] com (college only)

I cannot read blue highlighting. Green/Yellow is most ideal BUT most other colors are fine. If you are struggling to figure out how to change your highlighting, Verbatim has a standardize highlighting feature.

Firmly committed to tech over truth. The exception being arguments that say the suffering of a group of people or animals is good.

I will not vote on out of round issues. If this happens in a round I am judging, I will defer to tab and most likely contact coaches.

Complete arguments contain three things: a claim, a warrant, and a impact. Debate accordingly.

Debates should be where the AFF proposes a change to the status quo and the NEG says that change is bad. In general I enjoy debates where teams forward and construct a coherent story and use that story to implicate other portions of the debate. I attempt to avoid judge intervention at all costs, I usually look for the easiest path to the ballot when deciding. I think that 3rd and 4th level explanation of arguments and why they matter is particularly important rather than just asserting something as true or dropped.

Judge instruction is really important to me, teams that are able to guide me to a ballot often end up winning more often than not. In addition, I think teams like to rely on their evidence far too much, while debate is a research activity I find that the art of argument has been lost. I think that making smart arguments from evidence already read is often better than unnecessary card spamming.

Unnecessary time-wasting irks me. The 1AC should be sent before the round starts. Asking questions abt what was read/wasn’t read is either cross or prep time.

Judges that are unwilling to vote on condo bad are academically bankrupt and lying to you when they say they are “tech over truth”.

Every time someone reads animal wipeout, an angel loses it's wings.

Hidden theory arguments, e.g. aspec on a T flow, is one of the worst trends I have seen in debate. I will allow new 1AR answers and you do not even need to particularly answer it that well. Any team hiding theory arguments will have a speaker point implosion.

Clipping/evidence ethics challenges need to be called out and backed up with evidence. The debate will stop and the team that has lost the challenge will receive an L. In general, I think you should email and/or contact people if you find that their evidence has an ethics violation. If you have done that and the necessary changes have not been changed, I will vote on it. However, teams calling out the reading of an author/article that would be problematic and make it an in-round voting isssue (e.g. Pinker/Bostrum) is totally fair game and up for debate.

I prefer to be called E.C. rather than judge or any other version. (it is my initials if that helps with pronunciation).

I will clap when the round ends, debate is a very draining activity and I am impressed with anything you do even if it is round 4 at a local or the finals of a major.

Riley Reichel Head-Royce High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 5:15 AM PST

I debated for 4 years in policy at Head-Royce as a 1A/2N and went for the K on both the aff and the neg for my last 3 years. I now debate at UC Berkeley and only go for policy args.

Put me on the email chain:

rileyreichel@gmail.com

please name the chain something reasonable.

for online debates, please try to have your camera on. speaking into the void feels weird

Do what you do best. This paradigm is short because I will vote for almost any argument so long as it is won in debate. Below are predispositions but every single one can be overcome by debating well. I know everyone says this but I will try my hardest to stick to the flow and judge as objectively as I can. I have also realized I tend to make faces when I like or do not like something.

I read all the evidence mentioned in the final rebuttals. I put a lot of weight in evidence quality and you should be very loud about telling me if your evidence is good, I'll reward it with high speaks.

FW v K aff: These used to be my favorite type of debates but are quickly becoming unfun to watch and judge. I usually find them hard to resolve because neither side does nearly enough impact calculus. 2NCs fail to grapple with specific offense and read generic blocks that the 1AR responds to with generic blocks. Read their evidence, answer specific offense, and weigh impacts.

K v K: Never heard a convincing arg for why K affs don't get perms. Most reasons are predicated off of winning T. I think these debates tend to devolve into perm vs link which seems hard to win for both sides. I like affs that stick to their theory and go for impact turns rather than just becoming whatever the neg read. While your author probably does agree that capitalism/the LIO/hegemony/whatever is bad, it is unlikely that they fully agree with what the negative has said. Debate those intricacies and prove that your model of debate creates nuanced and in-depth clash. The more you run towards no link/perm, the more I buy FW arguments about clash and skills.

Theory: I have been confused by judges who arbitrarily choose not to vote on theory even when fully conceded. Cheap theory violations are easily answered and I am rarely convinced by one liner theory violations in the 2AC becoming 2-3 minutes of the 1AR. That being said, if the negative drops it, go for it. I won't choose not to vote on it just because it's theory, it was short in the 2AC, or because what the negative did was "reasonable".

Random stuff so that you can't get mad at me when this happens:

won't vote on stuff that happened outside the round

will drop you and give 0s for anything blatantly offensive done in round and am willing to end debates early if I think something unsafe is happening

I think reading extinction arguments and not being able to defend against the impact turn is cowardice

I have become increasingly annoyed with people acting like jerks in round. It's a communicative activity and everyone is spending their time here willingly, try to keep that in mind.

I think you can reinsert rehighlighting if it's just saying the other team miscut the evidence. If you're trying to make a new arg, you should prolly read it.

Some people and paradigms to look at to better understand the way I view debate: Larry Dang, Nathan Fleming, Nick Fleming, Katie Wimsatt, Emilio Menotti, Archan Sen, Taylor Tsan. Their paradigms are better than mine (except Emilio) and they taught me everything I know.

extra .1 speaks for references to old/current Cal debaters

Ashlin Richardson Corner Canyon High School 3 rounds

Sahaja Rutledge Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 3:54 PM MST

I did policy throughout high school and I read fem primarily my senior year. I’m versed in most literature and will try to judge at your level.

top-level things: please put me in the email chain (sahajarutledge@gmail.com). Tag-team is fine and spreading is fine (I can follow practically any speed) - but PLEASE enunciate (it’ll be a big part of your speaker points) and slow down a little through the rebuttal speeches. AND IF YOU ARE READING TECHNICAL ACRONYMS PLEASE SAY THE FULL VERSION AT LEAST ONCE. (that’s pointed at any topic that involves a lot of niche agencies/technology)

I’m tech>truth but with a caveat that I’ll be mad if your arguments are flat-out absurd (i.e. the sky is purple, Mexico is part of the US, etc) but for the most part, I’ll vote on what you read regardless if I like/dislike it. I’m okay with overviews but please don’t get excessive with simple arguments. (Don’t spend 5 minutes telling me what T is MOVE ON)

T/Theory: I firmly believe that theory is important in debate HOWEVER please don’t keep repeating the same 1nc shell in every speech and YOU HAVE TO PROVE ACTUAL IN-ROUND ABUSE to get me to vote on theory. Utah debaters - fiat isn't as durable as you think it is and it isn't a stand-in for solvency. That being said, here’s how I see theory: neg probably gets conditional worlds, PICs are probably abusive, aff’s are probably topical and education is probably more important than fairness because debate is an educational space. These aren’t fixed metrics but it’s on you to prove the opposite.

K/K affs: I love a good k and am open to anything but framing and link work is key to my ballot. In other words, don’t be lazy with a generic link and lame impact card. I’ll be bored and so so sad. Don't make me sad. I really love a soft-left aff if it's done right in-round. If your k/k aff is high theory please do a little more explanation and analysis than usual just to help my understanding but for the most part, I should be fine. In any case FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK :)

CP/DAs: Do what you want here but don’t run one-liner CPs just to boost the off number - it’s annoying to flow. I would absolutely love for a CP debate not to degenerate into a condo debate but I'll vote on it if forced. DAs, I have a really hard time buying weak generic links that lead to existential impacts with brink scenarios from 2021 so be mindful of the DA debate. For the IP topic, if the aff seems unrealistic and overreaches realistic USFG political action it probably does. In this case, I would love a good CP + DA debate demonstrating a team's argumentative TECHNIQUE.

Impact stuffs: Diversify your impacts and IMPACT CALC IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO MY BALLOT

Good judge instruction will win you my ballot.

Jim Schultz Head-Royce High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 18, 2024 at 12:17 PM EST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Shackelford Park City 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 8:43 AM MST

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

Mike Shackelford Rowland Hall 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:48 AM MST

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Kushal Shah La Reina 3 rounds

Preston Shaw Head-Royce High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 4:53 AM PST

Top Level:

Head-Royce '22, WFU '26

Topics I debated: Immigration, Arms Sales, Criminal Justice Reform, Water Resources, Legal Rights, Nukes

Add me to the chain, ask me before round

I debate on the college circuit and have been both a 2A and 2N at various times throughout my years of debate. I've read both policy affs and kritikal affs. On the neg, in high school, my partner and I primarily went for T or some other theory/the K vs policy affs and Cap/some theory argument vs K affs. In college, my partner and I primarily read a plan on the aff and k's on the neg.

Debate should be a safe activity for everyone. If you say or do anything offensive, I'll stop the round and give you a loss and zeros.

Short Version:

Do what you do best. I would much rather see teams who know what they are reading and talking about than teams who are trying to adapt to me but lack nuance. My knowledge is pretty flex, but more centered around kritiks. I will still vote for your CP/DA strategies though. I love a good T/Theory debate so if thats your jam, go for it. Writing my ballot for me at the top of the 2NR/2AR is key to get my vote.

Argument Specific:

FW: Can go either way, but I probably err aff. I have a much higher standard for fairness as an impact compared to clash. This doesn't mean I won't vote on it, it just means I prefer clash. The aff team has to clearly explain their interp and the world of the interp. Redefining words of the resolution is key for teams that want to go for the w/m. Implicating the framework DA's to the TVA and SSD is important and I will unlikely do that work for you.

K's: I am versed and experienced in most k lit, but that doesn't mean I'll hack for you. I love specific links to the aff and I like pushes on framework as well. In high school, the K was our go to, so take that info how you will. For aff teams, making sure that your 2AC blocks are responsive to the correct theory of K is a must. I don't have a preference between a case o/w strat and perm/link turn strat, just make sure you articulate and flag the args you want me to vote on in the 2AR.

K Aff's: I love kritikal affs and think they are really interesting and a great part of debate. I read a K aff my junior and senior year. Please clearly explain what your method/solvency does. I should be able to explain it back to you at the end of the debate, and if I can't, you probably don't have my ballot. K aff's get perms.

DA's: You have to have a clear link to the aff, and there has to be impact comparison. A good turns case analysis versus aff impact will make my ballot a lot easier to get.

CP's: I like a good counterplan debate, but I think that advantage cps with a ton of planks can be abusive. I am not the best in a competition debate. There has to be a net benefit to the permutation.

T/Theory: I love T and theory, so please read it. There needs to be a specific violation and impacts explained and warranted through the 2NR for me to vote for you. Plans should be clear and explain what the aff does, I will not be happy with vague plan texts and opens the door for potential theory arguments.

Case: This is the most underutilized part of debate. A good case debate can dismantle an aff, so please spend time on it.

Other things:

Disclosure: It should be 100% correct, and I am not afraid to drop a team for bad disclosure. This includes disclosing the wrong plan text or changing something without alerting the other team.

If you bring an ethics challenge, the round stops.

Please, please, please be nice to each other.

You have to read the card/rehighlight, not insert it.

Emerson Smith George Washington HS 6 rounds

michael swidecki Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 11:25 AM MST

About me:

swideckimichael1@gmail.com (include on email chain please)

8 years and counting policy debate experience. Current University of Kansas Graduate Assistant Coach.

Skip the following section if you are a college debater.

High School specific thoughts for your pref sheets:
1. Yes Speed
2. Yes theory
3. Yes K's (Aff and Neg)
4. Yes evidence sharing
5. Yes off-time roadmaps
6. No grace periods (we have time limits for a reason)
6. No judge intervention
7. Tech over Truth (unless in extreme circumstances as outlined below in point 1)

Some thoughts and useful insights for all debaters (an ever growing list):

1. Familiar with mostly all types of argumentation, I'm down with reading whatever argument suits you, just defend it well. There are very few args I will not vote on. If you say racism/sexism/transphobia/ableism are good you will lose. Everything else is up for debate. I am particularly partial to clever impact turns that catch opponents off guard.

2. I'm becoming increasingly familiar with K literature, I debated as a flex K debater my senior year of college reading args about Queerness and Feminism. Although I assume I'll understand what you are talking about, you should probably not trust me. Thus, if you are going to be relying on some super niche K terms (looking at you Baudrillard teams), I would appreciate a well explained extension just to ensure we are all on the same page in subsequent speeches. I do my best to keep up, but there will always be something that I didn't have time to learn.

3. I like clever counterplans that use the aff against itself (within reason of course, I'm not afraid to vote on theory so be careful with your "creativity"), unless you have really good evidence, I'm not likely to vote on generic CP's that copy and paste the plan text from every round. If the CP is unique to the aff or a small section of affs, that's ideal.

4. 2AC addons are underrated. The neg gets to be flexible and the aff should choose to be as well.

5. Nothing in your speeches should go unjustified, every piece of evidence and every analytic you forward needs to exist for a strategic reason. Chess players (who want to win) don't just move random pieces. Everything is purposeful, strategic, and thoughtful. Your speeches are a piece of art and you should treat them with that respect!

6. Cross-ex is a speech, give it well.

7. Be kind, prep well, debate smart, have fun, good luck.

Lacy Sylvia Alta High School 4 rounds

Zach Thiede Rowland Hall 4 rounds

Malone Urfalian Notre Dame High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 17, 2024 at 3:33 PM PST

add me to the email chain - maloneurfalian@gmail.com

Notre Dame high school - 2018

The burden of the affirmative is to interpret the resolutional question and the burden of the negative is to act as the rejoinder of the aff. This can be whatever you want it to be if it is both flowable and making a clear argument that I can evaluate.

Clear, both argumentatively and speaking wise, debates are good. Unclear and not ideologically consistent arguments are not as good. Teams that tell good stories, see how arguments interact with each other, and contextualize warrants to the round are winning more debates. Debaters that are having fun are also probably happier and gaining more from the activity.

There is an inherent risk in presenting arguments, that is a good thing. Taking these types of intellectual risks helps you grow both in what you know and how you have come to know it. Leaving your argumentative comfort zone is the only way to improve these skills, wether you are reading the new argument or a new argument is presented to you in round.

Debate is fun and also silly! Everyone is doing silly things. It is good to laugh about it.

I have no ideological disposition against any argument. Debate is a free for all. If you think you can win on it, you should go for it. Particularly fond of impact turns and any arguments that challenge an assumption of the argument it is in response to. My version of the truth of an argument has little bearing on my decision, but evidence quality has a high bearing on how the argument is evaluated. Arbitrary line drawing of what I 'will or will not' vote on seems silly, but not in the good way. If had the inverse of this paragraph that said, 'the fifty states counterplan is a non starter for me' I would not be in the back of your round and you would not be reading this.

So, I do not tend to believe that arguments should be dismissed on the grounds of not being 'real', 'practical', or 'worth talking about.' I do not think that a jobs guarantee solving a wage spiral has anymore truth to it than china war good. I do not think that any argument that is not directly personally violent to another debater is a non starter. Autodrop L + ratio for offensive conduct. Judged more than one debate this year where the response to a word pic was to double down on that word. Not a winning strategy. I believe in a good faith apology as defense and some form of offense is a sufficient response. Good faith apology sounds subjective, I think there is a bright line that can demonstrate wether or not an act was intentional and malicious or a result of ignorance and a opportunity to learn. This should be established in the link debating. I would prefer the ballot not be a referendum on someones character. I believe an accusation of a clipping or evidence ethics auto ends the round and supersedes the content of the debate.

I find arguments that exist on polar ends of a bellcurve are more convincing to me because the larger the gap between what my ballot is endorsing and/or resolving the easier it is to think about i.e. heg good vs decol is easier to resolve to me then the perm of a soft left aff about the BIA's failings. I've probably voted for Ligotti and X country first strike about the same amount of times. Both many more than any 'soft left' aff vs a disad or a k. It is not as I don't find these arguments 'real', but that it is rarely debated out to the be the 'best' option to resolve the harms or framing of harms they have presented. I think these fail to capitalize on the benefits of either a critical or policy aff, but they have strategic value in theory. I think soft left aff's sweep non specific links or alts that don't access the impact. But that seems to be reflective of a skill issue on the negatives construction of the link debate more so than endorsement of middle ground strategies. Inversely, meeting on the bottom between poles makes a lot of sense to me and is under represented in negative strategies against arguments on either ideological end. I do think that debate is a util based game, and that winning the framing page thoroughly is the only way to get my ballot in these debates.

In the vein of critical affs I believe debate is a game. I find k affs interesting, strategic, engaging, and fun to think about. When the timer goes off it is still a game to me. I give my rfd, I talk to my debaters about what happened in the round, what we can learn from it, and I move on. Maybe I download some PDF's, cut responses, or pull backfiles if it is particularly compelling. It can be a good game with a code that can be modified round by round, but it is insulated to the 8 speeches. I think tying a personal endorsement to the ballot can be parasitic and result in a negative experience with the game. This can be debated and changed of course, but when I walk into the round I am under the assumption I am adjudicating a game with four players. The way to play that game is up to you. Some rules are negotiable. Some aren't. I think the negative is best serve disproving case in the 2nr when they are going for education/clash impacts. I find it unconvincing that a critical aff is 'unfair and impossible to debate', most of them are not very good. Most of them can be dismantled by reading the book or grad thesis their solvency card comes from. Invest the time do that once and it will change your relationship to the argument. Ballot can solve fairness. Reflecting on past RFD's I have given, to win the fairness impact you need to win that stasis is good and/or their overarching impact turn to fairness is wrong. Usually when I vote against fairness it is because the negative team has not articulated what that means. If your args on case in the 2nr are consequence focus good and pragmatism good, you need to prove why the aff doesn't access these framing arguments. Also why do you? Whats the internal link between consequences and fairness? Why is fairness something that is pragmatic? Why do games nessitate equal starting points? You get to chose where you jump off the battle bus. What is the impact I am evaluating the consequence of when you are going for fairness? Where are analogies and examples that demonstrate how it would materializes in or out of debate?

Where is the global south?

I enjoy reading cards. I enjoy cutting cards. That being said you do not need more than 5 cards to win a debate. If you send me a card doc and I did not hear those author names in the 2nr/2ar something has gone wrong in your construction of that card document. Technically conceded warrantless claims unrelated to the content of the debate do not earn ballots, but this does not mean an argument should not be answered because you think it's 'stupid'. If you cannot beat bad arguments you should not win.

Wether you chose to go for a strategy that centers around material action, epistemological framing, or theoretical illegitimacy, you need to resolve the arguments you are going for. The speech you give should be responsive to the speech before you, not just what you have written on your blocks.

I value technical debate, but I think the energy of a round is inescapable. That energy, moments on the flow, is something lost with eyes locked on the screen. Hundreds and hundreds of individual memories scribed onto long paper. Worlds. Moments. Captured. Even if I never look at them again. There is a reason I wrote it down and I think that is valuable. I'll believe anything.

Is it more truly more efficient to get your 27th condo subpoint out? Maybe it is. But I do not find that style of debate as convincing as taking up the opponent on their position on any level and having it out with them over the course of the round. Trying to win versus trying not to lose seperates the middling to higher teir of speaker points for me.

judge kick -- seems scared when people ask me to judge kick i think that it is an extension of conditionality.

multiplank counterplans -- each plank is conditional unless in a set. These probably also need solvency advocates if they are more than 'ban x' Also when it is 'ban x' arguments in the 2ac as to why banning x might be a bad idea are good and only require evidence in a reciprocal manner.

I remember the rounds I have judged, rooting for you all to get smarter, stronger, and faster when I am in the back of your rounds again !!

Ethan Steven Wall Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 3, 2024 at 11:09 PM MST

Ethanwall2003@gmail.com

Last content update: 01/24

1) Right before the round? Read this: To quote Miles Gray: "Judge philosophies are a bit silly because it is the exceptionally rare case where an issue must be resolved with reference to the judge’s arbitrary preferences. Usually the debaters make their arguments, one side presents a more comprehensive approach to the important issues and frames the close calls, and then judge votes for that team." Given that, I don't include many thoughts about specific arguments in my paradigm because I really don't care what you read in round.

2) Procedural /meta stuff:

- I will not read along with the doc as you give your speech. If you want me to know how awesome your evidence is, you need to do it justice. If there is a card I am perplexed by, I may read it during prep time or cx.

- Please start debates on time, to the minute. The 1AC should be sent with speaker prepared to speak before that minute. A huge pet peeve of mine are teams that are entirely absent until moments before the round.

- Time your own speeches, track your own prep, and do astute line by line/labeling/signposting.

- I flow straight down, and on paper. I appreciate strong communication habits.

- Debate is a game that plays with ideological flexibility, and quick critical thinking. To me, this means I am indifferent towards content and will evaluate nearly any argument. I reserve the right to draw that line on an ad-hoc basis. If you wouldnt say it in a room with a teacher, or member of school administration, definitely don't say it in front of me.

- I believe tech over truth supports objective evaluation of debate rounds, but a fundamental aspect of human communication is that it is not objective. Your performance is as central to the game as the flow. It also doesn't make sense to me to regard truth and ignore tech because to even say truth > tech typically means there will be an answer via tech.

3) How do I decide debate rounds?

It is important to me that students know I will work hard to pay close attention to and adjudicate the debates I watch.

I will look at my flow

1 - I will always use the path of least intervention. I find that each debate has a few key questions that typically determine the direction of the round. If one of those key questions is entirely conceded and there are no cross applications that sufficiently answer it (or if those cross applications happen too late) I will usually vote against the team that has technically conceded important portions of the debate. Please minimize intervention as much as possible by writing my ballot for me(tying it all together + using argument resolution)

I will look at my flow

2 - I will isolate those key issues of the debate and cross examine myself about how they happened in the debate. (what abouts, is this new, are there answers to answers unanswered, etc) In an ideal world, most of the thinking is done by you, telling me how to think about it. If you want to leave it up to me to think about it, be my guest.

Then I will look at my flow

3 - I will read evidence on those key issues to see how the evidence supports the answers.

I will look at my flow again

4 - I will pause to fill in speaker points.

I will look at my flow some more

5- RFD (unless specified by the tournament I should not)

6 - QnA;

4) Speaker points guide

- I tailor the points I give out to the tournament I am judging.

- CX is my favorite speech in debate, unfortunately, it's usually the one I find most disappointing. Sometimes less is more.

- I love debate! I smile, I nod, I shake my head. My eyebrows wiggle. This is not necessarily an indication of winning or losing the round/any particular argument, I'm just vibing. If you make me laugh, bonus speaks for you!

If you are antagonistic to your opponents, I am going to give you a 20. Full stop. I am not cool with being rude to opponents. By all means, be witty, sarcastic, sassy, humorous, I like that stuff. Personal attacks are uncool. This is a tight-knit community, and we all need to treat it that way.

Caitlin Walrath South Eugene High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 22, 2024 at 6:32 AM EST

Debate History:

Juan Diego Catholic: 2011-2014 (1N/2A and 1A/2N)

Rowland Hall-St. Marks: 2014-2015 (1A/2N)

University of Michigan: 2015-2019 (1A/2N)

University of Kentucky: 2019-2020 (Assistant Coach)

Wake Forest University: 2020-2024 (Assistant Coach)

University of Utah: Present (Poetry, NFA-LD Lead Coach || Parli (NPDA/IPDA) Assistant Coach)

*Please put me on the email chain: caitlinp96@gmail.com - NO POCKETBOXES OR WHATEVER PLEASE AND THANK YOU*

TL;DR: You do you, and I'll flow and judge accordingly. Make smart arguments, be yourself, and have fun. Ask questions if you have them post-round / time permits. I would rather you yell at me (with some degree of respect) and give me the chance to explain why you lost so that you can internalize it rather than you walk away pissed/upset without resolution. An argument = claim + warrant. You may not insert rehighlighted evidence into the record - you have to read it, debate is a communicative activity.

General thoughts: I enjoy debate immensely and I hope to foster that same enjoyment in every debate I judge. With that being said, you should debate how you like to debate and I’ll judge fairly. I will immediately drop a team and give zero speaks if you make this space hostile by making offensive remarks or arguments that make it unsafe for others in the round (to be judged at my discretion). Clipping accusations must have audio or some form of proof. Debaters do not necessarily have to stake the round on an ethics violation. I also believe that debaters need to start listening to each other's arguments more, not just flowing mindlessly - so many debates lose potential nuance and clash because debaters just talk past each other with vague references to the other team's arguments. I can't/won't vote on an argument about something that happened outside the debate. I have no way of falsifying any of this and it's not my role as a judge. This doesn't apply to new affs bad if both teams agree that the aff is new, but if it's a question of misdisclosure, I really wouldn't know what to do (stolen from DML and Goldschlag). *NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me. (stolen from Val)

General K thoughts:

- AT: Do you judge these debates/know what is happening? Yes, its basically all I judge anymore (mostly clash of civs)

- AT: Since you are familiar with our args, do we not have to do any explanation specific to the aff/neg args? No, you obviously need to explain things

- AT: Is it cool if I just read Michigan KM speeches I flowed off youtube? If you are reading typed out copies of someone else's speech, I'm going to want to vote against you and will probably be very grumpy. Debate is a chance for you to show off your skill and talent, not just copy someone's speech you once saw on youtube.

K (Negative) – enjoyable if done well. Make sure the links are specific to the case and cause an impact. Make sure that the alt does something to resolve those impacts and links as well as some aff offense OR have a framework that phases out aff offense and resolves yours. Assume I know nothing about your literature base. Try not to have longer than a 2-minute overview

K (Affirmative) / Framework – probably should have some relation to the resolution otherwise it's easy to be persuaded that by the interp that you need to talk about the resolution. Probably should take some sort of action to resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. I think FW debates are important to have because they force you to question why this space has value and/or what needs to change in said space. Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Affirmative teams should have a robust reason why their aff is necessary to resolve certain impacts and why framework is bad. Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like if I sign my ballot aff or neg and why that vision is better than the other side’s. Fairness is an impact and is easily the one I'm most persuaded by, particularly if couched in terms of it being the only impact any individual ballot can solve AND being a question of simply who's model is most debatable (think competing interps).

T is distinct from Framework in these debates in so far as I believe that:

- T is a question of form, not content -- it is fundamentally content neutral because there can be any number of justifications beyond simply just the material consequences of hypothetical enactment for any number of topical affs

- Framework is more a question of why this particular resolution is educationally important to talk about and why the USfg is the essential actor for taking action over these questions

Case – Please, please, please debate the case. I don’t care if you are a K team or a policy team, the case is so important to debate. Most affs are terribly written and you could probably make most advantages have almost zero risk if you spent 15 minutes before round going through aff evidence. Zero risk exists.

CPs – Sure. Negative teams need to prove competition and why they are net beneficial to the aff. Affirmative needs to impact out solvency deficits and/or explain why the perm avoids the net benefit. Affs also must win some form of offense to outweigh a DA (solvency deficits, theory, impact turn to an internal nb/plank of the cp) otherwise I could be persuaded that the risk of neg offense outweighs a risk a da links to the cp, the perm solvency, etc.

DAs – Also love them. Negative teams should tell me the story of the DA through the block and the 2nr. Affirmative teams need to point out logical flaws in the DA and why the aff is a better option. Zero risk exists.

Politics – probably silly, but I’ll vote on it. I could vote on intrinsicness as terminal defense if debated well.

Topicality – You need a counter-interp to win reasonabilty on the aff. I default to competing interpretations if there is no other metric for evaluation.

Theory – the neg has been getting away with murder recently and its incredibly frustrating. Brief thoughts on specific args below:

- cps with a bunch of planks to fiat out of every possible solvency deficit with no solvency advocate = super bad

- 3+ condo with a bunch of conditional planks = bad

- cps that fiat things such as: "Pence and Trump resign peacefully after [x] date to avoid the link to the politics da", "Trump deletes all social media and never says anything bad about the action of the plan ever", "Trump/executive office/other actor decides never to backlash against the plan or attempt to circumvent it" = vomit emoji

- commissions cps = still cheating, but less bad than all the things above

- delay cps = boo

- consult cps = boo (idk if these exist on the immigration topic, but w/e)

- going for theory when you read a new aff = nah fam (with some exceptions)

- 2nr cps (yes this happened recently) = boo

- going for condo when they read 2 or less without conditional planks = boo

- perf con is a reason you get to sever your reps for any perm

- theory probably does not outweigh T unless impacted very early, clearly, and in-depth

Bonus – Speaker Point Outline – I’ll try to follow this very closely (TOC is probably the exception because y'all should be speaking in the 28.5+ category):

(Note: I think this scale reflects general thoughts that are described in more detail in this: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html - Thanks Regnier)

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity policy debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

T Weddington Head-Royce High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 27, 2024 at 9:30 AM EST

Affiliations:

University of Rochester (Debater): 2008-2012
CUNY Debate (Coach): 2012-2015
WVU Debate (Coach): 2012-2018
University of Rochester (Assistant Director): 2019-2021
Head-Royce (Coach-Director-Coach): 2017-2024

top level predispositions (Update pre-season fall 2024):

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

I won't be reading along with you, and won't spot either team args from pieces of evidence that weren't made in speeches. I'll resolve comparative evidentiary claims, if necessary, after the round.

If I think something racist, sexist, etc. has happened in the round, I'm not going to tabroom lol. If it's especially flagrant I'll vote and talk to coaches, but I can't say how I'll react in every instance. I think that the go to tabroom argument is a non starter and naive about how social dynamics play out in the debate community. I'm also an adult and an educator, so given such behavior has occurred I'm not sure why I would leave students in that situation.

Ethics challenges:

a. I'm not reading along, so I'm not listening for clipping especially close. You should probably record if you think that there's any clipping occurring.
b. Miscut/mischaracterization of evidence: I take this very seriously and will compare the card with the original text to see if any decontextualization / recontextualization / academic dishonesty has occurred. I do not evaluate intent but I do evaluate impact and fidelity to the article or book's original argument.

Plan texts nowadays aren't really descriptive of what the aff will defend and I think negative teams don't take advantage of that enough. I don't like affs that speculative questions about what would or wouldn't be mandated by the plan as if advanced policy debaters should stick their heads in the soil around what normal means to implement a legislative change would entail. I think that affs around a fiated plan should decide what they do and don't defend and plan subsequent strategy accordingly. I will expect aff teams not to dodge simple questions about whether they use courts/congress, about what grounds for claims of IP infringement they establish, etc. I will also tend to read the debate through answers to such questions in CX. Being forthcoming and orienting your strategy around what the aff does is a much better basis for a win in front of me than trying to hide your hand.

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

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

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

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

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

Longer meditations below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affs I don't like:

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

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

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

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

Negs I don't like:

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

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

Theoretically inconsistent/conflicting K strats.

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

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

he/him/his

Kimball Yeates Hire 3 rounds

Eric Zhu Green Canyon High School 3 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Alta Silver and Black

2023 — Sandy, UT/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges