Northwood '23. Assistant Coach at LASA.

niharrabhyankar@gmail.com

Don't call me judge.

Be nice.

Flow.

You cannot say death is good.

Don't clip. Don't steal prep. Be organized. Be prepared.

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Tech over truth.

Email Chain:tjbdebate@gmail.com

Assistant Coach at College Prep. Debated at Damien High School (2016-2020).

There are very view things content-wise that I actually have major predispositions about in debate. I do have some biases about some arguments but those are mitigated by clear judge instruction and impact comparison. I mostly desire to judge rounds with explicit ballot writing, line-by-line argument comparison, and impact calculus at the top of each part of the round. I know this sounds obvious, but I believe that the current state of debate is too centered around cloud clash and proliferating warrantless claims and hoping that the judge can resolve it themselves without explicit instruction.

My philosophy is simply that I will flow and listen to every part of the debate and evaluate it given the instructions of the 2NR and 2AR. Absent those instructions, I will try to reconstruct the debate as I saw it and make a decision based on how I view arguments which in many ways can frustrate and upset teams who fail to meet that minimum standard of argumentation. I do not mean this to be a warning but rather a reminder that debate is a communicative activity and that just because it sounds good in your head doesn't mean that is how it was conveyed to me.

Good line-by-line debating means extending not only a central claim and its supporting warrants but also giving some type of comparison between arguments that extends beyond publishing date and author qualifications. There must always be a focus on isolating good warrants and extrapolating how those should be impacted out compared to the opposing arguments. Without this very fundamental concept, debate turns into a comparison of monologues without genuine and effective clash, thus removing value from the activity. If in doubt, the "they say, we say" model is the best and most effective way to attack the line-by-line.

I reward teams that flow, signpost, and clearly segment the debate into identifiable arguments. Speeding through blocks all the way through the 2AR does nothing to influence my ballot and makes me rather upset since it just seems like a reading contest instead of contextual and reactive debating. I try to flow on paper without looking at my computer so the burden of communication is on the debaters. If you are not clear or are spreading to blocks at unchecked speed, you may be upset at my decision since I can only evaluate what I have on my flow. I am human and will make mistakes but I usually do not miss anything of great consequence on my flow but that still requires you to be clear and concise.

Below are some argument choices that I have specific thoughts about:

K-Affs vs. Framework -

I have voted for both sides in these debates. I really couldn't care less about what the 1AC is about. I prefer there to be some link to the topic but if you can a reason why there shouldn't be one then my feelings are irrelevant. Fairness is not a terminal impact to me. In most rounds, the negative just says that is an intrinsic good and that is about it. I think there procedural fairness is good because it can lead to discussions of the topic or solution based dialogue, but on its own there have been no compelling reasons why it is independently good. I am much more persuaded by framework arguments like topic education good, state engagement good, consequence-based clash good, clash and agonism good, and skills good since those have the capacity to effect real world decision making more. I have voted for fairness but I think that it more just seems like whining instead of a genuine call for resolution of cheating, given that there has probably never been a perfectly fair debate ever. I've voted on it because the aff has been technically behind but in closely contested rounds, I think I have a more aff leaning record against fairness. Honestly, if you want to go for this argument I don't mind because if you can win it on the flow then none of my thoughts matter, but if the aff is doing their job well, I won't just check out on it.

Microaggressions -

I would prefer that this argument be reserved for when there have been in-round incidents of interpersonal violence on the basis of identity instead of calling an argument serves as offense against you this. I have plenty of reasons why but the main two are this: 1. If a microaggression has occurred I will probably know that it has and my role has shifted to being the only adult in the room with young students and I will prioritize everyone's safety over the result of the round. I do not think that real instances of violence or aggression can or should be litigated with the power of the ballot. If this happens in a round, I will not hesitate to tell tab and the coaches of both teams what has happened since you all are students first and foremost and competitors second. I think the tab solves argument should resolve any other questions. 2. I think that calling procedural arguments microagressions trivializes true forms of violence in an attempt to win a ballot. This should not be the A strategy because it utilizes real forms of violence and creates what I believe to be a false equivalence with arguments that set a limit to discussion. I think that framework can be criticized for bracketing out content but those arguments are distinct from microaggressions.

**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 or 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. i forgot what eight was for.

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?"

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know: do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They give poorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
• They reconstruct the debate and try to find the most creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
• If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that, when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparison is under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school. If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
• On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points give highly organized and structuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, and emphasize key moments in their speeches.
• Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview and do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them. I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NC for me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefer case-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
• Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think that I lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

• I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
• I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

• Look and sound like you want to be here. Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
• Argument resolution minimizes judge intervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
• Demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate. If you're reading pre-scripted 2NC/2NR/2AR blocks without adapting the language to the specifics of your debate, you've only proven that you're literate but possibly also an NPC. I would much rather hear you give a 2NR/2AR without a laptop, just off your paper flows, even if it's not as smooth.
• I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast, being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher points and never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
• Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards. It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

For e-mail chains (both pls):

damiendebate47@gmail.com

mcclurecronin@gmail.com

About me - I debated for 8 years competitively, starting at Douglas High School (Minden, NV) before transferring to Sage Ridge (Reno, NV) where I debated with the incredibly brilliant Kristen Lowe. We were the first team from Northern Nevada to qualify to the TOC and had a pretty consistent record of deep elim appearances. I went on to debate at Wake Forest University (class of '17) with varying amounts of success on a wide range of arguments, finishing my career with Varun Reddy in semis of CEDA. I currently work as a legal assistant and lobbyist in Reno/Carson City when I'm not out and about judging and coaching debate.

I have also been published a couple times. I don't think any of it applies, but please don't read my work in front of me. That's just awkward.

2023-24 Update: I am just getting back into debate after a roughly 2 year hiatus. Please slow down a tad and know that my prior experience with the topic (camps, summer files, etc.) is pretty much nonexistent.

Generally - YOU DO YOU!!! I cannot stress that enough. Be aware of my general thoughts on debate, but I want to judge the debate that you want to have!! I have increasingly found that my role as an educator and adjudicator in debate prioritizes the debaters themselves, whatever argument that they want to make, and providing them with the advice and opportunities to be better that I can. It is extremely unlikely (but not impossible) that you read an argument that is entirely new to me.

Whether the 1AC has a plan, an advocacy text, or neither, truly makes no difference to me. It is up to you to explain to me why I should care. I have become increasingly frustrated with the people so quick to say "no plan, no chance at my ballot". This is a pedagogical question.

I consider myself a hard working judge. I will flow, I will read cards, and I will take the time to make the best decision I can.

That being said, the following are my thoughts on certain arguments and some pointers on how to win my ballot.

The kritik - Really dig K debates. I'm pretty well read in a lot of different theories and genuinely enjoy reading critical theory, but I still prefer clarity in explanation. The less jargon you use, the easier it will be to win a K in front of me. Overall, I find that framework args are increasingly irrelevant to the way that I evaluate these debates. Both teams will (hopefully) always win why their conversation is good, so just do the impact calc. But also answer critical framing args about ethics/reps/ontology/etc. For the aff - I find that permutations are pretty underutilized when it comes to mitigating links and find myself voting aff in policy v K debates on permutations more than I would have anticipated. Alternatives are usually the weakest part of a K IMO so leveraging bits and pieces that may not be mutually exclusive, in addition to winning some offense/defense, will go a long way. I also think impact turning is something that is truly underutilized by affirmatives that are facing off with a kritik. Digging in on certain points of neg offense can work wonders. DO NOT say things like anti-blackness, sexism, ableism, etc. are good though. PLEASE explain why your aff outweighs the K, especially if you have big stick impacts that are basically designed for some of these debates... For the neg - framing is absolutely essential. I like 2NRs on the K that guide me through my decision in a technical fashion. Links should obviously be as contextualized to the aff as possible. I am frequently persuaded by teams that realize the alt is a dumpster fire and shift to framework for the same effect. I am more likely to vote negative when there is case debating happening in line with the K, as well. Whether that is impact defense or some sort of "satellite" K, well, that's up to you.

The flourishing of performance debate has really effected the way that I think about form and content in the debate setting. I think these arguments are extremely valuable to the activity and I thoroughly enjoy debates about debate as well.

The DA - I think these debates are pretty straight forward. Do your impact calc, win your link, answer uniqueness overwhelms, etc. I like power plays where the aff straight turns a DA, especially if the 1NC was a lot of off case positions.

The CP - don't judge as many of these debates as I would like. A good counterplan with a specific solvency advocate will impress me. I think these arguments are relatively straight forward as well. In terms of theory issues like PICs bad, condo bad, etc., I truly don't have much of an opinion on these issues, but that doesn't mean I will let you get away with shenanigans. I would prefer arguments to be contextualized to in round abuse claims and how the role of the affirmative became structurally impossible. Rarely do I judge a theory debate, but I would be interested to hear more of them.

I do not default to kicking the CP for the negative. I think the 2NR needs to make that choice for themselves and stick with it. That doesn't necessarily mean I cannot be persuaded otherwise, however. This question should be raised before the 2NR for it to be persuasive to me.

Topicality - I like T debates. Limits isn't an impact in and of itself, I want to hear more explanation on how limits effects what should be your "vision of the topic" holistically, what affs and ground exist within it, and why those debates are good. Education impacts that are contextualized and specific will go a long way for me, whether it be in the context of the aff or the resolution.

I am increasingly persuaded by teams that give me a case list and explain what sort of ground exists within that limited topic.

Framework - I am an advocate for engaging with the affirmative and whatever it is that they have to say. I don't think framework should be taken off the table completely, though, and if you do plan to go for it just know that I require a lot more work on a topical version of the aff and some sort of in-road to how you resolve the claims of the 1AC. There are a lot of framework debates I have judged where I wish the 2NR did some work on the case flow -- ex: aff is about movements, 2NR makes arguments about why movements are coopted or repressed, therefore state engagement is essential.... whatever.

Procedural fairness is becoming less and less persuasive to me. I would vote on it if I have to, but I likely won't be happy.

I believe that debate is a game, but a game that has unique pedagogical benefits.

I may seem "K happy" but I promise my judging record proves that I am more than willing to vote on framework. But like I said, there needs to be more interaction between the affirmative and a limited vision of the topic. I have found that a lot of teams give case lists (both on the aff and the neg) but there is little to no clash over what those affirmatives are and why they are or are not good for debate. If you are trying to make arguments about why your vision of the topic provides a better set of affirmations, whether policy or critical, then there must be some comparison between the two. And those comparisons must have some sort of impact.

Other things - if there is anything else, please feel free to ask me. I know that some of this is vague, but my thoughts tend to change based off of the argument that is being presented and how exactly it is explained. I probably lean more on the side of truth over tech, but that doesn't mean I will make a decision wholly irrelevant to what is said in the debate unless I feel that it is absolutely necessary and something terrible happened. Plus I like to think I keep a clean flow so obvi tech still matters. I have absolutely no qualms checking debaters that are being rude or problematic. That being said, I look forward to judging you and happy prep!

Playlist Update: TFA '25 - i like music a lot, it was going to be my career before debate ruined my life. i listen to a confusingly wide range of it. debaters and coaches can recommend me a song to listen to during prep or decision time - good enough songs may merit a small (+0.1) speaks bump for everyone in the room. a friend told me since i ask debaters to recommend me music, i should put the music i'm listening to here for reference. currently listening to Texas Flood - Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble.

TFA Rant - a few big updates that i think matter for strategy and speaker points. nothing new per se, but this season has accelerated my final metamorphosis into a grumpy old person judge and made a few tendencies that generally ring true to me stick out more than usual:

1. neg teams need to read better cards and read cards better. i am not the card machine i used to be, and i will never knock the 2n hustle - sometimes the 2nr just has to be slop by necessity - but i am increasingly frustrated by the absence of quality, aff-specific evidence produced by 1ncs - cutting 2-4 cards about the 1ac's legal framework being nonsense is a much more winning addition to neg strat than the third process counterplan. most affs on this topic do not solve, are not key to the impact, read cards that say nothing, and are an ungodly amalgamation of legal standards that were never meant to intersect in the way 2as are forcing them to - the number of advantages that can be reduced to zero by a smart cx and recuttings or even just close readings of 1ac evidence is only matched by the number of 2ns that fail to do it. i get this topic is rough for the neg, but it's not that rough - we can cut a real disad, a case turn, or a deficit every once in a while (or even, god forbid, go for the K). IP bad is not astounding by any means, but with smart debating and good cards it beats 80% of what qualifies as a neg generic on this topic (*cough*sui generis*cough*).

2. i am increasingly astounded by how good i am for the "soft left" aff. this may be related to the above, but most disads and net benefits have laughable internal links and in no coherent world are a higher risk than the aff. this is not carte blanche to say "menand 5" at the impact and move on, but it is to say that if you are reading a 1ac that is built to capitalize on defending an impact that is "smaller", but starts at 100% risk, you should take me extremely high and expect speaker points bordering on irresponsible if you can execute. i am in no way bad for extinction in these debates, but "util=trutil" is increasingly less an argument and more a dogma judges and debaters cling to, and quality evidence and smart cx beats nonsense 2nr ramblings about 1% risk + 10 cards citing Bostrom/MacAskill and the CSER that border on sociopathic. this could also be me just getting bored of abstractions like "try or die" vs "timeframe controls the direction of turns case" as a substitute for real impact calculus, though, so reading an aff with a real advantage and making smart answers to the disad likely helps you here as well.

3. clash debates suck and framework teams are getting worse. this is not to say i am worse for framework - i am as good, if not better for it, than ever - but it is to say that the 2ns who seem most committed to the idea framework is an engaging and responsive negative strategy are making the best possible case for why it isn't one. most 2ncs and 2nrs are scripted essays with zero allusion to the aff or it's evolution through the debate, and your blocks are brain-meltingly boring. if you gave the same 2nr impact overview on a disad regardless of what aff scenarios you were weighing it against it would be lazy and unstrategic debating (maybe a bad example, since 2ns do this one a lot now too), yet i have heard the same "clash turns the case" speech a billion times without explanation of the contours of said "clash" or what parts of "the case" it turns, which has led to an increasing aff win-rate. look, i'm maybe in the minority of "k people" at this point who actually agrees fairness is an impact and framework substantively answers these affs - but you gotta, you know, answer the aff with it. come on, gamers.

4. k teams are getting annoying again and 2as need to stand on business more. the first time i saw antonio 95 in a neg doc this year i almost had a stroke. 90% of 2ns who go for "microaggressions" as a framework angle couldn't define the term if pushed. i can't really blame neg teams though - the reason these strategies win is because 2as are failing to call stupid stupid and instead pretending calling tabroom over the imaginary microaggression that is "reading a plan" is a substitute for answering the K and forcing the neg to win a real link argument. if the 2nr is 5 minutes of ontology and fiat bad, the 2ar can and should punish them by straight turning this for 5 minutes straight. framework alone is not a neg win condition, it just sets one - 2as need to have the guts to win under it anyways or double down on setting their own so we can get out of this mess (because that's how the meta finally shifted away from this last time we were here). in general, 2ar brute-force against the K needs to make a comeback.

5. debaters should try to be jerks less. i'm not a decorum fiend by any means, and this isn't to say you can't have swagger or enjoy throwing down, but the level of outright posturing has far outpaced any justification for it from debaters. i was *also* annoyingly self-righteous earlier in my coaching and debating career and probably felt every debate was a chance to prove something or settle some imagined beef, so i really get it, but we all grow up eventually, and i cannot help but cringe at this sort of thing in retrospect. i promise you being level-headed and direct while simply debating better is far bigger aura than whatever is happening in most CXes these days. debate is a community of profound differences, but everyone i've ever met in debate tends to agree on a few things: none of us had to show up or do this on a random weekend, this whole thing kinda sucks when you take it too seriously, but we ultimately do it anyways for a shared love of the game. there are far too few rounds in a debater's (or even judge's) career to waste it on being annoying about nothing.

All chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com

and, please also add (based on event):

HSPD: dulles.policy.db8@gmail.com

HSLD: loyoladebate47@gmail.com

CPD: uhoustondebate@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

"takes his job seriously, but not himself."

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

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

overall, flexibility is king. on average, i'm happiest in debates where the aff says "plan, it's good", the negative says "disad" or "kritik", and lots of cards are read, but high-quality, well-warranted arguments + judge instruction >>> any specific positions - Kant, planless affs, process counterplans, and topicality can be vertically dense, cool debates. they can also be total slop. every judge thinks arguments are good or bad, which makes them easier or harder to vote on, usually unconsciously. i'm trying to make it clear what i think good and bad arguments are and how to debate around that. i'm a full time coach and i judge tons of debates (by the end of the 24-25 season, i will have judged 900 rounds since graduating in 2019), but my topic/argument knowledge won't save bad debating. i flow carefully and value "tech" over "truth", but dropped arguments are only as good as the dropped argument itself - i don't start flowing until i hear a warrant, and i find i have a higher threshold for warrants and implications than most. i take offense/defense very seriously - debating comparatively is much better than abstractions.

quoth Bankey: "Please don’t be boring. Your pre-written blocks are boring." increasingly annoyed at the amount of rebuttal speeches that are entirely read off a doc. a speech off your flow that is obviously based on the round that just happened with breaks in fluency/efficiency will get higher speaks than a speech that is technically perfect but barely contextual to the debate i'm judging.

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

"act like you've been here."

details

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

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

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

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

- case debates: miss them. advantages are terrible, easily link turned, and most aff's don't solve. solvency can be zero with smart CX, close reading of 1ac ev, and analytics. executing this well gets high speaker points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- aff on theory: “riders” to the plan, plan being "horse-traded" - not how fiat works. counterplans that fiat actors different from the plan (including states) - a misunderstanding of negation theory/neg fiat. will probably never drop more than the argument. neg on theory: literally everywhere else. arbitrariness objection strong. i don't think new affs justify neg terrorism - seems silly, 2ns should pre-emptively case neg things - but i do think being neg justifies it. i consider conditionality a divine right and will defend it with religious zeal. RVIs don't get flowed. these are the strongest opinions in this paradigm. i am an unapologetic hack on these matters.LD theory shenanigans: non-starter.

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

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

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

- if the above is insufficiently detailed, see: Richard Garner, James Allan, J.D. Sanford (former coaches), Brett Cryan (former 2A), Holden Bukowsky, Bryce Sheffield (former teammates), Aiden Kim, Sean Wallace, (former students) and Ali Abdulla (best debate bud). my ordinal 1 for most of college was DML.

procedural notes

- flowing: i do it on my laptop. i have pretty bad hearing damage in my left ear (tinnitus), and i don’t flow off the doc. i will occasionally open docs during CX or prep time if a particular card becomes important, but this is not something you should bank on to save you being incomprehensible. i consider myself really good at flowing, but clarity matters a lot – 2x "clear", then I stop typing, put my hands up, and stare at you uncomfortably until you catch on. debaters go through tags and analytics too quickly – give me pen time, or i will take pen time. you can ask to see my flow after the debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- speaks: decided by me, based on quality of arguments and execution + how fun you are to judge, relative to given tournament pool. 28.5 = 3-3, 29+ = clearing + bidding, 29.5+ = top 5-10 speakers + late elims, 30 = perfect speeches, no notes. no low-point wins, generally - every bad move by a winning team correlates to a missed opportunity by the loser.

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

- when debating an opponent of low experience, i will heavily reward giving younger debaters the dignity of a real debate they can still participate in (i.e: slower, fewer off, more forthcoming in CX). if you believe the best strategy against a novice/lay debater is extending hidden aspec, i will assume you are too bad at debate to beat a novice without hidden aspec, and speaks will reflect that. these debates are negatively educational and extremely annoying.

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

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

closing thoughts

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

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

good luck! have fun!

- pat

About me:

Notre Dame HS '23

1A/2N for 3 years

2A/1N for 1 year

CSUS '27 (I'm on their LD team)

Please call me Mari (not Mary) or Atlas, either one works, don't use my full name. Thanks

pls add me to the email chain: marianagarcia.debate@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/He/She

TLDR;

Have fun. Make strategic arguments and work hard. Debate is a game and if you are dedicated enough, you will succeed. A dropped argument is true if you explain why.

It's your responsibility to explain the arguments being made to me. The cards support your argument. If you have any questions after the debate don't be afraid to email me or ask questions.

I have no topic knowledge so don't overuse jargon I won't understand. Explain in-depth and how each arguments connect.

Slow down on Taglines/analytics/theory. I am extremely nit-picky when it comes to spreading analytics/ overviews/taglines/ theory/ whatever you did not flash. Don't spread it.

Online db8:

My wifi is sometimes bad so I might have to ask you to repeat certain things. If you have wifi issues I understand, just let me know and we can pause the debate and wait for you to get it fixed. Please do not say you have tech issues just to steal prep time.

I'm ok with spreading but please speak clearly. Clarity>speed

I will only say clear twice.

DAs

TL: DA o/w Case

Im ok with DAs, just explain the story of the DA to me. What is your uq claim, how do you link to the plan, IL, and why does that lead to your impact. I want to see the links explained and not a shallow explanation of the tagline. I won't buy it.

"Any risk of the DA means you vote neg" ok why? what are you winning on?

Specific links > generic -- its ok if you don't have specific links tho, you're just gonna have to do extra work to convince me. Sure read more links in the block as long you choose one in the 2NR and explain.

CPs

I have no problem voting for a counterplan. I do think the CP should have a net benefit or INB and it should be explained in-round.

Do not be afraid to run a CP. Specify what the net-benefit is in CX and explain their relation with each other.

• Process and Consult CPs are pretty abusive
• artificial cps are ok but its gonna be hard to convince me

Conditionality: Sure, don't have a problem. You can run as many arguments as you want, as long by the 2nc/2nr its been kicked out. If not then I think the aff can go for condo -- its more on my theory explanation.

T

T is good- tho it's the neg's job to tell me why the aff is untopical and why that is bad for debate.

W/M , C/I , and your standards

The aff should explain why that's not true, etc.

It's your job to clash with competing interps

I don't like T when its clear that the Aff is topical or when theres no standards. If I think your aff is untopical it's probably untopical.

T comes first

Ks

I love Ks. I've gone for Settler Colonialism, Security, Cap, and Queer cyborg. When explaining your K, explain to me why the alt solves the links, impacts and plan. Just because i know these Ks dont assume I know what your cards are talking about. You gotta explain your thesis/ theory of power to me and why its important in the debate. Your explanation of the alt is so important. It's the weakest part of the K so when someone doesn't explain it well, it hurts. Extend your FW then pick and choose which is your strongest i/l impact to extend in the 2NR. Running a poorly explained K is not fun to watch.

Don't just say you link without explaining to me why the aff causes ur impacts or why it continues x, y , z. You should def go down the lbl in the 2nc. Specific link > generic

Just because I'm queer doesn't mean you should run queer theory in front of me. I'm not well versed with the lit. When it comes to High theory, I know a bit but not enough to understand what you're saying. If you do plan to run Baudrillard, Fanon, Hegel, Deleuze, etc or any high theory, you're going to have to explain to me in depth.

- Joshua Michael taught me all I know

When it comes to alts don't try to be shifty and change what your alt does--either you mindshift change or do a material alt-- i.e if you read Tuck and Yang and say you don't do material decol, why are you reading Tuck and Yang?

Mind-shift change alts can be easy to perm.

Take from the 1AC and use crossX to prove your links.

K-aff

I prefer K v policy debates than K v K debates. I usually always went for FW v K debate but that doesn't mean I enjoy them. Don't overuse jargon if you aren't going to explain what they mean, because i won't understand. Weigh your impacts against the FW or at least turn their impacts on FW. I need you to do extra work to prove that the aff can solve your impacts.

Theory

theory debates are fun when you have a reason to run it

Condo when there are more than 7 off>>

I have a lower threshold for the aff on Condo. I think that answering 13min of the block when the neg has read more than 5 off is unfair. Although I think it's answerable if you prioritize the right arguments and understand what's happening in the round.

pls dont hide Aspec within T

Just because I love theory does not mean I'll vote on a 5min condo with little to no explanation. If you think you're losing the theory debate, don't go for it. I don't believe in disclosure theory when someone changes to a common aff or its the first tournament of the season. I do believe that if the neg or aff refuses to tell the other or disclose then yes disclosure. I won't vote on it alone tho.Prove in-round abuse.

Case

Case is so important! please please extend your evidence and do evidence comparison. Tell me why i should prioritize your plan over what the neg is suggesting. Explain how doing the plan is good for us and why it outweighs. This should follow the lbl and you should have a short o/v on top by the rebuttal. Please don't forget about Solvency

MISC.

-SIGN POST PLEASE. If you start jumping flow from flow i will get lost and miss arguments

-Don't forget about roadmaps

-Pls respect each other, if you dont i will dock points

-don't support anything that ends with "ism"

-please make your CX useful!! Thats your time to ask smart questions to help you

-Do not clip cards- if you do i will stop the debate.

- If you ask me to drop an arg or cross apply to a diff arg i will

-dont read new evidence in ur rebuttals

-judge instruction! it will make my job so much easier!

• don't forget to smile and have fun :)
• Please make jokes

I am a coach at C.K. McClatchy West Campus, and Ghidotti Early College High Schools, and the Board President of the Sacramento Urban Debate League. My general philosophy is run whatever you want, do it as fast as you want, just be clear. I will vote on just about anything except racist, sexist, homophobic etc arguments. I see my job as a judge as evaluating the evidence in the round and deciding the debate based on what is said without my intervention to the greatest degree possible.

That said, I do have a few notions about how I evaluate arguments:

Topicality -- I vote on it. I do not have any "threshold" for topicality -- either the aff is topical or it is not. That said, for me in evaluating topicality, the key is the interpretation. The first level of analysis is whether the aff meets the neg interpretation. If the aff meets the neg interpretation, then the aff is topical. I have judged far too many debates where the negative argues that their interpretation is better for education, ground etc, but does not address why the aff does not meet the negative interpretation and then is angry when I vote affirmative. For me if the aff meets the neg interpretation that is the end of the topicality debate.

If the aff does not meet, then I need to decide which interpretation is better. The arguments about standards should relate to 1) which standards are more important to evaluate and 2) why either the negative or affirmative interpretation is better in terms of those standards (for example, not just why ground is a better standard but why the affirmative or negative interpretation is better for ground). Based on that, I can evaluate which standards to use, and which interpretation is better in terms of those standards. I admit the fact that I am a lawyer who has done several cases about statutory interpretation influences me here. I see the resolution as a statement that can have many meanings, and the goal of a topicality debate is to determine what meaning is best and whether the affirmative meets that meaning.

That said, I will reject topicality on generic affirmative arguments such as no ground loss if they are not answered. However, I see reasonability as a way of evaluating the interpretation (aff says their interpretation is reasonable, so I should defer to that) as opposed to a general statement without grounding in an interpretation (aff is reasonably topical so don't vote on T).

I will listen to critiques of the notion of topicality and I will evaluate those with no particular bias either way.

Theory -- Its fine but please slow down if you are giving several rapid fire theory arguments that are not much more than tags. My default is the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument and not the team. If you want me to put the round on it, I will but I need more than "voter" when the argument is presented. I need clearly articulated reasons why the other team should lose because of the argument.

Disadvantages and counterplans are fine. Although people may not believe it, I am just as happy judging a good counterplan and disad debate as I am judging a K debate. I have no particular views about either of those types of arguments. I note however that I think defensive arguments can win positions. If the aff wins there is no link to the disad, I will not vote on it. If the neg wins a risk of a link, that risk needs to be evaluated against the risk of any impacts the aff wins. Case debates are good too.

Ks: I like them and I think they can be good arguments. I like specific links and am less persuaded by very generic links such as "the state is always X." Unless told otherwise, I see alternatives to K's as possible other worlds that avoid the criticism and not as worlds that the negative is advocating. With that in mind, I see K's differently than counterplans or disads, and I do not think trying to argue Kritiks as counterplans (floating PIC arguments for example) works very well, and I find critical debates that devolve into counterplan or disad jargon to be confusing and difficult to judge, and they miss the point of how the argument is a philosophical challenge to the affirmative in some way. Framework arguments on Ks are fine too, although I do not generally find persuasive debate theory arguments that Kritiks are bad (although I will vote on those if they are dropped). However, higher level debates about whether policy analysis or critical analysis is a better way to approach the world are fine and I will evaluate those arguments.

K and Non-traditional affs: I am open to them but will also evaluate arguments that they are illegitimate. I think this is a debate to have (although I prefer judging substantive debates in these types of rounds). I tend to think that affs should have some connection to the topic (not necessarily a plan of action) but I have and will vote otherwise depending on how it is debated. I do remain flow-centric in these debates unless there are arguments otherwise in the debate.

Please add me to the chain: rosgoldman8@gmail.com

Notre Dame '23, UCLA '27

She/her

I was 2N who went for primarily policy args, but I will work to evaluate all arguments fairly and without predisposition.

TL

Tech > truth

Ev quality is VERY important to me. Cards with 6 words highlighted out of context and/or grammatically incorrect are highly unpersuasive. The other team pointing this out will be rewarded with high speaks and most likely a win (presuming they have better cards).

Be clear!!! Slow down on analytics/tags/overviews/anything you really want me to understand and number your arguments (in every single speech). I am not the most exceptional flow in the world, so prioritizing clarity of a few good args over proliferation of lots of meh args will work in your favor.

I have no topic knowledge, so do not assume I understand your acronym or jargon and please err on the side of over-explanation of topic specific stuff, like mechanisms, norms, and processes.

CP

I am super comfortable in these debates.

I love thorough, well-researched advantage CPs and agent CPs. I do not love process CPs with contrived internal NBs, but I understand that they are sometimes necessary. If you must, please reads cards that are actually about the process you fiat in the context of the topic and do your best to explain why the INB links to the aff. If you are aff in these debates, I am most likely to be persuaded by an intrinsic perm, but you must have a theoretical justification for it and explain how it resolves both the aff and the NB.

I lean heavily neg on theory and think most theory args vs CPs are meaningless affirmative whining. Condo is good probably up to 5 and then I maybe start to become more sympathetic to the aff, so long as they can explain the impact of IN-ROUND abuse. Even then, I will vote for whoever does the better technical debating. You need to explain your model of the topic and what impact it solves (and ideally, how it also resolves the other side's offense). Do not speed through a prewritten condo (or any) block at top speed; I won't be able to flow it. I find this is often a problem more for the 1AR, but all rebuttals from both sides need to have a clear interpretation, internal links to impacts, and answers to the other side's offense. Lastly, I'll probably default to judge kick unless the aff wins a theoretical reason I should not. It's better for the neg to start these debates early rather than say one line in the 2NR and let the 2AR quadruple your time here.

DA

Please make a complete argument. DAs need UQ, a link, an internal link, and an impact. Every single part needs to be present in the 1NC and clearly extended throughout each speech, with evidence to support ALL of it.

The neg should make as many turns case args as possible, at each level of the DA (i.e. link turns case, IL turns case, impact turns case) and the aff needs to answer all of then or it's a pretty rough recovery.

Do impact calc and do it well

K

I am comfortable in K v Policy debates, but will be least qualified in K v K debates.

It will probably be best for you to assume I am unfamiliar with your args and lit base and so you should clearly explain your theory of power, why the aff/topic is bad, how you resolve impacts, etc.

I don't think a strong link wall necessarily needs a ton of cards(although it won't hurt), but does need to be very specific to the aff's cards, scenarios, and CX explanation.

I am probably pretty neg leaning in FW vs K aff debates. I often struggle to understand how the aff can resolve the material impacts explained in the 1AC without material change in or beyond the debate space. This means the aff needs to be very clear on what change to the squo they defend and how it overcomes structural problems in debate and the world. The neg team should always go for some sort of presumption argument on case. I also think a TVA is great defense on FW, but the neg needs to explain why it means the aff can engage under their model. Likewise, the aff cannot neglect the TVA portion of the debate.

T

Both sides must have a case list and explain why their list creates a better topic.

PTIV is a bad arg and a cop out, but the neg needs to explain why. Also, the neg should check that the word is, in fact, in the plan text, because I've seen this happen too many times.

I honestly really love a short (but competent) T extension in the block because I think it puts a disproportionate amount of time pressure on the 1AR. But, it's a fine line; please don't spend 45 seconds spewing through nonsense words without establishing proper offense or defense.

Misc

You cannot insert rehighlightings unless the words you have rehighlighted have already been read by the other team.

Time your own speeches and don't steal prep

Be nice, but not too nice: there is zero reason to yell at or attack your opponents, but assertive and sassy debaters are fun to watch.

Marshall Green

MBA and USC

Yes email chain: marshallg448@gmail.com

How to get the ballot:

1) Strategic vision. Not enough debaters do it. Most final rebuttals are 5 minutes of arguments with no implications, saying the other team "dropped" an argument to indicate its importance, the occasional misapplication of "try or die," and that's it. As a result, I have to use my intuition to resolve very important parts of the debate which is not fair to the competitors or myself.

2) Go for what you're good at. Decision calculus should be what winning argument can I best execute. Not "Marshall likes these arguments let's go for that."

3) Explain your arguments. I must understand first what the argument says and second how it implicates the debate. Assume I know nothing. Saying "They dropped X means it's GG" with little to no explanation usually will not bode well. Confusion tactics on your opponents usually confuse the judge too!

This part is especially relevant for K teams. If I do not understand what's going on, I will defer to my preferences which is more in the policy camp.

4) Slow down. I am not the world's fastest flow and not always in debate mode. Debaters often forget that it doesn't matter how fast they are but rather if the judge can flow and understand your arguments. In most cases, slowing down lets debaters read more arguments!

Pref Guide / Misc:

-- I am not good for K-affs. I don't understand it and will default to policy if anything is unclear. K-Affs win when they are technically ahead and provide a clearer vision for what the ballot does.

-- Fairness > Clash but good for both.

-- If the K engages with the Aff, I am good. I am probably bad for the modern K debate (you say fiat = L), but I will not auto-vote against the Fiat K.

-- Competition > Theory

-- Most of my success came from impact turns, T, and process counter plans, so I'll understand those debates better than most and have more sympathy for the Neg.

-- Seeing the spammage of LD tricks in rounds is a disgrace to the activity

-- Will vote on hidden procedural arguments if present in the 1NC but new voters will be ignored

Email.

I do not use email for debate rounds please use tabroom.share or speech drop.

Experience.

Coached debate at HAIS (1), Crosby (3.5), Dulles (3.5), and Niles West (3.)

Debated policy for 4 years at Crosby (2004-2008), In College at UMKC (Fall 2009), and Houston (Spring 2009, 2012-2015)

Flowing.

I do not flow off documents, I flow speeches. Documents are useful in that they can clearly define for everyone the core meaning of an argument when we may only have fragments from flowing.

Non-negotiables.

If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.

All permutations must have a text.

I will not vote on hidden theory shells unless the following are met (I clearly have it on my flow, the document sent during the round includes it, and the theory is warranted to be sufficient for a winning argument how it is read in the original form.)

Best Practices.

Be respectful of everyone in the debate round.

Include analytics within speech docs as different individuals may have processing difficulties it also reduces the chance that we will get in a disagreement about what you said versus what I think I heard.

Decision Making.

Tech vs Truth is a lie judges say they vote of tech over truth then make decisions consistently based on their argumentative biases within rounds. I will not lie to you about my decision-making process, this is how it works.

1) I look for clean dropped ballots. Example Condo or T were dropped. If none exist, I move to step 2.

2) I decide all the core issues of the debate round on the basis of warrant and evidence supporting the warrants. This is a question of who provided the best warrants for me to evaluate, and I verify those warrants exist within the extended evidence described by either team. I determine who has won each issue assuming no clean sweep I move to step 3.

3) I look for sequencing claims made by either team. If one team has won a sequencing claim, then the resolution of that issue will occur first. If none is presents, I move to step 4.

4) I use the following sequencing T -> Condo -> Theory Else -> Framework -> Substance. I render a decision based on these conditions, whichever team wins a higher order sequence wins the round.

What is Debate?

I think that we need to understand we are a community of people responsible for the activity, We are responsible for teaching and guiding students to make decisions that are descriptive of the community they wish to compete within.

Theory.

Theoretical rejections of the team have an incredibly high burden in my mind. Theoretical rejections of the argument have a much lower burden. For me to vote for a team entirely on theory they must prove that the debate was borderline impossible. Contrarily to win reject them argument you only have to prove the debate would be better without the argument. To me using theory to force a condensing of the round is a sound strategy. Also, generally, if you're conceding that conditionality is good then you're highly unlikely to get me to vote down the team on another theory argument.

DA's.

Disadvantages are the core of all aspects of debating. Make sure you extend all four components when going for a DA. This includes when going for Disadvantages from any perspective.

CP's.

Calling into question the legitimacy of many different types of counter-plans should be a portion of your strategy. Too many affirmatives allow the negative to get away with a lot of abuse on the counter-plan that they shouldn't. CP must have a text, a clear solvency mechanism and a net benefit. Please make sure you extend each if you go for the argument. Perm do Both, Perm Do CP, and Perm do aff and CP on other issues are all answers to various things, but the latter two you need to justify. Please create nuance in both perm and theory debates this makes life a lot easier.

Framework.

I feel strongly that framework should be part of a strategy to answer critical affirmatives but should not be your "answer" for critical affirmatives. Given the debates I have watched most recently the question of fairness vs critical education has largely come out of the side of critical education arguments. I also think that the majority of rounds I voted for framework have been for clash standards, with a very strong push for limiting subject formation, and a very strong push that the game effects every aspect of debate and thus infects the critical education/DA's the aff is going for. Combined with SSD or solid TVA push this tends to be the easiest way to my ballot as the negative. I also find the more you mitigate the aff itself the more likely I am to vote for something like Fairness or Clash is a sliding scale.

For the affirmative having your DA/Critical Education impact turn the content we clash over needs to be explicitly done, I generally am fine with any number of potential frames for this type of arguments and am willing to vote on innovations if they impact turn the clash or fairness' content or form. That being said I do not judge college debates (I've judged like 3 in my lifetime.) and as such the new verbiages or the hottest new trend needs to be explained to me in this format. What is the argument? Why does it impact turn Clash/Fairness? and What resolves the claim? (Alt or interp.) The aff must also have a good reason it needs to occur on the aff. I'm down for SSD bad to be clear but being aff is special and their should be a reason you need to be aff.

Critical Affirmatives.

Critical affirmatives should have a solid defense of both their importance but also the importance of debating it. There should be a clear area of debate that the negative can and should engage in. That being said I really enjoy watching good Kritikal affirmatives deploy the various ways of relooking at debate structures and topics. I find affirmatives that are either very small but willing to engage with whatever strategy the negative chooses, or conversely, very large structural affirmatives that will engage on a theory level with everything to be the best. Be ready to answer the core questions negation should ask you. Why this aff? Why this round? Why negate this? Why this ballot? If you think you have good answers to those then I'm likely going to enjoy watching the debate.

The Kritik.

Kritik as framework: I am willing to vote for kritiks that pair down to just a framework argument but feel this decision needs to be hyper clear in the 2NR, preferably in the 2NC as that would give you the biggest set of arguments and still lets you no link aff offense. If you are going for framework then do that, don't hedge bets that's generally how you lose rounds. Win that the affs scholarship is fundamentally abhorrent or unreliable to the point of worthlessness. Win that this furthers systems of domination and win that a model of rejection proposed by the negative interp is a better world for debate than the consequences only style the aff uses.

Kritik as structure: I am willing to vote for kritiks as structural criticisms, I treat these debates very much how I treat CP/DA debates. You need to win the alt and a net benefit that outweighs the aff. Obviously, you can do that through mitigation of the aff or via the alternative resolving the impacts, or action of the 1AC. I like clear Link -> Impact -> Alt solves extensions just like I expect that from CP/DA Debates.

The PIK: I have no issues with these if they are clearly flagged in either the 1NC or the Block. I do not think you get to answer the CX question can the kritik result in the aff, say no and then proceed to go for a PIK. I think these can be strategic, especially against arguments about reps, but you need to win reps severance bad, and that PIKS are good. It is a strategy do not mind it have fun.

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at Ghidotti, CKM, and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: Do whatever is best for you on how many you want to bring into the round.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

Reuben Lack
Alpharetta High School '12
Emory University '16

I debated four years at Alpharetta and qualified to the TOC in my senior year before debating for Emory University. Currently, I'm a dubbing producer & director for Disney, with a specific focus on anime & animation content.

My top-line advice if you have me in the back of the room is do what you do best. These are general predispositions, not immutable laws of judging, and you're always best off advancing a strategy you know well.

Please add me to the email chain: reubenlack1@gmail.com.

We only have 5 minutes before the round, what should we know about you?
I consider myself a 'middle of the road' judge on most meta debate issues. When I was in the activity, I did everything from Politics DA 2NR's to more obscure 1-Off Kritik strategies. I'm comfortable with pretty much anything. I'm neither a "K judge" nor a "policy judge," and will do my best to examine the debate from the arguments you give me. Tactically, judge instruction and comparative evidence analysis are appreciated. My thresholds for theory arguments are probably lower than most judges.

To the extent I have certain leans on close calls, or musings about debate issues, I've done my best to illustrate those below.

Are you OK with K's/Critical Affs/Planless Affs/Performance/Non-Traditional Affs?
I've run everything from super 'policy' affs with giant heg and econ advantages to 1ACs that consisted largely of a poem and leftist arguments. In high school and college, I went for stuff like Security, Badiou, Derrida, and had a good share of 1NCs that were 1-Off Kritik. That said, it's been years since I've delved into these arguments, so explanation is a must for any high-theory strategies.

When it comes to framework and framework-related arguments against these types of Affs/K's, your 2NR/2AR 'story' should focus on the educational implications of each side's approaches. I'm interested in the question of how to make debate an educational and useful activity for students. How does your position interact with those considerations?

As for how to align your strategy, I'm more likely to be persuaded by a direct challenge to the efficacy of the non-traditional team's method/model for debate than a procedural fairness claim, which often falls short. It's always better to go on offense. There are serious & legitimate objections to K Aff's/performance Aff's that Neg teams should feel comfortable to make as part of their FW arguments. I have a particular soft spot for turns of the "cede the political" variety (e.g., withdrawing from the state/policy-making leads to state apparatuses controlled by conservatives).

Thoughts on the Politics DA & DA Strategy?
Love them. My senior year was almost entirely me taking that week's Politics DA in the 1NR. My favorite 1NR's dig deep into the aff evidence, tear it apart, and make solid comparative analysis. For the aff, don't be shy about putting all your firepower against 1 or 2 serious logical holes in the DA (this goes for any, not just Politics/Elections). The internal linkage between a particular bill passing to a terminal impact is typically pretty flimsy, and Aff's that push that point will do well in front of me. Zero risk of the disad is an RFD I've given.

Should I ever make Theory arguments an option in your rounds?
I'm probably more willing to vote on theory arguments than your average judge. That said, if you want to make "Conditionality Bad," "50 State Fiat Bad," or other theory arguments an option, you need to focus on what debate looks like under the other side's interpretation. What happens to prep, strategy, research, and why is it bad? Do the impact work, talk about what your vision of optimal debate looks like. These debates tend to be especially messy, so minimizing theory jargon is recommended.

Anything else you really like?
Impact turns, advantage counterplans, highly-specific case debates.

Any strong opinions about Topicality?
I enjoy a good T debate and was something of a "T Hack" for the first few years of my high school career. Reasonability is hard to win in front of me, but strong counter-interpretations are underrated. Like Theory debates, jargon is overused in T 2NR's/2AR's; I recommend focusing on the impact level, i.e., what happens to the topic if X is/isn't considered topical.

At the end of the round, how do you usually go about making your decision?
When the round ends, I take a note of all the key questions to resolve, then work through them one-by-one. This means framing arguments and judge instruction ("prioritize X," "view the [X] through the lens of [Y]," "here are the 2 ways to vote [X]") are great ways to win my ballot. My default state, unless guided by arguments in-round, is to assess the debate through an offense-defense paradigm, weighing how one area of risk interacts and/or outweighs another. I also rarely call for cards unless a nexus question of evidence quality decides the round. To borrow from Ed Lee's paradigm, "while I am a huge fan of quality evidence, my decisions will privilege a debater’s assessment of an argument over my reading of a piece of evidence."

What can I do to get high speaks if you're my judge?
Have fun! Be nice! Utilize cross-x effectively. My favorite debaters were all fairly slow at spreading, yet extremely strong speakers. And hey, I work in the anime industry, so pandering with references never hurts.

Any pet peeves we should know about?
Two pet peeves. First, please, please, please email/flash speeches in a timely fashion. Second, there is no "flow clarification" segment in policy debate, i.e., if you're asking what cards a team read, that's part of CX. You should always be flowing, with the speech doc as a reference, but not as the source of truth. There's been an unfortunate trend away from strong flowing skills, please don't let needless mistakes happen to you.

"Don't forget. Believe in yourself. Not in the you who believes in me. Not the me who believes in you. Believe in the YOU who believes in yourself."
- Kamina, Gurren Lagann
I wish you the best of luck and hope my feedback will help for future rounds. I love the activity and the fantastically cool people in it. I’ll do whatever I can to support you and help you grow as a debater.

add me to the chain: snockol2243@gmail.com

Tech always over truth.

I flow C/X, but it's up to you to use C/X in your speeches.

Speed is great, but be clear. Please slow down for analytics and blocks; I can't always catch all of it.

I'm biased towards DA/CP debate over T or the K.

For the K: I'm a firm believer in weighing the advantages of the hypothetical implementation of the plan against the impacts of the links. For framework I'm biased towards fairness over education.

For the K Aff: On framework, fairness > education. Please explain your advocacy to me like I don't know anything about it, because I don't.

Director of Forensics, Cal State Northridge

Email speech documents to lemuelj@gmail.com

Any other inquires should go to joel.lemuel@csun.edu

He/him pronouns

***********

A. Judging/Coaching History

- Over 19 years of experience judging/coaching competitive debate events; less experience with speech and individual events (5 years)

- Worked with students of all ages: elementary (MSPDP), middle school (MSPDP), high school (policy, LD, public forum), and college (NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, NPDA, IPDA, CPFL)

B. General Philosophy

1. Do you thing! This activity should center the stylistic proclivities of students, not judges. Full stop. My academic background has taught me reasonable arguments come in a variety of forms, styles, and mediums. I've coached and judged a wide range of styles from very traditional (e.g. topicality, disads, cps, and case), critical (e.g. post-structural/modern/colonial theory), to very non-traditional (e.g. performative/identity/method debate). There are things I like and dislike about every style I've encountered. Do what you do and I'll do my best to keep up.

2. "Inside Baseball" Sucks. These days I mostly judge college policy and high school LD. That means I am unlikely to know most of the acronyms, anecdotes, inside references about other levels of debate and you should probably explain them in MUCH more detail than you would for the average judge.

C. Pedagogical/Competitive Points of Emphasis

1. Importance of Formal Evidence (i.e. "cards"). I once heard a judge tell another competitor, “a card no matter how bad will always beat an analytic no matter how good.” For the sake of civility I will refrain from using this person’s name, but I could not disagree more with this statement. Arguments are claims backed by reasons with support. The nature of appropriate support will depend on the nature of the reason and on the nature of the claim. To the extent that cards are valuable as forms of support in debate it’s because they lend the authority and credibility of an expert to an argument. But there are some arguments where technical expertise is irrelevant. One example might be the field of morality and ethics. If a debater makes a claim about the morality of assisted suicide backed by sound reasoning there is no a priori reason to prefer a card from an ethicist who argues the contrary. People reason in many different ways and arguments that might seem formally or technically valid might be perfectly reasonable in other settings. I generally prefer debates with a good amount of cards because they tend to correlate with research and that is something I think is valuable in and of itself. But all too often teams uses cards as a crutch to supplement the lack of sound reasoning. The takeaway is … If you need to choose between fully explaining yourself and reading a card always choose the former.

2. Burden of Persuasion vs. Burden of Rejoinder One of things that makes policy and LD debate (and perhaps public forum) a fairly unique activity from a policy/legal perspective is our emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. If one competitor says something then the opponent needs to answer it, otherwise the judge treats the argument as gospel. Debaters might think their judges aren't as attentive to the flow as they would like, but ask any litigator if trial judges care in the least whether the other attorney answered their arguments effectively. Emphasizing the burden of rejoinder is a way of respecting the voice and arguments of the students who spend their valuable time competing in this activity. But like everything else in debate there are affordances as well as constraints in emphasizing the burden of rejoinder. Personally, I think our activity has placed so much emphasis on the burden of rejoinder that we have lost almost all emphasis on the burden of persuasion. I can’t count the number of rounds I have participated in (as a debater and as a judge) where the vast majority of the claims made in the debate were absolutely implausible. The average politics disad is so contrived that it's laughable. Teams string together dozens of improbable internal link chains and treat them as if they were a cohesive whole. Truth be told, the probability of the average “big stick” advantage/disad is less than 1% and that’s just real talk. This practice is so ubiquitous because we place such a heavy emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. Fast teams read a disad that was never very probable to begin with and because the 2AC is not fast enough to poke holes in every layer of the disad the judge treats those internal links as conceded (and thus 100% probable). Somehow, through no work of their own the neg’s disad went from being a steaming pile of non-sense to a more or less perfectly reasonable description of reality. I don't think this norm serves our students very well. But it is so ingrained in the training of most debates and coaches (more so the coaches than the debaters actually) that it’s sustained by inertia. The takeaway is… that when i judge, I try (imperfectly to be sure) to balance my expectations that students meet both the burden of rejoinder and the burden of persuasion. Does this require judge intervention? Perhaps, to some degree, but isn't that what it means to “allow ones self to be persuaded?” To be clear, I do not think it is my job to be the sole arbiter of whether a claim was true or false, probable or unlikely, significant or insignificant. I do think about these things constantly though and i think it is both impossible and undesirable for me to ignore those thoughts in the moment of decision. It would behoove anyone I judge to take this into account and actively argue in favor of a particular balance between the burdens or rejoinder and persuasion in a particular round.

3. The Role of the Ballot/Purpose of the Activity/Non-Traditional Debate. The first thing I want to say isn’t actually a part of my philosophy on judging debates as much as it is an observation about debates I have watched and judged. I can’t count the number of rounds I have watched where a debater says something akin to, “Debate is fundamentally X,” or “the role of the ballot is X.” This is not a criticism. These debaters are astute and clearly understand that defining the nature and purpose of the activity is an extremely useful (often essential)tool for winning debates. That said, in truth, debate is both everything and nothing and the role of the ballot is multiple. Asserting the "purpose of debate" or "the role of the ballot" is essentially a meaningless utterance in my opinion. Arguing in favor "a particular purpose of debate” or “a particular role of the ballot” in a given round requires reasons and support. Policy debate could be conceived as a training ground for concerned citizens to learn how to feel and think about particular policies that could be enacted by their government. Policy debate could also be conceived as a space students to voice their dissatisfaction with the actions or inactions of the governments that claim to represent them through various forms of performance. Excellent debaters understand policy debate is a cultural resource filled with potential and possibility. Rather than stubbornly clinging to dogmatic axioms, these debaters take a measured approach that recognizes the affordances and constraints contained within competing visions of "the purpose of debate" or the "role of the ballot” and debate the issue like they would any other. The problem is assessing the affordances and constraints of different visions requires a sober assessment of what it is we do here. Most debaters are content to assert, “the most educational model of debate is X,” or the “most competitive model of debate is Y.” Both of these approaches miss the boat because they willfully ignore other aspects of the activity. Debates should probably be educational. What we learn and why is (like everything else) up for debate, but it’s hard to argue we shouldn’t be learning something from the activity. Fairness in a vacuum is a coin-flip and that’s hardly worth our time. On the other hand, probably isn’t a purely educational enterprise. Debate isn’t school. If it were students wouldn’t be so excited about doing debate work that they ignore their school work. The competitive aspects of the activity are important and can’t be ignored or disregarded lightly. How fair things have to be and which arguments teams are entitled to make are up for debate, but I think we need to respect some constraints lest we confuse all discourse for argument. The phrase “debate is a game/the content is irrelevant” probably won’t get you very far, but that’s because games are silly and unimportant by definition. But there are lots of contests that are very important were fairness is paramount (e.g. elections, academic publishing, trials). Rather than assert the same banal lines from recycled framework blocks, excellent debaters will try to draw analogies between policy debate and other activities that matter and where fairness is non-negotiable. So the takeaway is … I generally think the topic exists for a reason and the aff has to tie their advocacy to the topic, although I am open to arguments to the contrary. I tend to think of things in terms of options and alternatives. So even if topicality is a necessarily flawed system that privileges some voices over others, I tend to ask myself what the alternative to reading topicality would be. Comparison of impacts, alternatives, options, is always preferable to blanket statements like “T = genocidal” or “non-traditional aff’s are impossible to research.”

4. Theory Debates (i.e. Debates about Debate Itself) I have a relatively high threshold for theory arguments, but I am not one of those judges that thinks the neg teams gets to do whatever they want. You can win theory debates with me in the back, but it probably isn’t your best shot. As a general rule (though not universal) I think that if you didn’t have to do research for an argument, you don’t learn anything by running it. I have VERY high threshold for negative theory arguments that are not called topicality. It doesn’t mean I wont vote on these arguments if the aff teams makes huge errors, but a person going for one of these argument would look so silly that it would be hard to give them anything about a 28.

Affiliations and History:
Please email (tjlewis1919@gmail.com) me all of the speeches before you begin.
I was Director of Debate at Damien High School in La Verne, CA from 2021-2024.
I was the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX from 2020-2021.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
Author of Suburba(in)e Surrealism (2021).

Yearly Round Numbers:
I try to judge a fair bit each year.
Fiscal Redistribution Round Count: About 40 rounds
I judged 75 rounds or more on the NATO Topic.
I judged over 50 rounds on the Water Topic.
I judged around 40 rounds on the CJR topic.
I judged 30 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020)
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
LD Protocol:I have a 100% record voting against teams that only read Phil args/Phil v. Policy debates. Adapt or lose.
NDT Protocol: I will rarely have any familiarity with the current college topic and will usually only judge 12-15 rounds pre-NDT.
Please make your T and CP acronyms understandable.

Front Matter Elements:
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.

I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.

Decision-making:
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.

The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.

I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.

Reading evidence only happens if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).

I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge). I do not think the act of reading FW is necessarily constitutive of a violent act. You can try to convince me of this, but I do start from the position that FW is an argument about what the affirmative should do in the 1AC.

If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education. Subject formation has really come into vogue as a key element for teams and honestly rare is the debate where people engage the questions meaningfully--keep that in mind if you go for subject formation args in front of me.

In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.

I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.

While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.

I am 100% DONE with teams not showing up on time to disclose. A handful of minutes or so late is different than showing up 3-5 min before the round begins. Punish these folks with disclosure theory and my ears will be open.

CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'

Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand

put me on the email chain: anthony.liang18@berkeley.edu

I debated for University HS Irvine and half a semester at Cal. I went for critical arguments on the aff and the neg for 90 percent of my debate career so I won't be the person you want in the back for high level policy versus policy debates.

senior at UC Berkeley

qualifed to the TOC senior year

no knowledge on current topic

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

Policy Debate

I am not that familiar with policy vs policy debates. If I went for these arguments, I'd probably go 3-3 at an octofinals/quarters bid tournament.

Affs

- case debate is great debate and will warrant high speaks if done well

CPs

- 2nc add ons are fine. Planks can be kicked if you want. Lean neg towards infinite condo.

DAs

T

K Debate

K aff versus Framework

I prefer if the aff's praxis is exportable rather than thought experiments because those are the easiest to judge. I "prefer" framework in order of 1) institutionality/infiltration 2) skills/deliberation/ssd 3) fairness/limits/predictability. I will vote on any type of framework including fairness. Will give high speaks if #3 is done well and impacted out correctly.

K versus Plan

If you are reading radical identity arguments or postmodern critiques that require abstract ontological claims, just go for the framework/fiat k. For neolib/security or other topic Ks, I'm fine if you put the link debate on case.

K versus K

Both teams need to be good at drawing and explaining theories as if they are diagrams. I lean neg on no perm in these debates because the aff is usually a moving target.

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

--

about me:

she/her

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

i'm not a full-time debate coach (i'm a full time data scientist), but i'm at a tournament almost every weekend. this means most of my interaction with debate is at tournaments and/or when i'm contributing to team research. more importantly, this means i care a lot about the debate community. i come to so many tournaments because i want to make debate better and i care about students -- i have almost zero tolerance for teams who are mean, actively try to make the activity worse, etc. so, be nice!

--

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

--

Topic Knowledge: I don't teach at camp but I do keep up with the topic. I'm involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research. My topic knowledge for events that aren't policy debate is zero, but I'll rarely be judging these events anyway.

--

email chains:

damiendebate47@gmail.com

nethmindebate@gmail.com

please add both

--

non-negotiables:

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

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

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

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

--

flowing from the speech doc?

i will not flow from the speech doc.

i will only open speech docs in the middle of a debate for the following purposes:

1 - checking for clipping (i'll do this intermittently throughout the debate)

2 - to look at something that was emailed out and flagged as necessary for my understanding of the debate (rehighlighted evidence, disclosure screenshot, chart that's part of a card, perm text with certain words struck out, etc)

i will download speech docs at the end of the debate to read all relevant evidence prior to submitting my ballot

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

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

--

Some general notes:

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

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

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

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

Evidence -- it matters and I'll read it. Judge instruction is still a thing here. Don't just say "read this card" and not tell me why. Ev comparison is good. Cutting good cards is good. Failing to do one or both of those things leaves me to interpret your bad cards in whatever way I want -- that's likely to not be good. The state of evidence quality these days is an actual crime scene. If you read ev that is better than the national-circuit average, I will be so happy and your points will reflect that.

Technical debating matters.I have opinions about what arguments in debate are better/worse. I think things like the fiat k and process counterplans probably produce less in-depth and educational debates than positions that require large amounts of topic research. I've still voted for these positions when the team reading these arguments executes a technical win. This means that you should not be too stressed about my predispositions -- just win the debate and you'll be fine!

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

--

Case:

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

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

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

--

Planless affs:

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

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

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

I think framework is true but I will do my best to evaluate your arguments fairly.It is easier to win against framework when affirmative teams explain the warrants for their arguments and don't presuppose that I immediately agree with the warrants behind their impact turns to framework.

--

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am better for the neg. However, either team/side can win my ballot by doing better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

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

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

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

--

Theory:

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

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

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

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

--

Topicality (not framework):

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

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

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

--

Kritiks (neg):

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

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

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

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

--

Disads:

Nothing revolutionary to say here. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare betterin close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

--

Counterplans:

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

No judge kick. Make a choice!

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

--

Speaker points:

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

I try to give points as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

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

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

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

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

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

-"tricks"

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

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

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

-new affs bad

--

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

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

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

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

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

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

--

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

My name is Desma. I was a varsity debater with CCHS for about 2 years. I now coach the team and am in my 2nd almost 3rd year of coaching. I am a current History major. I love this year's topic, I believe that it makes for a very fun year. I am very familiar with a lot of the cases on the wiki.

I am a fairly easy judge. My prefrences are: Self-time. Tag teaming is OK but try not to do it so much, I do disclose if the tournament allows. I believe that this should be a safe space so please refrain from excessive remarks towards your opponets.

T - I do need counter-interprations otherwise I am more likely to vote on T. I believe that there needs to be proper FW to support it otherwise it cancels itself out. I do like Theory debates I think that they can be very fun to judge just ensure that you have the proper backing otherwise it does count against you. When it comes to disclosure unless you are breaking new there is no real reason why you shouldn't disclose, if you don't I am likely to give that to the team.

K- I love krtiks, but please read the FW and links otherwise it's not worth it to read. I think that K's can make a very compelling NEG argument. I am not a fan of K Aff's therefore if you do run with me please make sure that you go heavy on the FW.

CP & Da's - I love love a good CP and DA. I believe they are absolutely neccessaryfor this year's topic. Please as the NEG run this to ensure you have the most on the other teams.

NEG- I think that clash is so important for the educational value of debate. I believe that there is always a case that you can run. I don't like when teams run over 7+ off's, if that's your strat then strike me. I think that a sweet spot is 3-5 OFF.

AFF- You have to have strong FW and solvency otherwise I am inclined to vote neg. The idea is that you must show me what is wrong with the SQUO in order for me to believe that I should pass your plan.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Friendly reminder:

READ THE COMPLETE TAG INCLUDING THE AUTHOR( This causes -0.5 onto your speaker points)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

You can send any files to my email: dmarquezdebate87@gmail.com

Please feel free to contact me via email with any questions/comments/concerns.

If you would like more feedback please email me.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you and best of luck!

Desma or Des

SHE/HER/HERS

matt mcfadden
matt.mcfadden.99@gmail.com - email chain - please put me on it

---update - 2025 ---

i will give the next 2n to go for the security k or a derivation of it well in front of me 30 speaks

---end of update---

IF YOU ARE NOT TAKING PREP FOR THE 1NR, THE SPEECH SHOULD BE SENT BEFORE THE 2N SITS DOWN.

YOU CANNOT SOLELY EMAIL PERM TEXTS. THE 2AC MUST READ THEM.

YOU CANNOT 'INSERT' RE-HIGHLIGHTINGS. YOU MUST READ THEM.

---update - 2023 ---

if you want to read a k on the aff, i'm not the judge for you

if you want to read a k on the neg - and do it well - i am the judge for you

---end of update---

---update - 12/5/2021 ---

Acceptable:

- All impact turns

- Specific, well-researched K's

- Condo

Unacceptable:

- AFFs without a plan text

- Talking about your identity, race, sexual orientation, class, kinks, or anything of the sort

- Untopical AFFs

- Generic, unapplied arguments

- GBX-style process CPs

---end of update---

---update - 11/7/2020 ---

reasons to strike me:

-you read a 1ac without a plan text

"27.5 if you think the 1ac is a strategy to survive."

-you talk about your identity in debates

-you read baudrillard

-you have 3-minute-long 2nc overviews

-you think a good 1nc can be made by a conglomeration of generics

---end of update---

---update---

vote from my flow |--------------------------------------X| read every card at the end of the debate

the 1ac can be whatever you want it to be |--------------------------------------X| read a plan

the cp needs a solvency advocate |------------------------X--------------| the cp doesn’t need a solvency advocate

pics are bad |--------------------------------------X| pics are good

condo is bad |---------------------X-----------------| condo is good

go for t |---X-----------------------------------| don’t go for t

k’s that link to every aff |--------------------------------------X| k’s that link to this specific aff

---end of update---

predispositions – if you accurately describe your evidence as phenomenal, i will reward you with extra speaks in proportion to how good your cards are. if you oversell your sub-par cards, i will be thoroughly disappointed. regardless of my biases, please just go for what you are prepared to execute and have the research on.

there are really only 2 things you need to take from this –

1 – do what you're good at
2 – do LINE BY LINE
"i vote on dropped arguments that i don't believe" -ian beier

things that bother me -

prep: please have the 1nr emailed out before 2nc cross-ex is over. you can go get water for -.5 speaks or you can use prep to do it.

topicality – love it. please read a good amount of cards. if you've done the research to support a well-articulated t argument, i will be overjoyed to judge the debate. although i generally default to competing interpretations, after thinking about it, reasonability is compelling if the 2ar accurately articulates why the neg interpretation is unpredictable and overly burdensome for affirmatives, which outweighs 2nr offense – this is especially persuasive if you have aff-specific cards in relation to the topic literature or legal question of the resolution. negatives that 1 – do thorough impact calculus external to ‘they explode limits – limits are good’ and 2 – give overwhelmingly extensive lists of the absurd affs their interp justifies are crucial. limits is an internal link to the topic-specific expertise the resolutional question is designed to impart.


theory – can be tedious to resolve, but i'm intrigued. 1ar's do not extend this enough. 2ar's that do the impact comparison, turns case analysis, and offense/defense framing on theory as if it were a da are very enjoyable. if theory arguments aren't well-articulated and are overly blippy, i am fine with simply dismissing them.

must disclose judge prefs theory – no, thank you. i am not sympathetic.


kritiks – the most intricate debates or the most mediocre debates – i mean this sincerely. if you are good at making a real argument, yes please. specific link work with intricate turns case analysis and examples relating to the aff win debates. reading a new phenomenal critical theory card will make my day - ie if you have done the research to support your argument, let's go. the more generic your k is, the less inclined i am to vote for you. if you are a team that goes for the k like a disad (techy, line-by-line, interacts with the case) i'll be happy to judge the debate; the inverse is true as well.


cp – wonderful.

counterplans with long texts – my favorite.

pics – they're the best. HOWEVER – they should be substantively different than the aff and have a solvency advocate.

process cp's – you're probably cheating.

states cp – teams overestimate the impact of their solvency deficits and underestimate the efficacy of theory as an answer. aff – please go for theory.


da – yes, please.

well-researched link evidence works wonders. taking a minute of the 2nr to detail turns case analysis puts you in a great position.

if you don't have a da, you don't have a da. 1% risk calculus won't make your link for you.


impact turn – please go for these if your evidence is recent and of high quality. this means not spark. doing thorough comparison between the data and qualifications of your cards versus theirs is how these debates are won.
"people should impact turn.... everything" -ian beier


neg v. k affs – if you're neg and don't win these debates, you're the exception. these are the hardest 2nr's, so i'm willing to grant some leeway.

presumption – make this argument.

framework – yes. compare your impacts at the internal link level and do intricate turns case analysis. i enjoy institutional engagement arguments vs identity affs and truth testing/fairness against more abstract affs.

the k – though i think it is an admirable strategy, unless you have hyper-specific evidence about the aff or its mechanism, you are highly susceptible to the perm.


k affs – good luck.


aff v. the k – you have an aff; that's all you have to defend.

affs lose to the k when they don't answer offense that is embedded in link arguments, lose the framework debate, letting them get away with broad and absurd generalizations, and going for too much.


execution – evidence quality doesn't replace the necessity of good debating. but i really do love good evidence.

zero risk – it’s not possible strictly in the sense of ‘zero risk’, because there is inherently a possibility of all events but it is possible to diminish the risk of an advantage or da to such a degree that it is not sufficiently significant to overcome from the noise of the status quo. i think the new fettweis card is pretty devastating impact defense. lots of neg da's are utterly ridiculous.

cx – if their cards are awful, or their da is incoherent, pointing it out is fun. being strategic in the rhetorical method you use to get the other team to say what you want, then referencing their answers in speeches to warrant arguments is persuasive and gets you additional speaks if what they said is truly applicable.

"be snarky if you want" -grace kuang

judges/people i admire - dheidt, tallungan, khirn, tyler peltekci, dan bannister, grace kuang, spurlock, matt munday, tucker carlson, forslund, scott brown.

bad args – 'racism/sexism good' args are obviously non-starters. i won't immediately dismiss 'death good' but if this is really the position you're in, you have more immediate problems than my judging preferences.

n/a

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).

FW

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.

LD

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.

Debated at Peninsula in Policy 2017-2021

I'm not super familiar with this year's topic so make sure not to take topic-specific terms and warrants in camp arguments for granted.

Be nice.

I prefer that you read a plan.

Infinite condo is better than no condo.

If it's not condo, you have to do a good job explaining why X theory argument justifies voting against the other team rather than just rejecting the argument.

I will default to judge kick the counterplan unless told otherwise.

I'm not great for high theory.

Impact turn the K.

email: dylanmichalak2003@gmail.com

(he/him); armangiveaway@gmail.com

Debated for four years at Peninsula

Currently at Cal (not debating) studying plant biology and data science

If I can't understand you I'll stop flowing. Don't expect me to compensate from the doc - I usually don't look at those until the end of the debate. Stay on the safe side and be clear even if it means sacrificing speed.

You must read your rehighlightings if you want me to evaluate them.

General notes: the rebuttals should be like an RFD, you need to explain a way in which I can feel comfortable voting for you while also taking into account your opponents offense. Please don't just extend arguments from your constructives but also interact with your opponents claims.

Plan-less affs: Please don't. But if you must I prefer if they be contextualized to the topic. If you're reading something complicated, I need a solid enough explanation in the round that's sufficient for me to understand what the argument you're going for is. Obviously T is the most intuitive argument against these positions and you should certainly go for it if you want to. I find that impact turning T is the best way to go if you're aff. Fairness is an impact. I also really like seeing contextualized and well researched Ks and PIKs against these sorts of affs. If you have one, don't be afraid to go for it.

Soft-left affs: I think they're great. You need a compelling argument for why I should shift away from the delusional impact weighing assumptions that policy debate has normalized. CPs that solve the aff are probably the best neg strat.

T v. plan: Don't really have any unusual thoughts on T. Go for it if you must. I have a limited experience going for or judging it but as long as you debate it well you should be fine.

K: I enjoy these, and I have found myself primarily going for them as I matured as a debater. I like specific critiques. If I listened to your 2NC in a vacuum and I didn't know what 1AC you were responding to then that's a problem so make sure to do the contextual work here to really impress me.

Framework for the K: I'm inclined to evaluate debates through an offense-defense paradigm. It's your job to show that the assumptions made in the 1AC implicate aff solvency/truth claims.

If you're aff in front of me and you're choosing between impact turning or link turning the links, you should impact turn unless you have a good reason not to. I find teams tend to be more successful in front of me doing the former.

Theory: you need in round abuse to go for it. I love theory 2ARs against really abusive CPs. It's probably your best way out. I think i'm pretty charitable to condo 2ARs.

Thoughts on competition: I don't default to judge kick and I don't think "the status quo is always a logical option" is a particularly good model since it invites loads of judge intervention. If you go for a CP and the aff has offense to the CP that outweighs the offense the neg has forwarded then i'm voting aff. Same goes for the alt.

I have a lower bar for aff victory on the perm than most people I know. The role of the perm is to prove that all of the plan and some of the CP/Alt could plausibly happen and not trigger the DA. As long as I reasonably believe this to be true, then i'm voting aff. I don't think the aff needs to win a 'net benefit' to the perm bc that makes the perm no longer about competition and warps it into some sort of advocacy that the aff could go for which isn't what I believe the perm to be.

Process Counterplans: I don't necessarily have a problem with these. God knows I went for them way too often in high school. However, I am very charitable to affirmative perms that test the germaneness of the net benefit.

LD Note: You can probably skip the part of the AC where you define all the words in the res. Not a fan of tricks.

Hi!

Lamdl alumni,

Debated for bravo medical magnet high school.

The first few years I ran mainly policy affs and negs, then my last year I ran a k aff on chicana feminism, and set col/cap ks on the neg.

Disclose as soon as possible pls.

Debate should be fun so run what you like (however any hurtful arguments will not be tolerated).

slowww downnn! recently debaters have been unflowable through the analytics/blocks/standards, make sure youre very clear because if I dont hear it I cant flow it

Be respectful, nice and have fun!

add me to the email chain please: pantojaasenat@gmail.com.

Policy affs

I ran policy affs my first few years of debate. Make sure you’re winning your solvency and preferably a framing argument as to why the aff is important within this space.

For the neg, case turns ! also solvency deficits.

Ks & k affs

I like them. This however doesn’t mean I know all about them so make sure you really explain your theory of power and really flesh out your links. If you want to win the alt, make sure everyone knows what your alt actually does. Specific aff links> generic links, 1 off K with a lot of substance are probably some of the best debates. In terms of framework make sure its clear why your interp should be preferred,

CP/DA

Make sure your CP is competitive with the aff and you have a good net benefit.

I get easily persuaded by good permutations, so make them and also don't drop them (both sides).

Make sure to explain that your disads ow the aff. impact calc! On the aff, link turns!

T/Theory

education>fairness. Make sure you’re contextualizing your impacts to the round and the space.

Speed-Run Overview

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

Experience: Damien '05, Amherst College '09, Emory Law '13L. This will be my eighth year coaching in debate, and my third year doing it full time. I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are not shaped by the Michigan meta.

IP Topic Knowledge: I studied IP law while at Emory and was the recipient of an IP law scholarship, so I should be a pretty good judge for evaluating topic specific arguments. True analytics that rely on topic knowledge are likely to be super persuasive to me and easy to win. I am very unsympathetic to neg gripes about this topic. I believe case specific research should be the default model of debate so 1) lack of generic neg ground is not necessarily a problem, 2) I think there's plenty of neg ground but most teams have not done the pre-requisite research to find it.

Debate Philosophy: Debate is a game. That game can take many forms depending on how the players engage with it. I believe the ideal form of the game is one in which the debaters gain resolutional knowledge by arguing the desirability of proposed hypothetical government action by the aff. The best debaters are ones who develop good topic knowledge and do the research necessary to defend their case or make nuanced objections to the opponent's aff case. Debates about the meta of the game, both the topic (T) and what community norms should be regarding certain tactics (theory), are also a valuable endeavor. I am much more open than a normal judge to decide the round on these issues and I think that too few teams are brave enough to engage in that discussion beyond strategic time sinks.

Judging Philosophy: The prime directive in every game is to win. Consequently, I interpret all your choices in debate as tactical decisions attempting to secure maximal chance of victory and do not hold them against you. All of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents and I will vote for almost any argument so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. You can minimize intervention against you by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions. The best 2NRs and 2ARs are pitches that present a fully formed ballot that I can metaphorically sign off on. I am extremely averse to deciding the round on any non-argument related norms (how debaters should behave in round), and I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the game (whether that was at camp or a previous round).

I run a planless aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am very firmly neg on framework, but tech over truth means that I usually end up voting aff close to half the time. Insofar as debate is a game, I draw a distinction between rules and standards. The rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, the standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate compared to your opponent's. What counts as better (more fair or more pedagogically valuable) is something determined in round through debate. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack out" on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) start as non-factors until the aff contextualizes them as solvency mechanisms in the debate space.

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

Accommodations: External to any debate about my role that happens on framework, I treat my function in the room as judge first and facilitator of education second. Therefore, any accommodation that has potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary. Failure to adhere to proper accommodation request procedure heavily impacts whether I give any credence to in-round voters attached to failure to accommodate or other exclusion based arguments.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

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

I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive to reasonability as a filter (when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable) versus reasonability as weighing mechanism ("Good is good enough.")

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

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

Framework / T-USFG

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

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

Procedurals/Theory

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

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

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

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

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

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

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

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

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

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

- CX is binding;

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

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

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

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

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments;

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

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

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

Kritiks

TL;DR: If you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the specific aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid clash and rely on links of omission and criticisms about the state/fiat, then I am a bad judge for you. If you ended up with me in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs and/or strategy.

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

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

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I would much rather, and am more likely to, give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than weeding through the epistemology and pedagogy debate to determine that your theory of power comes first.

Counterplans

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

- Process CPs: Neg ground should be a product of neg research, not spray and pray checks on the 2AC. I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low bar for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I amextremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases. The team that understands these differences and can impact them usually wins my ballot. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. The aff can win an entire solvency take out if there is a structural defect created by deviating from normal means.

I do not judge kick by default absent instruction to do so. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

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

Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense, but having a good counterplan is the way the neg has to leverage itself out of flawed disads.

Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average and not everyone being actually average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Strategy & Clash Points: Debaters have increasingly adopted a variety of bad habits. To counter this, I reward good practices -- those that demonstrate research and preparation with a willingness to engage in class -- with bonus speaks. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Politics on a Courts CP is a disad; "CP gets circumvented" is not a disad). Negative teams with case specific strategies (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks. I will punish teams whose behavior minimizes clash and shows a disdain for research and preparation (hiding ASPEC, misplacing arguments on other flows, etc.) with lower speaks. This is especially true if I am forced to vote on a neg position that I cannot understand when the only neg justification is that pure technical concession means it solves.

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

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

darinparkdebate@gmail.com

darin, not judge please.

i do not keep up with or frequently think about debate. please slow down 20%+, especially on theory, competition, etc.

i really don't care what you do. mostly everything is grounds for debate barring blatantly problematic positions. the more you demonstrate comprehensive understanding of a topic, the better.

probably worse for planless affs than average and slightly better for topicality against affs with a plan than average.

conditionality is nearly always good.

you can't insert re-highlights.

do not talk about things that happened outside the round.

Email chain: lukasrhoades11@gmail.com

Peninsula 22, UCLA 25. I mostly read policy arguments.

I decide rounds based on arguments I flow. I assign weight based on the completeness of an argument. I will not evaluate new arguments in the 2AR, so justify anything that may seem new. I will not evaluate anything that occurs outside of the round.

I will not look at the document during your speech. I will only evaluate what you highlight. I will not clear you, but it will be clear that I cannot understand you. Differentiating tags and content in constructive speeches will greatly improve your chance of winning. I will not reconstruct your speech from analytics.

I flow cross examination.

I will not intervene to create new arguments. I will decide framework by choosing between interpretations provided by the debaters.

The above are non-negotiables, but everything else is decided through arguments on a round-by-round basis. For example, I will vote on presumption if you explain why I should.

Default: kick the counterplan.

Be nice!

John Shackelford

Independent: Able2Shine, Park City High School, Rowland Hall, The Harker School

***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
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.

Email:a.sinsioco1@gmail.com

-Peninsula' 21 - USC' 25

Have fun. Be nice.

Outside of the occasional tournament I judge at, I think very little about the topic. Slow down and don’t take for granted I understand any topic specific jargon

tech>truth generally, although some arguments, of course, require more tech to win than others

I’ll try to find the simplest way to the ballot which requires the least work

Very hard pressed to vote on presumption type arguments. Absent any offense, even the smallest chance that the aff does something positive for the world is enough reason to vote affirmative

Other than that, any opinion I have about arguments can be overcome by better debating.

Thoughts

The first 30 seconds of the final rebuttal should write my RFD.

K Affs:

Probably read a plan tbh, but I will enjoy K affs with a strong explanation of what the aff actually does clear articulation of how debate operates under their framework.

I often find defensive arguments weaker and think the counter interpretation solves little of the actual neg offense. impact turn framework standards and the neg's model of debate. Have better answers to fairness. I think most 2ac’s lack here

Fairness >>>>>>> Education/Skills > whatever else. Please go for some combination of fairness and strong defense (SSD, TVA, no subjectivity shift, etc, especially if the aff is designed to impact turn education. My voting record in these debates is pretty aff favored despite argumentative preferences, and it’s because 2n’s fail to recognize how K affs are designed to beat certain strategies. Go for a framework impact which is better insulated from case.

However, if going for an education type impact, at least go for an impact related to the intrinsic critical thinking skills we gain from debate versus anything that requires you to win the state is good. Again, you can do whatever you want, but policy education good strategies require you to decisively and substantively engage with case which is often very difficult.

I really enjoy and prefer judging substantive offense against the K itself. Don't be afraid to go for the heg da or cap good or whatever.

K:

If your K is able to disprove thesis of the aff and the assumptions it relies upon, I will love your K.

I will default to weighing the aff versus the K.

I have an aversion to strategies that solely rely upon winning framework and arbitrarily disregarding huge swaths of the debate. I will assign less weight to these arguments unless they are dropped. K debate is case debate. The kritik should engage with the affirmative and disprove its thesis.

Your links should reference a specific line/assumption which the affirmative's scenario relies upon, explain why that line/assumption is flawed, impact out why I should care/the material implications of that flawed assumption, and how the alternative resolves the link. The more specific the better.

Ideally, you should be leveraging your answers on case to bolster your argument otherwise I'm willing to grant the aff the truth of their scenario which makes it difficult to win that their assumptions are flawed.

CP: I dislike cp's that compete off immediacy and certainty. Tbh the more time I spend out of debate, the less I understand functional vs textual competition and the other issues that come up during these debates. Given that please err towards over explanation and clarity

DA's: Enjoy most flavors of disads, but generally dislike ones whose links are predicated on silly interpretations of fiat.

T: Slow down and clearly explain what debate looks like under each interpretation and the implications of your impacts, as well as how your interpretation solves your impacts. I generally feel predictability and precision often guides the way I adjudicate these debates on a top level. What I should prioritize is certainly debatable

Case: I find well-researched, dissections of the affirmative case to be the coolest things to judge and will reward the effort.

Theory: Condo is good, and I don't see value in interps that numerically limit the number of conditional advocacies. Either all condo or no condo

Most theory arguments are reject the argument unless you specifically explain otherwise

LD: Will judge this like a policy round. Same predispositions as before. Won’t vote on presumption. Bad for frivolous theory. Might be better for phil than I think I am?

Anything Else: will judge like a policy round including biases towards a consequentialist (Risk*Magnitude) unless otherwise stated. Definitely may make me more likely to give the extinction outweighs even assuming a low risk of a smaller impact type decision. To avoid me giving a decision which is too policy pilled, do comparative impact calc and proper weighing! Not sure what the norms are for new arguments so justify if it’s unclear.

don’t use debate jargon incorrectly lol. If you’re not fully sure what a debate word means, just use the plain English replacement.

Berkeley '26

Peninsula Graduate

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

If it's more than 2 short cards or if the card is long, put it in a doc.

You can insert rehighlightings, but explain the argument you're making.

I'm tech>truth, but complete arguments need claim(s), warrants, and impact(s). "They dropped the impact" is not an argument or something I can vote on alone.

Speed is okay but you need to be clear. For theory arguments, framework, K overviews, and T you need to be at least as slow as the speed you read tags. If you are reading anything, including your blocks, at the speed you read the body of a card, I will not flow the words you are saying.

I will probably protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments; there should be a version of the argument you are extending in the 1AR unless it is a new 2NR argument.

Cross-ex is important.

Please do impact calc/argument comparison.

Theory: I will vote on dropped theory, if explained, and I think condo is good but can be persuaded otherwise.

CPs: I will judgekick counterplans if there are no arguments about it, and the 2AR can have new judgekick bad args.

T: Fairness is a impact and fairness>skills/education. Reasonability is a question of how I evaluate the interpretation debate, not the we meet.

Disads: I don't think a disad can have zero risk (including when the aff makes framing arguments) (unless it's already happened) so you should debate as though the disad has a sizeable risk. Specific cards and arguments are best -- use evidence quality, if you have it, to your advantage.

Ks: I think the advantages of the hypothetical implementation of the plan should be weighed against the impacts to the links. I can be persuaded by framework arguments, but as with T, I think fairness>skills/education. Please do impact calc and make the links specific to the aff/case. I am very unlikely to vote for fiat is illusory type arguments or similar tricks.

K Affs: On framework, fairness>skills/education. I generally think that the aff should defend a hypothetical action of the United States federal government, but can be persuaded otherwise. Assume I do not know your theory, so you should make sure to explain your arguments clearly--I won't vote for you if I don't know what I'm voting for. For K v K, I am probably not the best, but if this debate happens, both sides should make the distinctions between the two Ks clear. I think the aff gets perms.

Definitely ask any questions you have before the round.

Be nice and good luck!

Last update: 10/13/24

My email isjstern23@cmc.edu.

I'm the head coach at North Hollywood High School. Last year I was the head coach at Polytechnic. I did LD in high school and had 4 bids over 2 years, but a lot of my views have changed since then. I really like actual debating, regardless of what you read. Go for death good, high theory, straight policy, condo, whatever - you do you. Good debate is good debate. I give speaks based on strategy and I like it when debaters think critically instead of reading from a script. And unique args are cool- it gets boring judging the same debate a million times. I'll put some more specific stuff below.

I am a big fan of explanations. This is true in general: you should be able to explain your args without needing a ton of jargon. But I find that this is most commonly an issue in K debates, especially in cross ex. You should be able to clearly explain your links, what the importance of the ballot is, how your framing functions, and (especially) what the alt does. K tricks can work, but be transparent about them in CX. If your opponent asks you if the alt can solve the Aff and you don't give them a straight answer, I won't vote on a floating PIK.

Meta-weighing is super under-utilized. Often rounds turn into races to extinction, but there's no reason this has to be the case. If you weigh well, you can win that highly probable structural violence outweighs some far out extinction impact. Or that a high probability long term extinction risk outweighs a low probability short term one. Should I prioritize a 90% chance of extinction from climate change in 100 years, a 10% chance of extinction from a US-China war in 5 years, or 100% chance of a continued cycle of oppression? You tell me.

For K's, it's often unclear if impacts are supposed to be relative to the particular round, relative to the debate community as a whole, or relative to all of society, so this should be explained. I'm sympathetic to T and I think that fairness and clash are impacts. I also like debate and think it's educational. Call me an optimist. Cross ex is important to pin down non-T affs. But I don't dislike non-T affs when they're run well - again, you do you.

Against pess, I'm extremely sympathetic to "progress is possible." I also think you can weigh on scope against pess- even if the government is unable to help a certain group of people, if you're winning an extinction impact, that's bad for everyone, which is probably worse. I also think that perm double bind is pretty effective against pess. If it's true that things can't get worse, then it seems like the Aff doesn't make anything worse, so the links aren't disadvantages to the perm.

Theory against CP's is usually a good idea and I'm definitely willing to vote on condo or process CP's bad. But I also enjoy creative process CP's and advantage CP's. I don't have a strong leaning on most shells. The shell that I most heavily lean Aff on is 50 states fiat bad. It's not because I think that 50 states is particularly unfair (though it probably is), but I think it's utopian fiat and thus bad policymaking education: in the real world, the 50 states have never passed a policy in conjunction. I'd much rather you read a delay CP to go with Politics or Elections. Real world policymakers delay legislation to deal with PC concerns, they don't pass it onto the states.

Finally, I don't want to vote on any procedurals that involve characterizing an opponent as offensive in any way unless they actually are. If you do go for a procedural like this, I will use my discretion to determine whether to vote on it or not, even if you win it.

Updates 2/3/24: Prep time ends when you hit send. Teams seem way to afraid to pull the trigger on theory arguments; if you put it in your speech, you should be prepared to go for it. And I think I've been a little bit of a point fairy, I probably won't go over 29.5 as much anymore. Finally, I like creative args- if you pull out a disad or something that I haven't seen before this year, I will boost your speaks.

Updates 1/18/25: If I'm judging LD, I like phil :). Also, I'm Jewish. I'm not trying to change anyone's views about Israel, and views in debate exist to be challenged- just be careful because we might not be aligned here.

My paradigm is not a series of uncompromisable rules. At the end of the day, debaters control the debate space.

On Kritiks

I love critical literature, 4 notes:

1. I do not believe in the idea that the author is irrelevant after publishing.

2. K-debater ought to produce a convincing link, and alternative. The K is likely a voter if those two arguments are articulated well.

3. Debate does not occur in a vacuum; I am open to structural fairness arguments.

4. For K-Aff's it's an uphill battle if you run a "reject the resolution" argument, I prefer reinterpretations of the resolution; this demonstrates, to me, a creative reimagination of the resolution that allows for diversified literature bases, but failure to do so would make me weigh framework arguments more favorably.

On Topicality

Topicality is standard strategy, definitely open to Topicality debate with one exception. If certain plans are core affirmatives to the topic, and the affirmative runs a truth over tech argument, then I will consider T a non-voter in those cases. Core, to me, means that the affirmative plan is standardized (many schools run that affirmative).

On CPs

I do not have strong opinions on CP Theory. I can be persuaded to multiple CPs, PICs, et cetera. Completely up to the debaters.

On Disadvantages

Disadvantages should not have a generic link, they should have a persuasive story for how it ties to the affirmative case, a specific link, or both.

On Case

I love case debate. If negative can compete on the case level - even if they lose - high speaker points are guaranteed. Shows good research, and a genuine attempt to understand the other team's arguments. Two aspects that I see as core to debate.

zthiede1@gmail.com

Rowland Hall Assistant Coach (2022-Now).

Please include me on the email chain. If I am your judge it means we are at an online tournament because I currently do not reside in the United States. SPEAK CLEARLY! Online debate is not new and we should all know what is required of us. I will have my camera on during all speeches, if it is off please check and make sure I am present.

I am literate on the IPR topic, I taught at debate camp this previous summer, but over-explaining complicated topics or plans never hurt anyone.

I have very little predispositions about debate, do what you do best and I will work hard to fairly adjudicate your round. If you have any specific questions for me, please ask before the debate.

Argument thoughts:

Do NOT read death good.

I have a high threshold for condo bad, BUT I can be convinced it is egregious if it is.

Fairness is an impact.

No ad homs, out-of-round fights, or incriminating screenshots. I am NOT tabroom and if this is brought up in my debate I will refuse to adjudicate it and contact the appropriate tournament officials. Please remember, judges cannot evaluate what occurs beyond their purview. It doesn't mean you should not tell people if you are having problems with a fellow debater, coach, or judge, just don't do it in a debate round.

Judge(s) who I seek to emulate: Mike Shackelford.

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 !!

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

Notre Dame '23 (2A/1N for 4 years)

UC Berkeley '27 (2A/1N)

You can just call me Molly

TL

• Tech > Truth. Very few, if any, of my personal opinions will shape my RFDs. If you’ve won the argument to my understanding, I will vote for it.

• Time your own speeches and prep

• Judge instruction is super important to me, especially in rebuttals. I am not a mind reader and you are often less clear than you think.

• I love CP + DA debates and ptx holds a special place in my heart

• I am fairly expressive and do not hide displeasure or confusion well, so look at me

• Yes I have always been a 2A, I don’t feel as if this

Topicality

• I do not extensively research or keep up highschool topics especially what is and is not topical, so I recommend against throwing out a lot of acronyms or assuming my knowledge

• case lists are the most effective way for me to compare visions of the topic

• competing interps > reasonability

• smaller topics are probably better for innovation

Disads

• Any debate with a disad I love to hear

• I love ptx disads but I also know a truly garbage one when I see it

• turns case and impact calc are your best friends and should start early (on both sides)

Counterplans

• Agent CPs are my favorite

• I am extremely neutral on process CPs, but not debated well I lean aff on most perms

• I dislike super contrived adv cps, but logical ones that exploit poor aff writing are good. Be clear about the planks that you kick.

• Do impact calc between the solvency deficit and disadvantage, otherwise you are letting me decide

• I default to judge kick

Kritiks

• If you go for Ks consistently, I am not the best judge for you. I don't dislike them, I simply never went for them so I may not default in your favor. If you debate well and don’t leave it up to me you should have no problem.

• I prefer links to the plan, at least the topic. Does not have to be cards but lines should be taken from the 1AC

• Don't read a super long overview, it just sounds like words to me. Do the work on the line by line.

• Floating PIKs are probably bad

K Affs

• If you read a K aff, I am not the best judge for you, however, I am also not the worst. You will have to do more work explaining your disads to FW than you would in front of K judges. What is intuitive/obvious to you might not be for me.

• Consistency of explanation of aff offense is SO helpful. Super shifty K affs make me upset and more importantly, I am much less likely to grant you weight of 2AR offense if it was not rooted in an explanation started in the 1AR.

• If you read a high theory K aff I am less likely to vote for you compared to an indentity aff. I understand them less and have the honest pre-disposition of thinking your offense is kinda dumb

• I really need your aff to do something. Just explain to me what you solve, if you don't solve anything this round will be hard for you

Neg v K Affs

• Presumption is great. I find it challenging to 0 an aff on a sentence or 2 of a 2NR (this is also true of policy affs). You are much more likely to win a presumption debate in front of me if the 2NR takes the extra 15 seconds to actually engage with the 1AR answers.

• Fairness is an impact. 2NR can be clash or fairness, whatever you chose is fine with me.

• TVAs and SSD are great. I find that 2Ns expect me to fill in some of the reasons as to why these would solve the aff intuitively. I am unwilling to do this work for you.

• I was a 1N and took the Cap K or Cap good in every 1NR I ever gave. If you feel inclined to put me in a K v K debate, I am the most familiar with this one, but also don’t. I think neg team's sitting on a usually poorly answered K affs don't get perms debate is a winning debate

Soft Left Affs

• The framing page will be an uphill battle for you. I like util.

• I find it hard to vote for these affs when the 2NR is a CP and a DA.

Theory

• Slow down half a step, I’m a moderate speed typer

• I think condo is fine. If the negative has done something actually abusive (my personal brightline is around 5-6 condo and/or a very long adv cp) explain the in round abuse. Otherwise go for it as you please.

• Dispo probably does not solve anything other than research, if you want to change my mind then explain it

• International fiat and changing the whole world fiat is bad. This includes K alt stuff.

• Perm theory debates are cool. Limited Intrinsicness good/bad are the theory debates I had the most and judge the most. I am very neutral on the question. I find often that neg teams win on a deficit to the intrinsic perm than the theory debate.

Speaks

• If you yell and are mean I will nuke your speaks. You are allowed to be loud and passionate, but there is a level of respect that needs to be maintained for your opponents at all times.

• On a happier note I like snarky remarks and sassy answers. Just be funny with it

• If the top of the final rebuttal is why I should vote for you and has judge instruction you're doing yourself a favor

Re-highlighting

• Have the theory debate over whether it can be inserted or not, I will evaluate the debate based on the outcome

• If you choose not to have the theory debate I will default to letting ev be re-inserted. I changed my position on this issue because I want more debaters to do it, and forcing teams to read re-highlights seems to discourage quality ev idicts

• However, I will not do the debating for you, don’t insert re-highlighting without explaining or implicating it in the debate. So only insert the amount of evidence you can reasonably explain

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

https://pref-buddy.vercel.app/public :)

Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers

Please add both kelly@college-prep.org and cpsspeechdocs@gmail.com to the chain.

Something along these lines for the subject line would be great: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code. Please make sure the chain is set up before the start time.

Background

I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum. My comfort for judging rounds is Policy vs. Policy ~ Policy vs. K ~ Clash Rounds >>> K vs. K.

I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur, and I talk about debate the most with Tristan Bato and Ian Beier.

Most Important Things!

Tech >>>> truth and I'll vote on anything as long as it is debated well. I do not hold any firm thoughts about any argument, I will vote for anything as long as there is a claim, warrant, and impact.

I think debate is a communicative research game that can impact student subjectivity. I have found that rounds that are the most frustrating to judge and have to rely on intervention are those in which debaters fail to write a ballot and impact arguments out in the 2NR/2AR. If your strategy is to proliferate as many arguments as possible in the 2NR/2AR without framing how I resolve core controversies of the debate, you'll find yourself unhappy with my decision because my biases may come into play. My biases for certain arguments can, and certainly has, been beaten by good debating. The answer to the question of "how did you evaluate [x argument]" should be "the way that you had instructed me to do so in the final rebuttal". If I don't have an answer you like, you likely did not impact it out or do enough judge instruction for me, and I am unwilling to piece together for you what you wanted the implication of the argument to be.

I am unwilling to use my ballot to take a stance on anything that happened outside of the round (I guess the only exception would be disclosure). Things like call outs that require me to "punish" a team for behavior that I did not witness are a non-starter -- happy to allow you to end the round and take it to tab if you feel like your safety is at risk.

Microaggressions:I fear I have lost the plot with teams proliferating accusations of microaggressions. I interpret microaggressions as a form of interpersonal violence that occurred between debaters within the round, and it should be distinct from questions of whether forms of scholarship or procedural norms can cause psychic violence writ large. I have felt very uncomfortable having to evaluate a few debates now in which both teams have accused each other of committing microaggressions, and will continue to feel uncomfortable having my ballot serve as a referendum on accusations of interpersonal violence within the round. If you strongly believe a microaggression has occurred that requires me to stop the round, I am willing to do so and help mediate accordingly with adults from your school who are responsible for your well-being.

2024-2025 Round Stats:

Policy vs. Policy (14-19): 42% aff over 33 rounds, 40% aff in a theory/T debate over 5 rounds

Policy vs. K (2-7): 22% aff over 9 rounds

Clash (1-2): 66% neg over 3 rounds

K vs. K (3-0): 100% aff over 3 rounds

Sat once out of 13 elim rounds

2023-2024 Round Stats:

Policy vs. Policy (11-20): 35.93% aff over 31 rounds, 22.22% aff in a theory debate over 9 rounds

Policy vs. K (5-2): 71.43% aff over 7 rounds

Clash (2-3): 40% aff over 5 rounds

K v K (1-0): 100% aff over 1 round

Sat once out of 13 elim rounds

Disads

Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. I start evaluation at the impact level to determine link threshold & risk of the disad. My preference for evaluation is if there is explicit ballot writing + evidence indicts + resolution done by yourself in the 2NR/2AR, I would love not to open the card document and make a more interventionist judgement.

CPs

Default to judge kick. If the affirmative team has a problem with me doing this, that words "condo bad" should have been in the 2AC and explanation for no judge kick warranted out in the 1AR/2AR.

The proliferation of 1NCs with like 10 process counterplans has been kind of wild, and probably explains my disproportionately neg leaning ballot record. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."

I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.

Ks

Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.

Very bad for post-modernism, simply because I've never read them + rarely debated them in high school. If you have me in the back you need to do a LOT of explanation.

Better for impacts like clash rather than fairness on framework. Generally, I think the internal link to clash > the internal link to fairness because I'm not sure Ks of reps skew the 1AC so much that are at a significant disadvantage. I am more persuaded by the argument that mooting most of the offense in the 1AC decks clash, which is usually a good internal link turn to the neg's offense.

Planless Affs/Framework

For the aff: Tying your criticism to the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of advocacies not tied to the topic.

For the neg: Procedural fairness is harder to win for me as compared to other standards - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate affecting subjectivity. The way that most debaters extend it just sound whiney and don't give me a reason to prefer it over everything else. Impacts like agonism, legal skills, deliberation, etc are infinitely more convincing to me. Absent a procedural question of framework, I am just evaluating whether or not I think the advocacy is a good idea, not that I think the reading of it in one round has to change the state of debate/the world.

Topicality / Theory

Impact framing & explicit judge instruction is the most important thing in these debates!

Ethics Violations/Procedurals

I don't flow off speech docs, but I try to follow along when you're reading evidence to ensure you're not clipping. If I catch you clipping, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what you're doing. I will give you a warning, but drop you if it happens again. If the other team catches you, they can stake the round on an ethics challenge.

Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations. If you believe the ballot should resolve a question of norms (disclosure, open sourcing, etc), then I will evaluate it like a regular procedural. If you believe it's an ethics violation (intentionally modifying evidence, clipping, etc), then the round stops immediately. Loser of the ethics challenge receives an auto loss and 20s.

Evidence ethics can be really iffy to resolve. If you want to stake the round on an evidence distortion, you must prove: that the piece of evidence was cut by the other team (or someone affiliated with their school) AND there was clear and malicious intent to alter its meaning. If your problem isn't surrounding distortion but rather mistagging/misinterpreting the evidence, it can be solved via a rehighlighting.

Online Debate

Please don't start until you see my camera on!

If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.

I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.

Lay Debate / GGSA
I actually really appreciate these rounds. I think at the higher levels, debaters tend to forget that debate is a communicative activity at its core, and rely on the judge's technical knowledge to get out of impacting out arguments themselves. If we are in a lay setting and you'd rather not have a fast round when I'm in the back, I'll be all for that. There is such a benefit in adapting to slower audiences and over-explaining implications of all parts of the debate -- it builds better technical understanding of the activity! I'll probably still evaluate the round similar to how I would a regular round, but I think the experience of you forcing yourself to over-explain each part of the flow to me is greatly beneficial.

Public Forum

I've never debated in PF, I will evaluate very similarly to how I evaluate policy rounds.

I despise the practice of sending snippets of evidence one at a time. I think it's a humongous waste of time and honestly would prefer (1) the email chain be started BEFORE the round and (2) all of the evidence you read in your speech sent at once. Someone was confused about this portion of my paradigm -- basically, instead of asking for "Can I get [A] card on [X] argument, [B] card on [Y] arg, etc...", I think it would be faster if the team that just spoke sent all of their evidence in one doc. This is especially true if the tournament is double-flighted.

If you want me to read evidence after the round, please make sure you flag is very clearly.

I've been in theory/k rounds and I try to evaluate very close to policy. I'm not really a huge fan of k's in public forum -- I don't think there is enough speech time for you to develop such complex arguments out well. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense given the public forum structure (i.e. going for an advocacy when it's not a resolution that is set up to handle advocacies). I think there's so much value in engaging with critical literature, please consider doing another event that is set up better for it if you're really interested in the material. However, I'm still willing to vote on anything, as long as you establish a role of the ballot + frame why I'm voting.

If you delay the round to pre-flow when it's double-flighted, I will be very upset. You should know your case well enough for it to not be necessary, or do it on your own time.

Be nice & have fun.