Tabroom.com

Harvard National Speech and Debate Tournament

2024 — Cambridge, MA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

orne akter Hire

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 11:33 AM EDT

Hi!

My name is Orne Akter and I'm a current sophomore in Harvard studying Neuroscience on the pre-med track. I haven't even professionally competed in mock trials or debates, however, have been part of general school/class debates.

My judging philosophy:

I will judge solely based on the information stated and given to me without any prior biases for either side of the argument. This being said, you will not receive my vote unless I am thoroughly convinced by your stance.
Furthermore, I tend to keep an eye on every statement that was made so I will judge based on the whole of your argument, not just portions. If some statements were made but not fully or effectively defended, I will take note of that. This also means that I will take into consideration the speaking ability of the debaters and the strength of each individual statement as well as the argument as a whole. I will take note of any weak statements that were made.
In terms of speaking, I won't do any sort of penalty based on the way a statement is made however, I do expect claims to be stated quickly as to not take up the entirety of the time. I think concise statements are important here as I would like to see the full time being taken advantage of properly. Confidence while speaking is also important but overall, I won't be too harsh on that unless speakers make confusing statements or statements that are unclear/hard to follow.
I love evidence. I will not look too nicely upon unsupported claims, so I expect all claims to be thoroughly supported. I will take note of any claims that were stated but not supported enough so I suggest making claims with enough evidence to back them.
I also expect both sides to be professional while speaking. Debaters should not be speaking over one another and should give the other side their sufficient amount of time (time allowed). People should not be yelling at each other over claims that are made, and I expect everyone to be kind to one another regardless of the stance. This should be a debate/discussion NOT an argument.
Have fun! I will be able to see your commitment and passion for your stance based on how you speak about them and how you support your claims. I suggest you relax, think over every statement before it's made, and make sure you effectively back up everything you say.
I love a good debate and look forward to judging!

Elvis Alvarado Hire

Spencer Anderson McElligott Edina High School

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 7:02 AM CDT

Coach at Edina 22-current, and Kenwood SW 24-current. I also help out a handful of critical teams across the country.

College policy debater at Iowa 23-26, (formerly Minnesota 21-23), HS Policy debater at Edina (2016-21).

he/him

Yes, I want to be on the chain - umnakdebate [at] gmail [dot] com.

Per Truf post: I do not and will not flow off the doc, and I will not use the doc to correct my flow. In most debates, I don't open a single doc the entire debate. I will flow the words I hear you say, including warrants in the body of cards. I'm fine to be on the email chain and I'll read cards that I'm instructed to read in the 2NR/2AR. I do this because I believe it minimizes intervention - there is no other way to guarantee neither team gets an advantage over the other.

There's no record of me on the wiki from 2021-23 (edit: but there is from 23-25). If you're interested in reading trans/queer stuff, email me or find me at a tournament and I can send you lit recs, affs I've read in the past, and/or good Youtube videos of high quality debates in this corner of the library.

If you are debating in front of me and feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or have another need, please let me know at some point and I will do my best to support you and meet your needs in that moment!

I also carry things like Advil, masks and bandaids at tournaments, especially when coaching - if you need anything, come find me, even if I am not judging you!

TL;DR - Prefs

When judging high school, I see my primary role as that of an educator. I take seriously the responsibility that comes with being entrusted with someone else's students. Making the activity accessible for minoritized students matters very much to me. I therefore aim to give decision and comments in line with this.

I think that you will be happiest with the quality of my judging, comments, suggestions, ideas, and feedback when I am in the back of a KvK debate. That is simply because this is where I spend the most of my time, thought and energy in debate.

That doesn't mean I haven't voted on framework before. It also doesn't mean I haven't judged policy debates. However, I will be transparent: I have judged ZERO high-level policy debates on this topic. I worked at an LD camp this summer, and most of my coaching is with teams that lean to the critical side of things.

I want to hear you read what you want to read, but your debating will probably require more judge instruction and more explanation of the content of your argumentation if you choose to read a policy strategy against a policy aff.

General

Speaks challenge:

Specific extensions: if you, at some point during a debate, identify a card, extend it by quoting a line from the card that contains a warrant for why the claim the card is making is true, and explain how that warrant interacts with the answer that the other team has made to your argument and why I should prefer your warrant, I will give you +0.2 speaks.
Final rebuttal overview: if the first thing out of your mouth in the 2NR or 2AR makes a good-faith attempt to fill in the following sentence template by identifying why you win the debate, **regardless of if you actually win the debate**, I will give you +0.2 speaks. "We win the debate because [X argument] [OUTWEIGHS or TURNS THEIR OFFENSE or whatever else applies]. Their best argument is [Y argument], but even if they win that, we still win because [explanation]."
Rebuttal off the flow: If you flow the debate on paper and give your final rebuttal (2NR/2AR) entirely off your paper flow, without a computer open where you're speaking, your floor (minimum) speaks will be a 28.5. If you do this and win the debate, your minimum speaks will be a 29.

Speaks anti-challenge:
High school debate has a block reliance problem. Obviously the 2AC and 2NC/1NR are speeches that are conducive to reading lots of blocks - that's totally fine! I understand that blocks are useful tools that have strategic applicability!

That said, I can also tell when blocks have no applicability to the debate at hand and are a substitution for reactive and critical thinking. If you are simply reading from a backfile at the expense of reactive and critical thinking, with no contextualization to the debate, particularly in final rebuttals, this saddens me, and will impact your speaks.

Argumentative choices:

I'd like to think that the Ks I am most well-read on tend to be material and have real-world applications and conclusions. Examples and counterexamples are helpful in these debates and often carry a lot of weight when done well - I will reward good examples with good speaks! I find that pomo-type lit bases are less intuitive for me to understand, which means that examples and thorough, logical explanations can be more important if that's your jam.

I am increasingly disturbed by non-black debaters with non-black coaches reading afropessimism as a core strategy. This issue is probably too complex to adequately express in a paradigm. One thing that I can convey clearly: I am even more disturbed by non-black debaters with non-black coaches reading afropessimism as a timeskew or throwaway. If you choose to do this in front of me, you will get a 25 and I will initiate a discussion about why you have made a violent and harmful choice.

Speed/Clarity:

Current high school debate has a spreading clarity problem. If I can't hear you, I will clear you three times, and then I will put my hands in the air to signal that I am not flowing because I cannot hear you.

Judge instruction:

Always good. I will flow and follow uncontested judge instruction, which includes sentences like "all we have to win is X", "we don't have to win that X", "start evaluating the debate with X", "prioritize empirics/card recency/etc". It would behoove you to flow and answer the judge instruction your opponents make if you think their instruction bodes poorly for you winning the debate.

Sneaky behavior:

I've noticed a trend where debaters are worried to be straight-up because they believe there is a competitive edge to being sneaky. A non-exhaustive list of what this might look like --

reading a bunch of offcase that you can't explain in CX for "timeskew"
procrastinating on giving an order to not reveal your strategic choices for a few extra seconds
not opensourcing (when there isn't a good reason - think, personal content in a performance)
lying in disclosure of past 2NRs to trick the other team into thinking you'll read something that you have no intention of reading.

This does not make for good and high quality debates. Please do what you can to make the community better - in other words, do not do this.

Some of these things - misdisclosure in particular - come across as mean; it's hurtful to feel like another team is running circles around you and laughing at you while they do it.

Finally, sneaky behavior does not go unnoticed by judges. It makes it seem like you're unconfident that you will win the debate and need every possible, which lends itself to low speaks.

The speaks boost over the course of a tournament will do much more in helping you clear than whatever tiny advantage you get from the other team being slightly more unprepared.

Evidence ethics:

Evidence ethics challenges are round-ending - if you initiate one, I will ask if you intend to stake the debate on it. If you say yes, I will use either the tournament rules (if they outline a process), or NSDA guidelines (if tournament rules do not outline a process) to adjudicate the challenge. If you say no, I'll strike the argument and the debate can continue as normal.

LD:

Do what you're good at and I will vote for who wins the flow.

I have led lab at NSD Philly/Flagship for the past two years. I dabble in coaching national-circuit LD.

That said, I am from the policy world, so I spend less time thinking about LD specific arguments (phil, tricks).

If I'm judging you and that's your jam, go for it, but heavy judge instruction and a bit more explanation than normal will go far in making sure that my decision lines up with your intentions on the flow.

If I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth, I cannot flow them, and thus they will not make it into my decision. If you are reading TRICKS or THEORY, you would do very well to spread through at a pace that is flowable so that I flow the shell. If you choose not to slow down, and I don't flow the shell, you will be sadly disappointed when I don't vote on the shell.

Two miscellaneous, LD-specific things:

1. If you read critical disabilities studies, awesome. I'm here for it. On the other hand, I find that DebateDrills backfile Mollow aff to be extremely offensive. Don't read that aff in front of me or anyone else - instead, reach out to me for lit recommendations in disability studies. If you don't know what this means, it doesn't apply to you.

2. New affs. When you disclose an aff as "new", that means that every single card in the affirmative has literally never been read by you, teammates, or prepgroupmates before. Things that "new" does not mean:

this aff has not been read on this topic, but has otherwise been read by me or teammates/prepgroupmates on other topics
this aff has one new card, but has otherwise been read by me in the past (ever)
this aff has new tags or new highlighting, but has otherwise been read by me in the past (ever)
this aff has been read by others who have access to the same files like teammates/prepgroupmates (ever), even if I have never read it.

The practice of disclosing "new" gives large schools and people with the privilege of hiring private coaching or joining prep groups an even larger advantage.

Therefore, if I am judging a round where the aff was disclosed as "new" and I am given proof of someone disclosing as "new", as well as proof that the aff is not truly new but instead one of the four categories above, I will give the aff team a 25 regardless of who wins the debate.

PF:

Like LD, I have very limited experience judging PF.

Because I come from a policy background, I will evaluate the debate on the flow, so dropped args = true. Like with LD, I have non-existent knowledge about community norms for judging events that aren't policy.

Send your cards.

I will boost speaks for teams who send their evidence to the email chain before giving your speech without the opponent asking.

For teams who do not send their evidence to the email chain before the speech starts, if the opponent points it out and also sends their own cards to the chain before giving their speeches, I will take speaks away from the non-card-sending team (-0.5 per debater) and give them to the card-sending team (+0.5 per debater).

Independent from the above, I will not stand for educational dishonesty (blatant misrepresentation of evidence, et cetera). If this becomes an issue in the debate, the team who committed the violation will receive an L and lowest possible speaks - don't test me on this. If it doesn't come up in the debate, but I notice that it has happened on my own, I don't feel comfortable throwing away the flow of the round, but I will still give that team the lowest possible speaks and take any other action that I deem necessary given the context of the round.

Kenji Aoki SLC Independent

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 2:36 PM EDT

Please add me to the email chain: kvaoki2000@gmail.com | kvaoki2000 AT gmail DOT com

Background + Top Level

West High School SLC '18

Harvard '22

Currently an assistant debate coach at Harvard

Have some background knowledge on the college topic through research + judging. Have a minimal background on the high school topic. Explanation in both, particularly at the beginning of the season, is always helpful.

I begin evaluating almost every debate by listing out all the impacts made in the 2NR and 2AR and then determine the degree to which each team gets access to the fullest extent of those impacts by parsing out the rest of the debate. After, I'll weigh these impacts by deciding what the implications of winning each of them are (defaulting to and prioritizing the comparative metrics forwarded by the debaters in the round) and then usually have a good idea of who I believe should win.

Line by line is appreciated and minimizes intervention I must make after the round. Further, the more granular the debate (like debates over particular terms of art, specific details, etc.) and/or the closer the debate is, the more I'll look to evidence to break ties. Please engage in evidence comparison to limit the degree of intervention I have to do in a debate.

Quality > Quantity of arguments particularly in rebuttals.

Ultimately, do what you do best because you shouldn’t have to sacrifice your style for any minor predisposition that I may have.

Topicality

Please unpack, apply, and compare, commonly used buzzwords as the rebuttals get closer, i.e. “vote neg because our interpretation sets a functional limit on the topic,” isn’t a complete argument until there is an explanation of why the parameters the neg sets up are better than the aff interpretation for xyz reason.

Impact + caselist comparisons are essential.

Reasonability needs to be connected to how it interacts with neg offense and not just a laundry list of reasons why it is better than competing interpretations.

I think cards and evidence comparison are often underutilized in these debates.

Counterplans + Counterplan Theory

Relatively straightforward. If you’re aff, tie your solvency deficits to a specific impact and explain why it outweighs the net benefit to the counterplan. Conversely, if you’re neg, explain why the deficits don’t apply or why the deficits are unimportant because the CP sufficiently solves.

Will presume judge kick

In terms of most theory issues: literature oftentimes determines how I evaluate the extent of abusiveness of a counterplan; the more specific the solvency advocate, the better. I default to reject the arg, not the team and am relatively unpersuaded by process cps, agent cps, etc. being a reason to reject the neg.

DAs

Strong analytical pushes are good and persuasive, but also not an excuse to not read cards

Turns case arguments on multiple levels of the aff (link level, impact level) are fantastic

Zero percent risk is possible, but not the most preferable strategy

This is where most of my debate experience is in

Contextualization > Explanation in every instance, which should reflect in the way you give an overview

My biggest thought about these arguments is that both neg teams running the K and aff teams answering the K should recognize where 1AC/NC strengths are. A heg aff is not built to perm the colonialism K and pivoting to that as your strategy in the 2AC is more detrimental than beneficial. In essence, when aff, know whether you will be going for an impact turn or a perm and work backward. When neg, know whether your links/framework/alt are strongest in relation to the aff and work backward.

I've found often that many neg framework interpretations don't generate a lot of offense in terms of grander strategy because they give the aff too much leeway. I've found that I'm most persuaded by framework strategies that do one of three things:

attempt to just exclude the aff and win substantial impact turns to their model of plan focus/consequentialism,
limit the scope of aff solvency while enhancing the scope of alt solvency, or
are ditched in favor of more particular engagements on the link/impact/alt level of the kritik

K Affs/Framework

Having a relationship to the topic is preferable, but that certainly doesn't require "topical action" which I think is up for debate both on what topical constitutes as well as whether being topical is desirable

K Affs probably get a perm, but

I'm extremely open to adjusting the parameters of how perms should function in these debates and
I think I have a higher threshold of aff explanation for how any permutation functions with a competing kritik/counterplan/advocacy.

Fairness can or can’t be an impact in front of me based on debating. The most persuasive fairness arguments I’ve heard are ones paired with a discussion of how it implicates debate as an educational activity/more education-related impacts as well as how fair norms are necessary and mutually beneficial for both teams. In these debates I typically view fairness as a tiebreaker for the negative but can be convinced that it is more important than that if heavy investment is done.

TVAs should have a substantive explanation as to how they provide a similar discussion of the aff's issues and internal links and framework DAs. Simply reading an alternative plan text is not sufficient. Further, TVAs and Read On Neg/Switch Side have varying degrees of value based on aff offense against T which should affect how you deploy them by the 2NR (if not earlier).

Performances are great, but they're greater when they have explanations and develop organically as the debate continues

Misc (but still important) things

If you have an issue with access in terms of debate, please feel free to send me an email before the round so that I can make the necessary accommodations.

Tech > Truth except arguments along the lines of “racism/sexism/antiqueerness/antiblackness/ableism good”

A dropped argument still needs an extension of a claim and a warrant for me to evaluate it.

I usually look grumpy/apathetic/tired during rounds; I promise it's not usually because of anyone's actions (if it is, I'll be explicit about it after the round), and is more just my face. I deeply appreciate people's commitment to this activity and want to emphasize that I'll do my absolute best to adjudicate. Further, I feel like most of the learning I've had in the activity can be attributed to the comments provided by judges after round. Following that, please know that no amount of questions is too much, and I'm happy to answer any and all of them to make your time in this activity more valuable.

Shree Awsare North Broward Preparatory School

Last changed on Fri September 6, 2024 at 8:22 AM EDT

//shree

I am a high school social studies teacher and a parent who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from backfiles or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

Sheima Ben-Abdallah Mamaroneck High School

Kalil Bennett Calvert Hall College High School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 7:48 AM EDT

Kalil (KB) Bennett

Calvert Hall '23

Emory '27

BFHS Update for LD
I do only have experience in Policy but do still the ability to flow just need explanations of acronyms and jargon.

---T/L things---
Good for anything *that's not problematic

4 bids my senior year - attended the TOC Junior and Senior Year

Speed is fine just dont spread your analytics to make sure I can get everything

Yes, put me on the email chain - kalildebate@gmail.com

Condo is Good unless convinced otherwise

---My Background---

I have debated On the Arms Sales, Criminal Justice Reform, Water, and NATO emerging tech topics

IMO the best way to get better is to make a list of teams to beat, beat them, and make the list big enough that you don't lose. Yes I actually do that and im not afraid to disclose who is on the list

---Debate Specific Stuff---

For the econ topic I know little to nothing about the mechanisms on this topic so include what most acronyms mean.

Do line-by-line, judge instruction, warrant arguments, and narrow the debate as it progresses. Any ideological preference can be overcome by good debating.I really don’t want to vote for dropped, arbitrary theory arguments. If you introduce an ethics violation you must stake the debate on it. Tech > truth on most everything that isn’t death good or clearly problematic.

Policy AFFs: I was Big Stick for 3 years as a 2A then switched to a planless AFF my senior year. Debate the case and keep your aff relevant in the rebuttals no matter the block strat/2nr. Cite ev when responding to case args, and numbering is your friend in deep case debates.

T vs Plans - Not the best for these debates but if its your jam please do you, Standards need a clear vision of the topic for what affs are and are not topical vs what ground is gained vs lost under your interp

CPs: I loved going for process CPs my entire debate career. For the econ topic, you should explain them slightly more just because I haven't really judged any debates on this topic. Solvency advocates are good but I will vote on solvency advocate theory.

DAs - Better if there's a cp - not always necessary. Better to do ev comparison when in these debates. Impact calc is a must, especially if its DA vs case

Ks v Plan AFFs - Good for it - in these debates, the aff needs to make the neg fw interp as useless as possible - otherwise it can be hard to win some of your best offense. Neg needs links, the more specific the better. Better to have an alt in the 2nr so please fight the urge to do that.

KvK - Love these - just do what you do best.

T vs Planless: Anything can be an impact (aff or neg) contingent on comparison and turns case. Extremely persuaded by SSD and TVA when contextualized to AFF offense. It’s hard to toe the line between C/I + link turn and impact turn, so picking one or the other is best. KvK debates almost always come down to the perm, so win a theoretical objection (meh) or material DA (better) to it. Debate prob shapes subjectivity but individual rounds don’t.

Matthew Berhe Hire

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 12:56 PM EDT

Hello, I recently graduated from Lexington high school - add me to the email chain: chickenwrap4@gmail.com

harvard update - opposite of Rishi’s paradigm.

The litmus test for judge intervention is obviously high. I doubt I’ll do it but in the instance of exclusionary slurs or blatant evidence ethics I won’t have a real problem.

Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth - everyone has personal conceptions of the quality of arguments but the decision a judge makes should reflect the debaters input and delivery of arguments rather than preconceived beliefs. If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc - my least favorite decisions include prioritizing new 2ar arguments or heavily leaned aff or neg because they believed they were on the “right” side of the issue.

LD:

I evaluate every round that lacks a theory or topicality argument through

What’s the most important impact that I ought to prioritize
Given that most important impact would the strategy the neg or aff proposes be desirable

But obviously theory violations sideline my ability to evaluate such since they question the ethicality of engaging content in the first place.

Theory - I figured I'd put this first since it's considered one of the most judge dependent things. I'll vote on almost every theory violation, the almost exists as I wont vote on theory if it doesn't meet the standard of an "argument". A lot of people blip through incoherent statements that lack any form of development such as "vote aff cuz speech times favor an advantaged negative" this claim is terrible but even if the neg drops this it's not an argument as there's no explanation for why speech times favor the neg or how voting aff would solve such. However, if someone desires to pursue this incoherent argument they could say "a time pressed 1AR will inevitably get pummeled as it has to cover 7 minuets of content where the negative gets to develop any part of such - endlessly voting aff would force NDSA to change the structure of debate as it's functionally ending the activity" - that's an argument but a single blip answer from the neg will pretty much eliminate such. I will vote for any theory argument if it's substantiated in the original explanation not after it is "dropped".

Clarity and speed matter a lot in theory debates - often LD debaters can drop or lightly cover spikes when they are exempted or put inside large paragraphs because they're forced to flow when the aff can often be the combination of unclear and fast. While the aff may think this is a cheeky strategy absent immense clarity how does this prevent the judge from missing the argument as well. I'm not going to miss the argument on my original flow and look back and see it's in the middle of your 4th paragraph and expect the debater to catch it as well. This doesn't mean I'm against large walls of spikes but rather I only evaluate them when delivered coherently.

Theory arguments usually boil down to two main factors

1 - What impact does the affirmatives performance potentially cause relative to the benefits it potentially has

2 - How likely is it that the affirmatives performance causes or solves such problem in debate.

3 - If I should compare impacts or hold the affirmative to a standard where I let them pass if I believe they're reasonable.

What I mean by 1 - In a condo debate the aff can claim multiple conditional options skew 1AR strategy and the neg can claim it's absolutely necessary to ensure any educational value - however, as a judge adjuticating if the practice of conditionality is good I need to start with is preventing time skew more important than ensuring education. Winning this part of theory can lower the bar for how much of a link you need to win to your impact as you've already substantiated that it is much more important.

What I mean by 2 - In this very same condo debate even if the aff wins I should care about time skew way more than education if the negative proves it's very unlikely that conditional options uniquely skew the aff I should start to prioritize the negatives impact because it can be solved. However, this is all relative - how likely it is to be solved * how important is it to solve is the traditional frame used by an objective audience.

What I mean by 3 - This is the classic competing interpretations vs reasonability - without any debating I lean towards competing interpretations as it seems a bit arbitrary to randomly say I don't think the aff commited too much of a crime and leave it at that. However, if the aff sets up a persuasive argument for why anything but a model of reasonable doubt causes an endless proliferation of nonsense which is a) unfair or b) kills the value in debate I can be persuaded. Again, these often lose to arbitrariness or judge intervention claims in my experience.

Theory can also be an avenue for complete BS - I read robo spec, no prep, and grammarly spec as a debater for fun sometimes. However, I felt no sympathy going for these arguments as they're so trash if the aff can't generate responses of the top of their head they shouldn't win the round anyways. I'm the same as a judge I'm not going to strike a trash theory argument off the flow because it is utterly trash because it should be the aff's burden to disprove the utter trash.

This is the same for tricks, clarity and forming complete arguments are NECESSARY but otherwise it comes down to technical debating - I don't care how many you read if I can flow all of them.

CPs - this is pretty simple.

1 - Is the CP competitive

2 - Does the net benefit outweigh the risk of a solvency deficit

Some low level debates can justify competition by difference which never made any sense - it's the negatives burden to prove absolute exclusivity either based on text function or both. Usually for PICs this is pretty self explanatory.

Does the NB outweigh - for some reason some people think under the frame I've got to beat the CP then I've got to beat the DA. Usually there's no "beating" the CP or "DA" there's minimizing the risk (unless the debating from one side is absolutely terrible). One can lower the risk of the CP solving the aff and prove to me the case outweighs the DA but if I conclude the net benefit outweighs the risk that the CP doesn't solve I'm still forced to vote negative.

Judge kick - I'll presume towards it if no debating occurs.

DAs - this is a scenario where evidence matters a good amount to me, it seems kinda weird if people talk about the current state of politics or large economic factors based on arbitrary claims when the other team has cards supporting different from qualified specialists. However, this doesn't mean the neg should have a card that answers every aff argument but should be able to connect the dots between the thesis their authors support to disprove any rebuttal supported by the aff. For example, not having evidence to answer impact D in the 2NR usually doesn't matter a whole lot in LD if the original card you had in the 1NC was any good. However, if the 1NC has a barely highlighted impact card and the 1AR reads a bunch of reasons why warming doesn't cause extinction it's likely that the 2NR is going to need evidence to rebut such.

Phil - I don't have the most experience on smaller philosophies but I've gotten to understand things like Hobbes, Kant, Util, Forms of skepticism, and honestly most things read in LD. It's important for me to understand what your philosophy values in morality and how that connects to whatever the negatives philosophy is. For example, saying KANT=TRUE then Kant supports X is an argument but when the neg says X causes extinction or something it's on the aff to explain why such impact matters less than following a certain ethical criteria.

I am very low on TJFs most people have them, they make me cringe read them if you want but to me they're basically at the same standard of argument as you're a robot theory.

Ks - I spend a decent amount of time debating about whether I should evaluate the consequences of the plan against the alternative or some other framework based on education, reps, or any alternative metric. Oftentimes when the neg loses this debate their strategy starts to fall apart. However, some great Ks have backup plans built into their thesis. From my experience technical blocks resulted in a complete 1AR collapse - I don’t like it when the AFF just reiterates a generic defense of scenario planning and fails to connect it or answer the negative articulation of why such is bad.

If one does decide to go for a K against a Kaff make sure to

1 - Have a good defense of whatever your theory of how power/whatever you're questioning operates.

2 - Spend a lot of time proving exclusivity when it is hard to pin the affirmative to a specific method

3 - Explain why what the ALT solves is a lot more important than what the aff solves OR if it actually solves the case.

KAFFs - I used to read them a lot and logically I'm fine adjudicating these but I often hold the aff to a relatively high bar when answering framework. Having sweeping critiques of debate as a whole or the logic of "fairness" are bold claims but if the negative fails to dispute them it's fair game. In framework debates the neg should respond to aff offense well and articulate coherent internal links to the impact - don’t let the aff say things like “the wiki solves” “we defend most of the resolution”. AFF should prioritize impact calculus to decrease the necessity of defense to the negs impact.

My policy paradigm:

I evaluate every round simply through two frames absent a theoretical violation (theory or topicality)

What’s the most important impact that I ought to prioritize
Given that most important impact would the strategy the neg or aff proposes be desirable

New Trier is my first time judging the topic, but I’m decently informed on most affs, CPs, DAs, and Ks. My background in debate was almost entirely centered around Ks, T, and interesting kritikal versions of CPs and theoretical arguments. That being said I never had a strong ideological belief of the arguments I delivered but tried to perform it in the most technical venue to get the ballot, which is generally how I viewed most critical arguments. I don’t have any essentialist strong beliefs such as “Ks are bad” but I won’t let teams get away with minimal proof for broad sweeping claims about how the entirety of the world operates given decent aff contestation.

CPs - neg must prove opportunity cost with a net benefit Germaine to the plan outweighs the risk of a solvency deficit - against most CPs I prefer when the 2AR paints a consistent picture that connects deficits to certain 1AC Cards rather than blips that force the judge to infer, this also includes impacting out each solvency deficit.

T - I went for weird T arguments a lot such as “substantial” but also pretty decent T arguments for the majority of my junior year and some of my senior year. Most of the time I’m a big fan of precise definitions, anything else seems to be pretty arbitrary and makes any limits set unpredictable. However, I can be convinced that some definitions are so unbearable for the negative that research becomes closer and closer to impossibility. A large part of the time T debates bottle down to what impact matters the most as it’s hard to completely mitigate small theoretical impacts.

Framework - respond to aff offense well and articulate coherent internal links to the impact - don’t let the aff say things like “the wiki solves” “we defend most of the resolution”. AFF should prioritize impact calculus to decrease the necessity of defense to the negs impact.

Julien Berman Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 10:31 AM EDT

For the email chain, add julienberman@college.harvard.edu

Qualifications

2N from Georgetown Day. Went to the TOC my junior and senior years. Learned debate primarily from jon sharp, Gabe Koo, John Turner, and Shree Awsare.

Overview

I am probably as flex as you can get. Junior and senior years I read an aff about gender with no plan. I have gone for everything from high theory kritiks to process counterplans. I'll be cool with your style no matter what.
However, I do have opinions on the most persuasive ways to articulate each argument. Don't change your strategy if I'm in the back, but this paradigm should give you a sense of how best to get my ballot with the strategy you have selected.
Don't cheat. You'll get an auto-L and the lowest speaker points possible.
Assume I have very little topic knowledge.

Ideological Preferences

Non-traditional / Planless Affs

I love seeing different and creative ways to affirm the resolution in some way.
For the aff against framework, I am more persuaded by a strategy centered around a non-arbitrary counterinterpretation than one that impact turns fairness.
The aff has to solve something. You do not have to fiat in the traditional policy sense, but solvency explanation needs to go beyond "this is a good epistemological shift" or "we read the aff into debate"
The neg should go for presumption and give aff specific reasons why the aff does nothing. This will almost certainly cause me to give your off-case positions more weight. If you spend more than 4 minutes of your 2NR on presumption I will give you ridiculously high speaker points.

Framework vs Planless Affs

Stop reading pre-written overviews and blocks. It doesn't help. Trust me. Especially when you don't engage the aff's critiques of your model.
Impact calculus is great. For instance, instead of just saying that fairness is intrinsic to the game of debate, explain why preserving that game is more important than a mitigate risk of affirmative DAs to your interpretation.
More persuaded by fairness impacts than education / policymaking good / deliberation ones.
I have yet to see someone read a card on a standard in the 1NC and then coherently extrapolate an external piece of offense later in the debate. If you do this, I will be impressed.
TVA > switch side. But it actually has to be topical, and also a version of the aff. It's not a counterplan, but explain the inroads into the aff's scholarship.

Policy Affs

I have a very low tolerance for affs that string together a bunch of internal link cards and call it an advantage. You know who you are. Neg teams can easily defeat these arguments by rehighlighting a couple cards and making a few smart analytical arguments. Sometimes the aff is so absurd that it doesn't deserve a case neg.
If you have a giant framing contention, you better know how to use it. I'd rather not see you defending deontology if none of your cards support that ethical position.

T vs Policy Affs

I love this argument.
Limits > ground. Please have a caselist. Preferably two - one for the set of "good" affs your interpretation includes, and one for the set of "bad" affs the counterinterpretation includes but your interpretation excludes.
For the aff, predictability and arbitrariness is more persuasive offense to me than overlimiting and aff ground.
Please do impact calculus. On the neg, explain why strict limits are more important that a slightly more predictable definition. On the aff, explain why a more predictable gold standard is more important than an artificial limit.
Reasonability makes very little sense to me as currently explained in the debate community. Simply saying "good is good enough, T is substance crowd out, race to the bottom is bad" is a waste of time.

Counterplans

The more creative the better. Aff specific is a plus.
Process counterplans are fine if you know what's up. If you read one in front of me, don't waste your time reading a bunch of giant net benefits. If it solves the aff it solves the aff. Aff teams should not go for the intrinsic permutation without making a theory argument.
Permutation texts must be read, not inserted.
Advantage counterplans with a million planks aren't persuasive without extensive evidence and rehighlighting of aff evidence.

Kritiks

Go for it. I am familiar with neoliberalism, settler colonialism, Foucault, Heidegger, Bataille, Racial Capitalism, Baudrillard, and Afropessimism. That being said, please explain as if I know nothing about your theory.
Get rid of your overview and just do line by line. Or keep the overview to under a minute if you have to.
The links are the best parts of the kritik; they better be contextualized to the aff. Good links beat generic aff cards ten times out of ten.
Kritiks are more persuasive with a robust framework push. Framework is not a theory argument, it's about how I should weigh the ethical problems with the aff.
PiKs are fine as long as you spend a good chunk of time on framework.

Disadvantages

Please make your links aff specific.
The politics DA is a made up argument for the debate world. This means there are many absurd elements that the aff team should point out.
Zero risk is a thing. Some disads just don't exist.

Theory

Conditionality is either good or bad. There is no interpretation or violation, so stop pretending there is. It does not depend on the number or type of different counterplans either. Don't skew your time making arguments about time skew.

My Favorite Arguments

The Capitalism kritik against planless affs. I went for it about 80% of the time.
T (not framework)
Dedev
Heg good / bad

Arjun Bhattarai Hire None

Liv Birnstad Boston Latin Academy HS

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 4:13 AM EDT

I reserve the right to end the round if I think it's reached an uneducational and unsafe point.

Liv (pronounced "leave") Birnstad –livbirnstaddebate@gmail.com AND bdltravelteam@gmail.com– any/all pronouns

Washington (DC) Urban Debate League '23 + Harvard '27

'23 National Urban Debater of the Year

I'm a policy judge who is good for your Ks or more trad LD Strats, but I won't be able to get the tricks debate. I judge a handful of LD debates in a season and will not be familiar with your topic.

College policy

I am not familiar with the topic; it's your burden to explain acronyms or any other norms I might miss because of that! Prioritize depth over breadth.

Highschool policy

TL;DR

****** if you send google docs, please make sure the settings allow downloads or copying. without this, evaluating card clipping/ethics violations is impossible for me.

i'll happily evaluate anything, i just care about you having fun and being kind to your opponents. anything you do that legitimately harms the safety of debate space will deck your speaks and make you lose.

speed? – sure

open cx? – sure

theory? – sure but i wouldn't say im a theory hack

can i read __? – yes, just read it well

tech > truth? – i’ll reward good debate and i encourage you to just make fully warranted arguments above all else.

tell me how to evaluate the round.

Full Version

Bio

I debated with the Washington (D.C.) Urban Debate League, did all of the competitive nat circuit stuff, and went for a good mix of arguments (mostly K's on the neg and a combination of soft left and big stick affs). I coach the Boston Debate League's travel team with Mosie Burke and generally care a lot about the activity so feel free to do what you want and do best.

Working primarily with urban debate leagues, accessibility is extremely important to me. If tech is an issue for another team, make sure there is a way for them to access your evidence.

K’s / K Aff’s

I’m open to evaluating kritikal arguments. I’ll reward debaters that can articulate their theory of power and the nuances of it well. Regardless of my understanding of your lit, I will not fill in gaps for you with my personal knowledge of it. I’m not a great judge for psychoanalysis (because of personal biases against the origin of the literature and the practice of psychoanalysis) or high theory k’s generally. I will vote on it, but will be grumpy if you make me.

I don't think partnerships without a Black debater should read pess.

If you read an aff that uses methods like songs, poetry, etc, you're good to do that in front of me.

Theory & topicality

I’m a grumpy theory judge and think debaters need to really go for a theory argument if they want my ballot. Get off your blocks.

Happy to evaluate topicality, but I am not as well versed in the beautiful art of T as some other folks are.I am starting to believe that fairness is not an impact. Feel free to read it in front of me and convince me that it is or just go for something else.

card clipping/evidence ethics

If someone makes a card clipping accusation in the round (or another evidence ethics violation) I will stop the round after the speech in which it occurs, explain the stakes to the team that makes the accusation, and if they decide to continue with the accusation I'll evaluate the argument. if it gets to that point, i'll see if the cards were clipped. If so, the team that makes the accusation wins, if not, they lose.

*unless the tournament has alternative procedures.*

6,7,8+ off

I generally believe these kinds of debates are shallow and don't actually give teams as much leverage as they think apart from a time skew. while theory is not my bread and butter (see above) ill be a lil more lenient with condo with 6+ off.

misc

I don’t want to evaluate a troll/joke round.

I don't vote on things that happened before the reading of the 1ac.

if the round doesn’t go the way you want, i would be happy to listen to a redo + give feedback just send it to me within a week.

debaters stop stealing prep challenge. level: impossible. ☹

Josh Blevins Hire

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 1:44 PM EDT

Josh’s Judging Paradigm

Yow, have judging paradigms gotten long or what? You don’t want a tome. Here are the bulletpoints:

1. Please put me on the chain: joshblevins@gmail.com

2. I generally dislike speed/spreading and think it is bad for education. I am worse than you are at flowing it. I am also not a coach and don’t judge constantly, so I’m not previously acquainted with as much evidence as you are. I will not vote against you for speed, but if I miss your argument on my flow, that hurts you.

3. If you are going to spread, slow down for analyticals and tags.

4. This is policy debate. I’m mostly (90%) a policymaker. Thus, impacts (qualitative and quantitative) are the single most important issue in round. An impact calculus (magnitude, severity, timeframe, probability, irreversibility, etc) is going to help you.

5. Secondarily, I also (10%) care about stock issues. You will often see me weigh each of these on my ballot. If I don’t vote on K and policy impacts are too close to call, I will tally-up stock issues.

6. The preceding two paragraphs notwithstanding, I will listen to and consider nearly any argument as a potential voting issue as it is presented persuasively and respectfully. This includes debate theory.

7. Roadmap! Signpost! It helps me but, more importantly, I promise that it helps you. Particularly as a round progresses, in many instances, I can conceivably stick an argument in seven different places on my flow. If you don’t tell where you want an argument to go, I won’t look around the ballot to find places to apply it for you.

8. The best debate rounds are full of clash. It is possible for both sides to discuss a single issue and yet have little to no clash because they talk past each other. On any given issue in-round, please don’t further your own line of argument without answering those that your opponents are making.

9. As a policymaker, I love good DAs and CPs. This shouldn’t just consist of reading new evidence; links to the 1AC should be solid and an impact calculus is essential.

10. I am happy to vote on K, but both a unique link and impact analysis are essential. Generic Ks don’t do much for me.

11. I increasingly rarely vote on T. If you’re going to run it, persuading me on standards is essential.

12. Let me know when your opponents drop arguments.

13. Saying a couple of words of esoteric debate jargon and moving-on (e.g., “dispo solves”) is not an argument unto itself.

14. I do not flow cross ex. Often, I do not pay close attention to it, particularly when I am making notes on my flow or my ballot. CX is for your edification, a time to request clarification of arguments, grab missed evidence tags, sharpen a line of reasoning, etc. If something is said in CX that you want to matter in the round, repeat it in your speech. I mention this because I’ve recently seen debaters argue that their opponents didn’t respond to something brought-up in CX. Let me be clear: CX is not a speech and your opponents don’t have to answer anything from your CX in their speeches.

15. Finally, in online rounds, please excuse any apparent inattention. (I use multiple monitors and may be staring right at you on a monitor that doesn’t have a camera.)

Here are some thoughts on what debate means to me:

Debate is a thinking person’s game. At its best it tests your acumen and requires the use of parts of your intellect which daily life usually does not. Think about your opponents’ arguments and their frames of reference, draw from the corners of what you know, and present a cogent and cohesive broadside. Think critically. Don’t simply argue on the surface.

I believe profoundly in the value of competitive debate. Disagreement alone does not advance humankind. It takes an exchange of ideas, thoughtful deliberation, and compelling argumentation to move us along. In the real world, folks on opposite sides of an issue frequently talk past each other, promoting their case without substantively addressing their opponent’s points. Don’t let that happen in a debate round. Find some real clash.

In life—as in debate—you can’t be expected to be an expert on every argument you hear, nor on every issue about which you might find yourself in conversation. But it is your obligation to yourself and to the human race to be an expert critical thinker, and to be able to articulate that thinking coherently.

Have some fun doing it.

original January 2004 / last updated for Harvard National, February 2024

Jack Booth The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:51 AM EDT

Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-t-framework impacts ranked: topic education > skills > clash/arg refinement > scenario planning > fun > literally any other reason why debate is good > fairness

-I updated the t-fw part of my paradigm recently (under policy, 12/4/23) - if you are anticipating having a framework debate in front of me on either side, I would appreciate it if you skimmed it at least

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume one way or the other for theory questions

-all kinds of theory, including topicality, framework, and/or "role of the ballot" arguments are about ideal models of debate

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-for high school policy 23-24: I actually used to work for the Social Security Administration (only for about 7-8 months) and I have two immediate family members who currently work there - so I have a decent amount of prior knowledge about how the agency works internally, processes benefits, the technology it uses, etc. - but not necessarily policy proposals for social security reform

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Feel free to adapt arguments, but please don't change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you are prepared for, practiced in, and passionate about. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

Speed - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

Clarity - I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. I think you can clear or slow your opponent if you are comfortable with it - but not excessively to avoid interruption please - max 2-3 times a speech. If you are unclear with tags or analytics in an earlier speech, I will try to let you know immediately after the speech is over. If you do it in a rebuttal, you are 100% at fault because I know you can do it clearly, but are choosing not to. Focus on efficiency, not speed.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. I would prefer that, at the varsity level, CX or prep time is taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take prep or speech time for tech issues - the clock can stop if necessary. Use the bathroom, fill up your water bottle as needed - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

If you win the debate without reading from a laptop in the 2NR/2AR your floor for speaks is a 29.

For Policy:

T-Framework: The fw debates I like the most are about the advantages and disadvantages of having debates over a fiated policy implementation of the topic. I would prefer if your interpretation/violation was phrased in terms of what the affirmative should do/have done - I think this trend of crafting an interpretation around negative burdens is silly - i.e. "negatives should not be burdened with the rejoinder of untopical affirmatives." I'm not usually a big fan of neg interpretations that only limit out certain parts of the topic - strategically, they usually seem to just link back to neg offense about limits and predictability absent a more critical strategy. I think of framework through an offense/defense paradigm and in terms of models of debate. My opinion is that you all spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing research, redos, practice, and debates - you should be prepared to defend that the research you do, the debates you have, and how you have those debates are good.

1. Topic-specific arguments are best - i.e. is it a good or bad thing that we are having rounds talking about fiscal redistribution, nuclear weapons, resource extraction, or military presence? How can that prepare people to take what they learn in debate outside of the activity? Why is topic-specific education valuable or harmful in a world of disinformation, an uninformed American public, escalating global crises, climate change, etc.? Don't be silly and read an extinction impact or anything though.

2. Arguments about debate in general are also great - I'm down for a "debate about debate" - the reason that I as a coach and judge invest tons of time into this activity is because I think it is pedagogically valuable - but what that value should look like, what is best to take from it, is in my opinion the crux of framework debates. Should debate be a competitive space or not? What are the implications of imagining a world where government policy gets passed? What should fiat look like or should it be used at all?

I can be convinced that debate should die given better debating from that side. But honestly, this is not my personal belief - the decline of policy debate in terms of participation at the college and high school level makes me very sad actually. I can also be convinced that debate is God's gift to earth and is absolutely perfect, even though I also believe that there are many problems with the activity. There is also a huge sliding scale between these two options.

3. Major defensive arguments and turns are good - technical stuff about framework like ssd, tvas, relative solvency of counter-interps, turns case and turns the disad arguments, uniqueness claims about the current trends of debate, claims about the history of debate, does it shape subjectivity or not - are all things that I think are worth talking about and can be used to make "try or die" or presumption arguments - though they should not be the focal point of your offense. I like when tvas are carded solvency advocates and/or full plan texts.

4. I do not like judging debates about procedural fairness:

A) They are usually very boring. On every topic, the same pre-written blocks, read at each other without any original thought over and over. I dislike other arguments for this reason too - ultra-generic kritiks and process cps - but even with those, they often get topic or aff-specific contextualizations in the block. This does not usually happen with fairness.

B) I often find fairness very unimportant on its own relative to the other key issues of framework - meaning I don't usually think it is offense. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyway), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me to reasonably compare it to the aff's offense - saying "well we all must care about fairness because we're here, they make strategic arguments, etc." - is not sufficient to do that. I usually agree that competitive incentives mean people care about fairness somewhat. But how much and why is that important? I get an answer with nearly every other argument in debate, but hardly ever with fairness. I think a threshold for if something is an impact is that it's weighable.

C) Despite this, fairness can be impacted out into something tangible or I can be convinced that "tangibility" and consequences are not how I should make my decision. My hints are Nebel and Glówczewski.

5. Everyone needs to compare their impacts alongside other defensive claims in the debate and tell me why I should vote for them. Like traditional T, it's an offense/defense, disad/counterplan, model of debate thing for me. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. Impacts are negative effects of the status quo, the alternative resolves the status quo, and the links are reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening. Perms are a test of the strength of the link. Framework, ROB, and ROJ arguments operate on the same level to me and I think they are responsive to each other. My feelings on impacts here are similar to t-fw.

I still study some French high theory authors in grad school, but from a historical perspective. In my last couple years of college debate I read Baudrillard and DnG-style arguments a lot, some psychoanalysis as well - earlier than that my tastes were a little more questionable and I liked Foucault, Zizek, and Nietzsche a lot, though I more often went for policy arguments - I gave a lot of fw+extinction outweighs 2ARs. A lot of the debates I find most interesting include critical ir or critical security studies arguments. I have also coached many other kinds of kritiks, including all of the above sans Zizek as well as a lot of debaters going for arguments about anti-blackness or feminism. Set col stuff I don't know the theory as well tbh.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. Turns cases/turns the da is usually much better than timeframe/probability/magnitude. Between two improbable extinction impacts, I default to using timeframe a lot of the time. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card that you explain well in rebuttals rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing, but hard to prove, like presumption.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. My favorites are advantage cps, specific pics, and recuttings of 1AC solvency ev. I like process cps when they are specific to the topic or have good solvency advocates. I will vote on other ones still, but theory and perm do the cp debates may be harder for you. I think some process cps are even very pedagogically valuable and can be highly persuasive with up-to-date, well-cut evidence - consult Japan on relevant topics for instance. But these arguments can potentially be turned by clash and depth over breadth. And neg flex in general can be a very strong argument in policy. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and thinking of interps as models of debate. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing. I like topicality debates quite a bit.

Theory: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Like T, I think of theory through models of debate and default to competing interps- you should have an interpretation to make your life a little easier if you want to extend it - if you don't, I will assume the most extreme one (i.e. no pics, no condo, etc.). If you don't have a counter-interp in response to a theory argument, you are in a bad position. If your interpretation uses debate jargon like pics, "process" cps, and the like - you should tell me what you mean by those terms at least in rebuttal. Can pics be out of any word said, anything in the plan, anything defended in the solvency advocate or in cx, any concept advocated for, etc.? I think there is often too much confusion over what is meant to be a process cp. The interpretation I like best for "process" is "counterplans that result in the entirety of the plan." I like condo bad arguments, especially against super abusive 1ncs, but the neg gets a ton of time in the block to answer it, so it can be really hard to give a good enough 1ar on it without devoting a lot of time as well - so if you are going to go for it in the 2ar, you need to expand on it and cover block responses in the 1ar. Warrant out reject the argument vs. reject the team.

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

3 - Phil, Theory that isn't condo or pics bad

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

My disclaimer is I try to keep an open mind for any debate - you should always use the arguments/style that you are most prepared with and practiced in. You all seem to really like these shortcuts, so I caved and made one - but these are not necessarily reflective of my like or dislike for any particular argument, instead more of my experience with different kinds, meaning some probably require more explanation for me to "get it." I love when I do though - I'm always happy to learn new things in debate!

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Trad Debate: By far what I am least familiar with. I don't coach this style and never competed in anything like LD trad debate - I did traditional/lay policy debate a bit in high school - but that is based on something called "stock issues" which is a completely different set of standards than LD's value/value criterion. I struggle in these debates because for me, like "stock issues" do in policy, these terms seem to restrictively categorize arguments and actually do more to obscure their meaning than reveal it. In the trad debates I've seen (not many, to be fair), tons of time was dedicated to clarifying minutiae and defining words that either everyone ended up agreeing on or that didn't factor into the way that I would make my decision. I don't inherently dislike LD trad debate at all, it honestly just makes things more difficult for me to understand because of how I've been trained in policy debate for 11 years. I try my best, but I feel that I have to sort through trad "jargon" to really get at what you all think is important. I would prefer if you compared relative impacts directly rather than told me one is better than the other 100% of the time.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive - tournaments didn't provide public wifi. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

eliza Buckner Little Rock Central

Daryl Burch McDonogh

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 2:37 PM EDT

Daryl Burch

currently the director of high school debate for McDonogh

formerly coached at the University of Louisville, duPont Manual High School (3X TOC qualifiers; Octofinalist team 2002) the head coach for Capitol Debate who won the TOC (2014). McDonogh won the TOC in 2017. I have taught summer institutes at the University of Michigan, Michigan State, Emory, Iowa, Catholic University, and Towson University and Wake Forest as a lab leader.

I debated three years in high school on the kentucky and national circuit and debated five years at the University of Louisville.

I gave that little tidbit to say that I have been around debate for a while and have debated and coached at the most competitive levels with ample success. I pride myself in being committed to the activity and feel that everyone should have a voice and choice in their argument selection so I am pretty much open to everything that is in good taste as long as YOU are committed and passionate about the argument. The worst thing you can do in the back of the room is assume that you know what I want to hear and switch up your argument selection and style for me and give a substandard debate. Debate you and do it well and you will be fine.

True things to know about me:
Did not flow debates while coaching at the University of Louisville for two years but am flowing again

Was a HUGE Topicality HACK in college and still feel that i am up on the argument. I consider this more than a time suck but a legitimate issue in the activity to discuss the merit of the debate at hand and future debates. I have come to evolve my thoughts on topicality as seeing a difference between a discussion of the topic and a topical discussion (the later representing traditional views of debate- division of ground, limits, predictability etc.) A discussion of the topic can be metaphorical, can be interpretive through performance or narratives and while a topical discussion needs a plan text, a discussion of the topic does not. Both I think can be defended and can be persuasive if debated out well. Again stick to what you do best. Critiquing topicality is legitimate to me if a reverse voting issue is truly an ISSUE and not just stated with unwarranted little As through little Gs. i.e. framework best arguments about reduction of language choices or criticism of language limitations in academic discussion can become ISSUES, voting issues in fact. The negative's charge that the Affirmative is not topical can easily be developed into an argument of exclusion begat from predictable limitations that should be rejected in debate.

It is difficult to label me traditional or non traditional but safer to assume that i can go either way and am partial to traditional performative debate which is the permutation of both genres. Teams that run cases with well developed advantages backed by a few quality pieces of evidence are just as powerful as teams that speak from their social location and incorporate aesthetics such as poetry and music. in other words if you just want to read cards, read them poetically and know your argument not just debate simply line by line to win cheap shots on the flow. "They dropped our simon evidence" is not enough of an argument for me to win a debate in front of me. If i am reading your evidence at the end of the debate that is not necessairly a good thing for you. I should know what a good piece of evidence is because you have articulated how good it was to me (relied on it, repeated it, used it to answer all the other arguments, related to it, revealed the author to me) this is a good strategic ploy for me in the back of the room.

Technique is all about you. I must understand what you are saying and that is it. I have judged at some of the highest levels in debate (late elims at the NDT and CEDA) and feel pretty confident in keeping up if you are clear.

Not a big fan of Malthus and Racism Good so run them at your own risk. Malthus is a legitimate theory but not to say that we should allow systematic targeted genocide of Black people because it limits the global population. I think i would be more persuaded by the argument that that is not a NATURAL death check but an IMMORAL act of genocide and is argumentatively irresponsible within the context of competitive debate. Also i am not inclined to believe you that Nietzsche would say that we should target Black people and exterminate them because death is good. Could be wrong but even if i am, that is not a persuasive argument to run with me in the back of the room. In case you didn't know, I AM A BLACK PERSON.

Bottom line, I can stomach almost any argument as long as you are willing to defend the argument in a passionate but respectful way. I believe that debate is inherently and unavoidable SUBJECTIVE so i will not pretend to judge the round OBJECTIVELY but i will promise to be as honest and consistent as possible in my ajudication. Any questions you have specifically I am more than happy to answer.

Open Cross X, weird use of prep time (before cross x, as a prolonging of cross x) all that stuff that formal judges don't like, i am probably ok with.

db

Moselle Burke Boston Latin Academy HS

Last changed on Sun July 7, 2024 at 10:35 AM EDT

Please add mosieburkebdl@gmail.com to the email chain.

Hello! My name is Mosie (MO-zee), he/him/his. Please use my name instead of “judge”.

Personal and professional background:

I debated for Boston Latin Academy from 2011-2017, and was part of the first team from the Boston Debate League (UDL) to break to Varsity elimination rounds on the national circuit, bid, and qualify to the TOC. I attended Haverford College (B.A. Philosophy, Statistics minor) for my undergraduate studies and Northeastern University (MBA/M.S. Accounting) for graduate school. I currently work as an accountant for a software company in the Boston area. Liv Birnstad and I co-coach the Boston Debate League’s Travel Team, which is composed of students from multiple schools within the Boston UDL.

Short Version:

-Offense-Defense.

-I have experience judging and coaching traditional policy, Kritik, and Performance styles.

-High familiarity with many literature bases for Kritiks. This increases your burden to explain your theory well, and I will not do theoretical work for you.

-I have prioritized developing my understanding of counterplan strategies and competition theory, and I am a better judge for CP/Disad strategies than I have been in previous seasons.

-All speeds OK, please prioritize your flowability. I will say “clear” twice before docking speaks for clarity.

***********************************************

I have judged 1 national circuit tournament and 2 local/non-circuit tournaments on the intellectual property topic. I coach and write arguments of all styles on the intellectual property topic.

***********************************************

Longer Version:

Style

Speed is fine, but it should not come at the expense of clarity or flowability. I will say “clear” twice before docking speaks for clarity.

I welcome rounds with numerous off-case positions, but keep in mind that I flow on paper and I need pen time.

Make my job easy! If you bury important arguments in an unclear wall of noise because you’re speeding through your blocks, I probably won’t catch them. Example: if your 2AC frontline against a core counterplan includes 4-5 uncarded arguments before you read evidence, you should read those uncarded arguments more slowly than you would read the highlighted lines in a card.

Cross-examination should be conducted intentionally and strategically. It should not be an attempt to phrase gross mischaracterizations of your opponents’ arguments as questions. Don't be cruel, disrespectful, or belittling. CX where both debaters are continuously talking at the same time is a pet peeve.

The 2NR and 2AR should prioritize persuasiveness and focus on condensing the debate where possible. They should not just be a list of semi-conceded arguments.

In the absence of guidance from tournament admin I follow NSDA guidelines for evidence violations, including card clipping, improper citation, and misrepresentation of evidence.

Please take steps to minimize tech delays. Set up the email chain and check your internet connection before the round start time. You should be able to reply-all and attach a document without significantly delaying the round. Putting cards in a doc before your speech is prep time.

Case

I love a robust case debate! Neg teams should aim to have a variety of arguments on each important case page. Impact defense usually isn’t sufficient to contest an advantage scenario on its own. State good usually isn’t a sufficient case answer against a K aff. Most 2NRs should spend time on the case.

I find alt cause arguments more persuasive than recutting solvency evidence to make a counterplan that addresses the alt causes.

Please extend the substance of your case arguments, instead of “dropped A1 means nuke war, case outweighs on magnitude.”

Overviews should accomplish specific goals, and if your overview does not have a purpose I would rather it not be present in your speech. If there is a lengthy overview on a flow, please tell me during your roadmap.

Topicality & Theory

I love these debates when they are intentional and clever, and I strongly dislike these debates when they’re just an exercise in reading blocks. I was a 1N who took the T page in every round, and I will appreciate your strategic concessions, decisionmaking, and tricks.

I will vote on theory arguments if you win them. If your theory argument is silly, I will find it less persuasive and it will be more difficult to win.

Kritiks

I am well-versed in most K literature frequently used in debates (and you should ask if you'd like to know about my familiarity with your specific K author). This has 2 important implications for K teams:

1. I will know what you’re talking about when you explain and use the details of your theory. I will reward solid understanding of theoretical nuances that are relevant to your K if you communicate them and use them strategically.

2. I will not extrapolate the details of your theory for you. It is important that you clearly communicate the theoretical nuances you're using to make your arguments. “Ontology means we win” isn’t a complete argument, even though I know how to connect those dots.

Performance is 100% fine by me. If you incorporate a performance as part of your aff's methodology, I will evaluate is as I would any other methodology, so please incorporate it in later speeches and make sure I know why it's important.

In Policy aff vs K 2NR debates, the team that wins framework will usually win the round.

Counterplans

I’ve recently made a significant effort to improve my understanding of these debates after identifying it as a weak point in my judging and coaching abilities. I have a new appreciation for competition debates, process CPs, conditionality, and the like, and I’m looking forward to judging more counterplan/disad strategies! Please slow down a little on the frontlines that are rapid-fire analytics and the 2AC/2NC theory blocks.

I can conceptually come to terms with 2NC counterplans in response to 2AC add-ons, but I don’t like them very much, and I would prefer to avoid debates that require new cards going into the 2NR/2AR.

On theory debates about counterplan planks, perm severance & intrinsicness, etc. I will default to reject the argument until you make an argument for reject the team.

Disadvantages & Impact Comparison

I want to understand your scenario as early in the debate as possible, so please make it clear and explain the link chain. You should have an explanation of the story of the disadvantage that is as concrete and jargon-free as possible, especially at the top of the 2NR.

Impact comparison should be composed of persuasive arguments, not a magnitude-probability-timeframe-turns case checklist.

Areeba Thakir Chicvak Berkeley Preparatory School

Joseph Chicvak Berkeley Preparatory School

Akif Choudhury Hire

Sam Church Hire

Jason Clarke Fort Collins High School

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2024 at 9:05 AM MDT

Jason Clarke

For the email chain: jclarke@psdschools.org

Experience:
3 years of high school CX debate
4 years college debate (One year CEDA, 3 years Parli – NPDA)
20 years high school debate coach

Policy Paradigm:

I tend to default to a policymaker paradigm, although I will vote on almost any argument if it is sufficiently warranted and impacted. In most rounds I will weigh the policy impacts according to the time frame, probability, and magnitude of each impact and vote accordingly. If you want me to consider non-policy arguments, like K and T, you just need to provide framework and voters.

I am not opposed to K, in fact I like really good kritiks, but I don't automatically vote on "you link you lose" which has become popular the last few years on the circuit. I prefer for you to explain the role of my ballot in the round to justify my voting for your position. Why is voting for a K and endorsing a theory of power preferable to voting for your opponent's policy option and its impacts? Alternatively, if you fiat a policy or specific plan and your opponent runs a K against it, why should I prefer that policy and its consequences?

If you are clear about how the impacts and voters should be weighed in your rebuttals, you are significantly more likely to win my ballot. Good 2AR and 2NR speeches tell me the story of the round and why I should vote for you. Be sure to extend the internal links, warrants, and impacts of your arguments, not just the tag lines. If you have an overview or under view, your goal should be to clearly articulate what my RFD should be, which makes my job easier.

I am OK with speed - I am pretty used to it by now - but don’t mumble or slur your words together – articulate and efficient speed can be a good strategy; inarticulate spread fails to communicate your arguments. I am a strict flow judge and always vote on the flow in policy debate.

LD Paradigm

I prefer the traditional LD style. I like to see a value and criterion and for your arguments to be impacted through your framework. If you don't have a framework, just be aware that your opponent can use their framework to take out the moral foundation of your argument and win the debate even if you are winning policy implications on the flow. I see policy debate as being primarily about policymaking and LD to be about moral and philosophical questions. I am more likely to vote on a moral or philosophical argument in LD and more likely to vote on consequentialist policy implications in a CX round.

I am okay with reasonable levels of speed but keep in mind that I am more likely to vote on a well articulated and explained moral position than a bunch of cards which you speed through without warrants or explanations. Although in policy debate I flow dropped arguments as granted or conceded, in LD certain arguments can be dropped strategically when a more fundamental or significant argument needs to be further developed. Don't assume I will automatically flow a dropped argument in your favor in LD - you will need to extend the warrants and implications to show me why that dropped argument is more significant than other arguments in the round to win the ballot.

PF Paradigm

Public Forum debate is designed to be a communication-oriented debate style, and I judge it accordingly. I flow every round, but I am more interested in your skill as a debater. I vote for the team that is the most persuasive. This includes your ability to use evidence to support your claims, to speak in a persuasive and articulate manner, and to refute your opponent's ideas in a respectful yet effective way. Avoid spread and jargon in PF please.

Chanden Climaco Hire

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 11:19 AM CDT

CHANDEN CLIMACO

MBA '23 & Harvard '27
chandenclimaco@college.harvard.edu
debatemba@gmail.com

Quick note for IP:

I’ve not done any coaching or judging this year, so my topic knowledge is pretty close to zero. Please hold my hand if you’re deep in the weeds of IP law!

No big changes to my philosophy. I probably value kindness and common courtesies in-round more than I did two years ago. Say hello to each other, shake hands or whatever after the round, smile. We take tournaments seriously — and for good reason! I get it! — but you can be serious and have funat the same time.

I have zero pre-dispositions that cannot be budged by good debating. In other words, tech always comes before truth. I value card quality highly, but I will resort first to the arguments made by the debaters, not the arguments made by the evidence. If a tag reads "Warming causes extinction," and that card's body is an explanation of the Pythagorean theorem, I will flow "Warming causes extinction" and not re-evaluate the argument until instructed otherwise. "Their card never says warming causes extinction" is more than sufficient refutation.

This should inform the way you debate in front of me. Go 15-off if you must — read ASPEC or a 30-second death K shell if you must — but do be wary of your speaks getting tanked. I'll vote on basically anything if you win the position.

Some specific thoughts below, but as always, up for debate:

COUNTERPLANS
• Conditionality is good, but 'condo bad' is probably underutilized.
• 2NC counterplans out of straight-turns are bad.
• Delayed and/or uncertain counterplans which result in the aff do not compete. "Perm: do the CP" is highly compelling (and much better than the functionally-intrinsic perm).
• Counterplans probably only need to be functionally competitive; many counterplans that would be excluded by textual competition lose to the perm above.

KRITIKS
• Here I formerly wrote “Debate them technically.” While that’s still very true, don’t assume it means you don’t have to put on a show. I wanna be entertained!

PLANLESS AFFS & FRAMEWORK
• Procedural fairness is a terminal impact, but it’s small.
• Clash might produce extrinsic benefits, but I can easily be convinced otherwise.

SPEAKS
≥ 29.5 = top 5 speakers at the tournament
28.9-29.4 = you should break to elims
28.4-28.8 = average
28.0-28.3 = below average
< 28.0 = you were rude or offensive

OTHER
• After the round ends, let me know if you open source. Speaks will be boosted 0.2 for good wiki disclosure. Probably will forget to remind you, so be on top of this if you want the points.
• I appreciate well-formatted cards and speeches and will reward them with higher speaks.
• Open cross-ex: do it if needed, but avoid it if possible.
• Same goes for ins/outs.
• Inserting rehighlightings is okay, so long as you analytically explain the importance of the rehighlighting, and the newly-inserted evidence comes from text your opponent has already introduced.
• New arguments until the 1NR are fine. New arguments in the 1AR are justifiable (but only if you justify them). New arguments in the 2NR are difficult to justify. New 2AR arguments will not be evaluated.

Jeremiah B. Cohn Hire

Melissa Cooper Hire

Raina Cranston Binghamton City Schools None

Irene Cui Hire

Jada Darby Northstar Academy High School - Newark

Richard Davis Hire

Jakhi Dean Somerville High School

Anton DeLuca Long Branch High School

Last changed on Wed February 21, 2024 at 2:28 AM EDT

To begin with: please be respectful to your partner and your opponents. This is of paramount importance. While we understand that this is a competition and situations, especially during cross examination, can reach high levels of intensity, that is no excuse for showing disrespect to any party involved.

ANY reference to an opponent with the use of a derogatory or racist term (even under the guise of a performance piece or simulation in the debate space) will NOT be tolerated.

As a general note, I greatly prefer topicality in the debate round. If you are running an AFF that is far away from the topic of the year (i.e. performance pieces, poetry, voluntary silence), you will have to work very hard in the round to show relation to the resolution. If either team is running a KRITIK, you will have a high threshold for proving that the topic as given by the NSDA is not worthy of being debated.

As for Topicality arguments, I believe that they usually do not hold up over the long haul of a round. After a certain point, they just become, for lack of a better term, a time waste. As long as the AFF team can prove that they are topical if the NEG team calls it into question, it will leave my flow sheet after the 2AC.

Speed reading DOES NOT impress me. If anything, I find it to be distracting from the debate. If you want me to have a clean flow, make sure that I can understand that information that you are trying to relay. I much prefer being "explained to" vs. "read at". There is a difference. If I can't make sense of your arguments, it will be hard to pick a side.

During the final two speeches (2NR & 2AR) I will be listening for you to tell me why YOU should win the round.

For the most part, we are all here as a learning experience, and to enjoy the clash of policy debate.
During your speeches, I will greatly appreciate clarity and slow-speaking, especially when reciting taglines and making important points. This will make it easier for me to analyze and flow what you are saying instead of struggling to keep up with what you are saying.

Please include me on all e-mail chain: adeluca@longbranch.k12.nj.us

Philip DiPiazza Ronald Reagan

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:35 AM CDT

Updated - Fall 2020

Number of years judging: 12

For the email chain: philipdipiazza@gmail.com

I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).

Like every judge I look for smart, well-reasoned arguments. I’ll admit a certain proclivity for critical argumentation, but it isn’t an exclusive preference (I think there’s something valuable to be said about “policy as performance”). Most of what I have to say can be applied to whatever approach debaters choose to take in the round. Do what you’re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thought-out decision.

I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.

I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I like strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it’s the Negative’s job to prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary which means more than just presenting an alternative or methodology that solves better – I think this is the best way to preserve clash in these kinds of debates. Please be sure to explain your position and its relation to the other arguments in the round.

KRITIK LINKS ARE STILL IMPORTANT. Don’t assume you’ll always have one, and don’t over-rely on extending a “theory of power” at the top of the flow. Both of these are and should be mutually reinforcing. This is especially important for the way I evaluate permutations. Theories of power should also be explained deliberately and with an intent to persuade.

I think the topic is important and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution, but that doesn’t mean you have to read a plan text or defend the USFG. Framework is debatable (my judging record on this question is probably 50/50). A lot of this depends on the skills of the debaters in the room. This should not come as a surprise, but the people who are better at debating tend to win my framework ballot. Take your arguments to the next level, and you'll be in a much stronger position.

Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) There's a fine line between intensity and rudeness, so please be mindful of this.

Srinivasa Doki BASIS Peoria

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2024 at 8:15 AM MST

Hello there!

My name is Srinivasa Doki. I am a parent judge in my second year for judging. This means some MAJOR things you must do in order for me to evaluate your ballot:

1. SIGNPOST! THE BETTER THE ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY OF SPEAKING, THE BETTER I CAN EVALUATE YOUR ARGUMENT. OTHERWISE, I WILL NOT FLOW YOUR ARGUMENT AT ALL!

2. DO NOT SPREAD OR FAST TALK! I CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOU IF YOU DO NOT SPEAK CLEARLY.

3. DEFINE UNCOMMON TERMINOLOGY TO ME! I UNDERSTAND CP, DA, T, ETC. BUT PLEASE MAKE IT EASY FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE TERM MEANS.

Debate Round Stuff:

Email is dokisri@gmail.com

5 mins max to set up the email chain.

Proper Etiquette and kindness is expected from all competitors.

NO K AFFs! NO TRICKS! NO DEBATER MATH! NO FRIV THEORY!

Aff:

Run whatever affs you like. But make sure you explain the problems in the status quo, what unique plans are passed in your aff, what you solve for, etc. Make it easy for me to understand and why I should vote aff rather than Neg. Make sure to respond to off-case args made from the opponents.

Also, when you argue against off-case, here is some stuff I expect from you guys:

Be as precise as possible. This means going into the card and looking at the evidence itself! This also means what arguments that were attacked by the neg should be defended properly.
Explain why the off-case do not matter as much! This could be no uniqueness, impact turn, etc.
Argue why your aff is not affected by the neg's off case or how the aff's world solves for this.

Neg:

Please do not run a K. I do not understand them well and I get very confused by them.

CP and DA are fine, but make sure to be specific in how doing the aff causes this. (For example, this could be telling me a card that links into the DA). Also, make the DA logical enough to occur, not some random DA that makes 0 sense!

I am not experienced in Topicality, but I know the main gist of the T. If you do run them, explain why this is a voter issue! Have great claims and evidence in order for me to give you the W!

I do not know what Theory (other than T) is. So restrain yourself from those unless it is a serious violation and must be address. If that occurs, explain why I must weigh that over any other argument (make sure it's an actual problem in the round).

Misc Stuff:

Probability > Reversibility > Timeframe > Magnitude

CX is your time to ask questions, but I do not like tag-team CX at all.

T and Theory > Case (Bring it up in round though)

Do not be aggressive in CX and bring up points said in CX in later speeches.

Rebuttals must explain why your side outweighs other side via impact calc and contrasting your world with the opponent's world.

No sexism, racism, bigotry, etc.

I additionally time every speech and prep, but you should do so as I default to how much time is there for prep (I will count it so long as it is not a blatant lie for getting some more prep time).

Have fun!

Elaine Dong Canyon Crest Academy

Maeve Dufresne Somerville High School

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 9:57 AM EDT

Yes I want to be on the email chain: maeveknowlton@gmail.com

Slow down during your blocks.

Please :) better yet send them if you want.

General

Background: currently a college debater at Suffolk

5 years of judging experience

3 years middle school urban debate
3 years high school national circuit

Cross is open unless its a maverick or someone requests that it be closed.

She/Her please

PLEASE sign post(say which argument you talk to when changing topics) during your speeches. If I look confused I probably am.

please give roadmaps. Roadmap for 1nc = how many offs then case. Roadmaps for any other speech is the order of arguments being addressed.

Assume that I know nothing going into the round. I won't debate for you in the RFD, you need to explain to me why you win on certain arguments in the round.

You can run any arguments in front of me, including Ks.

I guess I'm a tech over truth judge but in a good round a distinction doesn't need to be made. You need to explain to me why you won in the context of the debate and not just why your argument is true, especially for Ks and framework.

Incase you're wondering, I was a K debater in high school on both aff and neg for most of my career. And I also am very critical of poorly made Ks, so be warned. I do college debate now and do more policy but still do K.

Be nice! Especially in novice. If you are varsity be clever/charming/funny. Make the environment enjoyable to be in for everyone.

Arguments

K: My biggest thing with Ks is that out of round impacts need to be argued very very well for me to vote for them, because as someone who's been in the debate scene for years, they're quite literally just not true. If you win the out of round impacts then I'll vote for it but it will be nearly impossible to convince me that out of round spill over exists unless you literally show it. I've judged these arguments for 5 years, it's not going to pull my heart strings. I heavily prefer in round impacts/fiated K impacts. You'll be more successful and the debate will be more interesting for everyone. Additionally, I've judged a lot of butchered and watered down versions of Ks that are painful to watch, so if you're going to run a K please read the literature or at least debate with someone who has. A poorly articulated K is the most boring round to judge.

K AFFs: I can definitely be a good judge for you and I love K affs but things you should know 1) Your aff should have a specific reason to be on the aff. please do not just copy and paste your 1nc(and vice versa) 2) You should have a clear reason for the ballot. 3) If your aff is a method of political resistance you should be clear on what it is or isn't. Vagueness will hurt your chances at a ballot with me.If the debate is K v Kaff, please do not lose track of A) tech and B) the actual rundown of your aff. If the synopsis of your aff changes mid round I will notice. The worst K affs are slippery advocacy's that don't argue for anything in particular and don't know what they want to be until the 1ar.
Performance: I love good performance debates! however, I can't listen to music over your speech because I am autistic. I love good performance debates though! Feel free to send the lyrics and if you tell me what the value of the music is in the speech. If the music has an influence over the ballot or argument I will evaluate it as if I had heard it. You should also be prepared to explain why the performance of the aff is integral to it's solvency/advocacy. Performances that stop being talked about after the 1ac are boring and defeat the purpose.

Framework: Framework arguments matter a lot to me and I will consider them heavily while voting. if you're running a K along the lines of "reject aff's thinking" or "embrace this mindset" and you don't explain what that means to me in terms of voting (role of the ballot) then I will vote you down. If you don't explain the voters of your framework then I can't evaluate it. Even if you win on framework the other team can still win under it. "Dropping framework" does not mean you win the round unless you explain to me why your framework being used frames how I judge the round in the result of a ballot for you.

T: Feel free to run topicality in front of me, but A) I buy into reasonability pretty often and B) if you claim to be unprepared for the most common aff in the year I will keep that in mind while evaluating the T.Fairness and clash are internal links,not impacts

CP: You can run CPs, but be clear on the competition to the aff and/or net benefit. More harsh on PICS than regular CPs but you can still run them.

Theory: You need to show real examples of abuse and its effect on the round. Truth vs teched is swapped here for me, though tech still matters. Unless there's a serious breach of ethics in the round I will most likely ignore it. However please do run it if there is because I love voting down unethical teams.

Disclosure: if I witness an active refusal, or if they break new last second then I'll give it attention, but if it's A) a novice prelim round or B) a minor mistake I won't take it to seriously.
Spreading: Will only evaluate it if you request an accommodation and the other team refuses or ignores it. If you don't request a lower speed before the round I will most likely not buy this argument, almost every round at a tournament I'm judging at, spreading should be expected.
Condo: Show specific examples of condo making the round worse, things like contradicting arguments (especially K/theory/T), arguments being randomly picked up and dropped, etc.
PICS bad: if your pic is literally just "AFF plus another thing" and not an actual different method testing that the aff can engage with without being extra topical or debating themself, you will be vulnerable to losing to this theory if I am your judge. Most PICs are not that bad but I've seen some pretty abusive pics.
Perm bad: a very hard maybe. If the perm is lazy I can buy it. if the alt/cp is vague and doesn't have clear competition I won't.

I will update this if I see a new theory argument (there's always something)

DA: I haven't seen a 2nr go for DA not as a net benefit to a CP in a long time. they're basically just parts of the CP shells now, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just what I expect. keep in mind that the magnitude of the impact is usually the least important part of the DA for me. Uniqueness>>>Impact Risk and timeframe has much more weight in terms of impact framing. Extinction has no weight on the ballot unless every other part of the DA is sound, don't just keep rambling about how big of a deal it is because I don't care. Talk about links and uniqueness, FINISH THE SHELL.

Speaker Points

I tend to give pretty high speaks if you do well.

If you ask good cross-ex questions I may give you more points, and I understand cross can be intense, but being overly aggressive or rude in cross is a VERY big ick to me and can deduct major speaker points.

If you straight up lie about something in the round continuously and it isn't a mistake, then I will be annoyed and will drop speaks. I.E misinterpreting something they said in cross, lying about the flow/arguments dropped, etc.

Anna Epstein Mamaroneck High School

Zara Escobar Stuyvesant High School

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 7:09 AM EDT

she/her

Washington Urban Debate League '22 Yale '26

Add me to the email chain plz: zara.escobar@yale.edu

Debate through middle and high school, double 2. Currently coach middle and high school UDL teams. Almost exclusively read Ks—set col, fem, racial cap—on both aff and neg, so it's what I am most adept at evaluating. That aside, read what you want, I’m cool with voting on most anything.

Do the work for me in deciding the debate. Particularly at the top of the 2ar/2nr, tell me how I should be filtering the round, what you are going for, and why that should win you the ballot. I'll go off the flow.

Intensity's great, but there’s an important line that separates it from hostility and disrespect, particularly when we consider our different positionalities within debate. I won't tolerate in-round hostility or violence.

Coming from a UDL, accessibility is really important to me. Explain your stuff in cross-ex in a digestible way. I will reward your speaks accordingly.

Language matters. Genocide is not a buzzword.

Do your best with whatever you argue and have fun! Let me know if you have specific qs before round.

**College Policy Note**

Haven't debated/ judged on the topic, so I don't have any familiarity with your acronyms/ topic specific terms - it's your job to make sure I do by the end of round.

Kritiks

My fav. Be creative, do what you want, just justify why. I find Ks are strongest when they can couple their theory of power links with more specific links rooted in the 1AC (pull lines!) and historical/ social examples. Impact out the links and explain why they turn case. “State bad” alone won’t cut it and will make me sad...

I’m not picky on whether the alt is material or not, but I do want to hear some articulation of solvency beyond just making an “epistemological shift” or “insert x in debate”—that is to say that you should be taking it further and explaining the implications. Love examples here too—point me to instances that can help envision what the alt and alt 'solvency' looks like.

If you’re doing your link debate properly the aff shouldn’t have a chance at winning the perm, although I do appreciate external, named DAs to the perm.

**see additional note below from k affs

When answering the k, no matter from what side or argument style, you NEED to engage their thesis or theory of the power. It becomes really hard to beat it when you concede their way of understanding the world and of the filtering debate.

If you are a non-Black team reading afro-pess, I will hold the opposing team to an extremely low-threshold to win.

K Affs v FW

Aff

Leverage your 1AC more. Yes, the blocks you prepped are probably great, but the purpose of crafting and refining kritikal 1ACs is that they are meant to challenge dominant frames of the way we think/act; your theory should absolutely be your best offense against the neg.

Your model of debate should be very clear—what’s the role of the aff and negative, what does debate look like, etc. Do impact calc on the standards debate.

**Make sure that you understand and articulate the relationship btwn your k in round and out of round ie the relationship between some performance of resistance within debate and the implications for the structures of power you claim to challenge as they exist out of round.

Neg

Need to engage the aff’s unique critique of your model; specifically, how the aff scholarship & advocacy, as well as their theory of power, exists under the neg’s model of debate. Put effort and time into the TVA; how does it provide an inroad to the aff’s scholarship? Impact calculus on standards is great.

P.S. If you’re going to run cap in addition to FW, try to have some more specific links + alt examples to at least pretend there’s a chance you’re going to go for it.

DAs

Specific links are ideal. Take time to explain out your internal link chain—too often they get superficially extended and muddled. Impact calc and framing are key.

CPs

Make sure to have a net benefit. Explain how you solve for the aff, and if not in its entirety, then why your net-benefit outweighs.

T v policy affs

Not my favorite debate but will vote on it. Make sure analytics are clear/ slow down a bit. Tell me what debate looks like under your competing models and why I should prefer yours.

Theory

I didn’t have these debates much. If your going for this, I need really clear judge direction and impact articulation. Well-warranted theory arguments that you spend a bit more time on are more compelling than second-long blips that get blown up and ironically feel like they get in the way of the educational value of debate.

While I’d say I’m tech > truth, in the end, I find that teams do theory better when the violation is an actually impactful abuse that harms the education, fairness, etc of the debate, rather than just generic blocks read every round. I usually will think of education as the biggest impact in round with fairness and the like as internal links, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

You’re probably not going to convince me to vote on disclosure against a UDL team.

Have fun!!

Adegoke Fakorede Success Academy HSLA-MANHATTAN

Safi Farah Hire

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 4:23 AM EDT

Hey folks! Super excited to judge you all this weekend. This is my paradigm if you don't feel like reading it I have bolded the important info!

My experience is I am a former policy debater and I have taught Public Forum

As someone who spent the majority of their time in Policy debate, I've grown accustomed to the steady pace and clear diction of policy debaters; while I am capable of understanding speed, I prefer arguments made that are slow with elegance over speedy deliver of cards, and firmly believe that repeated citation of an author does not an argument make. Given my recent experiences with people claiming they can spread (and being laughably bad at it), I've decided that it's best to err on the side of caution and simply say no spreading. (basically no speed reading)

Fewer arguments explained thoroughly are preferential over a multitude of shallow attacks that are just snippets of evidence with little debate connection. I weigh rounds on impact calculus unless otherwise directed to do so explicitly by debaters- if you wish for me to use another weighing mechanism, I expect to be told why your mechanism is preferential over impact calc and your opponent's. There's nothing I really have trouble following; I'm familiar with k's and the semantics of debate. I have no problem with unorthodox strategies or progressive argumentation.

More details, take head.

Flashing- not very picky with the flashing cards or whatever, but just try to not waste too much time flashing or I will start running prep.

Line by line - I do pay close attention to specific arguments being made on the flow, that being said I hate judge intervention and will not draw any lines for you. I advice that you specify which arguments you want me to weigh in particular and its importance in the round

Topicality - I think that topicality is a strategic argument and will look at it as a disad, and pay particular attention to the 'impact" of the affirmative to both the fairness and educationof the round. If you plan to go for topicality Iwant to see you prove abuse in the round without purposely opting out of potential arguments. Highly doubt that anyone will ever persuade me that it is a reverse voter or it's not a voting issue. *Love a great T debate*

Kritiks -- I think the best teams tend to look for more specific links outside of the generics read in the 1NC, if you can extract really good links from the evidence the aff presents, or the words that they use, it makes the K more powerful and decreases the chance of the affswindling their way out. Also, having a pretty SOLIDalternative really helps proves that their is a different non problematic approach, and gives negsome credibility. I think affirmative should always have a framework asking to weightheir case impacts against the Kritik, makes your case "matter" when it comes decision making.

Theory - not a huge fan, but I am against using this as a strategy for whatever... using theory alone to get the ballot is ill advised. I mostly likely will vote down the argument, unless you can prove that somehow they skewed your education or ability to debate failrly.

Case - self explanatory. for the affteam - Take good care of your affthroughout the round. Weigh it against everything, its your best defense mechanism.

Counter Plan - try to make it topic specific, and have a counter plan text

Framework - totally open to new ways of thinking/voting in rounds, I think its important that we question how we debate. I will go with whatever framework is presented and warranted the best in the round. If no framework is established in the round I will traditionally go with aff having to meet the burden of proof, and neg defending the status quo or a competitive policy action. Tips for running Framework - prove why your framework is best not only for you, but for the opposing team and for any other potential debate. The more inclusive and fair your framework to higher the chance I go with it.

Any further questions, ask away when you see me.

Anna Farronay North Broward Preparatory School

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 8:52 AM EDT

NoBro 2020

Harvard 2024

Important Update: Since leaving the activity, I have come to the conclusion that spreading is detrimental to skills learned. I also haven't flowed spreading in over a year, so I would prefer debate at a conversational pace.

Please add me on the email chain: anna.farronay@gmail.com

I have a great appreciation for the preparation and effort that goes into each debate round. I understand debate has different meanings for each person but I do believe that competition is the center of the activity - we care about what we do because of a desire to win. I will do my best to understand your arguments even if they are not arguments I would normally be familiar with.

HS Topic Knowledge: none.

Non-Negotiables:

(1) I will only evaluate complete arguments: that means that every argument should have a claim and warrant. Incomplete arguments like a 10-second condo block will not be flowed and when you extend it I will allow the other team new answers.

(2) Be clear and give me pen time. If you are not, you will be dissatisfied with the decision and your speaker points.

(3) Every team consists of 2 speakers who will split their speech time equally. I will only allow one person to give every speech.

(4) The line-by-line is key. Answer arguments in the order that they are presented.

(5) I will not evaluate arguments that hinge on something that did not occur in the debate round I am adjudicating.

I believe it would be unfair to obscure any predispositions I have since a neutral judge rarely exists. That being said I have been persuaded to abandon my opinions in the past by speakers who use humor, charm, and smart, specific arguments. I also have a very expressive face so use that to your advantage. At some point, I had very different ideas about debate and I can be reminded of that.

Preferences:

(1) I believe that policy debate does encourage in-depth research practices. However, I will admit that I am a K debater who is definitely more proficient at judging k v. policy debates than a policy throwdown. This being said I do not want to judge silly positions like China Doesn't Exist so please be conscious what you run.

(2) Theory - I will do my best to understand your theory argument but I have never understood the debates (even something as simple as condo). If you choose to engage in these debates, have some caution and lean on the side of over-explanation.

(3) Framework (K v. Policy) - The aff gets to weigh their advantages (fiat) and the neg gets their K. The neg can't win fiat is an illusion but they can win it's a waste of time/bad idea to engage the state OR they can say we reject the representations of the 1AC/2AC.

(4) K affs - I will be the first to admit that former K debaters often dislike K Affs after they graduate/quit. I don't love them - I do believe there is less in-depth preparation, especially with new K affs, and I do have a high bar for how these debates end up. If you go for fairness, you'll likely win. But if you do insist on reading a K Aff, the easiest way to my ballot is going for the impact turn and cross-applying it to every standard from the negative team. I want to emphasize that I did love the K at one point but in recent years policy debaters have excelled at FW that has made it very difficult to vote for the K.

Joshua Friess The Avery Coonley School

Last changed on Mon November 4, 2024 at 3:09 PM CDT

PLEASE USE SPEECHDROP OR TABROOM SHARE.

TL;DR:

Josh, Friess, whatever, but ideally not "judge" (he/him)
Coach at Avery Coonley, a Chicago-area K-8 school with a middle school program (our more experienced kids often compete in HS JV-ish) and a start-up high school club
Former national circuit high school policy debater from the mid-1990's, ~20 year break, getting close to fully back up to speed now. I've worked to ensure my speaks are very close to modern national norms despite my age.
Good for policy args, T, theory, CP's, all that

That said, less jargon, more explanation on theory is helpful

I've been told by “K debaters” that I am "not good for the K". (You know who you are… :-) ). I think this approximately half-correct, with some key nuance attached:

I’m actually quite willing to vote for your arguments, on either side, which is heavily supported by my actual voting record. The primary issue is that I often don’t understand your arguments.
You can help this dramatically and therefore substantially enhance your odds of winning by:

Slowing down – like, maybe even way down.
Using less jargon and instead explaining your arguments in as simple of terms as possible.
Offering more thorough explanations than you might otherwise.
Having arguments that are well-organized -- signposted and responsive to the other side.
Creating and explaining a linear path / logic chain to the ballot that is supported by the flow.

If you’re unable or unwilling to do the above, while I will do my best to be objective, there’s a reasonable chance my RFD is “I didn’t understand your argument, I’m voting for the other side.” This is true even if you clearly "sound" better.

With all that said, my general approach is to assess the round based solely on the arguments presented by the debaters, with as little intervention by me as possible, and where tech dominates truth. The remainder of this paradigm should be viewed in that light -- that is, it's a heads up on my general perspectives on debate that may or may not be helpful to you, but if we're all doing our jobs well, my perspectives shouldn't really matter and shouldn't enter into the RFD.

The specifics below are really intended to highlight a handful of areas where my own views or capabilities may differ from other judges.

********

Flowing / speed / clarity: I flow on paper. Please don't start your speech until you've given a roadmap, and until it's clear that I'm ready.

If you're an experienced high school debater, please know that my ear for speed is maybe only 90% of what it once was. I would suggest going a little bit slower everywhere except the body of cards. (That said, I do pay attention to what is read in the body of cards, and only consider a card to be evidenced to the extent that it is actually read in the round.) You certainly don't need to be at normal-person conversational speed, but taking 10-20% of your speed off may be helpful to you.

It is extremely helpful when debaters include some sort of unambiguous verbal indicator at the end of a card and before the following tag. A very brief pause is a start. A simple and clear "Next" is better. While it may be old-school, and very slightly inefficient, I'm still partial to some sort of number or letter in early constructives, particularly because numbers and letters allow for easier signposting in the line-by-line in later speeches. (Though, I also tend to hate 1-a-b-c, 2-a-b-c, etc., unless the sub-structure is highly related to itself, e.g., CP theory.)

There's an extent to which line-by-line seems to be a lost art, as does flowing. To an extent, I'll try to do the work for you and see if a given argument has in fact been dropped, but the best way to ensure that my flow has you covering everything is to signpost everything, and respond / extend in the order of the original line-by-line, i.e., the 1NC on-case and the 2AC off-case.

Please send speech docs. Ideally, we should be using share.tabroom.com, speechdrop.net, or similar. If for some reason that is not possible, I will provide my email address before the round. In middle school and high school novice, my standard policy is to *not* follow along in the file, and I won't read cards unless I need to do so at the end of the round in order to assess some question of evidence. At the high school JV and Varsity levels, I'm more willing to follow along in the speech doc in order to do my part to adapt to you. But, I still expect clarity, signposting, and modulating speed on tags and cites.

Also, particularly at the high school JV / Varsity levels, I would strongly advise against reeling off multiple blippy analytics in the course of several seconds. If you do so, then if you're lucky, I will get one out of every four arguments on my flow, and it may not be the one you want the most. If there's a round-winning argument that you need me to understand, best to explain it thoroughly rather than assume I will understand the argument based on just a handful of words. This is all the more true if your delivery relies excessively on debate jargon, the more modern forms of which I may not yet be familiar. Please trust that I'm doing my level best, and that I'll be able to follow you when you're explaining things reasonably well.

In the end, if it's not on my flow, I can't assess it as part of the round, even if it's in your doc.

Kritiks: I have no principled opposition to voting on kritiks. This includes kritiks on the Aff. I do think Aff has the burden of proof to win definitively that they do not or should not need to have a topical plan. That is a burden that I have seen overcome, though the more of these rounds I see, the tougher this sell becomes for me. Regardless, in the end this is a question that I'll resolve based on the flow.

I'm arguably not clever enough to understand many kritiks -- I dropped the philosophy major because I couldn't hack it, and became a physics/math major instead -- so persuading me to vote on the basis of a kritik may require a fair bit more explanation than you would typically offer. I will take no shame in telling you that I straight up didn't understand your argument and couldn't vote on it as a result. This most likely occurs if you overly rely on philosophical jargon. If anything, my lack of experience relative to other judges in this particular debate subspace probably provides a natural check on teams reading arguments that they don't understand themselves. I'll posit that if you can't explain your argument in reasonably simple terms, then you probably don't understand it, and shouldn't win on it.

I'll say as well that I've judged a number of K teams that seem to rely heavily on blocks that have been prepared fully in advance, or maybe very slightly tweaked from what's been prepared in advance, with little attempt to actually engage with the other side. First, I find these speeches pretty tough to flow, since they're often extremely dense in content with little attempt to engage with their audience. Second, I happen to think this over-reliance on advance-prepared speeches is rather horrible for the educational value of the activity. It pretty severely undermines the "K debates are better for education" argument, and it also acts as a fairly real-time demonstration of the "link" on "K debates are bad for clash". I'm likely to be highly sympathetic to an opposing side that has any reasonable degree of superior technical execution when K teams engage in this practice.

It might be worth you knowing that K's were not really a thing yet back when I was debating. Or rather, they were just in their infancy (particularly in high school), rarely run, and/or they were uniformly terrible arguments that I don't think are run much anymore (e.g., Normativity, Objectivism, Foucault, Heidegger). Teams argued the theoretical legitimacy of the Kritik, and whether or not they should be evaluated as part of the ballot, but these arguments weren't unified under a notion of "Framework". Alt's definitely weren't a thing, nor were Kritiks on the Aff at the high school level.

Disads: I've quickly grown wary of Neg's erroneously claiming that their disad "turns case". There's a crucial difference between a disad "turning case" (i.e., your disad somehow results in the Aff no longer accessing their own impact, and in fact, causing their own impact) and "outweighing case" (i.e., your disad simply has a shorter timeframe, higher probability, or greater magnitude than the case). I've become increasingly convinced that Neg's are simply asserting -- unwarranted both in fact and in claim -- that their disad "turns case" in the hopes of duping the judge into essentially making the disad a litmus test for the ballot. If your disad legitimately turns the case, then that's awesome -- make the argument. However I think bona fide claims of "turning case" occur far less often than Neg's want us to believe. In the end, this is not much more than a pet peeve, but a pet peeve nonetheless.

Stolen from Yao Yao: "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." -- Yes, exactly this. I'd go a step further and claim that on certain disads where uniqueness is probabilistically bound to a range that is far from both zero and 100% (e.g., elections, which is usually at best 70% unique and at worst 30% non-unique) then uniqueness is effectively irrelevant, and only the direction of the link matters. At the end of the day, I'm trying to evaluate net risk.

CP's: Counterplans need a solvency claim/warrant, but not necessarily a solvency advocate, per se. That is, if the CP's solvency is a logical extension of the Aff's solvency mechanism, no solvency evidence should be required.

Rehighlightings: I am perfectly fine with you summarizing why the other side's evidence doesn't say what they say it says. I do not see a need for rehighlightings to be explicitly "read into the round". Why not? Well, if Side A is reading evidence that is mishighlighted, taken out of context, etc., Side B should have to do as little in-speech work as possible to make the argument. Side B shouldn't need to waste their speech time reading the correct parts of Side A's poorly highlighted evidence. Side B still needs to explain what Side A's evidence actually says, and tell me what I should be looking for in reading the card. In other words, it's insufficient to simply state "their card is mistagged". But, "their card is mistagged; the author is actually saying X,Y,Z; here's why that matters" is generally sufficient. Of course, if Side B is the one who's actually misunderstanding the evidence, or worse, intentionally mischaracterizing it, that's not a great look and is likely to result in lower speaks.

Theory / Ethics / General Behavior: I tend to be more sympathetic to teams launching legitimate, well-reasoned, and thoroughly-explained theory arguments than it seems many more modern judges may be, up to and including "reject the team, not the argument".

When it comes to ethics and general in-round behavior, it seems that many paradigms contain a whole host of info on what judges think debate “should” be, how debaters “should” act, and/or the judge’s perceived level of fairness of certain tactics.

My own paradigm used to contain similar info, but I’ve since removed it. Why? Because I think including such info creates a moral hazard of sorts. Debaters that are predisposed to behave in certain ways or deploy certain tactics will simply not do those things in front of judges that call them out in their paradigms, and then go right back to engaging in those behaviors or deploying those tactics in front of judges that don’t. To the extent that judges view themselves at least in part as guardrails on acceptable behavior and/or tactics, it seems to me that a better approach to rooting out negativity might be to put the onus on debaters to be considerate, ethical, and reasonable in deployment of their strategies and tactics – and then, if they aren’t, to mete out appropriate consequences. I do not feel obligated to state ex-ante that “X behavior is an auto-loss” if reasonable judges would conclude similarly and respond accordingly.

Don't worry: I'm not looking to be arbitrary and unreasonable in exercising judicial discretion, nor am I looking to insert my own opinions when teams engage in behavior that's debatably unfair, but goes uncontested by the other side. Just be thoughtful. It’s great to play hard. But if your tactics are questionably fair or bad for debate, be prepared to defend them, or reconsider their use. If the other side is deploying tactics that are questionably fair or bad for debate, make the argument, up to and including “reject the team”. I will evaluate such arguments and their implications based on the flow.

******

With all of that said, I consider myself to be in the midst of getting back up to speed in the modern norms and conventions of our activity, particularly at the high school Varsity level. I'm more than willing to be convinced that I should rethink any and all of the above, whether as part of an in-round debate or out-of-round conversation.

Nathan Fulton Hire

Last changed on Fri November 1, 2024 at 2:38 PM EDT

Nathan Fulton's Policy/Parli Judging Paradigm

(Email for evidence threads: nathan@nfulton.org)

I sometimes volunteer as a high school or college debate judge. This document explains how I evaluate rounds.

2024-2025 note:I am moving my "professional background" from the bottom of my paradigm to the top, just for this year. I am a Research Scientist and Manager of the Large Language Models for Code and Structured Data Group at the MIT-IBM AI Lab; I manage a group that develops the types of generative models at the heart of this year's topic. Prior to moving into management, I did extensive work in the area of AI Safety for autonomous robotics systems and was part of the Science team for Amazon's first Generative AI product. You can read more about my professional and academic background here: https://safelearning.ai

Debate Background: I was a policy debater in high school. In college I competed with moderate success in NPTE-style parli (argumentative and delivery style are very similar to policy). I graduated a long time ago, did a bit of assistant coaching shortly thereafter, and since then I've judged a couple tournaments every year or two. Which is to say: experienced but rusty!

Argument Preferences: This is your game. Tell me how you want to be evaluated. If you do not tell me, then I will default to my own view of what debate is. By default, debate as an educational game that is good for teaching its players research skills and critical reasoning skills. I also view debate as a less than ideal game for teaching rhetoric and inter-personal communication skills. This means that I am open to evaluating all types of arguments, place a huge premium on argument quality, and place less of an emphasis on presentation. I will typically default to evaluating arguments as you would expect from a judge with substantial policy debate experience and no old-school theory commitments.

Above all, please be kind and have fun.

If you have any questions, just ask.

Speed: I have no objections and can generally follow along, but I have been out of the debate world for over a decade. I get slower at flowing every year. I will let you know if I am falling behind.

Philosophically, speed is just this weird tool we use to make debates more interesting and textured without needing 4-8 hour rounds. But, this also means that speed is self-defeating when it's used as a cudgel. Using speed in rounds where one of the teams is clearly incapable of keeping up -- and then continuing to move quickly while asking for a ballot on the basis of a dropped argument -- is both bad form and unkind. If a key drop happens in a round and it is clear that your opponents are struggling to keep up, please point out the drop but then continue with the round at a slower pace on the areas where there is contention so that everyone can still learn.

Cristian Gaines Hire None

Jesse Garrett James Logan High School

Forrest Gertin Forest Park

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:39 AM EDT

Please add to email chain: forrest.gertin@gmail.com fjgertin@bcps.k12.md.us

Overall:

I vote based on my understanding of the round. That being said, speed is fine, but I enjoy having some differentiation in tone. I do believe that there is value in remembering that this is a speech activity. Performing your speech reminds me that you are talking about something very important. There is a limit to useful speed.

I like good debates, and I reward debaters that have intelligent affirmatives with specific internal link stories and introduce impact stories. I also like debates where the negative creates crafty negative strategies that demonstrate a grasp of the case and how to beat the case specifically having a link story that shows the inherent problems specific to that affirmative. Performance/alternative debates that really teach and demonstrate impact are welcome!

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.

DA, CP, Case- The evidence is key. Good evidence had better actually be good if you are calling on me to read it at the end of the round. Having a super power tagged card that isn't warranted could cost you the debate.

Flowing

I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.

Notes

Prep time continues until the jump drive is out of the computer / the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

David Gozali Hire

Timothy Gunawan Memorial High School

Josh Herring Thales Academy Rolesville Speech and Debate

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 12:08 PM EDT

Update for Harvard 2024

If you are going fast enough that I need case docs - add me to the chain - Josh.Herring@thalescollege.org

Updated for Princeton Invitation 2022

I am a traditional debate coach who likes to see debaters exercise their creativityINSIDE the conventions of the style. For Congressional Debate, that means strong clash and adherence to the conceit of being a congressional representation. For LD, that means traditional>progressive, and if a traditional debater calls topicality on a progressive debater for not upholding "ought" on Aff, I will look favorably on such an approach. That being said, if someone runs a K coherently, and the a priori claim of the K is not refuted, I will vote for the prior claim. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, and I like to think I'm tech>truth, but don't ruin the the game with progressive garbage. If you love progressive argumentation, please strike me. I hate tricks, don't like K's, think performative debate is dumb, and really don't like want to see the resolution replaced by this month's social concern. For PF, I want to see strong evidence, good extension, crystallization, and framing. In essence, I want good debate with clear burdens. Write my ballot for me - give your opponent burdens to meet, meet your own, and explain why you win. I think debate is a beautiful game, and I want to see it played well.

Couple of last minute DON'Ts - I don't buy disclosure theory; I think it has harmed smaller schools by pretending to legitimize approaches big teams can deploy, and it has made spreading much more common. I cannot spread, and I cannot hear a case at speed. If your opponent spreads, and you call them out on it in the sense that their speed disadvantages you in the round, I will look very favorably on that as a prior condition of sportsmanship in the game. Don't spread, and don't fuss at your opponent for not putting a case on the Wiki. It's a voluntary system, and does not constitute systemic harm if you actually have to refute in round rather than prep on arguments read 30 minutes before the round.

Original paradigm from several years ago:

I learned debate at Hillsdale College from Jeremy Christensen and Matthew Doggett and James Brandon; I competed in IPDA and NPDA. I've been a coach since 2014. I have coached PF, Coolidge, LD, and Congressional. I judge on the flow. I'm looking for sound argumentation tied to the resolution; if you go off topic (K, etc) or want to run a theory argument, be prepared to explain why your strategy is justified. I am not a fan of speed in debate - convey your arguments, evidence, and impacts without spreading.

Debate is a wonderful game, and I enjoy judging rounds where both teams play it well. Accept your burdens, and fight for your position. Evidence goes a long way with me, so long as you explain the validity of your evidence and the impact that it links to. In LD, Im a big fan of traditional values-driven argumentation. In PF, I want to see the purposes of public forum respected - no plan, no spreading, and publicly accessible debate on a policy-esque resolution.

Layla Hijjawi Hire

Kevin Hirn Univ Of Chicago Lab School

Last changed on Wed August 28, 2024 at 3:41 PM EDT

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

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan (2015-)

Debate Coach, Westwood HS (2024-)

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23), University of Chicago Lab Schools (2023-24).

Last updated: August, 2024

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

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college energy topic and the HS intellectual property rights topic. For intellectual property rights, I wrote the topicality file and delivered the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp.

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

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

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

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

0) Online debate

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

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) General Philosophical Disposition

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

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

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

3) Topicality and Specification

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

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

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

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

4) Risk Assessment

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

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

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

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

5) Counterplans

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

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

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

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

Admittedly, these don't exclude a ton of counterplans, but they're extremely powerful when they apply. There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a workable debate relative to alternatives.

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

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing. There are obvious and reasonable disadvantages to textual competition, and there is something inelegant about combining two models together, but I don't think there's a clear and preferable alterantive template when it comes to affs going for competition/theory against new or random process CPs.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you. I generally coach my teams to 2NC CP out of straight turned DAs, read 5+ conditional advocacies in the 1NC, etc.

I don't default to the status quo ("judge kick") if there's zero judge instruction to that effect, but I default to the least interventionist approach possible. If the neg says the CP is conditional, never qualifies that "2nr checks: we'll only go for one world," and aff accedes, I will default to judge kick. One side dropping "yes/no judge kick" at some point in the debate obviously wins the issue for their opponent.

I've led a strong group of debaters in a summer institute lab every year for over a decade, and I think some of the lectures or discussions I've led on various theoretical subjects (in which I often express very strong or exaggerated defenses of one or more of the above arguments, for educational purposes), have influenced some to interpret my views on some aspect of competition as extremely strongly-held. In truth, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

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

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

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

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

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

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

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

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

10) Procedural Norms

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

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

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

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

Topicality for Fiscal Redistribution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Davy Holmes Dripping Springs High School

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2024 at 2:36 PM CDT

Evidence Ethics:

I am adding this to the top because it has had an effect on some of my students recently. I generally follow along on speech docs when they are sent to me. If I notice during the round that you are reading a card that is egregiously misrepresenting what the evidence actually says, I will stop the round and give you an automatic loss and the lowest speaks I am allowed to give. This doesn't apply to things that are simply "power-tagged." I am talking about evidence that has like 10 words highlighted to make a claim or argument not intended by the author. I don't judge PF that much, so this probably won't be an issue in whatever round I am judging you in, but be forewarned.

Harvard update (2/12/2024):

Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.

You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.

I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.

I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain (impactturn@gmail.com).

Some info about me:

Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003

Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007

Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017

Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present

Observations for all debate events:

-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.

-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.

-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.

Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.

Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.

LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.

PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain

Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.

Speech: I have judged a lot more speech over the past couple years. I like students to demonstrate a personal connection to their topic or material.

Lisa Kasiewicz Hire None

Amanda Kenn Forest Park

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 11:37 AM EDT

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Flowing

Notes

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

Doyun Kim Mamaroneck High School

Ashley King Hire

Avani Kulkarni Nashua HS South

Kimtee Kundu Hire

Kevin Kuswa Berkeley Preparatory School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:44 AM EDT

Quick 2022 update--CX is important, use it fully. Examples make a big difference, but you have to compare your examples to theirs and show why yours are better. Quality of evidence matters--debate the strengths of your evidence vs. theirs. Finally, all the comments in a majority of paradigms about tech vs. truth are somewhat absurd. Tech can determine truth and vice-versa: they are not opposed or mutually exclusive and they can be each others' best tools. Want to emphasize your tech? Great--defend it. Want to emphasize your truths? Great--but compare them. Most of all, get into it! We are here for a bit of time together, let's make the most of it.

Updated 2020...just a small note: have fun and make the most of it! Being enthusiastic goes a long way.

Updated 2019. Coaching at Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Nothing massive has changed except I give slightly higher points across the board to match inflation. Keep in mind, I am still pleased to hear qualification debates and deep examples win rounds. I know you all work hard so I will too. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. Email: kevindkuswa at gmail dot com.

Updated 2017. Currently coaching for Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Been judging a lot on the China topic, enjoying it. Could emphasize just about everything in the comments below, but wanted to especially highlight my thirst for good evidence qualification debates...

_____________________________ (previous paradigm)

Summary: Quality over quantity, be specific, use examples, debate about evidence.

I think debate is an incredibly special and valuable activity despite being deeply flawed and even dangerous in some ways. If you are interested in more conversations about debate or a certain decision (you could also use this to add me to an email chain for the round if there is one), contact me at kevindkuswa at gmail dot com. It is a privilege to be judging you—I know it takes a lot of time, effort, and commitment to participate in debate. At a minimum you are here and devoting your weekend to the activity—you add in travel time, research, practice and all the other aspects of preparation and you really are expressing some dedication.

So, the first issue is filling out your preference sheets. I’m usually more preferred by the kritikal or non-traditional crowd, but I would encourage other teams to think about giving me a try. I work hard to be as fair as possible in every debate, I strive to vote on well-explained arguments as articulated in the round, and my ballots have been quite balanced in close rounds on indicative ideological issues. I’m not affiliated with a particular debate team right now and may be able to judge at the NDT, so give me a try early on and then go from there.

The second issue is at the tournament—you have me as a judge and are looking for some suggestions that might help in the round. In addition to a list of things I’m about to give you, it’s good that you are taking the time to read this statement. We are about to spend over an hour talking to and with each other—you might as well try to get some insight from a document that has been written for this purpose.

1. Have some energy, care about the debate. This goes without saying for most, but enthusiasm is contagious and we’ve all put in some work to get to the debate. Most of you will probably speak as fast as you possibly can and spend a majority of your time reading things from a computer screen (which is fine—that can be done efficiently and even beautifully), but it is also possible to make equally or more compelling arguments in other ways in a five or ten minute speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQVq5mugw_Y).

2. Examples win debates. Well-developed examples are necessary to make the abstract concrete, they show an understanding of the issues in the round, and they tend to control our understandings of how particular changes will play out. Good examples take many forms and might include all sorts of elements (paraphrasing, citing, narrating, quantifying, conditioning, countering, embedding, extending, etc.), but the best examples are easily applicable, supported by references and other experiences, and used to frame specific portions of the debate. I’m not sure this will be very helpful because it’s so broad, but at the very least you should be able to answer the question, “What are your examples?” For example, refer to Carville’s commencement speech to Tulane graduates in 2008…he offers the example of Abe Lincoln to make the point that “failure is the oxygen of success” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMiSKPpyvMk.

3. Argument comparison wins debate. Get in there and compare evidence—debate the non-highlighted portion of cards (or the cryptic nature of their highlighting). Debate the warrants and compare them in terms of application, rationale, depth, etc. The trinity of impact, plausibility, and verge analysis doesn’t hurt, especially if those variables are weighed against one another. It’s nice to hear good explanations that follow phrases like “Even if…,” “On balance…,” or “In the context of…” I know that evidence comparison is being done at an extremely high level, but I also fear that one of the effects of paperless debate might be a tilt toward competing speech documents that feature less direct evidence comparison. Prove me wrong.

4. Debates about the relative validity of sources win rounds. Where is the evidence on both sides coming from and why are those sources better or worse? Qualification debates can make a big difference, especially because these arguments are surprisingly rare. It’s also shocking that more evidence is not used to indict other sources and effectively remove an entire card (or even argument) from consideration. The more good qualification arguments you can make, the better. Until this kind of argument is more common, I am thirsty enough for source comparisons (in many ways, this is what debate is about—evidence comparison), that I’ll add a few decimal points when it happens. I do not know exactly where my points are relative to other judges, but I would say I am along a spectrum where 27.4 is pretty good but not far from average, 27.7 is good and really contributing to the debate, 28 is very good and above average, 28.5 is outstanding and belongs in elims, and 29.1 or above is excellent for that division—could contend for one of the best speeches at the tournament.

5. All debates can still be won in 2AR. For all the speakers, that’s a corollary of the “Be gritty” mantra. Persevere, take risks and defend your choices

(https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit). The ballot is not based on record at previous tournaments, gpa, school ranking, or number of coaches.

6. Do not be afraid to go for a little more than usual in the 2NR—it might even help you avoid being repetitive. It is certainly possible to be too greedy, leaving a bloated strategy that can’t stand up to a good 2AR, but I usually think this speech leaves too much on the table.

7. Beginning in the 1AR, brand new arguments should only be in reference to new arguments in the previous speech. Admittedly this is a fuzzy line and it is up to the teams to point out brand new arguments as well as the implications. The reason I’ve decided to include a point on this is because in some cases a 2AR has been so new that I have had to serve as the filter. That is rare and involves more than just a new example or a new paraphrasing (and more than a new response to a new argument in the 2NR).

8. Very good arguments can be made without evidence being introduced in card form, but I do like good cards that are as specific and warranted as possible. Use the evidence you do introduce and do as much direct quoting of key words and phrases to enhance your evidence comparison and the validity of your argument overall.

9. CX matters. This probably deserves its own philosophy, but it is worth repeating that CX is a very important time for exposing flaws in arguments, for setting yourself up for the rebuttals, for going over strengths and weaknesses in arguments, and for generating direct clash. I do not have numbers for this or a clear definition of what it means to “win CX,” but I get the sense that the team that “wins” the four questioning periods often wins the debate.

10. I lean toward “reciprocity” arguments over “punish them because…” arguments. This is a very loose observation and there are many exceptions, but my sympathies connect more to arguments about how certain theoretical moves made by your opponent open up more avenues for you (remember to spell out what those avenues look like and how they benefit you). If there are places to make arguments about how you have been disadvantaged or harmed by your opponent’s positions (and there certainly are), those discussions are most compelling when contextualized, linked to larger issues in the debate, and fully justified.

Overall, enjoy yourself—remember to learn things when you can and that competition is usually better as a means than as an ends.

And, finally, the third big issue is post-round. Usually I will not call for many cards—it will help your cause to point out which cards are most significant in the rebuttals (and explain why). I will try to provide a few suggestions for future rounds if there is enough time. Feel free to ask questions as well. In terms of a long-term request, I have two favors to ask. First, give back to the activity when you can. Judging high school debates and helping local programs is the way the community sustains itself and grows—every little bit helps. Whether you realize it or not, you are a very qualified judge for all the debate events at high school tournaments. Second, consider going into teaching. If you enjoy debate at all, then bringing some of the skills of advocacy, the passion of thinking hard about issues, or the ability to apply strategy to argumentation, might make teaching a great calling for you and for your future students (https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_emdin_teach_teachers_how_to_create_magic note: debaters are definitely part of academia, but represent a group than can engage in Emdin’s terms). There are lots of good paths to pursue, but teaching is one where debaters excel and often find fulfilling. Best of luck along the ways.

Jack Lassiter Berkeley Preparatory School

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 6:35 PM CDT

Berkeley Prep Assistant Coach - 2017 - Present

10+ years experience in national circuit policy @ Damien HS, Baylor University and other institutions

Email: Jack.Lassiter4@gmail.com

I default to offense-defense: you can persuade me to evaluate otherwise.

I am flowing the speech, not the document.

I am making my decision based on the flow.

Truth throughout tech.

Framework

I have an appreciation for framework debates, especially when the internal link work is thorough and applied to pivotal questions on the flow that you resolve through comparative arguments. On framework, I personally gravitate towards arguments concerning the strategic, critical, or pedagogical utility of the activity - I am readily persuaded to vote for an interpretation of the activity's purpose, role, or import in almost any direction [any position I encounter that I find untenable and/or unwinnable will be promptly included in the updates below]

The Kritik

I have almost no rigid expectations with regard to the K. I spent a great deal of my time competing reading Security, Queer Theory, and Psychoanalysis arguments. The bodies of literature that I am most familiar with in terms of critical thought are rhetorical theory (emphasizing materialism) and semiotics. I have studied and debated the work of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze, to that extent I would say I have an operative understanding and relative familiarity with a number of concepts that both thinkers are concerned with.

Topicality:

I think that by virtue of evaluating a topicality flow I almost have to view interpretations in terms of competition. I can't really explain reasonability to myself in any persuasive way, if that changes there will surely be an update about it - this is also not to say nobody could convince me to vote for reasonability, only that I will not default in that direction without prompt.

Counterplans:

Theory debates can be great - I reward strategic decisions that embed an explanation of the argument's contingent and applied importance to the activity when going for a theory argument on a counterplan.

I believe that permutations often prompt crucial methodological and theoretical reflection in debate - structurally competitive arguments are usually generative of the most sound strategic and methodological prescriptions.

Updates:

Judging for Berkeley Prep - Meadows 2020

I have judged enough framework debates at this point in the topic to feel prompted to clarify my approach to judging framework v. K aff rounds. I believe that there are strong warrants and supporting arguments justifying procedural fairness but that these arguments still need to be explicitly drawn out in debates and applied as internal link or impact claims attached to an interpretation or defense of debate as a model, activity, or whatever else you want to articulate debate as. In the plainest terms, I'm saying that internal link chains need to be fully explained, weighed, and resolved to decisively win a framework debate. The flipside of this disposition applies to kritikal affs as well. It needs to be clear how your K Aff interacts with models and methods for structuring debate. It is generally insufficient to just say "the aff impacts are a reason to vote for us on framework" - the internal links of the aff need to be situated and applied to the debate space to justify Role of the Ballot or Role of the Judge arguments if you believe that your theory or critique should implicate how I evaluate or weigh arguments on the framework flow or any other portion of the debate.

As with my evaluation of all other arguments, on framework a dropped claim is insufficient to warrant my ballot on its own. Conceded arguments need to be weighed by you, the debater. Tell me what the implications of a dropped argument are, how it filters or conditions other aspects of the flow, and make it a reason for decision.

Judging for Damien Debate - Berkeley (CA) 2016

In judging I am necessarily making comparisons. Making this process easier by developing or controlling the structure of comparisons and distinctions on my flow is the best advice I could give to anyone trying to make me vote for an argument.

I don't feel like it is really possible to fully prevent myself from intervening in a decision if neither team is resolving questions about how I should be evaluating or weighing arguments. I believe this can be decisively important in the following contexts: The impact level of framework debates, The impact level of any debate really, The method debate in a K v K round, The link debate... The list goes on. But, identifying particular points of clash and then seeing how they are resolved is almost always my approach to determining how I will vote, so doing that work explicitly in the round will almost always benefit you.

If you have any questions about my experience, argumentative preferences, or RFD's feel free to ask me at any time in person or via email.

Thomas Latta Northstar Academy High School - Newark

Eleanora Lawrence Lexington HS

Last changed on Tue January 16, 2024 at 6:37 AM EDT

Sarah Lawrence '25, Caddo Magnet High '21, she/her, yes I want to be on the email chain-- ejarlawrence@gmail.com

Top-Level: I prefer a fast, technical debate and default to evaluating debates as a policymaker, but can be persuaded otherwise. Don't overadapt - debate is a game, and winning your arguments is what matters. I like to reward good evidence, but I won't be reading every card after the round unless it is flagged or a close debate and good evidence is not an excuse for unwarranted debating/little explanation.

T vs policy affs: I don't enjoy close definitions debates. T debates where the interpretation becomes clear only in CX of the 2NC or later will be very hard to reward with my ballot. I understand that good T debates happen (T-LPR on immigration comes to mind) but if the topic doesnt have easily understandable, legally precise definitions based in government literature (CJR comes to mind) I'm going to err towards reasonability more than anyone I know. Plan text in a vaccum probably sucks, but if you can't articulate a clear alternative you probably can't win. Predictability probably outweighs debatability.

T vs K affs: Debate is probably a game, but probably also more than that, and neither team's offense is likely truly reliant on winning this anyway. Fairness is probably an impact, but it is frequently pretty small. Neg teams that clearly explain what the aff's interpretation justifies (ie. internal link debating) and why that's bad are more likely to win my ballot. Aff teams that come up with a counter-interp that attempts to solve for some limits/predictability seem more instinctively reasonable to me than those who try to impact turn things I think are probably good like predictability, but either strategy is fine.

Counterplans/Theory: Theory other than conditionality/perfcon is probably not a voter. On a truth level, I think being neg in a world without massive conditionality and theoretical abuse is impossible on lots of hs topics. Given that, I'm actually fairly familiar with and interested in hearing good condo debating- competing interps means if you have something explainable and not arbitrary (infinite condo, infinite dispo, no condo) and can articulate some standards I won't hack for anyone. Default to judge kick, but can be convinced not to, counterplans should probably be textually and functionally competitive, I'd love to hear a real debate on positional competition but I'm not optimistic.

Disads: Uniqueness matters, and determines offense on the link level, but win the link too. No politics disad is true, but some politics disads are more true than others. These were my favorite arguments to cut and go for, and interesting scenarios that are closer to the truth or strategic will be rewarded with speaks. I'm of the somewhat controversial opinion they make for good education and the less controversial one lots of topics are unworkable for the neg without them, so don't go for intrinsicness/floortime DAs bad theory.

Impact Turns: Nothing much to say here, other than a reassurance I will not check out on something I find unpersuasive in real life (any of the war good debates, spark, wipeout). If you can't beat it, update your blocks.

Impact Framing/Soft Left Impacts: I default to utilitarian consequentialism, and have a strong bias in favor of that as a way to evaluate impacts. If you want to present another way to evaluate impacts, PLEASE tell me what it means for my ballot and how I evaluate it. "Overweight probability" is fine for the 1AC, but by the 1AR I should know if that means I ONLY evaluate probability/disregard probabilities under 1%/don't evaluate magnitudes of infinity. Anything else means you're going to get my super arbitrary and probably fairly utilitarian impulse. I would love if whoever's advocating for ex risks would do the same, but I have a better handle on what your deal means for the ballot, so I don't need as much help. "Util Bad" without an alternative is very unpersuasive - BUT a fleshed out alternative can be very strategic.

K vs Policy Affs: I vote neg most often in these debates when the neg can lose framework but win case takeouts or an impact to the K that outweighs and turns the aff. I vote neg somewhat often in these debates when the aff does a bad job explaining the internal links of their FW interp or answering negative impacts (which is still pretty often). For security type Ks, it seems like some people think they can convince me sweeping IR theories or other impacts are false with all the knowledge of a high schooler. Read a card, or I will assume the aff's 3 cards on China Revisionist/cyber war real are true and the K is false.

Brief tangent ahead: If you think the above statement re: the security K does not apply to you because you have a fun way to get around this by saying "it doesn't matter if the K is false because we shouldn't just use Truth to determine whether statements are good to say", I think you're probably wrong. You're critiquing a theory of how we should evaluate the merits of Saying Stuff (traditionally Truth, for whatever value we can determine it) without providing an alternative. So, provide an alternative way for me to determine the merits of Saying Stuff or you're liable to get my frustration and fairly arbitrary decisionmaking on whether you've met the very high burden required to win this. I've judged like four debates now which revolved around this specific issue and enjoyed evaluating none of them. Aff teams when faced with this should ask a basic question like "how do we determine what statements are good outside of their ability to explain the world" please. First person I see do this will get very good speaker points. TLDR: treat your epistemological debates like util good/bad debates and I will enjoy listening to them. Don't and face the consequences.

K vs K affs: I've now judged a few of these debates, and have found when the aff goes for the perm they're very likely to get my ballot absent basically losing the thesis of the affirmative (which has happened). This means I don't think "the aff doesn't get perms in a method debate" is a nonstarter. Other than that, my background in the literature is not strong, so if your link relies on a nuanced debate in the literature, I'm going to need a lot of explanation.

Miscellaneous: These are unsorted feelings I have about debate somewhere between the preferences expressed above and non-negotiables below.

For online debate: Debaters should endeavor to keep their cameras on for their speeches as much as possible. I find that I'm able to pay much more attention to cx and give better speaker comments. Judging online is hard and staring at four blank screens makes it harder.

I am becoming somewhat annoyed with CX of the 1NC/2AC that starts with "did you read X" or "what cards from the doc did you not read" and will minorly (.1, .2 if it's egregious) reduce your speaks if you do this. I am MORE annoyed if you try to make this happen outside of speech or prep time. 2As, have your 1A flow the 1NC to catch these things. 2Ns, same for your 1Ns. If the speaker is particularly unclear or the doc is particularly disorganized, this goes away.

At my baseline, I think about the world in a more truth over tech way. My judging strategy and process is optimized to eliminate this bias, as I think its not a good way to evaluate debate rounds, but I am not perfect. You have been warned.

I am gay. I am not a good judge for queerness arguments. This isn't a "you read it you lose/i will deck speaks" situation, but you have been warned its a harder sell than anything else mentioned

For LD/PF: I have judged very little of either of these events; I have knowledge of the content of the topic but not any of its conventions. I understand the burden for warranted arguments (especially theory) is lower in LD than in policy - I'm reluctant to make debaters entirely transform their style, so I won't necessarily apply my standard for argument depth, but if the one team argues another has insufficiently extended an argument, I will be very receptive to that.

Non-negotiables:

In high school policy debate, both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, 3 minutes for CX, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says. CX is binding. There is one winner and one loser. I will flow. I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab so that they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate on.

You have to read rehighlightings, you can't just insert them. If I or the other team notice you clipping or engaging in another ethics violation prohibited by tournament rules and it is found to be legitimate, it's an auto-loss and I will give the lowest speaks that I can give.

It'll be hard to offend me but don't say any slurs or engage in harmful behavior against anyone else including racism, sexism, homophobia, intentionally misgendering someone, etc. I see pretty much all arguments as fair game but when that becomes personally harmful for other people, then it's crossed a line. I've thankfully never seen something like this happen in a debate that I've been in but it'd be naive to act like it's never happened. The line for what is and is not personally harmful to someone is obviously very arbitrary but that applies to almost all things in debate, so I think it's fair to say that it is also up to the judge's discretion for when the line has been crossed.

Jake Lee Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 4:07 PM EDT

Jake Lee (He/Him)

Math Teacher and Director of Debate at Mamaroneck High School

For Email Chain: jakemlee@umich.edu

Also add: mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

A more in-depth view of my judging record: View this Spreadsheet

General:

Tech > Truth, will let the flow dictate what I vote on. Will leave personal biases on things outside. Only exceptions: I will not vote on Death Good (Ligotti style) or anything that is blatant hate speech

I won't vote on arguments that pertain to issues outside a debate round or ad homs

Respect your opponents

No "inserting" rehighlightings. You must read your re-highlighting.

The NEG really does not need more than 6 offcase to win a debate. Yes I know I coach Mamo FC...

Case/Plan specific strategies with good evidence are substantially better than spamming a ton of incomplete, generic, cheap shot arguments. So far only Carrollton and New Trier have done that so far in front of me. Again, I know I coach Mamo FC...

I flow on paper. I hate flowing on my computer. I do not look at the doc. If I have to flow on my computer, I will never look at a doc. I try to flow down the line and create line-by-line. Your job is to CLEARLY communicate your arguments, that is the whole point of debate. If you cannot do that, I am not flowing anything or just evaluate it as a totally incomplete argument.

I tend to decide rounds quickly. Do not take it as a bad thing if I vote you down quickly. It is mainly because I am actively thinking about the debate and think about what teams need to accomplish in order to win a debate. Average decision time for me has been 6 minutes. Most I have taken this year has been 35 mins.

I really do not understand why plan text in a vacuum makes sense. I think it genuinely makes T debates pointless and incentives vague plan text writing. I'll still vote on it though if debated well.

IPR Specific:

T-Subsets should not be your 2NR strategy unless the AFF has MASSIVELY screwed up

Stolen from Forslund: Stop reading the Uncooperative Federalism CP

Case Specific Cards and impact D in the 1NC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1NCs with just impact D. I will reward debaters who do not just spam impact D on the case debate.

I will say, being NEG on this topic is hard. I think it is worse than the NATO topic two years ago.

Why is Kant popular??

The Do Nots in Debate:

If CX time has been wasted on arguments that were not read because you assumed it was read because it being on the doc. I am going to start docking speaker points for debaters that are obviously not flowing the speech and only flowing the speech doc.

If you ask the speaker to remove the cards they did not read, I will run prep time, and the speaker has the right to run your prep time down to 0 because it is your job to listen and flow

If you answer arguments that were in the speech doc but not read,

If it is clear you are are reading a prepped out backfile from another teammate

If you hide ASPEC or other theory arguments = cowardly

If you ask for a 30 in rounds, I'm gonna give you a 26

Caroline Li Lexington HS

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 3:54 AM EDT

TL;DR

Add me to the email chain: caroline.li.debate@gmail.com

I have no topic knowledge yet this year, I'm back in after having not judged for 3 years. Please help me out in the round!

Policy

I'm a recent college graduate, she/her. I did policy debate for 4 years at Lexington High School, was a 2N. I ran mostly policy arguments on the neg, but my partner ran K and policy affs.

Top 4 things you need to do to win in front of me:

1. Do impact calc.

2. Have numbered warrants.

3. Prioritize what you want me to vote on in your last speeches.

4. Be civil to your opponents!

K--------------------------------x--------------Policy

Advice

High level how I decide rounds. 1. I look for any major tech mistakes (dropping a perm, condo, flow, straight turn, etc) that mean I can auto vote for one side, no guilt necessary. If this happened in your round, stand up, make 2 arguments, and sit down. 2. I break the debate into blocks, (ie for a K, framework, link, alt, impact) and decide who won each block. 3. I decide what winning a block means for a team, and how the blocks implicate each other. If you made even if statements, bonus points in this step. If you did impact calc, bonus points in this step. 4. I return a decision.

Also, I'm mostly flowing by listening. Clarity~

Framework Debates

At the end of this debate, I will write down the impacts each side goes for, assign some probability of solvency depending on how well you're doing on the internal links for that impact, and then figure out if they implicate/outweigh one another. As such, feel free to expand the debate in the 2AC through the 1AR, but in the last speeches buckle down on 1-3 key pieces of offense, weigh it against your opponents' best offense, and then apply it to all the other arguments that show up on these massive T flows. Also, procedural fairness can be a terminal impact if you can convince me it is. Doing good case debate and then applying it offensively to the T flow is always an excellent idea.

Policy aff v Ks

On the aff, having specific, well-thought-out perms and explaining why they mitigate the risk of links is an excellent idea, as is using your impacts to outweigh. On the neg, winning strong impacts to each link helps a lot, as does pointing out specific parts of the aff speeches that link. These debates also tend to become massive, so collapsing in your last speeches and not getting caught up in the line by line will help.

DAs

I do think it's possible for there to be 0% risk of a DA. I find it more persuasive if you have like 5 reasons why one internal link of the DA won't happen than if you put one reason on five different internal links. Aff-specific DAs which are well-prepared will be entertaining, as will having specific links to the aff.

CPs

Don't like process CPs. Do like advantage CPs, or any CP that you made up on the fly but solves the entire aff. CPs are tests of how necessary the aff is to solve its impacts. On the aff, creative permutations are entertaining.

Make clear internal link and impact scenarios, do impact comparison, and internal link turns, and you'll be good to go. If they clarify how the aff works late in the debate, and it's egregiously untopical, I don't mind if you introduce a new T violation in the neg block.

Final thoughts

Make my job easy please!

Give me judging advice/Review my judging: https://forms.gle/FrmsLwNv95YQZpgF9

Loud prep is a pet peeve

I don't love it when other members of your team sit in on your prelim rounds sorry!

Speaks Scale

28.0 needs some improvement

28.5 good

29.0 impressive

Vincent Li Canyon Crest Academy

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 5:23 AM PDT

**update for Harvard

Judged at Lex but my topic knowledge is still negative - I got a 2 on AP Macro Econ so if economic concepts become important in the debate please overexplain.

SLOW DOWN PLEASE

Top Level

Hi! My name is Vincent (he/him) and I’m excited to be judging your round. I debated for 4 years at Canyon Crest Academy (Canyon Crest LR, Canyon Crest LD/DL) and qualified to the TOC my senior year. I’ve debated as both a 2A and a 2N but at my heart I’m a 2A.

Please add both emails to the chain: Vincentli784@gmail.com, canyoncrestlr@gmail.com,

TLDR

tech > truth

Good for Policy v K, K v K, and Clash Debates

Decent for low to mid level policy debates

Bad for mid to high level policy debates BUT i'll still try my best

Misc things

New to judging so i’m still formulating a lot of my ideas around debate but I will promise to try my hardest to be the best judge I can during your round. Ik first hand how much effort y’all put into this activity and I’ll do my best to reward that!

Basically no topic knowledge

I’ve never been the best flow so pls slow down <3

I’ll vote for any argument provided it has a claim warrant & impact and doesn’t check off any of the “ism” boxes. HOWEVER, I’ve read exclusively critical arguments on both the aff and neg for the last 3 years of my career so if I’m in the back of a policy throwdown, it would be helpful to slow down and over explain warrants/arguments.

Judge instruction wins debates and the best 2NR/ARs should do all the work for me explaining how I should weigh and evaluate certain arguments.

Please use all of cx time

Don't like it when debaters ask flow clarification questions before cx. It's fine to ask for flow clarification but please do it within the 3 minutes of cx

Be kind and respect your opponents. It’s ok to be sassy in cx but no ad homs pls

K Aff v FW

Although my personal history has seen me on the aff side way more than the neg side, I’m receptive to framework and will vote for the team that does the better debating.

If fairness is the 2NR impact, it shouldn’t be a “they cheated and that was unfair for me” but rather how a lack of fairness zeroes the ability for both teams to engage in a mutually beneficial game which means resolving fairness comes first.

K v K

Love these debates but anything that isn’t cap should involve overexplaining links + perm.

Seeing and identifiying the bigger picture is pivotal in these debates (typically the perm lol)

K affs probably get a perm but if it’s the main 2AR strategy I should have a clear vision of what the two movements look like in tandem.

Policy aff v K

I’ll first look to the framework debate and I won’t arbitrarily pick a middle ground, and will choose either between the aff or neg interp.

Links are the most important part of the K and I love hyper specific link explanations that sound like they directly clash with the 1AC.

T(not framework)

Will require hand holding and over explaining.

Definitions with intent to define/exclude and in the context of the res are probably the best interps

Competing interps always made more sense to me than reasonability but the more riddiculous the 1nc interp is, the more justified reasonability becomes

Counterplan/DA

Understand all the arguments but just a reminder that I haven’t read these arguments since my freshman year of high school.

Please especially over explain convoluted Counterplans!

Counterplans need to be tied to a clear net benefit and 1NC cx should be clear abt which DAs serve as net benefits to which Counterplans

Overexplain in debates abt counterplan competition and theory please

Vincent H. Li Hire

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 5:36 AM EDT

Email Chain: vli40@binghamton.edu (I might not read your docs, but I should still have them in case).

Background: I debated at the University of Georgia for four years as their lone K debater reading Baudrillard and various pomo theories. I've been coaching at Bing for 4 years where I also primarily coach Baudrillard and various pomo theories. I think that debate is an incredible activity and equally value the potential for creativity and education. I tend to think of myself as an educator, and I generally prefer to let people read the arguments that they want to read.

1) Important Note about Adaptation: I have asymmetrical hearing loss. That means that I generally don't hear as clearly as some, which is an issue compounded by the fact that I was a slow K debater and am a slow K judge. I generally don't have an issue catching K and clash debate unless you're spreading quickly or incoherently through prewritten blocks. I do have an issue following fast policy vs. policy debate especially because I rarely know the nuances of any particular topic (certainly not high school). To adapt, you should make sure a) there is an obstacle free line between me and you, so that I can see and hear you, b) slow down if necessary if it seems like I'm flipping through my flows a lot or look annoyed, c) focus on explanation and judge instruction; smart debating can easily overcome tech for me because it will help me organize what is going on.

2) Conduct If you're in high school, college novice, or college junior varsity, don't be excessively mean to your opponents. If you are in college varsity, you should be funny.

Arguments:

Kvk

1) Explain methodologies. Why am I voting for you? How do I know that your argument is true? Because I don't generally have the same stable default of rational, utilitarian policy-maker, it is extremely important for you to tell me how to think about the round and that means defending your methods and presuppositions. If you don't have a reason why a particular framing is good or should be adopted, then that's the equivalent of making a warrantless claim for me.

2) Perms. I don't generally assume that there are no perms in a method debate, but I do think that the current state of debating perms is abusive. It is important that you explain what it is that I am voting for with respect to both the permutation and/or an alternative. If the alt is largely not-mitigated, then it is much harder for you to win the permutation because I am willing to weigh a risk of the perm being worse than the alt against the alt itself.

3) You should try to be as specific as possible and try to contextualize your Theory of Power to the aff. It is literally possible to win neg debates on Theory of Power alone, but I think it's easy for the non-pess team to beat back totalization in which case you will be losing Theory of Power. You can certainly still win debates where you lose Theory of Power as the pess team, and this will usually be through winning links, solvency indicts, or an alternative. This is true for all psychoanalysis arguments and Baudrillard.

4) I will hack for novelty. It's incredible to me how much critical theory we don't use in debate because it fails to meet the bar for what we think is the correct way to execute a Kritik. There's too little incentive for rethinking familiar arguments. If you go equal against a team that is reading something weird and new while you are reading old blocks and recycled 2nrs, then you did the worse debating.

Clash

1) Framework is boring. There are so many things that I would rather hear besides or in addition to framework such as impact turns/disads, cap, topical counterplans, indicts of authors, and other kritiks. If you read framework in front of me me, here are somethings that matter to me

A) Tell a story about actual abuse. I much prefer that framework be read with arguments that you expect your opponents to spike out of. Conversely, if you are the K team and you don't spike disads, then it is much more likely that you will win framework. Winning actual abuse will always legitimate whining about models.

B) Know that I think that fairness is an impact, but I don't think that it can easily be outweighed by structural injustice or the reproduction of violence. It is certainly a tie-breaker when the K team loses that voting for them does nothing or the TVA.

C) Clash is generally an internal link, not an impact. If you win that you have more detailed discussions of something that we shouldn't be talking about, you haven't won anything good.

2) Doing good is good, but you still have to explain buzzwords like utilitarianism and pragmatism. You don't win these arguments by just repeating the word because that's equivalent to a claim without a warrant.

3) Theory usually comes before topic education because it is assumed that we don't need to read conditional offcase or pics to access kritikal education. Again if you can tell me an abuse story, I'm more willing to buy the violation. I also really like 'x justifies y' arguments.

Policy vs. Policy

1) Ideally, I wouldn't be in these rounds, but it happens.

2) I will assume a utilitarian cost benefit analysis unless told otherwise. This means that I will vote for whatever you tell me to vote for. I've voted for first-strike russia, curbing counterplans, and condo.

3) Slow down and don't assume I read and understand what your aff does. Even if I do, I still believe that debate is a communicative activity and expect you to explain your arguments to me.

Nay Linn Hire

Lucas Lobo Calvert Hall College High School

Last changed on Mon November 11, 2024 at 8:38 AM EDT

I debate at Emory and I used to debate at Calvert Hall.

Yes, email chain:lcsrlobo@gmail.com.

Must Read:
1. I have very little knowledge about the IP topic. Please do not assume I know any acronyms, legalese, or community concensus on a given argument.
2. I've been a 2A as many years as I've been a 2N and I've thought about the K as much as policy arguments. The following is a general set of ways I view debate that can VERY easily be modified depending on quality of arguments and quality of debating. Overadapting almost always hurts more than it helps.
3. Tech > truth on most everything that isn’t objectively false or clearly problematic.
4. I really don’t want to vote for dropped, arbitrary theory arguments. Expect low speaks if this is the case.
5. If you introduce an ethics violation you must stake the debate on it.

A few things I've noticed about how I evaluate debates:
1. I really enjoy when my decision is easy (I think almost all judges do). Consolidating in the 2NR/2AR, clear judge instruction, "even if" statements, and efficient time allocation will all result in a quicker decision with higher speaks.
2. My threshold for what constitutes a warrant has gotten far higher. Cards highlighted to say nothing, shallow explanation, and shadow extensions of your arguments without answering the LBL will probably cause me to allow new arguments.
3. I give out a fair amount of low-point wins. In terms of my decision, I care about the arguments made more than how good you sound when explaining them.

T: persuaded by reasonability when impact/internal link differentials are tiny, less receptive when big. “Good is good enough” alone never made much sense. Include caselists, do impact comparison, and answer defensive arguments contextual to your interp.

CPs: No judge kick unless told to. Links less is usually unpersuasive, sufficiency framing usually is. Condo is probably fine.

DAs: Relative risk precedes and determines turns case. Cards aren’t necessary if logical defense beats a DA, but I’d prefer ev if you have it. Love the politics DA.

Ks on the Neg: I find myself voting for the team that best compartmentalizes the moving parts of the debate. Having alt solves, impact outweighs, or links turn case claims are very helpful. I am unpersuaded to one-sentence 'role of the judge' and 'role of the ballot' arguments other than deciding who did the better debating and submitting a decision to tabroom, respectively. These arguments are often better explained as pieces of framework offense.

Ks on the Aff: Anything can be an impact (aff or neg) depending on impact explanation, comparison, turns case, and solves case. Extremely persuaded by SSD and TVA when contextualized to AFF offense. If equally debated, I'm better for the impact turn approach vs. counter-interp. A 2NR that spells out a clear limits/ground case against the counter-interp will probably lead me to believe it does not solve NEG offense.

Brian Loo Sidwell

Last changed on Fri May 24, 2024 at 8:22 AM EDT

In General

Please be courteous and respectful. I have zero tolerance for ad hominem attacks or unnecessarily aggressive styles of debating. You should win a debate through the strength of your arguments, not the force of your emotions.

I tend to be tech over truth, i.e. I judge you based on what you argue and how effectively you defend it rather than judging you based on my own knowledge and assumptions about how the world works. But like most people, I will be annoyed if you say things that I know to be factually wrong (even if I end up voting for you).

I was an LD debater in high school and did various forms of legislative debate in both high school and college; I am now a high school English teacher.

Public Forum

This is a debate event designed for a general audience. I am judging you not only on the flow of the debate, the coherence of your arguments, and the strength of your warrants and impacts, but also on how well you speak, how convincing you are as a speaker. I prefer that debaters not spread in PF, but if you have to spread to get through your speeches, please make sure you're slowing down and being clear when making key points. (I am okay at flowing debates but definitely not the best.)

That being said, I very much enjoy seeing a technically sound round of PF and I will almost always vote for the team that wins the flow.

Speech Events

I did OO and Extemp in high school. I have a good sense of what makes a strong DI, HI, Duo, OPP, Expos, OA, and Impromptu, events that were part of my local and state circuits back in the day. I am a lot less familiar with other events.

Policy Debate

I'm still relatively new to judging Policy. I have judged about a dozen rounds of CX at this point, but mostly JV/Novice and local league.

Progressive Debate: I'm open to whatever - K's, framework, theory, etc. You can argue anything. Just don't expect me to be an expert. Be sure to link, explain significance, convince me of your approach. Usually progressive debate involves some sort of paradigm shift in how we think about debate or the warrants and impacts of a debate.

Cards and Evidence: Please share your cards with me and your opponents at the beginning of the round and as necessary throughout the round. However, I do not tend to look closely at cards unless I am instructed to. The burden is on you as the debater to draw my attention to any weaknesses in or misreadings of your opponents' cards. You also need to explain the significance of a card (or series of cards) in the flow of the debate. Do not expect me to do this for you. In general, Policy is an event that allows debaters to get into the weeds of specific plans and policies, and I welcome this. Just be sure to clearly and consistently frame the significance of your warrants, cards, and impacts in the overall flow of the debate–how do they respond to your opponents' arguments, how does it defend your own, how does it win you the debate. I should never be left to wonder why you are making a particular argument or introducing a particular card.

Speed: I am okay with spreading in Policy because I know it is part of the event, but I also assume I don't need to fully understand something whenever you are speaking too fast for me to follow. I expect debaters to slow down and speak clearly whenever making a major point that significantly affects the flow of the debate. I'll do my best to flow the debate and I make my decision based on what I was able to flow and understand.

Dropped Arguments: If your opponents drop an argument, you have to point it out and explain why this argument is significant. You do not automatically win the debate because they dropped an argument, all you automatically win is the dropped argument. You have to convince me why the argument wins you the debate.

Congress

In my view, a good Congress round combines some aspects of speech events and other debate events but is also uniquely its own thing–a form of legislative debate. Top-level competitors should demonstrate that they are well-researched and well-prepared but should never simply read a pre-prepared speech. If you have a pre-prepared speech you should perform it. But the best competitors adapt themselves to the flow of the debate in their chamber, incorporating and addressing the arguments of their peers, just like any other form of debate, which requires more extemporaneous speaking skills. A winning competitor in Congress is always competing for the top position even when they are not speaking: through their motions, questions, knowledge of parliamentary procedure, amendments, even the number of times your placard is raised, etc. A winning speech is one that significantly influences the overall flow of the debate in the chamber through clash and new arguments. Lastly, a truly competitive chamber requires you to find a way to stand out in a large crowd of equally excellent debaters and, just like any other speech or debate event, that means knowing what style of debate suits you best–some light humor, wit, oratorical flare, social intelligence (because, yes, a great Congress chamber is also a social body with its own particular dynamics). Whatever brings out your strengths and makes you unforgettable in a round.

Melissa Loupeda BCLA-McCormack

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 7:52 AM PDT

email - melissa.loupeda@yahoo.com

Argument clarity: I am not a fan of spreading at all. I do not want to rely on your cards to understand your main ideas - I want to hear your speech. If I could, I'd say no spreading at all. I know for some, it's a habit so instead I'll say, if you are unable to spread clearly, please don't do it. Even if you don't say everything you mean to, I value careful analysis and addressing your opponent's argument so much more than card-spewing. Prior to debate judging, my background was in mock trial where speech is slow, deliberate and imitative of courtroom behavior. Please keep in mind.

Argument organization: Ensure that your argument, wherever it goes, has a unifying thread and thesis. As such, roadmapping and sign-posting are highly encouraged. It can come off as disorganized at best and self-contradictory at worst, when students throw every possible argument at judges without a thought on how it comes together.

Argument intensity: This is a learning opportunity so feel encouraged to respectfully call your opponent out when arguments are illogical or off topic. However, disrespect towards your opponent or hounding on a point already made begins to just reflect poorly on yourself. Be particularly mindful of this on cross and in your final speeches.

Cross: I pay a lot of attention to how you handle cross. I want to see you address/point out your opponent's gaps. You should also anticipate the types of comments/questions your opponent will make/ask. Consider the most obvious weaknesses of your position and be ready. Please be prepared to define key terms within your argument. It really weakens your argument if you're using a term to be persuasive and don't know what it means / why it's relevant. Cross is also an opportunity to show sportsmanship, again no need to hound on one particular weakness over and over. When students do this, it looks like they have nothing else to say, which probably isn't true!

sim low Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 10:49 AM EDT

my background

simdebates@gmail.com for the email chain and other inquiries.

do not contact me on any other platform and i generally do take a while to respond - feel free to send follow ups, it won’t annoy me.

the asian debate collective is a community inclusive of all platforms and skill levels. we offer active programming during the summer that includes academic guest speakers, debate lectures, and drill/practice round opportunities. outside of that, we offer pre-professional/college application assistance and as always, friendship and emotional support. if you are interested in joining, email me!

i graduated from johns hopkins university where i studied public health and Black studies. my academic research focuses on transnational (anti)Asian/American studies and medical colonialism.

i stopped actively coaching in 2024, but i used to be the head policy coach at georgetown day school. since then, i have taken a million steps back from the activity and i am now a grumpy old person.

general

i flow by ear and i am generally pretty good at handling speed. i will say “clear” or “slow” no more than twice in a speech. if you do not adapt, i will certainly not check the speech documents for you. i will simply not flow what i cannot hear.

any of my opinions and predispositions will be overcome by clear warrants, extensions, and explicit argument interaction. there obviously isn’t some objective metric for if something is “sufficiently warranted,” but it’ll just come down to whether or not i understand it.

my coaching and judging history is largely within kritikal debate. i am usually preffed for k and clash rounds, but have judged other arguments. i’m somewhat capable of doing so, but i am less familiar so my bar for explanations is higher.

extensions matter and i will not do it for you. for instance, i would recommend mentioning your plan text in the speeches following the 1ac. i’m very comfortable voting on presumption or pretending an argument doesn’t exist otherwise. this is a very basic expectation and i’m sad it needs to be said. you may be salty that i didn’t vote for theory, even if you won the line-by-line, since you didn’t extend an interpretation. you can avoid that by reading this paragraph and adapting!

keep track of your own time.

inserting highlighting is not a thing - read it out loud. i generally do not check the speech document at all unless a piece of evidence is explicitly contested and i am told to read it.

you might see me crocheting during non-flowing time. it doesn’t mean i am checked out, it helps me focus.

the round starts at the start time. the 1ac is sent out by then and you start speaking on the dot. the team that delays the start time will be punished through speaker points. rounds take far too long because of dilly dallying and i shall not have it.

i have tried, but i have accepted that i simply cannot judge tricks or frivolous theory. i sincerely do not understand 99% of these philosophical arguments and i do not know what the word “indexical” means. i think if you are willing to explain philosophy to me like i am a five year old, i may be able to vote for it. i just highly recommend debating as if you are in policy.

“did you read X card?” — yeah, this cuts into your cx or prep time. you don’t get to ask these questions for free, flow better!

public forum

evidence exchange, including the search time, is taken out of the asking team’s prep time. i think this is an unfortunate practice and deeply imperfect. i think it makes debates less educational and it gives your opponent a lot of power to wreck your time. but without doing so, rounds get stalled for far too long and it has been to the extent that tab pops in the room or my messages to rush my rfd. i suggest quickly asking for evidence and having it sent during the speech/cx.

there is a way to get out of this… and it is by following the norms of other formats! you should send all evidence and dare i say, the speech document, before starting your speech.

if you do not have evidence with proper citations, you paraphrase, and/or you do not have the full text evidence ready to share, i will immediately vote for your opponents if they call it out and extend it into the last speech. even if it’s just a sentence. these are basic practices essential to academic integrity.

Addie Lowenstein Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:40 AM EDT

Hi!! I’m Addie -- please add me to the chain -- addie.lowenstein@yale.edu

Georgetown Day School ’22, Yale ’26, pronouns are she/her/hers

I debated 3 years in the Washington Urban Debate League, 4 years at GDS (went to the TOC twice, 7 bids), and have attended 2 college debate tournaments this year for Georgetown University as a hybrid. Have always been a 2A.

Read primarily feminist kritikal affs all of high school but have been reading policy affs for Georgetown this year. Have always been pretty flex on the neg.

I worked at the WUDL Ornstein Summer Institute. Always assume my topic knowledge is limited.

General Things

- Always feel free to reach out with questions and please do what you do best!!

- Tech > truth

- Absolutely will not tolerate in-round violence or hostility. If you are concerned about or hurt by something that happened in a round, don’t hesitate to reach out.

- Things that will get high speaks: creativity and jokes!! Favorite part of the debate is CX – take advantage of that. Making me laugh, esp during cx = much higher speaks. That being said, don’t be annoying. I understand the importance of getting your question in and answering fully. Please do not consistently interrupt or talk over people. Walk the line between being persuasive + confident and being rude/arrogant.

- Write my ballot for me at the top of the 2NR and 2AR – be very clear about what you are going to go for and why that will win you the debate. Please do impact calculus AND impact comparison. Also make “even if” statements. 2NR especially should spend extra time explaining why I still vote neg even if the 2A wins xyz. Contextualize your 2AR overview to that specific debate. Make cross applications!!

K affs

I have the most thoughts about these because they were my favorite debates, as well as the debates I was in the most.

Aff --

Love them! but 1. I enjoy these debates much more when I think the affirmative actually has a strong justification for reading their K on the aff 2. Your aff should also probably be somewhat related to the resolution. K affs that have really specific critiques of the resolution are more persuasive to me. Make prerequisite arguments -- if the things you've said are bad are true, then how does that implicate the world of the negative. Why does that mean your aff has to come first. Use your 1AC to your advantage to get offense against the content of their specific arguments, as well as the form they use to describe them.

I am much less well versed in high theory, even though I’ve been in quite a few of these debates. If you read it, take extra time explaining your theory and how it interacts with debate, the resolution, and the neg’s args.

I tend to think reading a counterinterp vs framework is always strategic (more so than just straight impact turns), but could vote on either. If you do read a counterinterp, clear explanation in the 1AR & 2AR about why your model resolves your offense is crucial.

neg –

I have been in a million K aff vs. framework debates (on both sides) and can genuinely go either way. I’ve gone for framework many times in the 1NR (including this year), and also gave 2ARs against it most of my senior year. I probably have a higher threshold for voting on framework against an identity aff. If you’re reading high theory with lots of buzzwords and not a lot of explanation, I’ll probably have a lower threshold for voting on FW. Either way, being creative with your framework offense will help you, as well as thinking about the interaction between your offense on the case page and your arguments/model of debate on the framework page.

Don’t just name a TVA without explaining how it accesses the aff’s lit or solves some of their offense. TVAs don’t have to solve all the aff’s offense, but that doesn’t mean you can stick a TVA plan text in your speech without explaining why I should care – especially when it’s not immediately clear that there’s a relationship between the TVA and the aff’s lit base.

Love a good K v K debate. Examples are huge in these debates – much more likely to buy your advocacy aff or neg if you give examples and explain them. Alt and perm explanations are the core of these debates, so be creative. I think generally teams underutilize the case page when they are negative vs a K aff. I would love to hear a robust case debate vs a K aff and am very willing to vote on presumption.

Policy Affs

Aff--

Limited topic familiarity; don’t assume I just know how your aff works. Start explaining your long internal link chain to me during 1AC cx and avoid using jargon.

Your entire 1AC is a justification for your way of understanding the world. Use that in K debates – don’t get distracted from talking about what you know best.

Neg—

Good with DAs, CPs, any combination -- though less experienced with CP debates. Your CP should have a clear net benefit (internal or external) by the 1NC. I don’t love CPs with tons of planks, especially because I usually forget what a lot of those planks were by the block. If you read 10 off, I am going to feel bad for the aff.

T vs policy affs

I don’t necessarily find these the most fascinating debates, but I am very willing to vote on T vs a policy aff. Have given many 1NRs on T and my partner and I went for it pretty frequently vs policy affs.

Caselist is super important. I want to know what affs your model excludes and why those are bad. I want to know what affs your model encourages and why those are better. This goes hand and hand with impacting out your model well.

Reading more cards that substantiate your interp and violation can be helpful.

K vs policy affs

Do it! Make specific links, label them, impact them out, and explain why they turn case. Individual links on the K are like mini disadvantages to the aff. That means be specific and creative with your link arguments, recut 1AC and 2AC evidence and pull lines from cards-- don’t JUST read a state bad link. If that’s all you’ve got, the K is probably not your most strategic option. The less good your links are, the better your alt must be. I will be less persuaded by an alternative that’s just “reject the aff” absent great link analysis. Explain what it means for the aff if you win the thesis of your K, don’t just make generic role of the ballot arguments.

Framing – if you’re going for util arguments, I am probably persuaded more by avoiding mass biological extinction being good to the extent that people can make their own choice about their own value to life rather than just preserving future generations.

Theory

Prefer spending some time sitting on these arguments rather than just one-liners i.e. “severance is a voter” or “no perms in a method debate”
I am generally inclined to prefer a nuanced, educational debate about content unless you spend a considerable amount of time explaining why I should care more about your theory argument.

Julia Lynch McDowell HS

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 11:46 AM EDT

Please put me on the email chain -- julialynch101 AT gmail.com

I debated for four years at the University of Miami and mostly ran traditional policy arguments. However, I am open to listening to anything and will try my best to understand positions based on the arguments and evidence presented in the round. I respect the time and effort you are putting into this activity and hope that you will share that same respect for me and your opponents.

Top Level:

I flow on paper and lean more tech over truth.

Evidence quality (and analysis!) over quantity.

I prefer impact calc early and most definitely by the end of the round. “Even if”-esque arguments go a long way with me.

I love cross-ex and will reward speakers that are strategic, assertive, yet respectful.

Stealing prep is one of my biggest pet peeves -- please don't do it. I appreciate it when teams keep track of their prep (in the chat, if online).

Counterplans: As a former 2N, I loved running them and appreciate hearing well-thought-out and strategic CPs. However, I am skeptical of multi-plank counterplans that have no/few solvency advocates. In those instances, particularly, I can be easily persuaded by “links to the net benefit” args. Negs should identify net benefits early and clearly – I’ll hold you to what you say originally. Conditional planks and cross-application of planks/CPs to different pages frustrate me unless specifically flagged as a possibility early in the round. I will only “judge-kick” the CP if explicitly told to do so and can likely be persuaded otherwise with solid aff arguments.

Topicality: T is a voting issue and I believe that affs should have a plan, and if not, an advocacy statement. Otherwise, it’s unclear to me what the aff has to defend which likely makes in-depth engagement grounded in a point of stasis difficult. Reading blocks and blocks of definitions without analysis or embedded clash is not a winning strategy with me. I enjoy hearing arguments regarding topical versions of the aff and the value of debate and topic-specific education. Extra-topicality is an independent voting issue.

Disads: DAs are a great strategy either with a CP or straight up versus case. However, uniqueness and links need to be solid. I greatly appreciate “case turns the DA” and “DA turns case” args and prefer case-specific DAs over generics (read: politics).

Case debate: I absolutely love case debate and respect debaters who put in the time to point out flaws and contradictions on-case, even if via just short analytics. On-case turns and solvency takeouts can go far if explained and deployed correctly.

Kritiks: As mentioned above, I did not run many Kritiks when I debated. As such, I am not as familiar with the literature and would appreciate a clear explanation of the link and the alternative. I prefer topic-specific Kritiks and/or ones with concrete links to the plan itself, not just “the aff” or a singular piece of evidence. I think it would be difficult for me to vote for a K without an alt; however, I can be persuaded into thinking otherwise if sufficient work is done at the uniqueness/link level.

Theory: 2 condo is fine, but conditional planks and contradicting positions are a tough sell for me. Condo is the only theory arg for which I will “reject the team.”

** PF **

I did PF for a couple of years in high school so I am familiar with the structure and style. However, given that I haven't been active in the PF circuit for a couple of years, please be mindful of throwing around PF-specific debate terms without explaining what they mean. Although the paradigm above is through the lens of Policy, many of my preferences apply to PF. Please ask me any questions you have before the round and I'd be happy to answer.

Darin Maier St. Andrew's Episcopal School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:47 PM CDT

Updated January 2025

The big update -- Be forewarned. If you lie to me about something that happens in the round (like claiming something is a new argument when it clearly isn't), I reserve the right to give you the loss, assign the lowest speaker points the tournament will let me give, and may hold a press conference in the student lounge to tell the world why I did it. Characterizations of what evidence says or doesn't say is understandable, but fabrications are not.

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.
Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.
“Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.
Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.
Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.
Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been extensively involved in the NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 and written several topic papers (including the Latin America topic from 2013-2014), so I know the work that goes into crafting resolutions. If you advocate for/against the resolution somehow, I'll give you pretty wide latitude. Ignoring the resolution means the bar is pretty low for me to ignore you (though I have seen teams fail to navigate themselves over that bar).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes, I want to be in on any file sharing but I'm not going to refer to the document during a speech unless I feel like something happened that made me lose concentration or I'm snagging the odd cite. For speed, I don't flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I'll yell "clear" twice without repercussions; on the third "clear" in your speech, the pen goes down and I'm probably opening up eBay to shop for coins (and you're losing speaks) until you or your partner picks up on the cue. Getting things on my flow is your job, not mine. I will have no problem saying "you didn't say that in a way that was flowable."

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So, yeah, I understand things like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality pretty well, your K based on some random European dude who says adopting his method is the only way for life to have value is going to take some explaining.It is your job to put me in a position to explain to the other team why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. Framework or "role of the ballot" arguments that are not reasonably accessible to both teams are likely to get ignored. Example -- "use the ballot to affirm my identity" when the other team doesn't have that identity is probably getting tossed, but "use the ballot to combat structural violence being committed against a marginalized community" that you happen to be a part of and we'll be good to go.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I will worka little harder than youto make sense of the round. If neither side does work, I'm going to find the first thing I can embrace and sign the ballot.Asking me to read evidence, particularlyyour evidence, is a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.
Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.
Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.
Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.
Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

0. Do not spread in Public Forum -- if you want to spread, there's two other perfectly good debate events for you.

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

Emmanuel Makinde Stuyvesant High School

Joshua Martin Hire

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 8:01 AM EDT

tl;dr yeah, you can go fast

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: jrmartin707@gmail.com

I debated in college for UC Berkeley (graduated 2017), have coached high school and college teams at local and TOC levels, led many debate camp labs, etc. These days I mostly just do volunteer work with UDLs; you should assume I'm familiar with everything argumentatively/stylistically and very little on the topic. Generally, same stuff everyone says: debate like you want to debate, explain things and impact them, tell me why you winning or losing an argument does or does not influence my decision, and try to have fun.

One crotchety note at the top: several years ago, I did an experiment for several tournaments and timed how long all the debates I judged were from "start of 1AC" to "end of 2AR". That number should be close to 80 minutes, which is the total length of speeches + CXs + prep time. It was actually over 100 minutes, meaning that in the average varsity debate, 20+ minutes were spent on things that should be near-instantaneous, like "trying to attach the speech doc to the email". It might sound like I'm just being nitpicky, but over the course of a six-round tournament, that's over two hours of dead time that delays the schedule, or could have been spent on getting more helpful judge feedback, more pre-round prep for the next debate, or a less rushed lunch break. The takeaway is that you'll make me very happy if you are snappy and efficient about working your computer, sending your docs, not idling constantly, and so on. (Literally, do drills at home on navigating your speech doc folders, if this is a problem for you; it's worth it.) This stuff actually matters for making tournaments more educational, more restful, and less stress-inducing. If that's not enough motivation for you, I promise it matters for judges' perception of your competence and preparedness.

Okay, rant over. Here are some of the things you probably want to know:

---> My own argumentative evolution has been from "exclusively K debater" in high school to "almost all policy" by the end, though I've coached all kinds. For what it’s worth, if you need an easy way to rank me, I lean more and more towards enjoying straight-up policy debates the more I judge. It's tough to disentangle "what are you a good judge for" and "what are you gonna have more fun watching" sometimes, so I'm just gonna be honest and say that if you have no good reason to pick the K or the DA or which of your affs you're gonna read, might as well read the policy one.

---> I believe that framework is true and debate would be better if people read plans, though that doesn't mean I exclusively vote negative in those debates. I just want to. Predictability and debatability are pretty important to me, and I think most aff framework counter-interpretations do not offer a feasible role for the negative, show what neg prep should look like in their version of debate, or explain why their educational claims are unique to the context of a debate format; counter-interpretations are almost always underdeveloped meaningless sentences that functionally mean "the aff can do anything", and if the aff can do anything, they'll end up doing uneducational undebatable stuff that the neg cannot possibly prepare to interact with pre-tournament. That said, my opinion here doesn't mean any given neg team executes the framework debate properly and guarantees a win. The best aff answers lay out really clear alternatives for what debate should look like and impact turn all the skills that policy-focused debate generates (or maybe predictability itself, though I don't know if I've heard a compelling version of that).

---> I’m generally unpersuaded by arguments along the lines of “the perm/FW/etc. is violence/stealing our advocacy/etc.” (for example, the perm is not sexual violence; nothing except sexual violence is sexual violence), arguments that the negative doesn’t have to disprove the affirmative, and speeches that consist entirely of buzzwords where you expect me to fill in what I already know about your concepts. I’m not afraid to give decisions which consist mostly of “I have no idea what you were talking about most of the time” if you just repeated the words “rhizome” or “foundational antagonism” at me, even if I know what you were trying to mean. Additionally, I'm super not down with arguments that are about things outside of the debate, like "show us your prefs". I think the other team just needs a ten second defense of "you can only critique stuff we actually said" and I'm convinced.

---> I have relatively few strong predispositions about common theory arguments. I'm extremely flow-centric here: I have absolutely voted for really bad theory args that got dropped, and also refused to vote for dropped ones when they were never a full argument with an impact in the first place.

---> The best ways to boost your speaker points are impeccable organization, good demonstrations of strategic vision by identifying the most important questions to resolve, detailed evidence comparison (which often means: calling out your opponent’s terrible, terrible evidence for what it is), and impact calculus that goes deeper than "probability, magnitude, timeframe". The best ways to hurt your speaker points are to be a jerk to your partner, get angry for no reason in cross-ex, jump all around the flow in no discernible order, and spend your whole speech behind your laptop mumbling and not paying any attention to the judge's reactions. Try to be a kind person who knows their stuff and the rest will follow.

---> A note for younger debaters (if that's you, you deserve credit for reading all the way down here!): because so many debates start with the question, "Can we do open CX?", you should know that the answer is always the same: you can, technically, there's no rule against it. But I would really recommend you don't - it's always better to get practice handling your CXs alone, going to your partner only as a last resort. It's important that they have the time to prep their next speech (that's three full minutes of free prep time!) and it's also much better for both of you to look organized and have independent mastery of your material. So practice just not asking that question, and debating as if CX is closed 99% of the time. It's the fastest low-effort way to make your team look more like experienced, organized debaters.

Brendon Morris Lexington HS

Last changed on Mon September 30, 2024 at 7:03 PM EDT

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means I will make the decision that requires no work from me unless neither team has a ballot which requires zero work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Flowing Practices

I flow 1AC and 1NC cross-x just in case it becomes important to the debate. For 2AC and 2NC cross-x I am mostly listening and writing feedback about the constructive. I will flow 1AC & 1NC with the speech doc open next to the flow. I am reading along with the speech and will catch if you do things like hide aspec so don't worry about that. For the other 6 speeches I am probably not looking at the speech doc. and just flowing what I hear. Don't read into it if I close my eyes or look up and away; I'm just trying to increase my focus to flow better.

Online Debate Update
If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. "Reject the argument solves all their offense" is an unwarranted claim and teams should capitalize on this more. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows holistically.

DA:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

CP:

For the neg I prefer that you have a solvency advocate. For the aff I think solvency deficits to the CP probably win most in front of me. I'm alright for competition debates if you are good at them. Spreading one liner standards in the 1ar and then exploding on them in the 2ar will make me have a very low threshold for 2nr answers look like. Similar for the 2nr, but I think the 2nr needs to flag the analysis as new and tell me it justifies new 2ar answers.

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Please leave the cards in the file and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points. For aff v K perm is probably your best weapon, answer the theory of power especially if there is an ontology claim, and FW which outright excludes the K is probably weaker than a FW which just says the aff gets to weigh their impacts.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. I'll vote on framework/topicality, for negs running it I think the "role of negation" is particular convincing and I need an offensive reason to vote, but defense on each aff standard/impact is just as important.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise. Perms test mutual exclusivity and I normally think they do this by resolving links through the perm. Multiple perms good/bad is a question to be debated on theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

What gets you good speaks:
- Making it easier for me to flow
- Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
- Making things interesting
- Clear spreading
- Complete line by line in the order that the opponents made the arguments
- Productive CX

What hurts your speaks:
- Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
- Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
- Being really boring
- Being rude

PF Specific

I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

Rishi Mukherjee Hire

Akunna Njoku Hire

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 9:43 AM EDT

Hi, my name is Akunna, I debated Public Forum for four years in High School and I have been judging for about three years. I aim to enter a round with a tabula rasa, therefore, the ballot is ultimately decided by who can sway me to their side by the end. However, I will also employ a healthy balance of tech vs truth, so do be careful with blatantly untrue statements. Add me to the email chain! njokua@bxscience.edu

I am a junior in college majoring in Biomedical Engineering, therefore, definitely be mindful of healthcare arguments. Though it may sound ironic, if you're making an impact=death argument make sure the impact of death has further impacts or I won't be swayed much. This is just something I've noticed as I've judged rounds.

@ PF debaters; I am not a layperson! Therefore, although the speaker points are awarded on how good of a debater you are which is broken down below, the W/L is much more dependent on the argument itself rather than HOW it is presented.

A very simple breakdown of my scoring of speaker points is:

Content: Argumentation and strength of what is simply on the paper. 40%

Strategy: Organization and allocation of time to the strongest and most important and significant issues. 30%

Rebuttals/Counters: On one hand, both sides can present very strong arguments and I simply pick the strongest. On the other hand, completely tearing apart the opposing arg to the point it begins to lose validity (that is within the realms of a proper debate), can only make your argument not only stronger but more feasible. 20%

Style: Delivery of the speeches. How convincing is the debater? Can you sell water to a fish? This will be noted in gestures, body language as well as clear and effective speech. 10%

Things I might give extra points for but NOT dock points for: (Extra credit, you can only stand to gain, not lose.) "Might" here is in the case that both sides are incredibly strong in their arguments and presentation and are neck and neck in terms of raw scores.

Confidence, this may seem subjective but confidence shows me that the debater has an understanding of what they are trying to convey rather than reading words off a page.
Respect (towards opponents), debate can get heated, it is important not to cross any lines and to maintain an air of kindness. This does not mean to sugarcoat or hold back. But an ability to balance respect and youthful frustration might get you a few extra points. (you will not lose points for lacking respect, this does not mean rudeness or inappropriate behavior. More like being curt or short with responses)
Creativity and/or originality: presenting an argument in a way that is unexpected but effective or utilizing a card or a kritik cleverly. Debating the same topic for a month can get boring and pedantic. Rather than simply showing off facts, presenting interesting/unique stock issues or impacts might earn you a few extra points. (*Unexpected =/= strength. This is not to say I'm looking for a shock factor, the argument must be both unique and strong.) Some terminology here pertains to policy such as "kritik" and "stock issues" but creativity as a criterion stands in all debate forms.

Ikenna Ogbogu Hire

Oge Ogbogu Hire

Last changed on Wed September 11, 2024 at 5:54 AM PDT

Polytechnic '20

Harvard '24

Add me to the email chain: oogbogu@college.harvard.edu

Competed in policy debate throughout high school and currently competing in college. I have competed in PF and parli as well, though.

I generally am more familiar with the K; however, please continue to run whichever argument you want. Everyone should have that fair opportunity.

Pref me lower for a policy vs. policy round, but policy vs.K or FW vs. K or K VS. K I'm better suited for.

Framework: I do love framework when it is utilized and argued properly by both sides, and I find that especially for Kritikal teams, I love to see teams leverage their K's impacts against the impacts of the framework arg. Clash is key when discussing FW; the team who can better articulate the setup of debate and their impacts will have a better chance of winning FW and further args.

Please use framing and judge instruction. It truly will bolster your arguments and when done right. Streamline the debate very well.

CPs: Pretty neutral on these as I haven't really hit them in a while. Your CP has to be competitive to the purpose/solvency of the AFF. Please perm, perms allow you to test this competition.

Das: Again, pretty neutral, but your link must be articulated well, and your impact must be carried through. Affs should evidence and link chains thoroughly and weigh their impacts against the DA.

K: I read the K most of my high school career and still reading it in college. I am most familiar with critical Race Theory, antiblackness, Black Feminity literature, and args in generally all capacities. Explain your theory of power. I am familiar with all theories. I love performative links, and I think extrapolating those performances to textual links makes the strong K args. Contextualize your alternative. I need to know what the alt is and what it does, and how it solves. It must be coherent, and I say this outside of clear, but the alt must make sense by the end of the round and prove competitive. Affs should always perm to test both competitions on solvency and link. Outside of that, I love hearing all new sorts of Ks and args, and it would be appreciated on both sides if there is a K vs. Policy/FW debate that both sides create clash so an in depth debate can take place.

K affs: I personally ran k affs as well throughout high school and college, and I think they offer a lot of creativity and perspective to various topics I think are needed. That being said, my only ask is that you explain and extend. If you aff is a counter-model to debate, I need an explanation of how and why it is needed. If you do not have a counter interp, I need an explanation as to why it is not needed. If your aff is somewhat grounded in the resolution, I need an explanation of the relationship between the aff and the resolution and why you chose your stance. If you choose not to be with the resolution, I need a clear reason why that is a necessary choice. Be consistent with your args, have proper solvency, and do a lot of clash and weighing of the aff and its impacts. Please extend your arguments. It will only make the aff stronger but don't lose the aff in the debate, that will be harmful.

CX: I am fine with tag team cross. If. I feel that someone is rude that will mark down speakers. That being said, I like seeing a respectful cross and an understanding that some of the args that people read are more personal than others. Therefore, understanding CX should be the point in debate where we go back to being normal people who understand this. I believe CX does garner args from the flow. I will write down these arguments, but it is a team's responsibility to extend them to be proper arguments. Extra speaks for good CX starts and questions. I appreciate humor, but I also appreciate seriousness, so however you enter the CX, enter it the way most authentic to yourself.

Overall, you do you, and I will flow. I start all my evaluations from the level of framing, so please have a lot of judge instruction and ROB and ROJ. Clash, weighing and impacts key, and run whatever makes you happy. It goes without saying I don't tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything of the sort, and teams, especially those running these arguments within reasonability, should feel comfortable pointing this out in round and determining if they are voters or not. Simultaneously it is also important to understand we are all learning and growing and notice that weaponizing growing moments against people may not actually educate anyone or solve the situation, so prioritize education and growth over debate.

Thanks, Maddox, for helping me with this, lol.

Phebean Ogunsanwo Hire

Jackson Owen Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:55 AM EDT

please put me on email chain

jaxrowen@gmail.com

former 2A/1N for Mamaroneck BO (2018-2022); UPenn Class of 2026

General Stuff

Not very familiar with this year's topic discourse, but I have a basic understanding of social programs and advanced sense of the current political system.

I have a policy slant and am definitely tech>truth (TO AN EXTENT)

Don't change your strat because I am judging, I will vote on anything reasonable

dropped arguments aren't true if they are ridiculous and/or illogical

tell me the implications of arguments, I get mad when judges over reward teams for vagueness because of past experience

I am good with speed but please say "And" or "Next" so I can flow without following the card doc

Clarity on analytics will earn higher speaks and probably allow you to win the round

Please don't be racist, homophobic, offensive in round

K affs

Explain your Theory of Power in some way in the 2ar if you want my ballot

I probably lean neg on t-usfg, but creative debating by aff will compensate

procedural fairness is an impact.

Case

The offense-defense paradigm will apply unless I'm given a reason to reject it

durable fiat solves circumvention unless fiat as a concept is argued against

impact turns are dope, but no racism good

love a good heg good/bad debate, impact level debates in general are enjoyable to me

T/Theory

If your A-strat is going for T or theory violations I am probably not your judge; I will do my best to evaluate the debate fairly but tech-y T debates are not my specialty

should be 3-5 cards at most, or else aff conjunctive fallacy arguments become persuasive

conjunctive fallacy is not enough to answer a disad, not very strategic

I love a creative disad, but make sure it makes sense

Dispositionality means you can kick it if they read perms

PICs are great if they're creative. Depending on the aff, case probably o/ws word PICs

Judgekick=ok

x counterplans bad need specific reasons to reject the team not the argument, or I will probably err neg if they kick the counterplan

Please explain and impact out theory arguments on counterplans

I find Ks very interesting but I will probably lean aff on framework - tell me not to weigh the aff and I will consider not weighing it

Perfcon allows the aff to sever out of reps links, convince me otherwise if you want to go for reps links after reading other worlds in the 1nc

overviews shouldn't take up most of your speeches. Just explain your Theory of Power, the parts of the K and get on your merry way

Dwayne Paul Brophy College Prep

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

Email Chain

Add me: dgpaul8@gmail.com

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

T/L

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

I will make the least interventional decision, meaning:

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

DAs

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

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

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

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

CPs

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

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

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

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

Won't vote on RVIs

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

T v. K-Affs

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

Ks On the Neg

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

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

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

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

Theory

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

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

Debate the standards - don't just read down blocks

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

Cross-Examination

I do not flow cross-x

It can be fun to watch

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

Speaker Points

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

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

30 = best debater I've seen

29.6 - 29.9 = top debater at the tournament

29.1 - 29.5 - break deep into outrounds

28.6 - 29.0 - capability to break

28.0 - 28.5 - solid team, some learning to do

< 28.0 - some work to do

Ethics

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

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

You should give this line a wide berth

Eline Peters Hire

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 2:00 PM EDT

Eline!

Please add both:

Personal: elinelwpeters@gmail.com

Mamaroneck Email: mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

She/Her

Background : Debated at Mamaroneck High School, and am currently debating at Umass Amherst within the Harvard Debate Consortium. Throughout my debate career, I have mainly read policy affirmatives, whilst going for the K on the NEG. Substantively, I have researched queerness and its intersections with the law both in and out of debate.

I am debating in college, though I do not have familiarity with the high school topic. Prior to the Harvard Tournament, I will try my best to create an understanding and do some research on common arguments. I would likely err on the side of explanation, though that's a good thing to do anyway.

Predispositions:

I will judge kick the counter plan, unless told otherwise.

You don't need to flash analytics.

I will have a difficult time concluding that new affirmatives are bad. I am sympathetic to the perils of being a 2N, though a world without new affirmatives being broken is less interesting.

Hidden aspec D :

I am not very expressive when judging and will probably not convey what I think about arguments until my RFD.

Inserting rehighlighting is ok! Unless it is from a different part of the article from what the other team has read.

Final Thoughts

Be kind to your opponents and their arguments! It does not mean that you can't answer their arguments. It does mean that some people might have an emotional stake in the substance of their arguments; and as such demeaning your opponent in CX or otherwise is not good! I understand competitive incentives exist. I just think that we all could be kinder to one another.

If you are debating online: you don't need to keep your camera on if you don't want to. I will however keep mine on (and if its not please don't start your speech).

If you have any questions feel free to ask! I purposely did not include many debate opinions. Most of them I have can be overcome by outteching your opponent.

I am sorry I notice I update this paradigm pretty regularly and its a work in progress. Whenever I think of something that might be important I add it.

Lizzie Place Hire

Camille Porter-McAvoy Henderson Inclusion High School

Michael Pulver Success Academy HSLA-MANHATTAN

Last changed on Wed March 6, 2024 at 2:37 PM EDT

pulverizer1997@icloud.com to share the evidence; top-line on this issue here: I thought judges who complained about the “time it takes to flash…” was nonsense but I’ve started to see this become a problem. If you cannot make this process reduce down to a reasonable time-scale, meaning the rounds interpretation is no longer in the conception of the tournament but of myself, then your speaks will reflect this being an issue. Personally, I think this is a problem cause coaches are telling kids to no longer program the round and just freely code themselves. If this angers you before seeing my name, then the answer is easy: strike me.

My name is Michael Alexander Pulver. My kids call me Coach MAP. You do not need to give me that latter of respect but I would prefer to not be framed like the abstract object that you are using right now to read this paradigm; I am human. I currently head-coach at Success Academy where K-12 education is what I’m actively participating in with steady research in all debate formats and speech events. The two circuits that grew me into who I am today are the University Interscholastic League (UIL) and Texas Forensic Association (TFA). Those that made sure us teenagers didn’t burn down the hotels are Jordan Innerarity, Nicole Cornish, and Carver Hodgkiss at a small, 4A, school in East Texas called Athens. J.I kept me in-line. Nicole is debate mom. Carver made sure I took care of me. I got taught LD Debate and character development by Rodrigo Paramo at UTNIF. I learned CX from Matt Hernandez, True Head, Jose Sanchez, Will Harper, all of Lindale, and a litany of other characters. I did Extemporaneous Speaking and the most fundamental drill was the dart-gun.

After an okay high school experience, I found myself pursuing a bachelors of science with Integrative Studies. My experiences with Louie Petit, Brian Lain, Colin Quinn, and the greatest G.A of all-time, are some of my most formidable and ego-killing times of my life. CX-Debate was dead at the time but Parliamentary Debate was no joke. To a certain degree, I thought it was ‘funny’ to think: “wow… no cards?…” But this was a bad center to start at and I don’t totally reduce my experiences there over that concept. Rather, I think Brian and Louie had every attempt to try and get it through the thick-skull of a teenager that the world was very big and all we’re trying to do is make it extremely tiny in an already tiny scale. The lectures, the steak dinners, the overwhelming losses to TTU; you name it, I probably had too much fun but I let a lot get to my head instead of following the below.

At the start of how I paradigm myself, I do not think debate is a game but if you argue it as such then I will believe you. Let me explain, however, that I see a clear binary over the “Klein bottle” here that intersects the two agents I’ve come into contact within my own life: “Dogs” and “Cats” are real, we should treat them as such. Their experiences matter and we should take their stories with extremely serious analysis because us human beings are flawed and, often, stupid. Meeting Jason Jordan a hand-full of times in my life granted me some clarity on what it means to be a ‘sleepless’ arbiter on questions that we often describe through the flow. This does mean that I’m paying attention to every little detail that I can without subjecting biased to my own fears of the environment. As an example, maybe you’ve had the privilege of meeting a Belgian Malinois and seen them in both work and play mode. They can seem rather tense. They can be perceived as “aggressive...” But make no mistake: there’s a bit of child at the center of that beast. I defend that it’s because of us humans and our affixes to violence, if you’ve read into Alan Turing and his work with algorithms and machine-learning then this will make sense to you, we tend to negate that a tender soul sits there wanting to just fix the world. I often place that this means arbiters tend to ignore the problems because it’s a “time-sensitive… issue” instead of critiquing the temporality of our existence. Purely, this is all reflection and that’s where I think the border of the “Dog” is placed but not exclusively intrinsic to itself. As with the “Cat”, Matthew Gayetsky, and to some extent I do credit Gabe Murillo here, taught that the communication to ones-self is not mutually exclusive to the ramifications of ones own environment. Debate has created a reciprocation here since the early inceptions of the Louisville Project that has told debaters that they should look at the debate space as an environment with clear brevity and zero-secular value. My telos begins, at the conception, that debate is a space, looking for its time, to break this reciprocal and we’ve been woefully unsuccessful due to some archaic forms of logic.

And since debaters want to abstract communication to me without clearly understanding how they’re doing it, let me produce some clarity for you: https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf

When I was but a wee-lad, I did think it was cool and straight-edge to make a novel of a paradigm within the philosophy of off-case and theoretical positions like “DisAds”, “Condo”, “CP Theory”, “Inherency Shells…?”, etc. but in my journey of this activity, I’ve learned we’re setting up a binary that is inherently anti-pedagogical. One where “institutions…” go up against “you must 10x your flows and then you get my ballot..”er’s and that has made me sad but hopeful. The nature of the agents is one I won’t deduce here but I will give you a simple answer: I do not think either notion is important, or healthy, for this activity. Brenden Dimmig helped me understand this in terms of where I center the symbolics and how I’ve experienced debaters really missing the mark on the conversations around topics. I tend to deduce here that since 16mm prints have been replaced by internet-apps that the experience has been dulled and boring for many, including myself. Jimi Morales showed me this through how these expressions overlap into other mediums of art. As such, many of these arts have reciprocated into debate and I have seen them done well and experienced versions of it before my time. Cyd-Marie Minier Ciriaco and Fredrich Hegel, hilariously, have revealed this conundrum to me through the dialectical machine that is the “incompleteness” of reality; to me, this means being “tab” is very impossible and I think it behooves you to understand that I am here to educate you on the decisions you make to deduce to me the nature of “what is reality…?” And so forth. I won’t grandstand on this point but rather be straightforward: you should strike me if you think that neutral-arbitration is, somehow, in lieu of lived experiences and previous coaching.

To summarize everything, or try to, I must default that my ontological threshold is held within the ‘eye of the beholder’ and well beyond my own purview of reason. I’ve worked with many highly-skilled people with profound gifts for entertaining the world around them. What I’ve learned in those experiences, despite having a background where I felt absolutely tiny in the comparison of these great achievements, is I always have much to learn and, rather radically, have things to teach. This does not mean the dichotomy can’t be ruptured. This does not mean I’m set in my ways. I defend, rather, that I am reflecting the lives of many lived experiences that I simply can’t deduce down to some binary that isn’t all but semantics and nonsense to the average reader. I’ve learned to accept that and I harp in teaching you that I can’t write the round for you unless you design it that way. By that nature, I’ve been called ‘sassy’ at times because I tend to not get involved and think “judge reasonability…” is a quantifiable myth protected by institutions within their own form of wake. I think debaters have lost the art of asking questions. Not just to each other but to their judges. The history of this activity spans well before your birth and I hope it will span well after the heat-death of our universe. In that bleak sense, I tend to think the coach who wrote your blocks the night before is doing a disservice to your character and will absolutely bring you failure at some point in your life. Maybe you can trick me but I’ve watched alot of Kitchen Nightmares, Ghost Adventures, and Three-Stooges shorts to say: the medium changes, but not the story. It’s, therefore, up to all of us to start taking these “jokes” ‘seriously’.

To Mom, Dad, the 40+ cats and counting, countless dog cases, and Lady; you inspire me. You keep me going. And like all of you, I see an activity that is more about what we are in life than those that seek to make us party instead of live. We'll see a life beyond it.

TLDR; If you flow well, you understand your prep, and have a fullness to your character-design, you will pick up my ballot.

================================================================================================

FOR Virtual Debates: I find the computer medium does not allow for spreading to be coherent and I won't use the dock as an excuse for that BUT I'm comfortable with all forms of argumentation and I encourage creativity.

Carissa Qiu Nashua HS South

Nikki Raman Hire

Last changed on Tue October 22, 2024 at 1:54 PM PDT

she/her

nlr51@georgetown.edu

Non-negotiables:

1. Debate is an educational research game---you can certainly win that it is something other than a game in front of me, but I will evaluate debates based on who did the better technical argumentation.

2. No line by line no win. It is not permissible to abandon answering arguments because the style of debate you do is critical of conventional policymaking paradigms.

3. I will not adjudicate a dispute pertaining to conduct that did not occur in round. I believe such ad hominem character attacks degrade the quality of dialogue in debate, discourage strategic preparation, and generate competitively incentivized hostility. If you believe it is ethically impermissible for your opponents to even engage in debates, you should notify tournament staff.

The following are descriptions of my presumptive defaults, all of which can be overcome by reasonable debating.

1. Topicality is a question of competing models.

2. Competing interpretations is a far more concrete paradigm for determining the winner of debates.

3. Reasonability is a permissive preference towards the aff’s counter-interpretation, not the aff itself. It is best articulated as a deterrent to infinitely regressive T interpretations that bracket out substantive debate.

CP:

1. Text and function are arbitrary interventions into the concept of negation---counterplans should prove a germane opportunity cost to the plan. The way you choose to determine whether or not it meets this standard is a question of the 2AC permutation construction.

2. Theory should ideally be a net benefit to your interpretation of competition rather than an isolated procedural.

3. You must send perm texts for anything other than perm do both and perm do the counterplan.

DA:

1. Make complete arguments. 1NC DAs that don't include internal links don't have impacts. If the 2NC makes a complete argument, the 1AR gets to respond to that complete argument.

2. Compare evidence. A lot of what gets read in these debates is quite bad.

K v. Policy Affs:

1. Your argument must be a reason the aff is on balance bad---what "the aff" is is somewhat open for contestation.

2. Framework is the highest layer of offense in these debates. I am increasingly frustrated with judges that believe “framework is a wash” or who are “generally unpersuaded by reps first”, or worse yet, who believe "the aff always gets the aff and the neg always gets the k"---I will make a definitive evaluation of framework based only on the interpretations extended in the final rebuttals in favor of one side before weighing either side’s substantive offense.

3. Middle ground interpretations are nonsense. It is not possible to compare discursive violence within debate to global nuclear war, absent excellent instruction on how I should go about doing so. It would probably benefit you more to write the most offensive interpretation possible and win it.

4. If I could not flag your floating PIK in the 2NC I probably will not vote for it.

Policy Affs v. K:

1. Most 1ARs in these debates are appalling and leave me highly inclined to vote negative---you do not have to answer every word of the 2NC, but you must at least directly engage every subset of arguments made. New 2AR line by line receives minimal weight.

2. Contextualized impact turns are highly underrated and preferable to case alone---most neg teams are unprepared to actually defend the consequences of the things they endorse and you should take advantage of that.

4. The permutation is always a test of competition---it does not require a net benefit. However, the 2NR will likely extend at least some gesture towards a link argument that will force me to err neg in the scenario that the permutation and the alternative are of approximately equal effectiveness at resolving all relevant impacts. It may therefore be useful to make arguments that the permutation solves something not accessed by the alternative alone.

5. The 1AR must say more than the words “perm double bind” in order for me to discount a 2NR on alt solves the aff.

FW v. K Affs:

1. In a perfectly executed debate from both sides, I will vote neg.

2. You must articulate fairness as a plausible and concrete impact without relying on moral imperatives, analogies, or unrealistic dramatization. Otherwise you will certainly lose to very concrete aff impacts surrounding inaccessibility or psychic violence.

3. Clash debaters should beat back every net benefit to the counter-interpretation with both offense and defense. These 2NRs suffer from a lack of impact comparison. You have conceded that the debate is an influential site of education, so being dismissive of aff offense and under-utilizing the terminal impacts of clash does you a major disservice.

4. You must at some point engage the aff’s theory of power, or lack thereof. Even if your ideal 2NR is procedural fairness alone, not doing so will make a 2AR that grandstands about totalizing antagonisms that overcode debate and therefore frame out all neg offense very easy to vote on.

K Affs v. FW:

1. Either read a coherent counter-interpretation and win defense to neg standards, or impact turn adherence to the resolution in every instance. Again, middle ground interpretations are largely nonsense.

2. If you are going to go for a counter-interpretation, you must actually counter-interpret the resolution through counter-definitions of words, not just arbitrarily define a model of debate---if your position is that topical debate and all associated skills are bad, you should probably be going for impact turns.

3. Debate probably does at least influence subjectivity, but individual rounds probably do not. This means winning that debate overall shapes subjectivity is insufficient to demonstrate an impact to voting aff, especially in a fairness debate.

4. If your aff revolves around the assertion that debate ought not be a competitive activity, please provide and perform a clearly defined alternative while maintaining a legitimate claim to the ballot, because this seems paradoxical to me. If this thought experiment leads to something like a research forum or intellectual society, please think about the relative ability of you as debaters or me as a judge to actualize that, and please explain to me why me making a competitive endorsement in debate does not in fact do the opposite.

5. Model comparison is the most logical way to evaluate framework---anything else is tautological. Even if your strategy relies on impact turning the idea of models, you are responsible for the implications of abandoning topicality as a constraint on debate. I am unpersuaded by attempts to define offense within the scope of this round alone, because impacts typically collapse to warrantless assertions of psychic violence based on the “reading of framework.” In order to win the “imposition of a model” is bad, you should probably win that said model is bad to begin with. Otherwise, the threshold you must meet is nearly impossible---you must win that while the neg’s interpretation is entirely correct, they ought not defend it or impose it in debates.

7. Your impacts should never depend on metaphor. I would strongly prefer not to render a decision based on the premise that debate is something other than what it is.

K v. K:

1. Please isolate offense.

2. When comparing impacts, you must establish a scale of comparison. Similar to clash debates, I don’t know what standard to use when comparing discursive violence to ecological extinction, so you must define one for me. I find the most persuasive articulation of this to be through alt solvency---if the telos of the aff precludes the alt, it triggers the opportunity cost of extinction.

Other:

I study economics, and it is my entire life. The following is a set of notes outlining my views on economics in debate:

1. I have a higher threshold than most for the internal coherence of economic impact scenarios. Be specific about the causal mechanisms at play. I am unwilling to vote for "the plan causes rate hikes that trigger a recession"---that is an assertion; I am willing to vote for "the plan is an unfunded fiscal transfer that exacerbates inflation and creates expectations of higher interest rates for longer, which increases the term premium and triggers large unrealized losses on bank fixed income portfolios"---that is an argument.

2. If you are making an argument about interest rates, I expect you to know what the Federal Funds rate is and (roughly) what the dot plot looks like right now.

3. You should always be able to answer the question "by how much." Your estimates do not have to be exact, but you should read evidence quantifying your impacts and justifying those approximations. There is a very big difference between inflation rising from 2.9% to 3% (US CPI YoY; December 2024 to January 2025) and inflation rising from 1% to 11.1% (UK CPI YoY; January 2021 to October 2022).

4. You should also be able to answer the questions "when" and "for how long." These seem like simple questions, but most effects in economics are time-lagged, autocorrelated, and subject to nominal rigidities. Shocks vary significantly in their ability to transmit throughout a national economy as well as in their intertemporal persistence. This implicates how much weight I give your impact. Absent instruction, I will assume most shocks are short run distortions that will eventually be balanced or arbitraged away in medium to long run equilibrium.

5. I will award a reasonable speaker point premium for good comparison of statistical methods. Often times debates devolve because different cards are premised on very different estimations of certain effects or indicators, but debaters rarely know what the differences are. I would be pleasantly surprised to listen to a debate in which this is not the case.

6. I very firmly believe that money and prices are good.

Mariami Ramirez Tsuladze Hire

Last changed on Mon April 8, 2024 at 8:20 AM EDT

Hi!

Paradigm

Pronouns: she/her/hers.

Yes I want to be on the email chain: hawksdebatesr@gmail.com

Quick background:

I've debated policy debate for 7 years. 4 years in Long Branch High School and I'm in my third year at Monmouth university. I was a captain for 2 years in Long Branch and now one at Monmouth. I've been judging since I was 14.

Full disclosure: I'm an immigrant from the Republic of Georgia. Also, English is not my first language. Do with that information what you will.

Ok on to the fun stuff

If a team tells me that the sky is purple, as far as I'm concerned, the sky is flipping purple. At least until the other team tells me otherwise. I'm a firm believer that as a judge, I can't really use my common sense, I can only use what I'm told in the round to make my decision (with few exceptions).

Don't drop stuff. If your opponent drops something and you don't extend that thing, I can't vote on it.
FLOW!!!!! FLOW and once again FLOW. I CANNOT stress this enough.
Ks are great but have to be explained. Flush it out, I won't be using my common sense so tell me your story. If you're presenting something really out there or utopia, explain why utopian is better. You'll need good framework if you're going for those, pls don't kill me with boredom on how you solve just by talking about it in the round and educating. I'd like to know what the world of the alt looks like so make sure you tell me. Again, If you tell me that the sky is purple, as far as I'm concerned, the sky is purple.
Don't use cx time as speech time!! Huge pet peeve. Cx isn't whats going on my flow, your speech is so if you make a point in cx and don't carry it over to your speech, its irrelevant.

Don't underestimate good DAs. Love them!
Explain HOW your impacts will happen
Topicality is valid. I'll vote on it as long as there's an impact. That being said, nitpicking is boring for everyone.
I'm a k aff debater myself but that doesn't mean that I won't vote on T.
pics are fun
Theory is boringggggggggggggggggg but I'll vote on it. Condo is stupid, sorry. But again, I'll vote on it if there's impact.
DON'T BE RUDE! I do not like bullies! In debate they're often rewarded for this but you won't get far with this on my watch. I WILL intervene. I've been called "baby", "sweetheart", etc as a debater in rounds - I def think in instances like this, the judge should intervene, especially in higher rounds. I've been chased by grown coaches while I was a minor; I've had a coach tell one of my teammates to move or she'd run him over, etc. Debate is one of the most toxic communities I've been a part of and I'm not here for it.
Spread if you can but if I can't understand, it's not worth it. I flow on paper.
Remember if I can't hear what you're saying, I can't flow it so it's not going on the flow. If it's not on my flow it didn't happen!!!!!
I'm a policy debater so I allow open cross ex even if i'm judging pf or any other format. I see no harm in it but only one person shouldn't be carrying the team lol.
I will not be voting on disclosure.I'm sorry, its stupid.

At the end of the day, if i don't understand what's going on in the round and its one of those rounds where no one knows which way is up and which way is down, i'll vote for the side that makes the most sense and has convinced me.

Have fun yall!

Joe Ren Hire

Abigail Romero Hire

Justin Rosenthal Binghamton City Schools None

Vikram Saigal Stuyvesant High School

Joe Schatz Binghamton City Schools

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 10:26 AM EDT

debate@binghamton.edu

I am the Director of Debate at Binghamton University. Chances are that I have been judging debate longer than you have been alive, but not longer than your coach has been alive. What drew me to debate was that everything is debatable and that all you need to do is convince the judge to vote for you. What keeps me in debate is the educational benefits that continue to inspire me and the competitive incentives that keep it exciting. During this time, as a judge, my fundamental approach has remained the same: evaluate the debate in front of me in order to decide it in a fair way and render an educational decision. Obviously, we all have biases and preferences, but you can debate however you like in front of me, and I will do my best to adjudicate it based upon the arguments that the teams make in the round. Debate certainly matters and it matters differently to different people. Everything is debatable. Ultimately, you need to convince me to vote for you at the end of the debate. How you do that is up to you.

I do like critical debate.

I don’t dislike policy debate.

I do think people shouldn’t eat dead animals at tournaments if they don’t need to.

I don’t give extra speaker points for it.

I do think that the way we treat and interact with each other in rounds matter.

I don’t think this immediately impacts my ballot unless the argument is made.

I do believe in tech over truth.

I don’t believe I could put any and all tech over every truth.

I do like to be on the email chain.

I don’t read or look at evidence until after the round, and only if I need to.

I do like debaters to speak clearly and signpost.

I don’t care how fast you go, and I am unlikely to call out “clearer” if you’re unclear.

I live with five cats.

I don’t dislike dogs.

I find for procedural debates it mostly comes down to the interpretation vs the counter-interpretation. For kritiks it comes down to the alternative vs the plan, or a framework model of impact analysis in which case see my comment on procedurals. For disadvantages it often comes down to if the impact outweighs, and that’s often easier to win when coupled with a counterplan, though by no means necessary. For case debate, I find winning the case is bad is better than just trying to win a presumption claim since I generally think trying to do something is better than doing nothing, which is why you should have offense as to why the aff is a bad idea if you’re going for case alone. I find very rarely are things won 100% and that most debates are decided by inches, not miles. The teams that win in front of me more are the teams that write my ballot for me in the final rebuttal and make it apparent why they win in relation to the other team’s arguments.

Outside of debate, I have a PhD in English, have sat on the board of the Institute of Critical Animal Studies, have helped organize several academic conferences and activist events, and have published on media studies, environmentalism, gender, science-fiction, and popular culture. I keep up with current events and politics, and will likely be as familiar with policy acronyms and upcoming legislation as I will be with poststructuralist terminology and the newest wave of critical theory. I’d like to think of myself as someone who gives honest feedback and someone who won’t sugarcoat things or be overly grumpy in most situations.

29.5+ Should be a top 10 speaker

29 Very good performance

28.5 Generally average

28 Have some work to do

27.5 Definitely below average, early in the year, novices sometimes

27- Generally first tournament novices, or something has gone very wrong with what you’ve done

Pro tip 1: I’m not below voting on dropped or under-covered theory arguments

Pro tip 2: I try to keep a straight face when judging, but I do like humor

Pro tip 3: Treat your opponents and partner decently

Guangji Shi Nashua HS South

Katy Shonka Berkeley Preparatory School

Samantha Faye Siegel Hire

Matthew James Stinson Hire

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 12:57 PM EDT

Dawson '21 in Houston

Tufts University '25

Debating as a Hybrid with Harvard as Tufts

Please put me in the email chain and feel free to reach out if you have any questions about debating at Tufts: mattjstinson2003@gmail.com

TLDR:

pref me KvK>Clash> Policy and give me a card doc after the round

Please do not over adapt to my paradigm. You do you and I will adjudicate the debate to the best of my ability. I always hate when judges strongly inflict their biases into decisions so I try to be as non-intervention as possible. But inevitably, I have some preconceptions and biases about debate so look through before rounds.

In high school, I was a double two going for policy args on aff and setcol and daoism on the neg, but in college I am a 1N/2A reading primarily flex args from across the library

I am a huge fan of argument innovation - make cool and original args and Ill reward you with extra high speaks

I like reading ev but pls do the work for me - if you frame your arguments clearly and basically write the ballot for me you will be far ahead.

Im kinda of a points fairy and reward debaters who are funny and make the debate enjoyable and educational.

Im not the type of judge if your debate style is bullying your opponents or being outright aggressive to them.

Finally, please just be nice to each other. I understand debate can be competitive at times, but try your best to be respectful and kind to your opponents. Problematic behavior, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia, is completely unacceptable and will result in immediate judge intervention to ensure the safety of debaters.

Specifics:

Policy Aff vs K:

I have no strong leanings either way. These are my favorite type of debates to watch and judge. Kinda weird flow choice by me but in one off debates I prefer to flow different parts ie. FW, ontology, perms and links on different sheets so pls give me pen time

I think top level: both teams need to win an instructive claim on what the role of the ballot is and how I should weigh the aff vs the alt or the squo. Framework debating is often underutilized on the high school level and I think in a lot of debates it becomes a wash, which isnt good for both teams

I prefer for links to be to the consequences of the plan, generally, i find links of omission and reps links to not be super strategic. They are winnable but I would like some aff-specific contextualization with fleshed-out impacts and turns case analysis.

I find in a lot of fiat K ontology debates are really reductive and their isnt really explanations from either side about what the implications of their examples are and why is this the case.

I find 2AC shotgunning perms to be annoying and I give the 2NR leeway for new answers if a shotgunned perm suddenly takes on a new meaning in the 1AR. I prefer perms beyond PDB to be explained in the 2ac in like a sentence

Im not the judge for vague alt theory, use it as a solvency takeout instead

I think alt debating is usually pretty bad and isnt explained enough how the alt solves the links. Both teams need to pay heed to this and do more work on this part of the debate

Clash:

I believe FW is a legitimate form of rejoinder against non-topical advocacy. Having read a K-aff and FW consistently in college I find myself to be middle of the road in these debates with no strong leanings either way

Generally speaking, I view FW as a sliding scale. We meet affs will have an easier time while affs that dont engage with the topic theme at all will have a harder time.

My best advice is to choose an angle against FW and stick to it rather than going for a we meet, counter interp, and Impact turn all in the same 2AR.

I believe for me personally debate is a game that has some value outside of debate. I believe fairness is an external impact, but I find clash or skills to usually be more strategic against most K affs

I think for a winning 2NR in these debates I need clear impact explanation, offense on their CI/IT, and a bit on the case page to minimize case cross apps

I am also quite sympathetic to presumption and rejoinder bad arguments and I think sometimes going for case in the 2NR is quite strategic

For the 2AR to get my ballot explain your theory of power, its offensive applications on framework, and win either a counter-interp that is a better model, we meet, or an impact turn to FW

My final thoughts are I appreciate solid case debating. I think a coherent 4-5 minutes on case with both offense and defense to central claims will be way more strategic than a generic cap K

KvK

I lean on the side that the aff gets the perm, but the burden for explanation is higher than we sorta mention x or we would work in solidarity with y. Treat the perm like independent advocacy and explain why it resolves the links and explain how it would function.

I prefer as specific link contextualization as you can get, I think ontology without contextualization arent the best in front of me

Id like more impact comparison on both sides and explain how your theory of power interacts and supersedes your opponents

CPs:

Some of my favorite args in debate are clever process cps or pics. At the same time, my most hated arguments are perennial troll cps like con con or consult nato

2Ns honestly get away with murder with a lot of these shady cps. 2As hold the line on theory and call out these abusive cp texts

I tend to lean neg on condo at 4 options and below, states fiat, and process cp theory and aff on international fiat, condo above 5 options, and consult/conditions cp.

I usually judge kick unless given a reason not to

Theory is usually not a voter unless the 2nr goes for the arg in question (this excludes condo)

ill vote on condo but im also a reasonable person.

DAs:

Generally speaking, the more ev the better

Impact calc and a good cp/case push is key to get my ballot on a da

Turns case is also a good idea

Case

I have a soft spot for squirrelly affs that interpret the topic in an exciting way

Case debating is underrated - 99% of affs can get destroyed if u just do more than the bare minimum to answer them

Case turns are good and you should be reading lots of them in your 1nc

a trend im noticing with policy affs is alot of them read just god awful impact scenarios - neg pls dont drop them or ill be sad

a lot of case debating is just tagline extensions with rly no argumentative interaction - pls give warrants

go for an impact turn on case :)

I tend to lean competing interps.

To easily win my ballot, treat t like a disad and have a coherent story for why your vision of the topic is better than your opponents

Im not likely to vote for bottom of the barrel args like ASPEC or disclosure

if u hide procedurals ima prob not flow it and if i do realize it ur getting a 25

Misc

I'm fine for the death K, wipeout, spark etc.

Go for memes - trolling is an underrated art in debate

I don't like when teams play music in rounds

The older the card, the better - read some ancient texts

I believe the ballot can only remedy who did the better debating- anything else is reflected in speaks

Nba references are much appreciated but don't say you're the Lebron of HS debate

LD:

K>Larp> T/Theory > Phil > Tricks

TBH i dont know how to give speaks in LD so ill prob default to 29.4 and go from there

generally speaking the closer your are to policy the better

I find phil and tricks debates make me want to slam my head into my desk

Ive noticed a lot of lders are borderline unflowable - do pen drills or slow down and be clear

Basically ditto my policy thoughts here

Ditto my policy thoughts - closer you are to policy the better

i have not seen a good k debate in pf and its likely i never will

I have seen some decent theory debates but they are not fun to judge

Peter Susko Calvert Hall College High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:09 AM EDT

If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it: psusko@gmail.com

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Counterplans

Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.

Disadvantages

I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.

Criticisms

I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.

Performance

I judge around 2-3 performance debates a year. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.

Flowing

Notes

Prep time continues until the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

Eli T. Louis Hire

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 5:31 AM EDT

Hey, I’m Eli! Bing TC.

email chain: afroditeoshun@gmail.com

Debate is a business. To debate is work. Enjoy the activity, but also have a plan for how you interact with the space

Debate is what *you* choose to make of it. My time to be in y'all's position is over. So, you all determine the tone by which y'all engage each other, my job is to submit the ballot by the end. However, here are some baseline thoughts I have if I am to adjudicate based on my experience/knowledge/training:

Policy Affs- What's the AFF? Like tell me, and extend, the [link] story of the Affirmative and why the plan is uniquely key. It is not enough to only extend the impacts because, at that point, how am I sure the Aff is inherent?

T/Framework: They're fine. Strategic. And honestly, they're easy outs. However, you need to get nuanced and specific. Please implicate the Affirmative

CPs: I’m pretty neutral on them. Net-benefits and competitive viability are musts.

DAs: Again, pretty neutral. Many times I see DAs being ran and I'm just like... 'this feels like a huge FYI and I don't know why I should care.' So, impact calc please. And have a clear link story.

-----

Kritik-(however it so comes about)

Aff: I need instruction as to why I should care. I feel like that's my entire paradigm: why should I care... how should I evaluate the round...?

Neg: What's the link? I'll need judge instruction. I refuse to do any more labor than needed or told to. This applies to K-Affs as well.

PoMo: Examples and analogies would be best.

"Identity": Make sure you're not an 8/9 minute FYI.

-----

Theory: I have no issue. If you're just talking BS I might get annoyed but it would mean nothing for the actual round (because debate is what y'all make it to be).

-----

My non-negotiables and other Misc.:

Any default to antiblackness (yes that includes misogynoir), queer/trans-phobia, ableism, etc.: Auto-loss.

**This would be my only point of intervention.

I (still) flow on paper, and primarily flow from speech. Clarity. After I yell clear twice, I'm flowing what I understood/interpreted.

///

Anything more than 5 off, you're clicking... but you're clicking down.

////

I live for a good ki ki, roast, and gag. So, gag me and I will give a boost to your speaks.

/////

I vote fast (because I am actively thinking about the round). My written RFD will be short, but the verbal RFD will be plentiful. Take notes and ask questions.

//////

Crazy I have to say this, but I've been on too many panels with (and have bore witness to)... unqualified judges: Case turns are fine, and great actually. No, Affs should not win if come the end of the debate we're not sure what the aff is (unless told otherwise).

///////

More and more I feel like post-rounding other judges because too many decisions I've been hearing suck, lol.

Alayah Tedder Fenway High School None

eugene toth Univ Of Chicago Lab School

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 12:22 PM EDT

Email for chains or questions: undercommonscustomerservice@gmail.com

Background

Influences: Will Baker, Alex Sherman, Taylor Brough

Pronouns: he/they

Experience:
2016-2020 Debater @ Bronx Science -- Qual'ed to TOC
2020-2024 Debater @ NYU -- CEDA quarterfinalist, 2x NDT
2020-2022 Head CX Coach @ Bronx Science
2023-2025 Assistant PF, LD Coach @ Collegiate

Conflicts: Collegiate, Bronx Science, U. Chicago Lab, NYU

Last Updated: (slightly) updated for Hockaday 11/08/2024

Policy and LD general: Good for anything, mostly read Ks in high school and college. "Debate is a game" is a silly argument. You don't need to go for the alt on the K or a CP to win, but I won't judge kick unless instructed to. I don't keep up with the topic so walk me through abbreviations and stuff.

Policy specific: Fairness might be an impact, but you need to prove it. Even though I read Ks in the past, I like traditional policy too. Absolutely love when people recut ev and call people out for reading args that their ev doesn't make. I don't care if you read a plan, you just need to justify it. Strongly convinced by K condo arguments and I disfavor contradictory K arguments.

LD specific: Honestly fine for anything except tricks. I don't inflate speaks. Order of experience would probably be K > LARP >> phil > trad >> tricks.

PF Paradigm: Don't paraphrase. Cut cards, not corners. Read whatever you want in front of me. I don't care if you spread. Please read theory properly. "Our case, then their case" is not an order. Tell me the order of contentions that you're going to.

IMPORTANT if I am in the back of your debate:

1AC should be sent 3 minutes before start time, emails should be collected before that. If sending the 1AC pushes us more than 5 minutes past the start time, I will take all additional time past 5 minutes from you as prep.
Pen time is important, slow down a bit if you want me to get something down. Speeding through a 40 point 2AC block will not result in all 40 points on my flow. I flow your speeches, not your doc.
Stop stealing prep. Depending on how I'm feeling I'll call you out for it, but regardless of how I'm feeling I'll drop your speaks.
I assign speaks according to the speaker point guide provided to me by Tabroom. It is the most standardizable method and consistently lowers the standard deviation of speaker points when provided to judges. Please do not email me after the debate asking for a justification of your speaker points. They should speak for themselves.
If you are consuming products that I am aware are on the BDS list, I will drop your speaks by 2 full points. This is non-negotiable and excludes computers.

Ibrahima Toure Stuyvesant High School

Amanda Treulich Hire

Last changed on Tue August 27, 2024 at 9:53 PM EDT

Hello! I'm Amanda Treulich, I use she/her pronouns.

Please add me to the email chain! My email is atreuli1@binghamton.edu

Background:

I'm a junior majoring in integrative neuroscience at Binghamton University, and I joined the world of Policy Debate in Fall 2022. I'm currently a JV/Varsity debater, and it's my third year of policy. In high school I did four years of Ethics Bowl - if you know what that is, come talk to me about it! :)

Past arguments I've used include (in no particular order) cap, biopolitics, psychoanalysis, and anthro/speciesism. For authors, I'm at least somewhat familiar with Foucault, Agamben, Mbembe, and Baudrillard.

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

I appreciate clearly organized and labeled arguments. Make it clear to me what your advantages, impacts, links, etc. are, and I'll be more likely to vote on it. I'm unfamiliar with the high school policy debate topic for this year, so make sure you clearly explain everything and don't assume I know the common arguments already. Some other things to keep in mind:

Clarity over speed, especially for analytics to make sure I don't miss any of your points while flowing
I appreciate good line by line work, and I will be voting on the flow
A few good cards with detailed explanation are better than many cards that aren't described well
As a K-debater, I enjoy hearing critiques as well as critical affs. When arguing the critique on the neg, having a clear link is important, and make sure you explain the alt to me if you're going for it.
Please time your own speeches and prep, it helps the process go by smoother
This goes without saying, but don't be rude or disrespectful at any point during the round

Ultimately, I believe policy debate should be a pleasant experience for all, so don't take yourselves too seriously - make sure to have fun and enjoy the moment! For novice debate especially, this is a learning experience and ought to be an enjoyable one.

Iyana Trotman Little Rock Central

Jana Uones Hire

angelina vallejo Hire None

Sean Wallace Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Thu July 25, 2024 at 9:35 AM EDT

s.k.wallace.09@gmail.com

I am an undergraduate studying physics, math, and English. I prefer they/them pronouns. I debated for ~8 years in CX (college and HS), LD, and PF. I competed at many different tournaments with many different judges (WACFL, NDT, etc), so I am generally comfortable judging any sort of round.

Apologies for the length of this paradigm; you should really only read the first section. The rest contains various opinions/biases that I have noticed sometimes factor into my decisions.

Must Read:

I believe debate is a game with only one axiomatic principle: that the role of the affirmative is to prove that a deviation from the status quo is desirable, and that the role of the negative is to disprove this. As a judge, I will flow the debate and attempt to answer two questions based exclusively on this flow: first, "what ethical framework determines the desirability of an advocacy?" This could be phrased in debate terminology as "what arguments are logical affirmative and negative ground?" Second, "under this framework, is the affirmative's advocacy desirable?"

Absent contestation, I assume that my decision will be about the desirability of a topical plan, which is determined by the relative risk of the harms caused and solved by the plan. Relative risk is determined by magnitude and probability.

I have four exceptions to this "anything goes" paradigm.

Cheating is not allowed: clipping, texting, violating speech time/order, stealing prep, etc.
I will not evaluate cards written by debate coaches or competitors while they were/are active in the activity. This includes Dr. Reid-Brinkley's and Dr. Bankey's theses, since they were active coaches at the time, but does not include, for example, Dr. Gillespie's academic work published since he left the activity.
I will not consider arguments that are clearly offensive or irredeemably stupid. My bar for the former is similar to every other judge and likely does not need clarification. There are vanishingly few arguments that meet my bar for the latter, especially in CX; most are LD classics (Xeno's paradox comes to mind). A good rule of thumb: if you were to make your argument in an academic setting, and you would not be asked to leave or laughed out of the room, then your argument is probably fine with me.
I will only flow the debater who is supposed to be giving the speech.

Less important thoughts:

I only read evidence if I absolutely have to in order to resolve an argument critical to my decision.

"Try or die" framing makes no logical sense to me. In my mind, there is no difference between the probability of the plan being able to solve a harm, and the probability of the harm occurring in the status quo. If the negative wins solvency defense, then they reduce the risk of the advantage just as much as if they had won impact defense.

I have a terrible memory for debate jargon, which affects me most when judging debates about counterplan competition - I appreciate when the 2NR/2AR focus heavily on the logic/debate theory of a couple of key arguments.

In most of the debates I judge, the affirmative reads a plan and the negative goes for a K. I also judge a lot of policy vs policy debates. I don't think I have ever judged a KvK debate, but I certainly had a lot of KvK debates when I was competing.

It is very easy to convince me that something other than the plan should matter for determining the desirability of the aff's advocacy, and much more difficult to convince me that that "something" matters more than the consequences of the plan. Put differently, I have given many decisions on "extinction outweighs" and very few decisions on "only the plan matters."

I have never voted for a K 2NR that did not extend framework. I think a public policy style framework for determining desirability includes link uniqueness. 2NRs a la "the plan is capitalist, capitalism causes extinction, therefore the plan causes extinction" are nonsensical.

Any argument that animals’ lives or well-being have less value than humans’ is abhorrent to me. I very strongly believe that consuming animals or animal products is extremely unethical, and that consuming meat is simply evil.

Simon Weiss Hire

DJ Williams Berkeley Preparatory School

Last changed on Thu November 7, 2024 at 7:04 AM EDT

Last Updated: November 6, 2024

Assistant Policy Debate Coach @ Berkeley Prep & Northwestern University.Debated at Little Rock Central High School (TOC Finalist '16) and Wake Forest University (NDT 1st round '19).

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

General/TLDR:

Tech over truth. Only caveat, I won't vote on a unwarranted claim without an impact. For example, if a team drops "X is a microaggression," but you fail to explain why, I will not check out for you.

Please be CLEAR. If I can't understand you, then I WON'T flow it. Speed great, just want clarity (Slow down + enunciate on tags). If your strategy is to outspread the other team then name and number offense and don't forget my caveat to tech over truth

No argument preference. I primarily read Ks/K affs; however, I started my career only reading plans, T, DAs, and CPs. Lately, I have found myself in many policy v. policy debates, and I am fan.

I will not evaluate personal attacks against debater's, UNLESS I am a first hand witness to it in a debate round.

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

Framework:

1. Debate is a game. My sole concern when I competed and now coach as a coach is winning. However, I don't think this means competition is inherently adversarial or that there isn't value to debate outside of competitive incentives.

2. Fairness is an impact. Games require rules, but what those rules should be is up for debate. I don't start from the presupposition that anything is inherently fair/unfair. The onus is on you to explain why your interpretation of how the game should be played is preferrable.

3. Clash is an underutilized impact. I believe in-depth research/argumentation is something both policy and K teams fundamentally agree is good. I am sympathetic towards arguments that clash turns the affirmative's impacts and/or is necessary to develop certain skills (e.g. advocacy/activism, critical thinking, etc.). Additionally, I think the best models of debate, whether plan focused or not, should ensure some level of predictable ground for both sides. I am less convinced that clash solves dogmatism because I don't believe debaters 1) necessarily believe the arguments they read or 2) determine the validity of their arguments after engaging in SSD/researching both sides.

4. I don't think FW is inherently violent, but it is complicit in legacy and pathos of exclusion. That being said, I dislike the argument that purely reading FW is a microaggression unless there is a specific link to the way it has been deployed in that round. FW/T is exclusionary by nature, so is any counter-interp that imposes a limit on what arguments should/shouldn't be read. The team that best justifies their exclusion or inclusion will earn my ballot.

5. I prefer K-affs be in the direction of the topic. A-topical affs are fine, but I am probably more neg leaning if FW is well developed or the debate is close.

6. These are my personal feelings not a metric for how I evaluate these arguments in debate:

- Fairness paradox misses the forest for the trees. There is no universal notion of fairness everyone agrees to in debate rounds. This is why judges have paradigms outlining their dispositions/preferences and why debater's get a pref sheet to strike judges who are predisposed to their arguments. Debate is a subjective activity and judges aren't provided a formula for making decision

- Alt causes to subjectivities + Double down are silly. Yes, family, friends, school, etc. shape who you are, but 1) those things are involuntary, 2) doesn't disprove the claim that debate also influences subject formation and 3) you're admitting to being easily influenced by people and institutions.

Topicality:

1. I default to competing interpretations. The negative must 1) offer an interp, 2) win the aff clearly violates that interp, and 3) prove the superiority their interp to the affirmative. I can be persuaded to use a reasonability standard, but competing interps is decisively less arbitrary.

2. Plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but how effective it is for determining whether an aff is topical depends on the resolutional wording.

Counterplans:

1. I'll judge kick the CP unless the aff tells me not to.

2. Multi-plank CPs are fine, but if the planks are conditional then the aff gets to permute as many random plank combos as they desire.

3. Process CPs are fine as long as there is a clear internal net benefit. Competition debates are cool, but it'll probably go over my head at times/require more in-depth explanation.

4. Condo is good. I am easily persuaded on conditionality being good (at least 1 CP/ 1 K is fine), but I am willing to vote on conditionality bad, especially when the neg has multiple contradicting positions.

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

Kritiks:

1. Links don't have to be to the plan, but the more specific the better.

2. K v. K - No preferences

Disadvantages:

1. Good impact calc is usually what tips the scales for me if the rest of the debate is fairly even.

2. Evidence quality matters. I will not evaluate links/link turns not grounded in evidence.

DavidMichael Woodward Hire

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 11:36 AM EDT

Background:

Head Coach, Binghamton University (2021-current)
Debated + coached GMU (2009-2019)

Disclaimer for Harvard High School Tournament;

Two small notes I want to add before the Harvard tournament this weekend.

My standard for what is being "nice" or "polite" is stricter in High School than in College rounds. I don't really want debates to be a hostile space for people when the debaters are adults. I especially do not want to see this type of behavior when the participants are children. So please be nice or at least cordial to each other.
I have 0 knowledge or information about the High School Policy topic. Haven't cut cards, judged any rounds, anything like that. My 1st round judging this tournament will be my first on the Patents topic period.

-----Super short version 10 min before round-----

Yes Email Chain - addwoodward@binghamton.edu

I am down for any argument, just win it + a reason I should vote for you

Am a sucker for judge instruction -> If you tell me to evaluate in a certain way and the other team doesn't rebut it then I'm going to.

I prefer explanation to card dumps- I vote on what you say not what the cards say, so the more you break things down and are clear the easier it is for me to vote for you. This matters for critical debates and policy rounds in different ways.

In K rounds- Don't assume I get the tricks/ideas behind your affirmative, or negative arguments especially if it's the first time I've heard your argument. I'm down for it of course but I do tend to look at debates very big picture, so nuances, or hyperspecific literature focused type of things WILL pass me by, but if you can break those arguments down then you'll go far with me.

In Policy rounds- Don't assume I know all acronyms or the most up to date negative/affirmative trends. Bing doesn't read policy affs usually in JV or Open. I cut our policy cards but outside of novice there's not a lot of DA/CP debates happening here. I expect to judge plenty of policy debates this season but I'm not as up to date on things as the season goes on, just because that's not our focus as a squad. So explanation is going to be important the more nuanced/specific a counterplan or DA is to an affirmative.

Be Polite- that's different from being nice.

Would prefer that people slow down/go to about 90% of top speed. I don't think this matters for most debates but it would be appreciative. I will yell slow/clear as applicable.

----Thoughts After 1st Semester/Wake---

1. I'm very much on the let affs cook side. Doesn't mean I won't vote on T-MBI is only Carbon Tax/Cap & Trade, but mileage varies depending on the mech, some of the areas I can see being fine, others not so sure.

2. I miss case debates, regardless of the aff or neg I do get a little sad seeing so little actual case debating on this topic. something something maybe speaker point increases etc. I like those a lot more than the counterplan prolif i've seen on various wikis

-----You have time to read/more specific things-----

---Novice/JV---

Is the most important division. We should be doing what we can to help the division grow and new debaters to improve and feel welcome- the community depends on it.

I'm fine with novices reading whatever arguments they wish. I would prefer if novices defend the topic, or if they took alternate routes to the topic they still defended topic DAs and were in a topical direction.

I am not a fan of misinformation type arguments in novice. This doesn't mean hiding DAs or case turns on case, or an extra definition on T (because those promote better flow practices) This means arguments that are obtuse to be obtuse for no reason.

---Topicality---

Is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.

I am not persuaded by "norms" or "it's 1st/last tournament etc." style arguments. I do not need abuse to vote on topicality.

---Disadvantages---

They are good and should be read- turns case arguments are persuasive to me, Uniqueness vs Link questions don't super matter to me- tell me what to prioritize.

Politics and Elections DAs are strategic. But the current political system is so flawed it is hard to take the arguments seriously. I am very persuaded by arguments about why radicalism in our government has doomed the ability for it to function.

Elections/Midterms DAs, the closer we get to November, the better the DA sounds in front of me. Interpret this as you wish.

---Counterplans---

I reward teams for more specific reasons why the CP solves the aff vs no federal/xyz process good key warrant. I'm not a fan of no solvency advocate + just the CP text in the 1NC. I think the states counterplan may be a mistake on this topic.

I don't judge kick for the negative if a counterplan is extended in the 2NR barring exceptional justifications for doing so by a negative team.

I default to reject the argument on theory. I can be persuaded most things could be a reason to reject the team, or gives leeway on other arguments. My standards for voting on theory even with this are high. Affs should go for more theory, negatives do too much these days.

Conditionality in limited instances is good. That being said I get suspicious if the negative presents more than 2 conditional worlds. It's still debatable, but more than 3 seems excessive to me

---Critiques (When you are neg) ---

Judge instruction + framework is your friend. I usually compare the aff vs the alt in a vacuum, but when one team is telling me what to do, and one is not with this information this goes a long way into deciding my ballot. Sometimes good judge instruction can overcome technical drops. "Weigh the aff" is not an aff interp on framework. I think it does you a disservice unless the neg's interp is legitimately you don't get the aff without jumping through multiple hoops. I would prefer interps based on something more specific, whether it's extinction/impact based, or even better education towards an issue, or even the self serving ROB = best at fighting nuke weapons.

I require a bit of explanation. My critical knowledge is better than it was in the past but you are more likely to know your argument more than me. Empiric examples, applications to the affirmative, etc are all useful and persuasive.

Go for tricks, if the aff messes them up then it's a valid strategy, I don't think you need the alt alone if you're winning a sizeable enough impact + link for a case turn type of argument

--- Critiques (When you are aff) ---

I prefer affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic and do something, or if they do neither have a good justification for doing so.

Defend your arguments and be strategic. IF your 1AC is saying Heg + Prolif, it does not make sense to go for the link turns. This doesn't mean don't make the arguments if it's what you've prepped for but think about what your aff is designed to do and don't shy away from impact turns or offense.

Framework is viable and a decent strategy in front of me. I default to Limits > Fairness > Skills based arguments. Another thing from being at Bing is I am slowly leaning towards Fairness is more of an internal link vs an impact alone BUT I can be persuaded otherwise. I am also fine with impact turn debates but not having defense on neg framework standards (Or case defense to the aff) is pretty devastating and a problem for the team without said defense.

Something I have noticed as a pattern for lots of the framework rounds I judge is that not having defense, or at least references/cross applications that can be clear to answer terminal impacts on either side is usually something that can be a round ender. I find that I am somewhat persuaded by 2NR/2ARs that go for conceded impact scenarios on framework/affirmative answers to framework. Outside of heavy framing articulations this is usually hard to overcome.

Critical teams should think hard about if they want to defend DAs or not. I give negative teams lots of leeway if the 2AC says they'll defend the DA, but the 1AR/2AR immediately spikes the link/does some shenanigans (unless the neg did not actually read a link)

---Misc---

Speaker points: My guidelines end up looking like this for varsity debates. This may adjust due to trends at all levels. JV/Novice will usually be lower than this.

Nationals

Speaker award - 29.3

should/can clear - 28.7

Regional

Speaker Award -29

Should clear - 28.6

I adjust for division, but IF I give a student in JV or Novice a 29+ I believe they could debate a division up and succeed.

I don't like trolling - if you do not want to debate, simply forfeit, or have a discussion/pursue other methods of debating. IF you read an argument with the sole plan of being disruptive or trolling a debate you get a 15. IF you're funny you get a 25.

Don't cheat- if you accuse someone, round ends and will not restart. We don't have that many rules in debate, we should follow them, especially the rules about academic honesty/evidence.

Be polite- doesn't have to be "nice" but generally we shouldn't make rounds overly hostile for 0 reason. We will see each other multiple times over the next few years. There is a cutoff for being snarky and being a jerk.

"Inserting" Highlighting is silly, if you want to say the other team's ev goes neg/sets you up for an argument you have to read it for me to give you credit

---Other Events---

I am a policy coach. I have spent the vast majority of my time coaching and preparing things in policy formats. I will flow, I evaluate my decisions based on that flow. I believe the best debaters are ones who both prove their side of an issue is the most effective, and have combatted the opposing side effectively. I will never determine a round solely based on presentation, decorum or speaking style unless something problematic happened to where coaches/tab have to be involved.

Eric Youngquist The Avery Coonley School

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 4:19 AM CDT

Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,

My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.

I’ve been coaching policy debate for seven years at the Avery Coonley School in Downers Grove, IL (it's a middle school). I’ve also judged a few rounds of high school Public Forum and am starting to judge Congressional this year. I kind of fell into the job as a debate coach- I didn’t have any debate experience in high school or college. I've taught Literacy for 16 years, and social studies for the last four.

That being said, please treat the debate room like a classroom in terms of behavior and decorum. If the way you are acting would not fly at your school, don't do it in front of me. Debate can get heated, the cross-ex can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.

In terns of judging-I always view debate through the lens of a solid analytical argument, just like I would in my classroom. I need a cohesive argument, solid support, analytics, and a breakdown of why your argument is superior to your opponents’ argument. An “A” debate should look like an “A” paper.

Congressional:

Outside of the sponsor speech, you are not getting a 5 or 6 unless your speech is DIRECTLY RESPONSIVE to the arguments already raised. I want to hear you call them out and directly compare your points against theirs. If you are the fifth speaker on a point and don't even mention the arguments raised before you, you are going to get a 3. And no, just mentioning their names doesn't count as being responsive...This is debate, not speech. I should hear some actual debate being done.

I'd also like to see some passion in the speeches- please work on being expressive (and loud enough I can hear you in the back of the room). Use the hands, the facial expressions, etc. Eye contact is good too.

Public Forum:

Please make sure you lay out your contentions clearly, add some emphasis on your claims, and make sure you are doing the work to analyze your sources. Much like my policy statement below, I'm evaluating you on your ability to clash with your opponents. Make sure you are matching them argument for argument in your rebuttals. I'm going to be convinced by your weighing of the evidence, not just reading the evidence to me (or just repeating your points... I took notes, I know what you said in the first speech...)

Policy

Ok, after my last tournament, I have to add this. If you don't argue or signpost the name of your off-case argument, I'm immediately lowering your speaks. I don't want to try and figure out what is the point of your argument from poorly labelled cards. Also, label your uniqueness, net benefit, alt, role of the ballot, etc. Please don't make me try and guess while you are going full varsity speed. This is my new pet peeve. It would also be nice if you tell me what they are in your off-time road map rather than just giving me "nine off, then case" and hoping i can figure it all out.

Two other things I don’t like to hear are extremely fast talking and cards that don’t support their tags. It’s great that you got through a lot of evidence and tried to put a lot of things on the flow sheet, but if you are only reading a sentence or two from each card and it doesn’t add up, it’s not a real argument. I need depth. I need CLASH.

I am really against fast reading. If you words are jumbling together and I can't make it out, it's not going on my flow. If I can't make out what you are saying, I am going to give you a "clear." If it continues, I'll give you a second one. Beyond that, I will disregard it if I can't make it out.

The round is going to go to the group that clearly lays out their argument (love signposting) and advances their ideas clearly while pointing out the flaws in their opponents’ presentation. If you are running a "K," I want an overview of the theory before you launch into it. This is especially true if I haven't seen it before. I'm not going to get what I need from your light speed reading without some background.

I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but don't try to shoehorn something in just because it's what you always do. If their case is barely hanging on to being topical, go for it. Can you make a legit critique with some SOLID links? Go for it. Just don't get too esoteric on me, and MAKE SURE THE LINK IS SOLID (yes, I said it again)!!! Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.

Please don't run a cheaty "K" Aff on me. I'm not big on the "K" Affs to begin with, so this had better be solid. If I feel like you are running a K so that you can not engage with the topic and deliver the same same thing every round (or possibly every year you have debated), I'm not going to be inclined to vote for you. You better prove that you did more than switch out a link card before the start of the match.

Fanhao Yu Nashua HS South None

Peter Zinober Berkeley Preparatory School

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 6:05 AM EDT

Yes email chain: zinobpet@outlook.com

Berkeley Preparatory School 23' – TOC Semifinalist (Berk SZ)

Williams College 27'

Currently Coaching: Berkeley Prep

I debated Policy for 4 years almost exclusively as a K debater, but I don't care about what you are arguing, more so that you are debating well and having fun.

TLDR --

- Tech > Truth unless you do something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc...

- Don't over-adapt to me, I have been around debate long enough to be familiar with many different types of argumentation; therefore, I will be able to navigate the debate despite whatever "style" you choose to debate with.

- I am a sucker for good judge instruction. I would rather recite specific lines from the 2AR/2NR in my RFD as a filter by which I make my decision than try to independently decipher the importance of an argument relative to what your opponent is saying. Basically, good judge instruction = high speaks and prob a W

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Clash debates (FW) –

I love Clash Rounds and, by far, what I have the most experience debating and judging in. Def my favorite rounds to judge. Just do you. I will gladly hear fairness, clash, or even some obscure FW arg to mess with K teams. But, being a K debater, I have heard my fair share of really amazing and really terrible FW speeches. That being said, either way, I will vote for FW just as fast as I will vote against it. It is up to your debating. I am extremely comfortable in these rounds and will most likely have some thoughts on how you could have better executed, or for those who I repeatedly judge, what to do better next time you have me in the back.

Ks + K affs -

This is what I have done throughout my debate career. I think Ks and K affs r dope as long as you know wtf u are talking about. I will reward you if you execute your K strategy well and you know what you are talking about. On the other hand, the myth surrounding K debaters having a higher threshold for Ks while judging definitely reigns true for me, but only when a team obviously has no idea what they are talking about. I would rather you go 12 off w/ only T shells than have you over-adapt and hear a poorly researched, unthought-through K strat. Also, figured I would mention this again, ESPECIALLY for you K debaters: judge instruction is what wins K rounds on both sides.

DAs and CPs

If this is your A-strat, I am not a judge you should pref in your 50% range, but if you happen to get me in the back in one of these rounds, there are a couple of things you can do to make it a W:

DAs – Good impact comparison and internal link debating are essential for me. I find that these debates get annoying to adjudicate when both teams lack in-depth comparison, and I find that judge instruction in your final rebuttals is the single best way to break the tie. Also, please don't assume I know the story of your DAs, especially on this topic; although I coach on this topic, I coach K teams. As long as you explain your arguments and do good debating, I will be just fine.

CPs – Least familiar with these kinds of debates and will try to stick as close to the flow as I can, even though there might be some gaps in my understanding of the more nitty-gritty args, especially competition debates. Some advice: first, if you are the neg, do not forget the internal link work at the level of solvency, i.e., how does the mech of the CP solve whatever 2NR impact? I find that these debates become annoying if there is no discussion or comparison of the aff and neg advocacies at the level of impact solvency. Second, I can't say this enough:judge instruction. Third, CP theory is as far out of my comfort zone as possible, so if the debate ends up being a theory debate, do not assume I know literally anything about what you are talking about and explain the implication behind different args, without superb explanation I can almost guarantee my barrier to understanding theory will bias by decision.

Theory -

Ngl, I dislike judging these types of debates. Of course, I know that sometimes condo just has to be the 2AR, and if that is the case, go for it but I find myself less sympathetic to most theory arguments. (ie. no perms in method debates, condo, perf con, etc...)

If you have any questions after the round, don't hesitate to email and ask (although I can't promise a timely response).

Login to Tabroom

Harvard National Speech and Debate Tournament

2024 — Cambridge, MA/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges