Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Alvarez%2C+Julian

Update:
I haven't judged since 2018, I dont think my opinions on debate have changed but maybe slow down for me as I get back into this. You definitely should slow down on texts (plant texts, alts, interps etc.) and author names pls. My email is amestoy.monica@gmail.com

Background:
My name is Monica Amestoy. I graduated in 2013 and debated for Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy in La Canada, CA. I qualified for TOC my senior year, coached a few debaters who did very well at the TOC and have taught at VBI, NSD, PDI and BFI. I also debated in college. Overview: I will do my best to evaluate the round the way you tell me to. I will try to be as objective as possible, but I think that it is impossible to be a completely "tab" judge. So instead of pretending that I will vote like a blank slate my paradigm is to let you know about some of my opinions on certain aspects of debate. Also I haven’t really edited the rest of this paradigm in a while so feel free to ask questions.

Short version: I like policy style arguments, non topical argument, Ks and theory. Read whatever you feel you are best at and when in doubt weigh. I will straight up drop you if you make racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic arguments.

Theory: I really enjoy good theory debates.

Ks:
I hesitate to tell you about my love for the K debate because I’m scared people will think that means they have to run their K in front of me. I obviously love the K but you should run what you think you will do your best with. That being said, I have found that I am more compelled by critical arguments so if you are responding to one of these types of positions or feel that you would perform better under a different paradigm of debate then I think you should probably address questions of what fairness is and for whom/what it means in the debate space.

CPs, Perms, Plans and DAs:
Go for it
Is condo good? Bad? Idk you should tell me these things in your speech

People need to slow down for their plan/cp texts. -Slow down for card names. I think judges lie way too much about how good they are at flowing. I'm just okay.

Things I will drop your speaks for (a lot):
1. Formatting your case in a way that makes it difficult for your opponent to read: multiple colors, fonts, highlighting or lack of spacing. (honestly win the round because your arguments or ballot story is better not because your opponent has a hard time reading your case)
2. Being really rude
3. Stealing prep
4. Lying
Just have fun and read what makes you happy.

High school debate: Bay Area Urban Debate League (4 years) Cal Prep

College debate: 
Weber State University 2013-2014
Fresno State University 2014 - current 

Email: jason.auro95@gmail.com email me questions or anything really 

Debate Influences: Deven Cooper, Max Bugrov, Omar Guevara, Joseph Flores, Ryan Saxe, and Perry Green

You should feel comfortable running anything in front of me. I will try to make this debate space as safe and respectful as possible. Really I just want you to be you do whatever you want during this debate. I feel that judges are suppose to be educators and I will do my best to my ability acknowledge every argument you have, but you have to keep it warranted and consistent throughout the debate. I will always tell each team 1) Who won and why (unless there is something against this in the tournament rules) and 2) How each team can get a lot better.

I first learned how to debate and judge as a tabula rasa, but I soon learned that this is impossible, but I will do everything I can to be unbiased. Dont get me wrong I will vote on things that I disagree with despite personal beliefs. 

BE NICE. When you are mean, rude, condescending etc, be prepared for some of the bad speaker points. There is a clear delineation between competitiveness and being mean.

Case:

Make sure to always extend it… at least somehow please. I had been in too many debates where people don’t mention case after the 1ac makes me so sad.

Straight up AFF: Sounds great

Half policy - half critical Affs: Like them run it

Critical adv with plan text: You got me interested 

Critical adv w/o plan text: You better have a reason why you don’t have a plan text.

"Crazy" radical affs: I will be excited for the round, but will have "high" expectations for you

Anti-Resolution affs: Aff should have Switch Side answers down

DA:

They are great run them if you want.

CP:

They cool nothing really special to say.

PIC’s: I really like them and add a DA to them ooo you got yourself cooking

Adv CP: Better have a benefit and/or turn the other adv :)

K: <3

You got my interest. I love K debates I probably read or know most of the high theory args but this does not mean you get magic leeway for the argument. You still have to explain everything step by step.

Framework:
If no FW was read in the round I will evaluate all the impacts by who ever did the best explanation and importance of it. 

I absolutely HATE the argument that “Policy Debate is about competing policy ideas” or “Traditional policy debate frameworks are best for evaluating debates.” I believe these interpretations are anti-educational and unethical, however I will still vote on it if it goes conceded.

CX:

I will flow it if there is anything really important in there, but please try to make it powerful. The bright line in what I mean by important is if it is mentioned in the round by the other team.

Ethical challenges/“clipping”:

Also if there are any ethical challenges the debate will go in either two ways.

1. A. If it is true the team loses automatically with 0 speaker points, but the round will still continue and I will tell the points if they never made an ethical problem
2. B. The debate will continue but all the cards that were clipped will be taken out (Only in case of new debaters that never knew what clipping was).

Debate should be fun go have fun.

Brief blurb: If you’re reading this right before the round, the shortest bit of info I can give you is that I’m open to any position you can run, so long as you run it well and you’re not rude to your opponent. Give me clarity and give me clash. I would rather see you do good comparative analysis than dump out several cards to prove you're winning. Warrant your arguments, weigh your impacts, and you'll probably like where the round goes. If you do these things and tell me exactly what I should vote on, you should be golden.

Longer blurb: I debated LD on the national circuit in high school, and did APDA and BP nationally in college. Outside debate: I'm finishing my PhD in chemistry soonish, and am going into management consulting after ye olde doctorate. I try to be as noninterventionist as possible. However, I get that most judges – particularly former debaters – have specific eccentricities in their philosophies, so I’ll try to explain mine.

Framework: Whatever you want it to be. I don’t really care if you provide a traditional framework, but provide some type of burden that tells me how to vote. I always care more about the intuitive link level rather than the existence of a specific card, so have a compelling link story. Even if Professor Google can tell me your card is true, tell me why it matters to the resolution and how it impacts the round. If you want to do something squirrelly (like PICs, imo, but kicking CPs is fine as long as you work to give your opponents room to engage), I expect you to be abundantly clear about how your strategy fits the context of the resolution, why it is unique, and where you see the clash going from there. Explain it like I’m five.

Speed: I’m fine with spread if your opponent can also follow it, but do not try to spread your opponents out of the round. Slow down to ~50% (make it clear!) for tags and key arguments. I’d recommend sticking with 75% of your top speed with me, and I’ll yell “clear” and “slow” if necessary. Slow down if you see me drinking coffee; if my camera is off/we are in Zoom university, <70% top speed is better. If your opponents yell “clear” or “slow”, do it so they can engage in the debate. If you do not, I will happily tank your speaks.

POIs/POOs: As a speaker, I expect you to take at least two questions. As the person asking questions, do not shout over the speaker or be deliberately disruptive to get your point taken sooner. It’s so rude, and if your opponent isn’t taking your point you can be sure I’ll notice, too. POOs: I’ll flow the new arguments made in rebuttals unless you make the POO. **TOC update: Judges protect the flow. You should still raise the POO if you think it's unclear.

Big picture: Please no offtime roadmaps or thank yous - you don’t need them if you signpost well. In rebuttals, tell me the key issues and why you’re winning them. By the end of the round, I want a clear picture of your advocacy and where you see the clash. I prefer hearing stronger, more developed arguments that clearly matter to the resolution over several blippy arguments trying to cover the whole flow poorly.

tl;dr: How would you condense the round for a CEO on their blackberry? what issues truly matter to you, and why are you winning them? take your opponents at their best, and find a way to beat them anyway. Any questions, email aberl at berkeley dot edu.

Other than that, be kind, have fun, and learn new things.

Head Coach: Harvard-Westlake School, Los Angeles CA | mbietz AT hw.com

I am diagnosed (and am on medication) with severe ADD. This means my ability to listen carefully and pick up everything you say will wane during the round. I would strongly suggest you have vocal variety and slow down, especially for what you want to make sure I get.

Jonah Feldman, friend and former coach at UC Berkeley, summed up a lot of what I have to say about how I evaluate arguments

I do not believe that a dropped argument is necessarily a true argument.

I am primarily interested in voting on high-quality arguments that are well explained, persuasively advanced, and supported with qualified evidence and insightful examples. I am not interested in voting on low-quality arguments that are insufficiently explained, poorly evidenced, and don't make sense. Whether or not the argument was dropped is a secondary concern...

How should this affect the way I debate?

1) Choose more, especially in rebuttals. Instead of extending many different answers to an advantage or off-case argument, pick your spots and lock in.

2) If the other team has dropped an argument, don't take it for granted that it's a done deal. Make sure it's a complete argument and that you've fully explained the important components and implications of winning that argument.

His full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6366

More stuff:

I never thought I'd have to say this, but you have to read aloud what you want me to consider in the round. Paraphrasing doesn't count as "evidence."

The affirmative probably should be topical.

I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

I consider myself a policy-maker with an extremely left bent. Answering oppression with extinction usually doesn't add up for me. I'll take immediate, known harms over the long-term, speculative, multi-link impacts 90 out of 100 times. This isn't paradigmatic, so it is NEGS failing to engage the Affirmative Case.

Given my propensity to vote affirmative and give the affirmative a lot of leeway in defining the scope of the problem/solution, and requiring the negative to engage, I'd suggest you take out the 3 minutes of theory pre-empts and add more substance.

Topicality is probably not an RVI, ever. Same with Ks. Today I saw someone contend that if he puts defense on a Kritik to make debate a safe space, the judge should vote for him because he'll feel attacked.

Cut your presumption spikes. It's bad for debate to instruct judges not to look for winning arguments. It also encourages debaters to make rounds unclear or irreconcilable if they need to catch up on actual issues.

Where an argument can be made "substantively" or without theory, just make it without theory. For example, your opponent not having solvency isn't a theory violation. it just means their risk of solvency is very low. Running theory flips the coin again. So it's both annoying and bad strategy. Other examples might include: Plan flaws, no solvency advocate, and so on. Theory IS the great equalizer in that it gives someone who is otherwise losing an argument a chance to win.

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Some annoyances:

- Not letting your opponents answer a question. More specifically, male debaters who have been socialized to think it is ok to interrupt females who have been socialized not to put up a fight. If you ask the question, give them a chance to answer.

- Ignoring or belittling the oppression or marginalization of people in favor of smug libertarian arguments will likely not end up well for you.

- People who don't disclose or they password protect or require their opponents to delete speech documents. I'm not sure why what you read is private or a secret if you've read it out loud. The whole system of "connected" kids and coaches who know each other using backchannel methods to obtain intelligence is one of the most exclusionary aspects of debate. This *is* what happens when people don't disclose. I'll assume if you don't disclose you prefer the exclusionary system.

Some considerations for you:

- if you’re reading such old white male cards that you have to edit for gendered language, maybe consider finding someone who doesn’t use gendered language... and if you notice that ONLY white men are defending it, maybe consider changing your argument.

- if you find yourself having to pre-empt race or gender arguments in your case, maybe you shouldn't run the arguments.

Updated for CPS 2018: This update is to mostly reflect how I've been judging rounds lately.

Background:
I debated for four years for Loyola high. I broke at multiple tournaments and had a 4-3 record at the TOC.

I am more familiar with policy arguments, philosophy, and theory, and am less familiar with kritiques. However, I am not really a fan of how most philosophy and theory debates are done today, and thus my familiarity does not always correspond to what arguments I vote on.

Specifically, I think that moral philosophy positions that involves tricks are doing a disservice to the literature. Further, theory debates are often frivolous, although what I may consider frivolous may be different than what others consider frivolous. Some examples of what I consider frivolous theory are the following: font-size theory, must spec status in speech theory, some spec shells, etc. My litmus test for frivolous theory might be the following: does the theory shell isolate an issue of fairness that has actual educational implications on the debate round?

Kritiques usually have good explanations attached to them, so I've voted on them in the past and will probably continue to vote on them in the future.

Overview:
I evaluate the round via an offense/defense paradigm. Thus, I will vote for the debater who provides comparatively more offense back to the framework that has been won in the round, lest there are other issues (theory or kritiques) that precede this evaluation. Beyond this, I will try to evaluate the round in the most objective way possible. However, as all judges do, I have certain basic preferences that it would help to conform to.

First, when there is a clash on an issue or position, I tend to default to the more thorough and comprehensive explanation that makes sense to me. While technical drops are important, I don't think they automatically preclude good analysis. Strong weighing matters more to me than a dropped blippy argument on the flow.

Granted, this threshold only exists when there is clash on a position (and maybe sometimes across positions). If a position is totally conceded, or mostly conceded except for a couple of weaker arguments, my threshold for explanation and extensions becomes much lower (if totally conceded, it approaches zero).

Second, I flow CX, both because of theoretical implications of answers, and because I think your position is only as well warranted as your CX answers indicate. If I don't think there's a warrant after a particularly devastating CX on a position, you're going to have an uphill battle to convince me of the argument. (This is true only if the other debater brings up the flaws they pointed out in CX during a speech. CX by itself is not a rebuttal and thus cannot be the sole basis for my decision).

Third, I heavily favor debater's original analysis and arguments in later rebuttals (2NR and 2AR) as opposed to cards. While cards are good at setting up a position in constructive speeches, I heavily prefer debate styles that can go beyond cards with good explanations.

Theory defaults:
I default competing interpretations. I default no-RVI's. Topicality is a voter. All other issues must be justified by the debater.

Random Notes:

I like numbered responses to arguments, and clear distinction between line-by-line analysis and overviews.

I will only vote on arguments that I have flowed. During rebuttals, I mostly flow from what you're saying, rather than from the speech doc, so adjust accordingly.

While debate is a game, it is an educational game that brings lots of enjoyment to many of our lives. Please treat other debaters and it with respect.

Updated for 2020

Top of mind:

· I default to a comparative worlds paradigm. I would like the affirmative to do something; the negative’s job is to prove why that action is bad/undesirable.

· I need a weighing mechanism and offense that links in to that weighing mechanism. Unless given another method, I will default to v/c structure as the mechanism to evaluate & prioritize the round impacts, otherwise. I acknowledge and endorse the advent of multiple, valid methods of argumentation, but I prefer a topic-centered evidence debate comparing pragmatic solutions using CBA, but you do you. Whatever you do, please make an effort to do it well (your arguments must have warrants). Most importantly, I need you to outline how both debaters can expect to access my ballot - particularly if you are employing a non-traditional method of debate

About me: I competed on various circuits, first in policy debate for 2 years, LD for another 2 at Colleyville Heritage in TX under Dave Huston from 2005-2009. I've worked at Greenhill School as an assistant LD coach under Aaron Timmons from 2010-2018. I haven't been actively involved in debate at all since 2018, but below is still true - I'm just "old."

I'm helping Trinity High School in Texas for the 2020 Debate season.

I feel very strongly about evidence ethics in academia.

IF YOU DO NOT SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE IN SOME WAY WITH YOUR OPPONENT (EITHER THROUGH FLASHING, VIEWING LAPTOPS, SHARING COMPUTERS, E-MAIL CHAINS OR PAPER COPIES) I WILL NOT CALL FOR IT AFTER THE ROUND. Exceptions will be dependent on previous disclosure of the citations and extenuating circumstance.

DO NOT CLIP CARDS - Every time you clip a card, a kitten gets kicked. Don't kick kittens; don't clip cards. You will lose the round if you have clipped. I will not be lenient on this issue. I may spare speaker points if you attempt to follow the norms outlined or demonstrate a norm that prevents the harms of clipping, etc. *e.g. "saying "cut the card there" and then IMMEDIATELY marking where it is cut instead of saying "cut the card at (last word spoken)."

Check out this article if you don't understand "card clipping."
<http://the3nr.com/2014/08/20/how-to-never-clip-cards-a-guide-for-debaters/>

I expect cites to be able to be provided for all evidence used. I reserve the right to call for them if I so choose - I may do so randomly or if I suspect something is amiss. Evidence ethics is extremely important, and I will let card-clipping, plagiarism, and forged evidence affect my decision as I see fit - in the past, it has just affected speaker points. If it is an egregious, intentional violation (yes, I determine this) I may vote you down/decrease your speaks/refuse to vote on that argument, even if your opponent does not point it out; if your opponent does indicate that I should punish, I will be more comfortable smiting your points.
If you do not know how to cite something,
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/11/ is a great resource.
I am happy to talk to you about this. Seriously, y'all, people get kicked out university/have their careers ruined for improper, albeit unintentional, citation. I'm not opposed to an entirely analytical case if you don't want to take the time to give credit where credit is due.
One great way to combat this in the community is to disclose your positions on
http://hsld.debatecoaches.org/bin/view/Main/

Speech Docs:

You can e-mail speech docs to bekahboyer@gmail.com

If I'm sent a speech doc, I will only open it during CX to follow along with questions about the evidence. Pointed indictments about evidence will increase speaker points.

Generally, I don’t call for evidence, unless the debaters haven’t gone in depth enough with a contestation or I want to give you tips, but I do feel comfortable calling for evidence when I I want to see it.

What is on my flow is what counts. You will be able to tell if I am lost or confused.
I consider myself alright at flowing, but I am not afraid to admit I am not perfect or even close to the best. That said, I will not vote on something that I:
a) do not not understand
and/or
b) don't have on the flow

o If you want to win an argument you need to start by extending, at minimum, the basic parts of the argument (e.g. You need to extend T/theory violations; ROB/standards/weighing mechanisms if you want me to vote on them)

· IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU EXPLAIN THE LAYERS OF THE DEBATE FOR ME. IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH THINGS FOR ME, I WILL DO SO BASED ON WHAT I THINK (something on which we may not agree) .

What I don't want: having to wade through the arguments and establish my own opinion

Speaking:

· I'm fine with speed, but I'd prefer you to make a couple of really solid arguments than many blippy ones. I will say clear twice per speech before I stop flowing that speech. After a 3rd "clear" in a speech/round speaks will be noticeably affected. Speed is a strategy - I will be annoyed if you go super fast just to make 4 underdeveloped arguments and sit down with lots of time left. Also, now that I'm old (and during e-Debate), please default to going slowly, esp on card tags and theory args.

· Best way to make sure we are on the same page? Be clear. SLOW DOWN WHEN YOU ARTICULATE A WARRANT AND ITS IMPLICATION IN ROUND. I have a terrible poker face. Use that to your advantage. It is obvious when I am not getting something. Loudness and/or clarity is usually more of the issue for me than speed and if I am having a “bad disability day” with my hearing, I will let you know at the beginning of the round so we can all start at a higher volume.

· IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU EXPLAIN THE LAYERS OF THE DEBATE FOR ME. IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH THINGS FOR ME, I WILL DO SO BASED ON WHAT I THINK (something on which we may not agree).

o Pro tip: Give me prioritized voters. This helps me establish that YOU have a strategy and are not just grasping at straws. AND it will increase your speaker points

· Speaker Points, in general-

o I try to average a 28.5

o A good debater who does everything necessary to win with a smart strategy and clear extensions, evidence comparison, and weighing between arguments will receive a 29-29.8. If it is a local, Texas tournament and I think you should break, I will give you a 29+ ; @ TOC circuit tournaments, anything above a 29 means I think you are the bees knees.

o I only give 30sin certain circumstances, usually for a perfect speech, and I will tell you why you got one. In a given season, I usually give 2-3 30s.

o I assume everyone starts with a 27.5 you go up or down by tenths of a point based on strategy, extensions, speaking style, etc --- if tenths aren't available, I will round to the nearest .5. If I round up, I will indicate that on the ballot or in the RFD. Yes, I know this is subjective: welcome to any evaluation of public speaking.

o Protip: If you give me a phrase I write on my ballot, I start you at a 29 automatically instead of 27.5.

-If you are neg and don't flow the 2ar, I will dock .5 speaker point

Argument Specific Questions:
Theory

o I don't like frivolous theory arguments - I tend to find them underdeveloped and not enjoyable to judge. BUT, I love topicality debate, especially if the 2n goes all in on it.

o I default to drop the arg over drop the debater

o The in round abuse story needs to be strong if I am going to drop the debater on theory

o I default to viewing Topicality/Theory as gateway issues, UNLESS other justifications/arguments are given

o If there is not a voter or a violation extended, I will not vote on theory/T.

o I default to reasonability on T if the interp is inclusive not exclusive. I prefer Competing interps because it leaves me less to wade through

o "Reasonability" vs "Competing Interps": Forget the buzzwords: everything collapses to reasonability if the debaters aren't doing comparative work. I would prefer you to have C/I's and substantial clash/weighing against each other's standards OR establish a metric of "reasonablity"

· RVI's –

o I don’t think you should win by being topical or fair; those are obligations and should not be rewarded --- It is unlikely that I will vote on RVI from an I/M on Topicality unless there is demonstrated abuse in the round (you can prove this by running something where the link depends on the interp --- or you can establish it in CX).

o I am more open to independently justified voters against T/Theory than I am RVIs (e.g., T Is racist)

o I am open to listening to RVIs as long as there is clear, obvious weighing between the standards of a competing interpretation!

Default Spikes/Presumption/etc:

· I hate skep triggers and presumption. You can run them, but I will be annoyed. It’s a pretty common strategy... mostly because it's easy. I have voted on them when the lack of clash leaves me no other option and speaks have suffered. Risk of offense means I will unlikely resort to this. Prove to me why you don't need them and speaks will certainly reflect that.

· I just need a reason why those arguments are true, just like any other argument AND how they function as offense/terminal defense. Those arguments have strategic value; I just fear the trend that many debaters employ: blippy spikes as a crutch to avoid substance. If you want to discuss this, please let me know.

Narratives/Micro political arguments –

· I am alright with these. I do believe that the debate space can allow the oppressed to speak.

· I am a firm advocate of the consensual nature of all dialogue. The speech act is half talking and half listening: it is undesirable to force people to participate in discourse that would wound them in some way.

· If the narrative is graphic, I expect you to disclose the nature of the discussion before the round starts to warn me, your opponent, and anyone in the room. Feel free to talk to me about this.

"Policy" Args versus "Traditonal" versus whatever:
Debate is debate. An argument is an argument. As long as it has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I'll listen.
o A CP need a net benefit. Solvency deficits on their own do not make a CP competitive – e.g. If the CP solves the aff and the aff solves with a risk of advantage and no unique advantage on the CP, I will affirm.

Perms are a test of competition (Affs should have clearly stated perm texts to minimize confusion and/or potential severance)

Misc. Laundry List of Paradigmatic questions:

· You gotta have uniqueness to win a turn.

· If there is inherent harm in the squo and there is a risk that action would solve for that harm, I will take that action. (meaning I'm extremely partial to "risk of solvency" args). Defense doesn't win debate rounds.

Other Issues

Flex Prep:

I am okay with "Flex Prep" if that means you can ask questions during prep. If your "flex prep" is the practice in which you can apply cx time for extra prep, that's not cool. (ex: "I have 1:42 sec of CX left, I'll add that as prep."

Behavior:
Be kind to each other. We are all here because debate is awesome - though our reasons may vary. Be courteous and polite. Say what you need to say and stay appropriate.

Questions?:
If you want to do a rebuttal redo, ask how to clarify an argument/response you made, or ask me anything post-round, that is definitely alright. I will do my best to help with the time I am allotted.
Feel free to ask me anything I may not have covered adequately/did not address at all.
You can always reach me through e-mail at bekahboyer@gmail.com
If I don't respond to the follow-up email within 72 hours, please email again.

Tl; dr: You do you, but watch my face - if I am annoyed or look confused, proceed at your own risk.

I competed in Parli and LD for four years at University of the Pacific and have lived in Stockton longer. Now that thats said here's the rest

NEG:

 

Disads: My favorite type of debate to watch is a Disad vs. Case debate. So I like them, is what I’m getting at there. I am not against any type of Disads being run in front of me. Albeit, if you chose to run a Politics DA, what helps to make Politics more compelling is if you include a specific reason X Plan Text of the AFF would cause a reaction to the specific BILL/Proposal your D/A is about. In other words, please don’t say “Repub backlash because yeah!” raising thumbs like Fonzie. As is true with all else, the more hyper-intrinsic/nuanced to the topic--the better. 

 

CPs: Sure, they’re a useful thing, so run it if you want. Conditional CPs are perfectly fine, I believe they do make more sense for Policy debate. Unconditional CPs make more sense for Parli Debate. So, I won’t disregard Condo-Bad theory, on face. I will be viewing both as you characterize them.

 

Theory: Proven abuse is more compelling, to me, than potential. I might actually be light weight vexed to have to sit and listen to potentially being abused in some hypothetical round in the future, for 17 minutes. That aside, I am not a fan of someone running multiple (3+) theory positions to me in one LOC. If you run any form of Vagueness, just make sure the link to what is vague and the link to what offense you lose, subsequently--is clear.

 

K: Like I said above--make sure the thesis of the K is clear. So, perhaps, chose to slow down in the portion of the K that has a thesis. Parli is not Policy, I can’t check your arguments afterward, so clarity is the most important item here. And if you're running a K from an old backfile that some person on your team wrote 5 years ago--don't run it. 

 

BOTH:

 

Performance: naw

 

Critical Affirmatives: Just establish the link between your literature and the resolution’s topic. I’m not saying you have to be topical. You don’t. I’m asking you to briefly describe why your K is relevant to this topic.

 

Impact Calc: Timeframe > Magnitude > Probability is the default way I will frame impacts in the rounds. If you don’t like that, then do impac calc in the LOR/PMR and tell me the 1) The frame 2) Why that frame is important (given the context of that round’s arguments.)

 

Speed: Blaze it. That being said, don’t be rude to new debaters, allow them to engage...Like really, though, the debate won't be about the content. It'll be one team saying "I'm really good at my speed." The other team will say "dang that was fast!" Then the fast team says "Yeah I know, and we win." That's boring, don't do that. I'll doc speaker points.

I am an LD debater from the distant past (2009-2012). I did 4 years of high school debate and coached Palo Alto for 4 years as well.

I'm not up to date with all the fashionable arguments and I'm a little rusty in terms of flowing speed, so go easy on me and explain your args. Other than that, I don't have strong preferences. I'm happy to go along with whatever the debaters tell me to do. If I had to pick a favorite style, I'd pick framework debate with strong warrants and good explanation of how fw interacts with the arguments in the round.

In terms of judging, I lean more on the traditional communication side of LD. While sophisticated argumentation and philosophy are integral to a strong debate, I think that presentation, speaking style, and polish are equally important. Clarity, enunciation, and strong communication skills can be the deciding factor between two equally-matched competitors.

If you lean towards a more progressive style of LD debate, I fully expect to see your Value and Value Criterion supported and referenced throughout each contention. Because LD is a Value-centric debate, even the most logical, well-supported contentions will be useless without reference to LD framework. This support should be explicitly stated: as with any other aspect of your case or the round as a whole, I will not make arguments or connections on your behalf. 

Any drops made in-round should be adequately explained and impacted. It is not enough for you or your opponent to tell me to flow a drop; the significance of each drop must be tied either to your case or your opponent's and logically refuted. 

Steve Clemmons

Debate Coach, Saratoga HS, proving that you can go home again.

Former Associate Director of Forensics University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, Debate Coach Saratoga High School

Years in the Activity: 20+ as a coach/director/competitor (Weber, LMU, Macalester, SCU and Oregon for college) (Skyline Oakland, Saratoga, Harker, Presentation, St. Vincent, New Trier, Hopkins, and my alma mater, JFK-Richmond R.I.P. for HS) (Weber State, San Francisco State as a competitor)

IN Public Forum, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the author's intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. The proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but the probability of me voting for it is low.

How to WIN THE DAY (to borrow from the UO motto)

1. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC. The current debate topic gives you a lot of ground to talk about the topic and that is the types of debates that I prefer to listen to. If you are a team or individual that feels as though the topic is not relevant, then DO NOT PREF ME, or USE A STRIKE.

2. If you are attempting to have a “project” based debate (and who really knows what it means to have a project in today's debate world) then I should clearly understand the link to the topic and the relevance of your “project” to me. It can't always be about you. I think that many of the structural changes you are attempting to make do not belong in the academic ivory tower of debate. They belong in the streets. The people you are talking about most likely have never seen or heard a debate round and the speed in which some of this comes out, they would never be able to understand. I should know why it is important to have these discussions in debate rounds and why my ballot makes a difference. (As an aside, no one really cares about how I vote, outside the people in the round. You are going to have to convince me otherwise. This is my default setting.)

3. Appeals to my background have no effect on my decision. (Especially since you probably do not know me and the things that have happened in my life.) This point is important to know, because many of your K authors, I have not read, and have no desire to. (And don't believe) My life is focused on what I call the real world, as in the one where my bills have to be paid, my kid educated and the people that I love having food, shelter, and clothing. So, your arguments about why debate is bad or evil, I am not feeling and may not flow. Debate is flawed, but it is usually because of the debaters. The activity feeds me and my family, so think about that before you speak ill about the activity, especially since you are actively choosing to be involved

SPEAKER POINTS

They are independent of win/loss, although there is some correlation there. I will judge people on the way that they treat their partner, opponents and judge. Don't think that because I have revealed the win, your frustration with my decision will allow you to talk slick to me. First, I have no problem giving you under ten-speaker points. Second, I will leave the room, leaving you talking to yourself and your partner. Third, your words will have repercussions, please believe.

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

One of my basic rules for debate is that all time comes from somewhere. The time limits are already spelled out in the invite, so I will stick to that. Think of it as a form of a social contract.

With an understanding that time comes from somewhere, there is no invisible pool of prep time that we are to use for flashing evidence over to the other team. Things would be much simpler if you got the cards DURING CX/Crossfire. You should either have a viewing computer, have it printed out, or be willing to wait until the speech is over. and use the questioning time to get it.

Evidence that you read in PF, you should have pulled up before the round. It should not take minutes to find evidence. If you are asking for it, it is coming out of your prep time. If it is longer than 20 seconds to find the evidence, it is coming out of the offending teams time.

CX/Crossfire

This should be primarily between the person who just spoke and the person who is not preparing to speak. Everyone gets a turn to speak and ask/answer questions. You are highlighting a difference in ability when you attempt to answer the questions for your partner, and this will be reflected on your speaker points. Crossfire for PF should really be the one question, one answer format. If you ask a question, then you should fall back and answer one from your opponent, or at least ask if a follow up is acceptable. It is not my fault if your question is phrased poorly. Crossfire factors into my speaker points. So, if you are allowing them to railroad you, don't expect great points. If you are attempting to get a bunch of questions in without allowing the other side to ask, the same thing will be reflected in your points.

Evidence in PF

My background is in policy debate and LD as a competitor. (I did CEDA debate, LD and NDT in college and policy debate and LD in high school) I like evidence and the strategy behind finding it and deploying it in the round. I wish PF would read cards. But, paraphrasing is a thing. Your paraphrase should be textual, meaning that you should be able to point to a paragraph or two in the article that makes your point. Handing someone the article is not good enough. If you can't point to where in the article your argument is being made, then all the other team has to do is point this out, and I will ignore it. This was important enough that I say it twice in my paradigm.

This is far from complete, but feel free to ask me about any questions you might have before the round.

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and the Informative final at NIETOC. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/DuPont%2C+Nathan

 

Quick Summary - Run whatever you want, be clear. It's your round, take advantage of it! Flow judge, give me articulated arguments. Kritiks are appreciated, warrants are awesome and taglines are not enough. The squo is more scarier now than ever - tell me whatever I can do to make debate a welcome space for you.

Background -

NPDA Debate - 3 years - Enough tournaments and practice to be very familiar with pretty much anything you can throw at me in the debate space.

Judging for 3 1/2 years - judged parli, policy and LD a lot (and I.E.s but whateverrr)

Approach to Judging -

-I am pretty tabula rasa, within reason. I default to reasonability inmost debates unless there is framework that asks me to change my perspective.

-I like high-probability, systemic impacts first and foremost. Give me real warrants and evidence and ANALYSIS I can weigh and you'll find my ballot favorable. I will vote on any framing though.

-I am a flow judge. I always walk the path of least intervention and won't extend or make arguments for you. Give me voters to refer to and it'll make my life easier. I'm really serious about this.

-I love anything kritikal, but it isn't necessary. I like topical and non-topical affs, but be careful with ID tix and other super generic non-topical advocacies. I like straight-up policy cases with advantages and DA's and the like. I like contentions with good framework articulated. Essentially, you can do anything if you do it well and make it easy for me to follow.

-I need articulated impacts, and arguments in general. Taglines are not enough. Explain to me the directionality and extent of your impacts.

-I don't like arguments dropped in member speeches to be suddenly voters in rebuttals AKA shadow extensions but people need to point of order it for me to not evaluate it.

-Let me know if there's anything I can do to make the debate space more inclusive for you. If you have any needs or preferences, I'm happy to help.

Argument Prefs -

Framework - I will evaluate the round as you want me to as long as you win framework. I do default to net benes/util, but am totally open to other ways of viewing the round.

Spec -I think spec arguments are rough to win, but I'm open to them. Give me solid standards and proven ground loss and I might pick you up on it.

Topicality - I don't like time-suck T's, and I think that a lot of T arguments don't actually really impact the debate except to inhibit clash. I have a medium threshold for T. You need articulated ground loss usually. However, if you drop it, or any a-priori arguments, you're going to lose the debate. Just be careful.

CPs - Always a great idea. I think CP's are super underused and really effective. I like PIC debates and if you run a CP, you just need to be careful about mutual exclusivity. I don't have a problem with condo CPs.

RVI's - I will vote on them, but only for a good reason i.e. rhetoric in the procedural/DA/whatever, timesuck arguments that are fully fleshed out, etc. Just like all other arguments, if it's blippy I probably won't vote on it and your time is probably better spent elsewhere.

Perms - Always go for the perm. I think the Opp has to really win the perm doesn't function to have a good shot in the round because it is often one of the easiest places to vote.

Kritiks - I like K's! I don't have a ton of background knowledge on some kritiks but have run a lot of Nietzsche, some D&G, Baud, Wilderson, but not enough of any lit other than Nietzsche that I feel confident with, so you need to explain it to me thoroughly. Any form, whether it's performance, rhetoric or otherwise, I am totally cool with. Be careful of overly-generic links.

Performance Prefs -

-I personally can handle speed as long as it's clear, but if your opponents clear or slow you, I expect you accommodate them. Additionally, attempting to spread opponents out of the round will destroy your speaks.

-I couldn't care less if you sit or stand - it's your space, make yourself comfortable

-Partner communication is fine, verbally or through notes, as long as you aren't puppeting. I will only flow what the designated speaker says.

-I don't have an issue with sass or playfulness, but don't be mean to your opponents or partner. There's a fine-line between the two and if you have trouble walking it, I'd be nice to be safe.

-Use your time as you wish, but try not to be too repetitive.

-I don't think you need to yell or be overly angry to try to project confidence. At the same time, you do you.

-If you are being sexist, racist or generally a jerk, your speaks will absolutely reflect that. You don't need to tread on eggshells, but don't be a misogynist, racist person.

**Less than 5 debates judged on this policy topic so no acronyms without explanation first plz**

Policy Paradigm (LD at bottom)

Currently head coach of Whitefish Bay High School in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin since September 2022

Graduated HS in 2014, policy debater from 2010-2014 (2N/1A) with some national circuit outround/bid round experience.

Assistant coached LD and Policy at:

Central Valley HS (Spokane, WA 2014-2016)

Capitol HS (Boise, ID 2016-2017)

Former co-head coach at Homestead High School in Mequon, Wisconsin (2017-2020)

--Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Blerickson95@gmail.com

--Overall, I am not the brightest bulb in the tanning bed, and I vote for the team that quite literally makes the most sense to me. I am not afraid to take the easy way out if I am given warranted reasons why I should. The harder you make it for me, the more work you make me do, the less likely you are to get my ballot, and I think that makes sense and is fair.

--For the love, please time yourselves.

--Your speaks will increase if you don't spend at ton of time at the beginning of cross ex asking what cards were and weren't read :) (I like flowing!)

--Maybe I am just old and grumpy but, do not wear your headphones in round, at any time, once the debate starts. Not in one ear only, not because "you'e just the 1N", not because you are the 2A and don't want to listen to the 1AC. I think it's rude, pompous, and just plain obnoxious. No debater in the world is too important to listen to a full debate. It is so disrespectful to the other team, the judge, and everyone who took time to be at that debate. Ugh. I hate it so much. Headphones on during a debate are an auto 27 or lower. That's all :) *Obviously this does not carry through for online debate!

Quick version

Generally good for:

--DA-case debates

--Cheater counterplan debates

--Politics/elections debates

Not as good for:

--Heavy K debates

--Any type of death good argument (I think death is bad, and we should try to avoid it)

--Baudrillard

--Any strategy that is largely based off of debate being inherently bad/irredeemable

Online debate things:

--I would prefer if the person speaking had their camera on, but I am obviously understanding if that cannot happen.

--I keep my camera on for the debate but I turn it off during prep to go sit on my couch and hold my dog. So, please make sure, before you start your speech, I am back on the camera. If I am not and you start, that would be no good.

Longer version

General

--I, for the most part, love this activity, and respect anyone who takes the time and effort to participate. This activity is rigorous, and good for you for even being here. I welcome questions before and after the round. I realize some people won't agree with my decision, and I welcome questions as to how I came to my conclusion. However, what I don't welcome, is blatant disrespect because you disagree with my decision. Slamming your things, muttering rude things under your breath, or screaming at me, won't make me email tab begging to change my ballot. In fact, it will make me really not like you.

--I flow on paper, so I need pen time. I understand and follow the debate better this way, but that also means I am not writing everything down verbatim, so if you have arguments you think are important, sit on them.

--I am very expressive. I have tried to have a better poker face, but I simply cannot do it. You should be able to tell if I am unhappy or not.

--Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. You will lose immediately and receive the lowest speaker points I am allowed to give u

--Prep ends when you’re done prepping and begin flashing/emailing (I can tell if you’re flashing/emailing or prepping, if I see you prepping off prep time, I’ll start your speech time)

--If you clip and it's recorded, you lose. It needs to be recorded.

--I will not evaluate things that happened outside of the debate.

Topic Thoughts

Very few judged on this topic. Plz don't use acronyms without explaining them first.

K debate

--The role of the judge is to decide who did the best debating. The role of the ballot is to tell Tabroom who won.

--Fiat isn't real and that's fine.

--This is my area of less familiarity. Although I have fairly frequently found myself in the back of clash of civ debates, I am less familiar with critical arguments. IR K's such as cap, security, gender, etc. I do not have a problem understanding. I have a harder time understanding high theory, philosophy debates. Pleeease do not assume I have read your author. Do not let this dissuade you from reading your bread and butter K arguments in front of me, just know I need more explanation. I think in good debates this can even just be done in a cross ex.

--I need a reason why the aff is bad. I often find myself voting on the perm because I do not know why the aff is specifically bad for causes more bad things to happen. I am not saying this can't be done, it definitely can be done, and should be.

--I am not here to change how you debate, but it would be disingenuous for me to say my experiences in debate have not affected how I am used to and comfortable evaluating debates. That being said, I tend to think speech times are good, and an hour and a half of discussion is not as good. If we are going to throw speech times out the window, I need to know what the structure is for the remainder of the debate. I.e. when we are done, how I should evaluate arguments in this new format, etc. If there is no structure, I need to know why not having a structure for the debate is good. I do my very best to not intervene, and if the debate devolves into a discussion, the only time I will intervene is to say when time is up for the round. It would be GREAT if that was done for me by one of the teams. I try to talk in debate rounds *literally* as little as possible but I also do not want to make the tournament run behind.

--I have evaluated many framework debates, but I think I am about even voting for and against it. That being said, I think predictable limits are my point of most persuasion. But do what u do.

K affs

--I need to know what the aff does. I just do.

--I do not necessarily need you to defend hypothetical USfg action, but I really appreciate topic relevance.

Theory

Anything is legitimate until you prove to me that it’s not. If you drop these things, you lose*: Conditionality, ASPEC. Flow! Don't just follow the speech doc! Ask what reasons are to reject the team in cx!

*I think sometimes cross applications are sufficient. Or aff outweighs arguments for critical affs. It literally just depends how the debate shakes out, but I would just try to answer them explicitly the first time.

I think fairness can be an internal link or an impact depending on how you spin it. Tell me how you want me to view and evaluate fairness.

Topicality

I have recently realized that I take a little more than the average person to vote on T. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. T isn’t an RVI. Slow down on T debates plz.

For me to vote on topicality, I need: a topical version of the aff (doesn't need to solve the aff, it just needs to show an alternate, topical version of the discussion), a list of topical aff's under your interpretation, a list of what you were deprived of in the debate because of the aff's untopicality OR a reason why I should vote on potential abuse.

Counterplans

I’m a big fan. Counterplans should be competitive and have a solvency advocate, in my perfect world. But hey, I am becoming more and more okay with counterplans that do not have a solvency advocate for some reason.

The more specific, the better. Sufficiency arguments are persuasive to me. I need to know HOW the counterplan solves every portion of the aff, don’t just assert that it does. Process, conditions, delay, consult, advantage etc. I’m fine with; like I said, anything is legitimate unless proved otherwise. I really like smart pics/word pics.

My mantra has always been, if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'. Cheating counterplans can get the job done and if there is no theoretical objection to reject the argument, you may be in trouble. That being said, compelling reasons why that specific cheating counterplan is bad can sometimes convince me to reject the argument. Again, it's ~debatable~

*The only counterplan I think is silly and likely won't vote for is a PIC out of the ballot. Never got it, never will, likely will always think it's silly.

Aff: Solvency deficits need to be impacted. But WHY is the federal government key? Also, I would really like if permutations were more than just "Do both" at the end of the debate, but if the neg never presses you on what this means, I will likely give the aff a lot of leeway throughout the debate on what that means/how it functions. This is important--negative teams are deciding what the permutation is and how it functions for the aff and it is just destroying the aff. Tell me what your perm means and how it functions, if you let the neg do it for you I can bet it won't turn out well for you.

I am hearing a lot of "perm shields the link to the net benefit so it solves". WHY. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY. HOW. WHY AND HOW. I am begging you to give me some sort of permutation explanation.

That being said, “Protect the 2nr” is a persuasive phrase to me in situations that call for it. I will kick the counterplan for the negative, if it's conditional, unless I am given a reason not to by the aff.

Disadvantages

A disadvantage has: uniqueness, a link, an internal link, and an impact. 2 card disads make me sad and I am immediately skeptical of them.

Disad-case debates are my favorite. What I was told as a novice still applies today: tell me the story of your disad. How does the link/internal link chain work to achieve the impact, etc. Disad overviews are important (cards in overviews are cool too); turns case arguments are basically necessary to my ballot. Tell me how your impact relates to the aff.

Case

Engage the case! Do case debate!

LD Paradigm

I debated at two LD tournaments in high school: Nat quals and NFL (now NSDA?) nationals my junior year. I coached LD for 3 years before coming to Homestead. I have coached/judged very traditional, value-criterion LD debate, and I have also coached/judged progressive LD debate. I am truly fine with either. For more progressive LD debate, my policy paradigm applies. A couple caveats:

--T or theory is not an RVI. I realize the time skew in LD debate. T or theory is not an RVI. I will vote on theory, just not silly ones.

--Shorter speeches than in policy, so I think a bunch of short off-case positions are less preferable than less, more in-depth off-case positions. But do what u need to do.

--Tricks? nah

--Meta-theory? nah

--Cutting evidence from debate blogs? nah

--In-depth, educational debates about the topic? Yeah!!!

Have fun!! :)

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fee%2CSean

TFA 2023: I haven't judged much since TOC 18. Prior to that, I was heavily involved in the activity and taught / coached for Harvard Westlake. I'm a civil rights attorney now. I love debate and really don't have that strong of feelings on things. It's your debate, do as you will. Just start a bit slower than you normally would..... it's been awhile.

Hard and Fast Rules:

Flashing counts as prep if you are assembling the document. If everything is in one doc and you are just saving then that is not prep.

You must either flash or email your opponent your docs.

Evasiveness of any kind before round is highly frowned upon. My expectation is that debaters are honest with one another in all their dealings.

In general, I really enjoy judging debate. If you have a well thought out and interesting take on the topic/debate, I will be happy. If you use strategies that reflect a shallow understanding of the arguments you're running that avoid clash i will be less happy.

Toc 18:

Here are 8 things i'd like for you to know:

1.I keep a good flow. I will hold you to what you say. I do not mind justifying my decisions after the debate by reading back to you what i have on my flow.

2. I will read your evidence and compare it to your explanation in round. Putting powerful spin on your ev is good and highly encouraged. Falsely representing what your evidence says is not. Similarly, having good ev but explaining it poorly will also hurt you.

3. I like philosophical debates. I majored in philosophy. I read ethics, philosophy of mind, political theory in my free time. But i have found that i do not like "phil debaters" because debaters who identify as such seem much more inclined to try to obscure clash and rely on spikes/tricks. If you debate philosophy straight up and have read primary source material to enhance your explanations, I might be the best judge for you. If you intend to read a million analytics and use trickery, i would be a terrible judge for you.

4. On K's, I start from the perspective of "why are the aff and alt different?" This means i focus my decision on 1. links application to the aff and how they turn case or gut aff solvency. 2. does the alt solve the k or the case?

i tend to think the AFF gets to "weigh" the case in the sense that the plan is some what relevant. I think framework arguments best indict how i evaluate the plan and impact calc more broadly. I think the aff commonly drops a lot of 1NC f/w arguments, but negs rarely capitalize on these drops in persuasive ways.

5. I research the topic a lot. I like debates about the topic grounded in a robust academic/theoretical/philosophical/critical perspective.

6. I think debate is both a game and contains an important educational aspect. I do not lean either way of "must defend the topic" but i tend to believe the topic has a role to be played in the community and shouldn't be totally ignored. How that belief plays out in a given round is much more hard to say. I think my record is about 50/50 on non-T AFF's vs topicality.

7. I like CX. You can't use it as prep.

8. I don't think i've voted in an RVI in like over 2 years. I would consider myself a hard press.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fink%2C+Ryan

Brandon Fletcher

Hired Judge, Spring 2019

Summary:

I want to watch a competitive debate where both teams are arguing the issues they’re best at, and I would prefer that the debaters spend more time thinking how to be strategic and have fun, than thinking about what particular style of debate or strategy that I want to see.

In terms of my competitive background, I was a competitor at Palomar and CSULB from 2010 to 2015, and was a coach at CSU Long Beach from 2015 to 2017. I was primarily involved in the NPDA/NPTE national circuit during that time, so that's what most of my experience is with.

Requirements:

That said, there are a few non-negotiable things you need to consider when having me in the back of the room:

· Use They/Them pronouns when not referring to me by name

· I will take a long time evaluating highly competitive rounds. As a byproduct of a learning disability, I continually reread and think through my flow before rendering a decision. If this is a problem, then you should strike me.

· Do not read pathos driven arguments related to suicide. Statistics are abstracted enough for me to be distanced from it emotionally, but thorough suicide narratives are not something I want to watch. If this is a core part of your tournament strategy, again, you should strike me.

· I reserve the right to ask for a copy of the plans, interpretations, and alternative texts.

Default Judging Assumptions

· Until told otherwise, I evaluate a topical plan versus the status quo or a proposed competitive policy or alternative option. Explicitly tell me how else to evaluate a debate if your strategy fits outside of this paradigm.

· I only evaluate arguments made in constructive speeches and extended in rebuttals.

· Will protect against new arguments in the rebuttal, but am not hostile to points of order if the argument will decide the outcome of a debate round.

· Each argument needs to hit a minimum threshold of explanation and coherence. I will disregard undeveloped and/or consequence free arguments when compared to arguments that are fully developed and impacted. Example,

· I am not an expressive judge. Do mistake my lack of expression for boredom or apathy; it’s just my default facial expression.

· Go as fast as you want - I will explicitly state if rate of delivery becomes an issue.

Negotiable preferences

This is what I like to see in debate rounds, but deviating from these preferences will not lose you the debate. The list below is just meant to provide context on my preferences for those that want it.

· Please do impact calculus and have warrants.

· I have a low threshold to vote on topicality or framework arguments for non-topical affs. What that means is obviously up for debate, but I don’t think you deserve to win if you cannot read or defend a competitive counter-interpretation of what the debate should be.

· Case debate is the best. No matter what strategy was deployed in the debate, I will never be upset at a thorough, well-warranted, and impacted case debate.

· Conditionality is good, but highly dependent on the context of the round and how theory debates play out in round.

· Theory debates are also the best, and I find them fun to evaluate at high levels of competition.

· Totally fine with generic strategies that are deployed and argued well.

· I don’t like ethically compromised impact turns. There are circumstances where I will evaluate the full weight of those arguments, but if you’re arguing that genocide or racism are good, I will likely eviscerate your speaker points.

· Most familiar with the following subjects in critical studies: Disability studies, queer theory, and anything by Foucault or Nietzsche.

My debate background is in policy, but at this point, I have experience judging PF and LD as well. Feel free to to do whatever you want and make any arguments you can clearly explain and effectively justify. I am open to anything and enjoy thoughtful and creative approaches to debate as long as you are not being rude or offensive. If you're being a jerk, I will dock speaks.

If I am judging your round, make sure you do the following:

-Keep track of time: I will not be timing any of your speeches or prep, so time yourselves and your opponents-I'd prefer avoiding situations where no one knows how much prep time is left or how long a person has been speaking. Also, please respect when the timer goes off-If your time runs out during prep, I expect you to begin your speech promptly, and begin any of your remaining speeches right away. If your time runs out during your speech, please stop speaking.

-Share evidence quickly: I won't count getting your speech doc over to your opponent as prep time, but please be prepared to do so immediately once you end prep (the document should already be saved at this point). I'm pretty understanding with technical difficulties you may encounter, but you should be able to resolve these quickly and I will get annoyed if you take too long to share evidence. Please include me on any evidence email chains as well.

-Assume I don't know about the resolution: This is super important because I am not consistently judging the same type of debate throughout the year and I have very likely not done any research on the topic. If I'm judging you in PF or LD, be aware that it's the first round at a tournament on a new topic, it's possible that l think it's still the previous topic. This means that you should be as thorough as possible in explaining things and if you're going to be using acronyms to refer to agencies, departments, organizations, laws, policies, etc. in your speeches, you should tell me what it is at least once. If it's unclear, I either won't know what you are talking about, or have to spend time during your speeches to google it.

If you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask me before your round. No need to shake my hand.

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?

• This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.

• As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.

• I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.

• I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.

• I default to fiat being durable.

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.

• I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

• I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).

• What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

• I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.

• All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
  
  
• I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
  
  
• I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

Stanford 2021

Former college policy debater at UC Berkeley

I mostly did K debate that's definitely my area of expertise but argument flex is fine I can flow and understand just about anything

I would slow down for more complicated theory args and if you don't make them a significant portion of the final speeches I am not likely to vote for them

don't be offensive

ask me specific questions if you have them

don't have a lot of rounds on the topic

2020 update

mggreenbury@gmail.com

Not much experience on this topic

Been away from the scene for the past semester. Don't worry, I can still listen to speed, but you might want to assume I'm not fully aware of all the topic details.

I like K debate. Prefer poststructuralism or whatever you call it - would probably be what I have the most experience in. Performance debate is cool. Policy debate is good too, just not what I did for the most part. Good plans with solid solvency mechanisms vs intriguing CP/DAs are always engaging to judge for me but politics debates are boring so if you come with generics you better do it right. I consider myself open minded but I do find myself unpersuaded by the same generics FW args that teams have been reading since 2015. Try explaining things in new ways, using new words and examples. I will reward that.

almost all ideas are fair game, except those which offend or harm other people. please use common sense in this regard or I'll dock speaks.

2019 update

very few rounds on the policy topic, please explain any acronyms or details that one might assume a judge with experience on the topic would understand

speed is fine

argument flexibility is fine and good

focus on explaining things; less is more

”debate does not necessarily take the form of a disagreement; it can yield a more complex disimplication or displacement”

i don’t vote on things not In the final speeches

2017 for Stanford

Very few (<20) rounds on the topic. Mostly policy, weirdly, but it's been three months. Please explain any terms (locations, documents, events, concepts, etc.) that may require more experience.

Aside: the term high theory now for me demonstrates the general implosion of meaning.

Out of competition since last season. Everything below still true, with the caveat that my appreciation for the the decorum and the ethos of debate has diminished. I think you can interpret that how you want. Creativity and clarity are awarded with speaker points.

Lastly the authors of flavor for the rhetoric department are Schmitt, Heidegger, and Hegel. Please do not read a critique of Bildung.

2016 Update

About two dozen total rounds on the 2015-2016 HS topic. Mostly on the non-topic but plenty of K affs with plans and a few policy debates.

I do and prefer K debate for the most part, but I am still interested in hearing policy arguments. I understand and like them, at times.

I vote on T/FW, but I think most teams would be helped by substantive and explicated impact calc vs the aff, articulating a strong T version solves arg, etc. You can't just extend T like you would in front of a judge who ideologically prefers your args.

If you're too fast I might ask you to slow down. You should do you. Within reason, try to offend me.

Most familiar in high theory arguments: afropessimist, feminist, queer theory, and Marxist-derivative literatures. I sort of major in critical theory at Berkeley so sometimes I just happen to know a lot about Ranciere or Edward Said depending on the semester.

Feel free to ask any other questions.

Do whatever you want, dont be offensive.

 

NOTRE DAME/USC UPDATE!

For whatever its worth: I determine speaker points throughout the debate in the style of Around the Horn.  Everyone begins with a 28, as debaters say or do things that I deem to be positive or negative debaters will lose/gain .1-.3 points.  Whatever your number is after my decision is done is your final total.

Hi. I debated at Glenbrook North HS in Northbrook for 4 years, 1.5 in policy and 2.5 in LD. I was the LD coach at Loyola Blakefield HS in Baltimore for 3 years followed by being the debate coach for Chicagoland Jewish HS in Deerfield, IL, New Trier HS in Winnetka/Northfield, IL, Bronx Science, Beacon HS in Manhattan, the director of debate at Mamaroneck HS in Mamaroneck, NY and currently the director of debate at South Shore International College Prep in Chicago. I've also worked at multiple debate camps and have been a private coach for multiple debaters. Trust me, I've seen it all.

Last updated 4/9/24. Changed some words and added my judge kick stance.

I'm fine being on email chains but I'm not posting my email publicly. Just ask before the round.

General stuff:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. I do not discriminate, I'm find with speed (though sometimes my flowing can be bad), fine with theory, fine with kritiks, whatever you want to do. It's your round, not mine have fun with it.

-Extensions are key! Every extension needs to have the word extend/pull through the flow/or similar wording attached to it. Then it needs to have a warrant for what is being extended, finally the extension needs an impact back to the weighing calculus. If that is the value/value criterion mechanism then it needs to impact back to the VC that is being used for the round. If that is some other mechanism, it needs to be impacted to that weighing mechanism (theory means voters I guess). That weighing mechanism and the warrants for the mechanism should be extended (In a v/vc model the vc should be extended along with the argument). If these things are not done then the arguments will not be evaluated in the same depth and I might not give you credit, or as much credit, for an argument that you may have clearly won on the flow. I guess in simpler terms I have a high threshold for extensions. Also, when extending please extend along with the warrant please compare your arguments to other arguments. The best extensions are not just argument extensions but have comparative weighing along with the arguments.

-Evidence is not inherently preferable for analytics absent some argument for why I should prefer that specific piece of evidence over a generic analytic. Debaters are smart and well researched on the topic (usually) and so should be able to have a command of what is going on equal to/greater than a lot of experts. Trust yourself and talk about why you are correct instead of some rando newspaper writer who has probably done less research than what goes into the typical 1AC.

- WEIGH! One of the things I'm almost always unsure of after a round is which argument to evaluate first. Do I look to the Disad, the spike, the contention 1? Most debate rounds involve multiple arguments that could "come first" and people telling me the order in which to evaluate arguments and which arguments are more important makes my life easier. It also means you'll be more likely to win because the argument that you're saying is most important/comes first is probably also the one that you're winning the most. WEIGH! Seriously WEIGH!

On Non-T affs:

You ought pretend to be topical. Topicality means different things to different people and I think that the topic and what topicality means can change in debate and in different debates. However, the aff should claim that they are talking about the topic. What the topic means to you and how it functions might be different than the "traditional" method and that's fine! How you make that claim or whether that claim is true can be (and should be!) contested in the round.

- Other thing: It has become very clear since 10/7/23 that settler-colonialism justifies mass atrocities. I will vote against it much as I vote against people who say or uphold racist/sexist/homophobic or other harmful ideologies.

- Feel free to come up to me at any tournament and ask me questions about anything, I can't guarantee you a great answer but I can guarantee that I will try to respond.

LD Paradigm:

Things I've noticed about my preferences for debate: (This is just a list of things I like, none of these are necessary to win a round but they do affect my judging)

- I tend to prefer debaters who debated similarly to how I debated. What does this mean? I debated in an old school national circuit LD style. On the aff that meant a very broad criterion with mutually exclusive contentions that I tried to kick out of as much as possible (usually at the end of the 2AR, I had one contention and maybe framework). On the neg, it meant a short NC, no more than 2 minutes, with extensive analytical responses to the aff. While it might not help you win the round, debate has changed a lot, it will help your speaker points.

- I like a 2AR that isn't on the flow. What does this mean? The 2AR should be more of a story speech that merely references the flow. A lot of weighing/crystallizing or time on voting issues.

-I like even/if stories. They tend to make the round clearer and make my life easier.

-LD debaters need to stop saying "we" when referring to themselves. You are a singular human being and not one half of a partnership. If you say "we" while referring to yourself you will lose 0.1 speaker points. I will also interrupt your speeches to ask "who is we?" Be prepared.

-I'm a leftist politically. Property rights arguments and other capitalist arguments are not particularly persuasive to me and I don't like hearing them. That doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means if you have something else it's probably a good idea to run it.

-I presume coinflip. That means if I can't find any offense or way to vote I will flip a coin to decide the round. I have done this quite a few times and never want to do it again but I'm not afraid to do it and if I think your round warrants it, a coinflip will happen. (That said the only times I've done it has been in rounds where there have been on offense by either side so as long as offense exists I will not flip a coin).

-I like philosophy, I am a philosophy major. That said I'm not good at flowing it, especially when spread at the beginning of the speech. So if you do read philosophy slow down a little bit so that I can catch your arguments.

-Going off that last point, my major is in continental philosophy; which means I take classes on all those critical authors you've wanted to use in rounds. Kritiks are wonderful! If you know what are you talking about, please run them in front of me. Ks do not need an alt, though it is preferable. Make sure to understand the interactions between your position and the position of what your opponent is running.

- Please start the AC/NC with I affirm/I negate. It doesn't take away from your word economy and it gives me a second to "catch up" and get used to your spreading/debating voice so that I don't miss your first argument. You don't need to re-state the resolution though, that's unnecessary.

-Something most debaters forget is that as a judge I do not look to see what you are reading while you are reading it. I don't read the cards on the email chain until after the round. Therefore, be more specific in signposting then off the Martin card 1..2..3 etc. Don't just say Martin, say what Martin said as well, because I might not have gotten the author name Martin but I got the argument they made. Also, be clear about where Martin is on the flow. If Martin is a contention 1 card, say that she is in contention 1. Virtual/Computer debate note: I do ask to be on the email chain but I don't read the cards on the chain until after the round so this still applies.

- Policy style arguments have started to come more and more into LD and people like running them in front of me. That's fine, I really like them. However, if you are running them you also take on policy-style burdens. For example, if you read a plan then you have to fulfill the 4 criteria of the HITS (if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be running a plan. Also, considering the last person to lose on significance was Tom Durkin in the 1978 NDT, significance doesn't matter anymore). Most importantly, is that policy has a status quo whereas LD does not. That means that you need to orally give me the dates of evidence! If you're running a DA I need to know that the uniqueness is actually unique, if it's a plan that the inherency is actually inherent etc. Evidence without dates on it means that I won't give you credit for uniqueness or inherency claims that you need in the debate round. If your opponent points out that you didn't read those dates then I will give zero credit for any uniqueness/inherency claim and assume that your evidence is from 1784 and take away any offense that is based off of that plan/DA (I will also give said opponent at least a 29). So make sure to tell me those dates!

- I've recently read A LOT of social movement theory and have also been actively been involved in crafting strategy for a social movement. This has made me significantly more wary of most kritik alternatives. Kritik alts either make no sense, are not realistic, would never be adopted by wide ranging social movements, or are actively harmful to spreading social movements. It won't change how I vote, if the alt is won, but it does mean that common sense arguments against K alts will be considered more important. But if you look at my earlier stuff from Ks you'll see that I don't even think an alt needs to be read, so, you know, think about that risk.

- A priori/pre-standards arguments/other tricky-esque nibs. If you are losing everything else on the flow I need a reason to uniquely prefer your 3 sentences over the rest of the flow. If that does not happen I will find it very hard to vote for you over somebody else who is winning the rest of the round. Not that I won't evaluate the argument at all it will just be weighed against the rest of the round and if someone else is winning the rest of the round I will vote for the person winning the majority of the round. In simpler words if you go for an a priori, go for it hard. I'm not going to buy it simply because it is dropped.

- Metaethics. Basically, meta-ethics cannot be used as a "magic wand" to get out of framework debate. You still need to provide an ethic to meet your meta-ethic. Just saying my meta-ethical util comes before your ethical deont haha! is not enough. Language might be indeterminate but that doesn't mean we default to util (or deont) unless it's justified.

Since everybody asks me about how I evaluate theory here it is:

I don't mind theory, I will vote on it and I will vote on it in cases where I think no actual abuse has occurred or even times where the argument itself is patently non-abusive. But before you rush to pull out your three theory shells, I really don't like voting on it. Moreover, of all the decisions where people have argued with me after the round, 2/3 of them are because of theory. My paradigm seems to be different than other judges so I would say run theory at your risk. Now of course you're asking why is my paradigm different? Simple because I don't default to a monolithic competing interpretations framework, you don't need a counter-interp/RVI/etc. to win theory (though it is helpful and in a case of offense vs. no offense I'm going to default to offense). I'm not as technical on theory as other judges, simply saying my argument is not abusive, drop the argument not the debater, or even talking about reasonability will probably be enough to convince me to not vote on theory. In other words, I default to reasonability, though will be persuaded otherwise. Also, in a round between two equal theory debaters or even a round where both debaters have competent theory blocks, theory turns into a crapshoot (which, by the way, is most theory rounds) so while I will do my best to sort through it that doesn't mean my decision won't be somewhat random.

Also, I guess most LD judges don't evaluate theory this way so I should point this out. If you only go for theory in the NR/2NR or 2AR then the affirmative/negative does not need a RVI to win the theory debate because the only offense at the end of the round is on theory which means that I am merely evaluating who did the better theory debating and not worrying about substance at all. The RVI only comes into play if there is a contestation of substance AND theory at the end of the debate.

Policy Paradigm:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. My main philosophy is it's your round not mine so do what you want. I think a lot of how I judge policy is probably transferred from LD so look there for good stuff. One caveat to that, if there is something that seems very specific to LD (like saying "we" for example) do not bring that into a policy context.

Obviously I have some caveats for that:

First and foremost is that LD is most of what I've debated and coached. Though policy kids have this outdated version of what LD is, there is now every argument in policy in LD also with extra stuff too! I am fine with speed etc. Don't worry about that but I'm still a LDer at heart so be prepared. I've been mostly coaching policy since 2018 or so meaning that I've caught on to a lot more of the nuances of policy debate. At this point I coach more policy than LD so this is changing.

The other important take away is that social conventions of what you can and cannot do in LD and policy are slightly different. For example, RVIs in LD are not joke arguments but made in almost any theory round (though I don't like RVIs in policy). LD does not have the concept of overviews in the same way as policy and what is considered "line by line" is very different. I've been able to figure out most of these biases but occasionally I'll mess up. Just be aware.

I default to reasonability on T and theory issues.

I don't know why this has become a thing but apparently people don't say AND or NEXT after finishing cards in the 1AC or 1NC. You still need to do that so that I know when to flow.

I just learned what this term means but apparently I judge kick if that matters to you (and I think I'm understanding the term correctly)

Utilitarianism is moral philosophy that evaluates the morality of actions based on the consequences. This means that small scale/structural violence impacts are utilitarian because we care about the consequence of structural violence. Stop saying these arguments are not utilitarian or answering them as if they are not utilitarian. They are.

Hey my name is Kat and I debated for IHHS for 4 years till my graduation in 2014.

I qualified to both NSDA nationals and the ToC, so I'm comfortable with speed or lack thereof.

I was mostly a traditional util debater and was not terribly fond of Ks, but will obviously listen to anything except flat ontology.

Kesha references in your speeches yield higher speaks, as does overall polite behavior and smart, clever strategy.

Theory, T, Plans, are all good. I've been out of the community for a year or so, so I'm not super aware of current trends - just something to be aware of.

I also competed often and to varying success in congress, extemp, and other I.E.'s and have judged pretty much every event in existence at this point.

Updated March 2023(note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview

I debated for Northland and graduated in 2014. Mostly competed in LD, but also did a bunch of other events and worlds schools debate for Team USA. Coached Northland for a bit, then Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, then I was the director of the MS speech and debate program at Harker for 3 years. Now, I'm in law school and an assistant coach for Harker.

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., ASEAN, NATO, WHO, etc.)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

2017 Parli Update: lol I did Parli at Cal. Policy, K's, performances, speed, etc it's all good.

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

2013:

I debated circuit LD for Mountain View High School, graduating in 2013. I am conflicted with Mountain View and Los Altos High School.

The following is a pretty concise, hastily put-together version of my paradigm, so if you have any questions at all, I encourage you to ask me questions prior to your round.

First and foremost, please debate how you are comfortable debating. A good debate is a good debate, whether it’s theory, larp or on the standards level. I do not aim to impose my debate views on you.

Speed is fine, but I was never the best flower, so PLEASE slow down on tag lines and card names. Reading tags at conversational speed will make me love you. I will yell “clear” or “slow” if needed.

I default to truth-testing, but will evaluate the debate with what ever paradigm is won. I don’t mind a deviation from the value criteria model of evaluating arguments, but I need some sort of link to the ballot (whether it be an a priori, K, theory or something else.)

For theory, I default to competing interpretations. If you run reasonability, please give me a threshold on what is reasonable. I will vote on frivolous theory and understand its strategic value, but if you can win without it, I'd prefer if you did so.

In general, I am open to most kinds of arguments, so long as they have a claim, warrant and impact. I debated the standards a lot in high school, so if you want to run metaethics/epistemology/ontology/etc arguments, I'm probably a good judge for that.

I try to gage speaker points on how much each debater contributed to creating a debate that I actually want to watch. If I'm cringing because you don't understand your case or are making key drops, you probably won't get high speaks. Taking risks and making clever responses will get you high speaker points. Also being nice kind of works too.

Kenny Johng
Updated 2/16/2019
I debated for 4 years at Grapevine High School
I debated my first semester for UC Berkeley

Some short points if you’re in a rush pre-round and don’t have time to read everything:

• What’s on your (and your opponent’s) flow/computer =/= what’s on my flow/computer. Clearly communicated arguments from you to me = what’s on my flow/computer
• I have judged 2 rounds on this topic and have no prior knowledge of it. Keep this in mind when making arguments pertinent to topicality or counterplan competition.
• Tech over truth most of the time
• Please keep track of your prep time
• Slow down when reading counterplan/plan texts

Meta:
I think that debate is an activity where communication skills are important. I understand/appreciate the long hours that y’all have probably put into cutting cards, writing blocks, producing files, etc but that has no relevance to me unless you are able to effectively communicate what you have prepared to me. If you think an argument is important, make sure to communicate that to me instead of unclearly spewing nonsense from your computer because chances are that I wont be able to flow it as well as you would like me to.

Additionally, I think debate should be a safe space. Be cognizant of the words that you say as your experiences might not be the same as your opponents/partner/judges. Your framework link should not be “personal experiences shouldn’t have a place in debate.” I think it’s important to understand that there are a lot of debaters who truly believe in the arguments they present in the round as it means something to them. Please respect that.


Concerning this year’s resolution:
The last time I debate was last fall (2014) on the college legalization topic. This means that I’m not going to understand your acronyms or slang/buzzwords that are specific to this topic. I’m not familiar with the topicality literature nor what the “common/core affs” are on this topic. So you reading off a bunch of affs that are “non topical” that the other team’s interpretation justifies probably means nothing to me.

Speaker points:
Things that you will be rewarded for: making smart, well researched arguments, making strategic in-round decisions, politeness to the other team and your partner, clarity/organization on the flow, humor

Things you will be punished for: making/saying morally repugnant things, lack of clarity/organization in the flow, being rude to the other team and/or your partner, stealing prep



Topicality/theory:
Please don’t let my previous disclaimer make you shy away from these debates. I like debates about debate. I think that the aff is in a better position if they win offense on this flow. That being said, I think topicality debates can definitely be won by the aff with a simple/good “we meet” argument. This is why I believe evidence quality on these debates are important. I tend to evaluate a T debate very similarly as to how I evaluate a Cp/da debate. Examples of this include: I don’t think all definitions/interpretations are mutually exclusive and thus a permutation is possible, Your interpretation must be able to resolve your own offense/standards at the bare minimum. On the topic of theoretical arguments, I think saying “reject the argument, not the team” makes sense to me unless argued otherwise.
***I’ve noticed that a lot of debaters tend to hit hyperspace when they are explaining their standards so please don’t do that.

Disads:
I don’t think “try-or-die” framing makes sense unless you have a specific reason why voting for you is able to mitigate your impacts. This also applies to case advantages.

Cp:
I think that knowing what the counterplan actually does is important in the debate. This means it is in your best interest to SLOW DOWN when reading the counterplan text. I tend to find myself really confused when the negative stands up in the block and reads 30 cards on the counterplan with no explanation of what it actually does.
I was a 2a in my latter parts of my debate career so I tend to be more sympathetic to the aff when there is a generic consult/conditions counterplan being read in the round but don’t let that deter you from reading this sort of argument. I’m not a fan of poorly thought out permutation arguments. So just because the negative answered your “perm do both” but not your “perm do the plan and the counterplan” does not automatically mean a neg ballot.

Kritiks:
With the exception of Virilio (I went for this a lot) and Neolib, I didn’t read a lot of kritiks. That being said, I find myself voting for the kritik quite often. I would say that link analysis/explanation is really important to me. And when I say link analysis I mean explaining, in a language I can understand, how your argument is related to the other team’s arguments/endorsements. I do not mean using a bunch of jargon and saying “the aff” in a singular sentence. I’m not very knowledgeable on high theory arguments and therefore will need a simplified explanation of these sorts of arguments. Feel free to ask me pre-round about how much I know about certain critical arguments you are thnking of reading in the round.

10/20/17 I did LD in high school and coached LD at Palo Alto High School while I was a student at Stanford.  Since graduating, I've worked at various legal and educational nonprofits, including my current role as the Director of Programs at Silicon Valley Urban Debate League. Although I competed mostly on the national circuit, and qualified for the TOC my junior and senior years, I have never competed in or coached policy, and as such I'll expect your standards and voters on any T or theory arguments to be **crystal** clear.   

The following is pasted from my existing judge philosophy on judging LD, and holds true for my adjudication of policy rounds as well:

I'm ok voting on just about any type of argument as long as it's warranted and its relevance to the ballot is explained. The best way to win my ballot is to be comparative and to prioritize arguments for me. Your arguments on weighing, decision calculus, etc. should write the ballot for my decision. Absent such explanation, I'll have to determine for myself how arguments interact. This comparison should not be entirely new in your last speech; if your argument was blippy/totally unwarranted the first time around, I probably won't buy huge new impacts that crop up in later speeches. That said, I would encourage you to use embedded clash and comparison of multiple arguments to be smart and efficient. Weigh early and often. 

I'm fine with critical arguments, provided they are well explained in terms of the link story and the ballot, and I'll vote on both prefiat and postfiat impacts (with the same requirements for critical args in general). If you're making arguments that appeal to my role or opinion as the judge, you should be extremely clear on how and why I evaluate the round they way you're asking me to.

I'm also fine with theory, though like any other argument it needs to be properly warranted and impacted. I default to a competing interps view of theory, though I'll look to reasonability arguments if they are well-developed and clearly won. If you run bad theory and/or clearly use it as a poor strategic ploy your speaks will definitely suffer.

Please only go as fast as you can be clear. I'm cool with most speeds so long as you are still clear, and I'll let you know once (twice if you're especially bad) if I need you to be clearer. Actually slow down and enunciate for card names, as well as tags and signposting. If you're you reading Deleuze and Guattari or something equivalently dense, you should probably slow down a notch or two for the substance of your case too.

For good speaks, make smart arguments and make them well, employ good strategy, and don't act like a jerk in CX. 

If you've got any other questions just let me know before the round.

Please add me on your email chains: jjkim96@gmail.com

THINGS TO KNOW WHILE FILLING OUT PREF SHEETS:

My background in debate:
2011-2014: Policy @ Lexington High School (Lexington, MA)
2015-2016: Policy @ UC Berkeley (Berkeley, CA)
2015-2020: Policy/LD/PF Coach @ The Harker School (San Jose, CA)
2020-Present: Not coaching, currently in grad school for Security Studies @ Georgetown University

I had the privilege of being debating under, debating with, and helping coach top-tier talents at top-tier teams that got to see much of the national circuit. I've been out of debate for a bit but I'm still deep in the security and policy literature.

My affinity for arguments, in order:
Disclaimer: the difference between 1 and 5 is far narrower than the difference between 5 and 6.

1) Policy/LARP (DAs, CPs, Impact turns, etc.)
2) IR Ks (Security, Fem IR), Marxist Ks (Cap, Neolib, Materialism, etc.)
3) Identity-based args (Pessimism, SetCol)
4) Postmodern Ks (Baudrillard, Bataille, Psychoanalysis, etc. - Deleuze is a 6)
5) T/Theory (notable exception: T vs Non-topical affs, which is a 2)

---[I'll happily judge and vote for everything above this line - everything below, I have a harder time following along]---

6) Modernist Ks (Nietzsche, Heidegger)
7) Phil
8) Frivolous theory/tricks

Reasons to pref me high:
- Your evidence is high-quality
- You are confident in your ability to extend and expand on your high-quality evidence
- You have multiple strategies for a given round (and you can go for any of them)
- You have one strategy that you know you are incredibly good at AND can explain it to someone who's not as familiar with it

Reasons to pref me low:
- You rely on a number of other factors that have little to do with the quality of your evidence and arguments (spreading out debaters, intimidating/shaming opponents, betting on opponents to drop something) to win the round
- You are significantly more knowledgeable in your literature than I am AND you feel that the judge should do a lot of work for you if the opponent drops some foundational theory about your lit base (do you read source lit for Ks? If so, you may be here)

THINGS TO KNOW FOR THE PEOPLE I AM JUDGING

This section is deliberately short.
If you'd like to know my background knowledge regarding and/or willingness to vote for any argument without tipping your hand to your opponent or have any concerns about the round re: safety/comfort, please send me an email or ask to speak to me privately before the round. I'll happily answer any questions you have to the best of my abilities. Seriously, email me; It’s a zero-risk option for you.

Here are some questions I’ve been asked before:
"My opponent has a history of clipping; how do you go about verifying and punishing it?"
”What were your favorite args to go for in high school/college?”
"Do you vote for RVIs on T?"
"How familiar are you with semiocapitalism?"
"What are your thoughts re: fairness as an independent impact to Framework?"
"My opponent has a history of making me uncomfortable in round. Could you keep that in mind as this debate occurs?

Other thoughts:
- I don't assume the worst of debaters when it comes to slips in language. That said, the bar is a lot lower if you misgender/misprofile people.
- Presumption is a non-starter in front of me. The likelihood of one side having zero risk of offense is low, but the likelihood of both sides having zero risk is impossible. Win your offense.
- Accusations of cheating (e.g. clipping, evidence ethics) are not theory violations. The round ends immediately and I decide on the spot.

Alta 2022 Judging Philosophy

Email: stevejknell@gmail.com

Education:

- DMA, University of Texas at Austin (2019)

- MM, University of Georgia (2013)

- BMus, University of Utah (2011)

Debate experience:

- Harvard Westlake School––Upper School LD Assistant; Middle School Head Coach (2014–2016)

- DebateLA––MS Parli and LD Instructor (2014–2016)

- Weber State Debate Institute––Director of LD Debate (2014)

- Wasatch Mountain Debate––Founder and LD Instructor (2013–2014)

- Rowland Hall-St. Marks––LD Coach (2013–2014)

- Bingham High School––LD Coach (2007–2011)

- Sun Country Forensics Institute––LD Instructor (2010–2011)

- Debated for Cottonwood High School––4A Utah State Champion in LD (2004–2007)

Foreword: I have judged a lot of circuit debates, but it’s been six years since I judged my last round. I’m not up-to-date on trends or new jargon in the activity, and otherwise rusty on jargon I knew in the past. You should probably not read at your top speed. I have not seen any rounds on the topic, nor coached/researched it.

TL;DR philosophy: I have over a decade of experience in LD and should be able to handle any style or argument you throw at me. I view resolutions as normative statements that are tested through some kind of evaluative standard––straight-up util, more nuanced meta-ethical frameworks, etc.––and offense which funnels through that standard. The rest is up to you, with a few exceptions:

- I will not vote on moral skepticism.

- This is new for people who know my philosophy:

o I don’t think judges have jurisdiction to evaluate the out-of-round implications of what happens in the debate. My ballot has no role except to inform the tab room of the winner of the debate.

o I also don’t think judges have jurisdiction to make an in-round decision about anything that might occur/might have occurred out-of-round. I will not vote for positions that ask me to evaluate people and not arguments.

- I will not vote for arguments endorsing or justifying any pernicious “-isms” or “-phobias,” like racism, homophobia, etc.

More things consider:

- Policymaking: These tend to be my favorite debates. Plans are great. Counterplans must be competitive and should probably negate the resolution. PICs are okay but I think they are generally bad and/or poorly executed arguments.

- Kritiks: Ks are fine, but these debates tend to be at once dense and poorly explained, and thus require good storytelling and clarity.

- T/Theory: I default to competing interpretations but will hear arguments to the contrary. Topicality and theory debates are, to my mind, the most boring variety, and uniquely challenging to judge, so I may not be the best judge for complex theory debates. High threshold for RVIs, especially for T; having said that, if the shell is clearly ridiculous and merely designed to suck your time so it can be kicked in the 2N, feel free to go hard for the RVI.

- Speed: It’s not my job to tell you how fast you should talk, but I’ve been out of the activity for years, so anything close to your top speed isn’t advisable. You’re responsible for my understanding of your arguments; if I miss a game-changing argument, you weren’t clear enough. I’ll say “clear” or “slow” twice; after that, you’re on your own. Overviews are excellent. Please don’t speak at any speed at which your opponent can’t understand what you’re saying.

- Speaker points: 27.5 is my guidepost for the "average" debater at a given tournament and I go up/down from there. I rarely go lower than 26.5 unless you are disrespectful. You can earn higher speaks through clarity, savvy strategic execution, good management of the macro-level of the debate (i.e., good storytelling), and respectful conduct.

- Presumption: Neg gets presumption, though you can always argue why that shouldn’t be the case. Please don't make me vote on presumption.

- Odds and ends: I have heard there are new arguments floating around asking the judge to decide the round after a speech which is not the 2AR––I will not vote for these arguments. Suspected evidence ethics violations must be flagged immediately, clearly verifiable, and will be a win-lose issue for both parties.

-Questions are fine, but I am wholly uninterested in arguing with you (or your coach) after the round.

Feel free to ask any questions you have, or shoot me an email before the round.

BIGGEST PET PEEVE: Don't give me cards. Literally I couldn't care less about cards. If one debater gave me 100 cards and another debater gave me zero cards yet analytically was able to defeat their opponent, I would vote for the debater who gave me zero cards. Why you ask? Because I never got the whole "Harvard Prof vs. Yale Prof" argument. 

Now, I quite literally could not care less about what you run. The more complex the debate, the more I enjoy it. Performance, Narrative, K's, CP's, PICs, Floating PIKs, PECs, Opp Costs, the whole 9 yards. I love all of them. Run them as much as you can. The crazier the stuff, the better. The more clash that there exists in a debate, the more likely I am to enjoy it, meaning the more likely I am to like you, meaning the more likely I am to vote for you. : D

Also I don't really care about speed, but don't expect me to stop you if you become unclear. I expect you to know whether you're being clear or unclear. I won't stop you no matter what you do.

Most important thing though: I vote for analytics, not evidence. Showing me you can analytically breakdown and dismantle a K or a contention is the best way to get me to vote for you. I'd like to say I'm a fairly tabula rasa judge, but if I can't vote directly off of the flow then I'll vote for the side that requires the least amount of judge intervention.

Benjamin Larson

*UNAFFILIATED*

Previous Affiliations:

1991-2005 Douglas HS Minden, NV

1995-2012 League/Tournament Official Northern Nevada Forensics League

2008-2011 Sage Ridge School Reno, NV (Founded Program)

2012 The Davidson Academy of Nevada Reno, NV (Founded Program)

Debating experience:

25+ years of competition and coaching. I’m comfortable with all levels of Policy and Lincoln/Douglas debate, as well as all Individual Events, although I favor Extemporaneous Speaking. (US/FX)

I’m generally a traditionalist when it comes to Policy. That means the Aff should have a plan, solvency, et al., and presumption goes neg from the beginning. I don’t want the round to devolve into a Kritik session as a result of that presumption though - don’t abuse presumption.

Regarding L/D, I feel that it should remain separate and apart from Policy in every way. That means No Plans, K’s, or other ‘Policy’ arguments if you want me to pick you up. People who win rounds offer a lot of on-case clash by either straight indictment of line-by-line analysis or cross-application of ideas from Case.

Purpose of Paradigm:

I want to give a flavor of what to expect in general terms - PLEASE ask specific questions prior to the round beginning. I’ll give you as straight-up an answer as possible. Too often students fail to take complete advantage of asking questions of the judge (any judge) and thusly miss out on a potentially enlightening dialogue.

Evaluative Practices and Views on Debate Round Logistics:

Prep Time:

This is a huge issue to me, as there are serious knock-on effects to tournament logistics.

Want to know why your team is still at the tournament at 1:00 A.M.?

Think about how much time you & your partner took to flash documents onto/off of drives during the round - in addition to the allotted prep time - and extrapolate that out for every round being run. These seemingly insignificant minutes quickly add up and are a part of why tournaments run behind.

Please know your tech. Please know your files. FLASH TIME = PREP TIME.

Regarding E-mail:

Technology, or more specifically the availability of technology to everyone, is a continually growing issue both locally and nationally. While many locales may choose to offer judges the capability to email documents, until the NSDA comes down from The Mountain with a definitive ruling, I have to err on the side of physical availability of evidence. Be ready to produce it upon request. (showing it to me on your screen is fine)

POINTS:

I’m usually more of a Point Fairy than Point Mizer. Unless you’ve said something offensive to/about your opponent or their heritage it’s not likely you’ll see low points. I have, in the past, given perfect points. I’m sure that I’ll do it again…when it happens is all up to you.

Predispositions on the Arguments:

Topicality: Absolutely critical. It’s a voter, and if you’re indicting it there had better be standards attached as an evaluative mechanism.

Theory: Counterplans and/or Kritiks: Yeah…theory. I have a problem with teams who want to run 16 minutes of Kierkegaard to indict the Aff.

This is lazy debate, and represents abuse of presumption by the neg.

You have obligations and responsibilities in-round to argue cogent, on-case analysis. To not do so is an offense to the respect of your opponents who took the time to put together what they believe to be a great affirmative. Argue it!

Affirmative Plans:

Again, a critical component to Policy Debate. This is one of the underpinnings of the entire event! AFF has a responsibility similar to the above described NEG - in this case to offer a plan of action which changes the Status Quo. How much, whom for, etc. then become the foundation the rest of the debate gets formed upon.

Performance:

This is a hard Circle to Square for me, as I’m weighing competing interests between individual self-expression and adherence to the Traditional. I think that there are ways to “perform” an AFF, although it should still contain the same basic ideas as a case being read - some evidence, citing of that evidence, argumentation, and logic pertinent to the topic.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

Policy: DA/Case debate, Topicality, Solvency

L/D: Evaluative mechanism for weighing Values, Value Criteria, NEG attacking case in the 1NC.

REMEMBER TO ASK QUESTIONS BEFORE THE ROUND!!!

*Updated on 4/21/18 while migrating to Tabroom. I'm revising this because my former paradigm was dated, not because of any significant changes to my judging philosophy.*

Background: I coach LD for the Brentwood School in Los Angeles. I competed in LD for Robbinsdale Cooper HS and Blake HS, both in Minnesota, from 2006-10. I studied philosophy, economics, and entrepreneurship at Northwestern University, graduating in 2014. I have judged several hundred circuit LD rounds, and plenty traditional rounds too.

Overall: I am a 'least-intervention' judge, and try my best to vote on the arguments in the round. Barring certain complicated extremes (i.e. offensive language, physical coercion), I vote for the best reason articulated to me during the debate. This involves establishing a framework (or whatever you want to call it - a mechanism for evaluation) for my decision, and winning offense to it.

Some implications/nuance to 'least-intervention' - a) I won't evaluate/vote on what I perceive to be new arguments in the 2NR or 2AR, b) I won't vote on arguments that I don't understand when they're introduced, c) I won't vote on arguments that I don't hear, and d) I won't vote on arguments you don't make (i.e. if your evidence answers something and you don't point it out)

Spreading: I think speed is overall bad for debate, but I will not penalize you for my belief. You should debate at whatever speed you want, granted I can understand it. If it's just me judging you, I will say clear / slow up to three times per speech. After three I will stop trying. The first two 'clears' are free, but after the third one I will reduce your speaker points by 2 for a maximum of 28. On a panel I will say 'clear' once, maybe twice, depending how the other judges seem to be keeping up.

Speaker points: holistic measure of good debating. I'm looking for good arguments, strategy, and speaking. I average around a 28.5. A 29.3+ suggests I imagine you in elimination rounds of whichever tournament we're at. I'm averaging a 30 once every four years at my current rate.

Loose ends:

- As of the 4/21/18 update, I do not need extensions to be 'full', i.e. claim / warrant / impact, especially in the 1AR, but I do expect you to articulate what arguments you are advancing in the debate. For conceded arguments, a concise extension of the implications is sufficient.

- If I think there is literally no offense for either side, I presume aff.

- I default to a comparative world paradigm.

- I default to drop the argument, competing interpretations, no RVI, fairness/education are voters.

- I will call evidence situationally - on the one hand it is crucial to resolving some debates, on the other hand I think it can advantage unclear debaters who get the benefit of judges carefully reviewing their evidence. I will do my best to balance these interests.

Feel free to contact me at erik.legried@gmail.com.

Updated 1/11/2021.

Background: I competed in NPDA parli at Berkeley 2011-2015. I debated both policy and critical, but many of my original positions were race/gender criticisms and I leaned heavily critical towards the end of my career. I now work for the USFG - mostly on economic policy, but previously on health and immigration policy.

I have judged a few times per year on the national circuit for the past five years, but have not judged this year. If you are having me at Mile High 2021, the last tournament I judged was NPTE 2020, so I have not judged virtually before. Therefore, if you get me in the first few prelims, you may want to go slightly slower than usual. I have not been involved in topic prep at all, so keep that in mind.

Generally, you should do what you want to do (as long as you aren't a jerk) because this is your time and I'm not volunteering my weekend and/or taking time off work to watch people be miserable.

Open to answering questions - message me on Facebook, preferably before prep time begins.

Condo: I have no preference.

Ks: I'm more familiar with race/gender-based criticisms. I don't understand pomo or psychoanalysis well. Feel free whether to defend the topic or not - I read a lot of nontopical affs. But will also vote on framework.

Theory: I was not a good theory debater, and don't have very nuanced views on theory compared to where the circuit has moved. But I seem to vote on it a decent amount.

Speaks: Aside from all the usual, you will get higher speaks if 1) you are not unnecessarily an asshole, 2) you say true things, 3) you sound like you want to be there.

Miscellaneous Observations:

- I enjoy the performative aspect of debate (not limited to "performance" arguments, and not limited to grandstanding).

- I enjoy original, creative arguments.

- I think debate is a fun game and that different people get different things out of it. I tend to think that one of the things with the most significant lasting impact is how we interact with other people in the activity. Which is not everyone must be nice all the time, but I hope people can be compassionate in the context of a competitive environment, while not shying away from confronting hard things.

I debated for four years on the national circuit in LD and then coached Lake Highland and several independent debaters from 2013-2017. I now judge sporadically.

Feel free to call me Terrence. If you have any questions, contact me at tlonam@gmail.com.

I think I'm in line with most general judge preferences, except that I won't vote on disclosure theory or evaluate disclosure as offense back to a counter-interp (i.e. having disclosed something won't be offense for your counter-interp). Also, I think I have a reasonably high threshold for extensions.

My default interpretation of the resolution is that it is a truth statement, and so any way that the aff or neg chooses to prove that truth or falsity is fair game. If you want me to evaluate the resolution a different way, that's fine too, this is just my default. I think I'm pretty center of the road argument-wise (i.e. if you want to read a pre-fiat performance aff, that sounds good, and if you want to go hard on tricks or phil, that's fine too). I think that debaters do their best when they do what they want to. Don't read a complicated philosophical AC in front of me if that's not what you want to do, I would much rather see you do a great job on util or the K if that's your thing.

Hey I did speech and policy in high school. Started off with the straight-up style but got to college and saw the rest. I'm better suited for K-style feedback but go with your heart on w.e you want.

I'll evaluate every argument. The debate room can be a fun place so feel free to throw some humor into your speeches. Videos and dank memes are cool.
On an unrelated note, bringing granola bars or some snackage would be appreciated. I don't care much for soft drinks though. In other words please feed me nice food because in-round picnics make everyone's day. <--

What you care about:
Please don't make judges do the work for you on the flow. If you don't do the line-by-line or clearly address an argument, don't get upset if I reach an unfavorable conclusion. Reading me cards without providing sufficient analysis leaves the purpose a bit unclear.

T
Aff- reasonabilty probably has my vote but I can be persuaded to vote for creative and convincing non-topic-related cases.

Neg- Get some substance on the flow. T should not be a go-to-argument. I hate arguments dealing with "should", "USFG", etc and you should too. Impact out the violation. Simply stating that the team is non-topical and attaching some poorly explained standards will not fly or garner support. On K affs remember you can always go further left as an option.

Theory- Typically a pretty boring discussion but if it's creative I'll approve. If you notice yourself thinking "I wish I were reading something else" then it's a clear sign I wish you were too. Remember to slow down on those analytics though- hands cramp.

Case
Aff
Being able to cite authors and point to specific cards = speaks. (same for neg)

Neg
Throw some case defense at the end of your 1nc after you do your off-case arguments. Aff has to answer them but you already know that. Reading through aff evidence and showing power tags or misuse is great.

Da
Aff- if you can turn this in some way then you'll be fine. Point out flaws in the Link story when you can. Figuring out a solid internal link story might be a good idea.

Neg
Internal links will only help you. Let's avoid generic stuff.

CP
Aff
You need to show that it's noncompetitive and you can perm or that their argument just sucks.

Neg
Show a net benefit and how you solve the impacts. Furthermore show how your cp is awesome.

K
Aff
Explain: how case doesn't link, perm, or alt doesn't solve or do anything. Weigh your impacts if appropriate. If the neg is misinterpreting an author and you sufficiently illustrate his/her message, then you'll be doing well in the round.

Neg
I like K's a lot. Hopefully will know what's up. Just explain your story clearly (seriously). Stunt on em.

Side note for everyone: In round actions are easy performative solvency to weigh btw

Performance
Aff
It's going to come down to how well you can explain the impact you are addressing with your performance and the solvency story under framework.

Neg
I suppose you can do framework or T if you have nothing else but try and interact because the aff team will be prepared. Or if you want to go down this route it's cool. Swayed by creativity though.

tl;dr yeah, you can go fast

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: jrmartin707@gmail.com

--

Debated in college for UC Berkeley, have coached high school and college teams at local and TOC levels, etc. Doing a bit of occasional coaching and judging now but I'm not plugged into the circuit hardcore; 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 have fun. Otherwise, here’s some things you probably want to know:

- My own argumentative evolution has been from a pretty exclusively K debater early on to almost all policy work 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, even though they're definitely different, 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. My favorite debates to judge are: huge in-depth case throwdowns, techy aff-specific counterplan debates, K on K clashes that are grounded in true disputes in the literature, impact turn debates (on the case or against a DA/K), and well-executed topicality debates.

- I do fundamentally believe that framework is true and debate would be better if people read plans, not that that means I exclusively vote negative in those debates. Predictability and debatability sound like pretty important things to me, and I think most aff framework counter-interps do not develop a feasible role for the negative and what neg prep should look like in their version of debate, but that doesn't mean any given neg team executes properly. I think like most everyone I’d rather here some clever unique strategy, but I dislike the dichotomy that framework isn’t a “substantive” argument and that the negative “didn’t engage the aff” by reading it. It's a good argument. 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.

- I’m generally unpersuaded by arguments along the lines of “the permutation/framework/etc. is violence/stealing our advocacy/etc.”, arguments that the negative doesn’t have to disprove the affirmative, purely nihilistic alternatives, and K 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" style stuff. I think the other team needs like a ten second defense of "you can only critique stuff we actually said" and I'm checked out.

- I have relatively few strong predispositions about common theory arguments; conditionality is probably fine but not necessarily, etc. I'll be 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.

- Evidence comparison, and calling out your opponent’s terrible, terrible evidence for what it is, is both extremely important and probably the best way to rack up your speaker points, alongside detailed impact calculus. The best ways to hurt your speaker points are to be a jerk to your partner, to get angry for no reason in cross-ex, and to spend your whole speech behind your laptop not paying any attention to the judge's reactions. Try to be a kind person who knows their stuff and the rest will follow.

- Because so many debates start with the question, "Can we do open CX?", 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 your speaker points if you each look organized and have mastery of your material.

Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:

https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

 

I debated for Oakwood (not the one in LA) in California.
Short Version:

• I don't judge often, so I'm not familiar with topic lit
• It is in your best interest to not go your fastest
• Theory is not my forte

Speed: I can handle spreading, but please don’t go full blitz at me. I will yell clear 3 times before I start dropping speaks. Also, if you’re spreading just to scare your opponent and refuse to explain your case, I’ll drop speaks.
Extensions: I have a high threshold for extensions, so please extend your arguments fully or I won’t consider them extended.
Theory: I’m not a giant fan of theory, but just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean I won’t vote for it. The way I see it, theory should be run as a check on abuse or somewhat obvious potential abuse. I'm pretty much in tune with the norm on how most people view theory.
That is:
-I default to competing interps unless told otherwise
-I default to drop the arg not the drop the debater
-I like to see specific interpretations/violations/whatnot. If you're extemping a theory shell, make it as clear as possible.
-I meet with some sort of reason is a perfectly reasonable response to a shell
That being said, if you're a theory debater, I'm not the judge for you.
Skep: why
Kritiks: I really enjoy kritiks! As long as your prove a clear link to resolution, I’ll be a happy judge.
Framework: I default to a utilitarian worldview if nobody tells me differently. I enjoy engaging framework debates and philosophical discussions. Judging util-deont deadlocks in which each debater is reading generic dumps is not my favorite thing. Make it exciting.
Intervention: I honestly prefer not to intervene. However, I will intervene if neither debater has done enough work to warrant a vote. Also, I won't blindly vote on an unwarranted argument (even if it goes conceded).
Speaks: I won’t give less than a 26 unless your argument was offensive or you were incredibly rude during the round. Most debaters will fall in the 27-29 range.

Lots of weighing is a great way to get my ballot. I believe in voting on the flow. That being said, please be organized as you debate. Few things frustrate me more than debaters who don't signpost or tell me where they're going.
Most importantly, have fun! Feel free to ask me any questions      

edited: no text

I don't have any strong argumentative preferences. I don't think a dropped argument is true if I don't understand what the argument is.

 

LD: I've never debated or coached this format. It doesn't make any sense to me. I don't care about most of the theory arguments introduced. 

This is just a basic overall paradigm, feel free to ask me more specific questions during a round.

I have experience competing in college for the last few years in Parli and LD and I.E's. I've judged for the last few years of high school policy, LD, PF, Congress, some I.E's, and Parli.

I'd like to consider myself a flow judge meaning that I will examine every argument and evaluate the debate based on what is on the flow.

That being said I usually follow the rules of each syle of events whenever I'm judging unless I'm told otherwise in the debate as for examples why rules are bad.

In terms of speed/spreading, I'm ok with it since I can keep up with it. That being said I care more about accessibility into the round, meaning if you're going too fast for your opponents and they try clearing you or telling you to slow down, it is probably a good idea to try and adjust your speed in those situations.

I'm open to any type of argument. My only preference is that arguments are impacted out in the round. I'm a lazy person by nature and like to do the minimum amount of work, meaning I prefer when teams tell me exactly where and what to vote for on my flow. Don't assume I know which arguments you are going for at the end of the debate. I also tend to protect against new arguments in the final speeches. Additionally, treat me as someone who has no sense of direction and needs to be given clear instructions to any destinations that you need me to go to.

And finally, don't be jerks to your opponents.

So the bottom line is to do whatever you'd like to do, have fun and throw in a joke or 2, even make references to anime, European football, or anything for that matter.

Affiliations/Judging conflicts: Harvard-Westlake, Marlborough
I debated for four years at Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles, qualifying to TOC thrice. I now coach for Marlborough.
If you have questions, email me at mdokrent@gmail.com

Short version:
I like hearing well-developed, supported, smart arguments. This can include philosophy, t or theory, Ks, plans, CPs, DAs, etc. Form doesn't matter a huge amount to me. Just steer clear of my landmines and make good arguments: your speaks and win record will show it.

Flashing/emailing is on prep time.

Traditional Policy stuff: yes
Theory: yes if there’s real abuse.
Philosophy (almost all sorts): yes
K: yes
Shenanigans: no
Performance: yes

Do I say clear? Yes.
How many times? Until you get clear or it becomes clear that you're ignoring me.

Mandatory scary stuff:

Landmines: The following things are not ok in debate. I WILL INSTANTLY DROP YOU FOR:
-Religious/theistic arguments *I don't think very many (if any) other judges hold this prohibition, so I want to emphasize that I do hold it, and I will hold you to it.*
-moral skepticism (unless the topic specifically mandates it, like the Nov-Dec 2011. I'll specifically note it at the top of my paradigm if one of these comes up.)
-presumption (if you tell me I should ignore substance to vote on presumption. I might presume if there is legitimately no offense but I will do everything in my power not to.)
-any argument that is “triggered” in a later speech. If you defend it, you must say so in your first speech
-biting the bullet on something atrocious like genocide, rape, mass murder, etc. (That is, openly acknowledging that your framework would not condemn something like this. Simply arguing that your opponent’s framework can’t condemn genocide will not be a reason to drop them.)
-an a priori (these are arguments that say that the resolution is true or false for linguistic/semantic reasons and don't link to a framework. Despite debaters' best efforts to hide them, a prioris are pretty easily visible.)
-blatantly lying in cx
In general, be honest. I won’t instantly drop you for anything not on this list, but if you pull tricks or are generally sketchy I will be pissed. My stance on this is pretty similar to Chris Theis’.



The following arguments I will not listen to, but will not drop you for the sole reason that you ran one of them (you can still win elsewhere on the flow). I will not vote on:
-any argument that is not normative, like ought implies can or ought means logical consequence.
-theory arguments against an interp in the AC are counterinterpretations/defense only


Things I dislike but will vote on if you win them by a wide margin (either they're conceded or you crush):
-Competing interps requires a counterinterpretation.
-Affirmative “ethics” choice (When the aff gets to pick the standard/value criterion – distinct from AFC as run in policy, which I am ok with)
-Meta-theory comes before “regular” theory. OK to run a “meta-theory” shell and weigh impacts, but I don’t believe that meta-theory exists differently than theory. One sentence in a theory voter will not convince me otherwise.
-Anything that would have me take an actual action other than judging. (It takes a really good reason to make me not be lazy. I might vote for the position and ignore the action anyway.)

And a bunch of theory shells fall into this category too. If you run one of these shells, I will be skeptical and probably find the most stock responses persuasive. I'll vote on it, but you'll have to do lots of work and win it by a lot:
-Must run/not run framework
-Must run/not run plan/counterplan (inc. plans bad)
-Must run/not run kritik (noticing a theme?)
-Must run/not run DAs, etc.
-Can't have both pre- and post-fiat impacts
-Can't make link/impact turns (yes, people actually run this shell)
-Negatively worded interps bad ("Must have positively worded interp" for the formalists)
-Neg must defend the converse

LD Paradigm -- substantial revisions April 2018:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9uh69u3gaqcoh22/LD%20Paradigm.docx

LD Judging Record:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6yyg8kg6n0elx6d/LD%20Judging%20Record.xlsx

Policy Paradigm:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8r16qjhhzyfyb4g/Policy%20Paradigm.docx

I debated policy and LD at Lynbrook for 4 years and also some NPDA parli at UCLA. The best thing in debate for me was to have a critic with an open mind and the ability to listen to anything. I'll try to be this critic and always make my rfd based on how you tell me to frame the round provided.

T
I'm a huge fan of good T debates but please signpost well and slow down from your top speed.

Theory
Have an interpretation and articulate voters early in the round. The more time you spend on theory in the constructives, the more comfortable I'll be pulling the trigger.

CP/DA
I often went for agent cp/ptx as the 2N and believe that counterplan+disad strategy is one of the best answers to most policy affs. If you're reading politics, make sure to win the uniqueness debate and have solid evidence.

K
Ask me about specific K lit before the round but I've read most of the popular authors used in debate. Please warrant your arguments and focus on articulating how the alternative functions in relation to the affirmative. The K should interact with the case at a substantive level by turning some of the internal links. Also, most K debates come down to the perm so win and use the framework debate to your advantage.

Hello name is RK Perati.  I have judged at many lay tournaments.

Theory: Don't run 

Kritiks: Don't run

Disads: Don't run

Counterplans: Don't run

Plans: Don't run

Complex Frameworks: Don't run

Spreading: Please don't do this

I like good evidence, especially evidence applicable to the real world.  Try to communicate effectively, and most of all have fun!

Parli Philosophy:

I debated for the University of the Pacific. NPTE attendance: 4. #2 in the nation two years in a row.

I've been out of debate for almost 3 years now so I'm not as great as flowing as I used to be. Be clear.

I love theory but apparently people are forgetting to put voters on them so don't make that mistake please and thank you.

I need impact calc in the rebuttals: Why should I prioritize your arguments? Probability, magnitude, timeframe
Humor is great, be funny. Jokes are good. Just not offensive ones, that's not okay at all.

Do what you want have fun I'm here to type the things you say.

In an LD debate I will not flow more than 3 off case arguments!

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING

Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

Parli Paradigm

Background

Currently Washington HS head coach.

I did parli and LD in high school, NPDA and BP in college, and I've been a debate coach since 2012.

High school teacher - economics, government, history.

Pronouns - he

Approach to judging

- I vote for a team that has more offense in the end of the round; defense almost never wins rounds.

- I will typically vote on one specific argument which I come to believe is the biggest issue in the round rather than on a wholistic evaluation of your round performance. Use your rebuttal to tell me what that argument should be.

- If an argument could have been run out of the first constructive, don't wait until your second constructive to run it – this creates a truncated discussion of an argument. I will be sympathetic to PMR turns against new arguments coming out of the Opp Block. In short, each argument needs to be made on the first opportunity to make that argument.

- If there is new offense coming out of a second constructive which could not have been run out of the first constructive, I will cross-apply and weigh MOC arguments against PMR responses myself in order to offset the Gov getting the last word.

- I am not a fan of splitting the Opp Block, but I don’t think MOC and LOR should be identical. The LO doesn’t need to extend non-essential defense if the MO already made the responses. I give LOR some leeway on extensions: simply referencing an argument is fine, you don’t need to spend too much time extending MO warrants. In general, LOR should briefly extend chief pieces of offense and crucial defense and spend most of the time on big picture argument comparison.

- If an argument is unclear the first time I hear it, I won’t vote on extensions which clear it up.

- I do not require a Point of Order to strike a down a new argument. In a lot of cases, however, an argument is borderline new, and in these cases, I will typically give the speaker the benefit of the doubt unless a POO is called.

- I prefer that argument extensions extend the warrant, not just the tagline.

- I will not vote on blips. The best - though not the only - way to ensure your argument isn’t a blip is to structure it.

- I prefer arguments that rely on common knowledge and logic. If there is a factual dispute, I will resolve it using my own knowledge or, if necessary, Google.

Argument preferences

- I like positional cases. This means that the Gov should have a specific plantext for policy resolutions or a thesis for fact/value resolutions. I welcome specification theory on vague plans.

- I enjoy listening to critical arguments with a clear and realistic alternative made by debaters who have read the philosophy behind them. I resent Ks that are intentionally obscurantist and meant to confuse opponents who don't have a background in critical debate.
"Reject" alternatives are mostly dumb. I prefer critical arguments to contain policy alternatives. Reading a K does not exempt you from the need to engage with your opponents' arguments. I don't like lazy generic links (e.g. "their actor is the government, so they're capitalist!") – adapt your K to the specific issues discussed in the round, don't just regurgitate arguments you dug up from policy backfiles. Reading a K also does not exempt you from the need to make quality warrants - just because some French philosopher agrees with you does not mean that you are right.

- For offense coming out of the PMC to be unique, it has to link to the resolution. For offense coming out of subsequent constructives to be unique, it has to link to either the resolution or to something the other team said.

- I prefer arguments that do not hinge on the identity of the debater or of their opponent. People should not have to out themselves in rounds.

- I am open to arguments that theory should be a reverse voting issue if the team that introduced the theory argument loses the argument. I default to reasonability over competing interps.

- Unless there is a debate over the round framework, I default to net benefits – specifically, the terminal impacts of death, dehumanization, and quality of life.

- Counterplans are very strategic. I don’t think the Opp should be able to fiat alternative actors, though I won’t go so far as to intervene against that. I prefer counterplans to be unconditional, and I default to assuming that they are unconditional unless you explicitly state some other status right after reading the counterplan text. The same goes for other Opp advocacies.

Presentation preferences

- Moderate speed is fine if it is used to present more in-depth arguments, but using speed as a tool to exclude your opponents from the round is not okay. If you try doing that in front of me, you will lose. If you want to go fast, take a lot of clarification POIs. If your opponents are going too fast, yell "Clear!" If your opponents or judges yell "Clear!" you should repeat the sentence you said right before that, and then either start enunciating better or slow down.

- Slow down on advocacy texts (plans, counterplans, theory interps, et cetera). I prefer that you give your opponents a written copy of your advocacy text. Lack of a stable advocacy text is a recipe for a messy round.

- I have a strong aversion to unnecessary jargon and intentional obfuscation. If your use of jargon makes it difficult for your opponents to engage with your arguments, I will disregard your arguments even if I myself am familiar with the jargon you are using.

- I will flow each argument (advantage, disad, framework, et cetera) on a different piece of paper. When signposting, indicate clearly when you are moving on to a new argument. Tell me in which order I should arrange my papers in a roadmap; roadmaps are not timed. Do not include any information in your off-time roadmap other than argument order. Don't give PMC roadmaps.

- I prefer teams to take at least two POIs per constructive speech. On top of that, if the tournament doesn't allow POCs, you should take clarification POIs after reading an advocacy text, or you will open yourself up to various specification arguments.

- Please avoid whispering to your partner during your opponents' speeches - it can get very distracting. Instead, pass notes.

- Tag teaming should be kept to a minimum. Pass notes.

- Don't go over time in your speech. I stop flowing when the timer beeps. As soon as your opponent is done speaking, you should give a quick roadmap and then start your speech. Don't stall so that you can prep your speech.

- On parli decorum (pre-speech thank-you’s, shaking everyone’s hands after the round, etc) – I am not a fan. I won’t prohibit it, I just think it’s pointless.

LD: If you are a typical circuit debater, do us both a favor and strike me. If, however, you run cogent, warranted, impacted, and meaningful arguments that you understand, I'm your judge. I can flow/understand relatively fast debate, so that's not an issue as long as your diction is clear. Theory arguments should be a rare exception in rounds and only if one side does something so egregious (like having a standard that the other side has no way of accessing) that the debate can't logically proceed in a fair manner. I will not vote on offensive theory and if your opponent runs an education voter against you if you do, I'll vote for your opponent. I'm not a solely "traditional" judge in the sense that I'm fine with Ks and alternative debating, and I believe that the value/criterion structure muddles more rounds than it clears up but I'm OK with it and most of the rounds I judge have V/Cs in them.

Congress: I was a legislative staffer in the US House of Representatives and believe that Congressional Debate should be a good training ground for future public servants. Thus, I take the event seriously and consider it more of a debate than a speech event. I flow and I look for clash, and both analytical and empirical warrants. It's about quality of presentation over quantity for me, so don't feel obligated to get in the maximum number of speeches unless they're good. Decorum, integrity, and leadership are important to your gaining high ranking on my ballot.

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Background: I debated at Edina High School in Minnesota and UC Berkeley. While debating, I won the Harvard Costume Contest twice, placed third once, and won the University of Minnesota Debate No Shave November contest while I was still in high school. So yes, I am qualified to judge your debate.

I'll work hard to evaluate the round based only on the arguments presented. Everything below should be considered a bias that can be overridden through good debating.

**update for Fullerton 2017: Before this tournament, I have judged zero debates on the college topic. 

 

Top level:
- Absolute defense is possible

- I will not default to calling cards - this is a response to a team challenging the quality of evidence or my inability to resolve an argument without looking at them

- status quo > aff > 2NR advocacy is a reason to vote aff

- I default to rejecting the argument on theory questions

- Arguments consist of a claim and a warrant (but clarity determines whether I evaluate them in the first place)

- I will not evaluate arguments that are new in the 2AR

- High school only: I really hate all the time wasting that happens in these debates - please take the time before the debate to set up the email chain, the podium, whatever. As part of this, I have a very strong preference for 8 minutes of prep rather than 10.

 

Misc. thoughts about different types of arguments: 

Theory/Topicality:
I'm consistently confused by what exactly teams mean by reasonability so if you're going for it please take time to explain. 

Counterplans:
CPs that do the entirety of the aff/result in the entirety of the aff through changing the process (like recommendations CPs) are likely not competitive.

Ks:
I'm not very compelled by role of the ballot claims when distinct from larger framework type arguments.

Advantages/Disadvantages:
These are poorly constructed and I am very compelled by people pointing that out.  

Affs that don't defend the resolution:
I would have a difficult time voting for an affirmative that doesn't defend the resolution if framework were competently extended by the neg.

Misc:
- The one exception to "my biases can be overridden" is being a jerk - please don't be mean!

They/Them

Programming & Operations Coordinator for Denver Urban Debate League / Editor-in-Chief Champions Brief LD

For online rounds please put me on the chain. Email: DSSQ62@gmail.com

Been around debate for 20 years (4 years as a competitor the rest coaching). I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. I can understand spreading at high speed unfortunately time is catching up to me and I can’t write/type as fast as I once could so I'll say clearer or slower a few times as needed in order to make sure I can actually flow what’s necessary.

*Slow down a bit for online debates. I flow off what i hear. Sound issues inevitably pop up and while I may have the doc just in case; this isn't an essay contest.

Lincoln Douglas

I'll evaluate the round based on how I flow it so run what you want for specifics see below. Please ask me questions if you want to know more.

Framework

I judge a lot of util debates which is fine but I'm up for any kind of framework debate. I like a good complicated Phil heavy round. Skep debates are sorely lacking nowadays so I'm all for them. Haven't heard a good skep round in awhile. Don't be afraid to run nihilistic frameworks in front of me. If you can warrant it and defend it I'll listen to it (so long as it's not racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic).

K's:

Run them please. Admittedly I'm more familiar with classical K literature like cap, bio power and some psychoanalysis. I enjoy a good postmodern Phil round but that doesn't mean I won't listen to other K's. Identity K's and stuff like that are totally fine but make sure you're really clear on the link and alt level. K aff's are fine as long as they can win reasonability on T.

Topicality:

I default to reasonability it's hard for me to say there is an objective limit on the topic when language has multiple meanings. Have good interps. Warranted interps that have an internal justification for why they're true will probably be better than a random dictionary. Random violations that you know your opponents meet but you run them anyway as a time suck are bad. I likely won't buy a contested RVI but a good I meet is probably enough for aff's to avoid any offense on T for me. T violations function as a gateway issue. If the aff isn't topical they likely will lose especially if there is a topical version of the aff. If the aff can give me a good warranted reason why they don't need to be topical I'll vote on it. The standards debate is important if you're gonna go for T you need to go all in and spend time here really explaining why your interpretation creates the best model/the aff isn't debatable.

Theory:

Not my favorite but necessary at times. It's structured the same as topicality and starts with a "T" but theory isn't T. I default to drop the argument in less you tell me otherwise. Theory comes immediately before the layer in which it is criticizing unless you tell me otherwise. Frivolous theory is real, it's when you could easily answer arguments but decide to read theory. This shouldn't be your go to in front of me but I will vote on it if you win it. I'll listen to RVIs on theory but it takes an awful lot of work or the other debater just dropping it for me to vote on them. Better route is just answer the theory quickly and get to substance.

CPs & DAs

Yes please. Make sure you have an explicit CP text with a solvency advocate. Debaters jump from links to impacts really quick nowadays. Don't forget about internal links. They help tell stories in the 2AR/NR. Conditionality is probably fine in front of me but I think anything beyond testing the aff once methodologically and once pedagogically (one CP and one K) is getting abusive.

*Tech over truth only goes so far. If your technically true argument is morally repugnant don't expect me to vote for it. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or transphobic that's likely gonna be an auto loss.

2019 Update: I only judge 1-2 tournaments a year so please bear that in mind.

I debated for four years for Immaculate Heart High School in Los Angeles, CA from 2010 to 2014. I went to TOC my senior year.

Theory/T: Fine with me. I think theory/T is a great strategic tool but if you run it just to mess with your opponent and the round goes terribly I won't be very happy. I default to competing interps, drop the argument, and no RVI's absent those arguments being made.

Please be super clear on how you want me to evaluate things. Spend time weighing and explicitly stating how I should vote.

Kritiks: Also fine with kritiks. If its really complex, make sure you explain it. If I don't understand it, I won't vote off of it.

Policy Args: Also fine with me. Do a lot of impressive weighing, and get higher speaks.

Skep/Permissibility/Presumption: Not a big fan but if you win the argument, I will vote off of it.

Micropol: Not the greatest fan. Ask me about the specific position before the round.

Speed: I'm fine if you go fast but you're going to need to go a lot slower than your fastest because I haven't flowed since VBI 2016. I will say slower around 3-5 times before I give up.

If you have any questions, you can ask me before the round.

Hello! My name is Richard Shmikler. I graduated St. Louis Park in 2013 and Macalester College in 2017. I debated for 4 years in HS in LD, ending my senior year with 11(?) bids, finalist at TOC and finalist at NSDA Nationals, champion of Victory Briefs, Blake, Dowling, etc. I have been coaching ever since - all levels of LD from local to circuit, and PF primarily in China and a little in the US. My students have won major tournaments in the US and abroad, including NSDA China Nationals, Apple Valley, and Minnesota State.

I think debate is a sandbox game where you can create the round you want with limited control by rules or influence by adults. I will avoid intervening as much as possible. There is no debate style that I think is far superior or inferior, and will do my best to evaluate any arguments made. That being said, generally my order of preferences in terms of the debates I like to judge are...

Framework/Phil > Stock > LARP (policy-esque) > T/Theory > Gamey Creative Stuff (some might call tricks) > Topical K's > Pre-Fiat / Performance

Basically, go for whatever style you do best, and be respectful of everyone. If you are impacting, weighing, crystalizing, and winning on the line-by-line, you will get my ballot with high speaks.

I also save my flows from rounds, so if you have any additional questions, want to do redos, or want to grill me about my decision, you can email me at rshmikler@gmail.com.

PS: I think that 'swag' and 'flow' in debate are awesome and I will reward students who show mastery of their style and arguments - regardless of what that style is - with high speaks.

This is basically for LD only, I have a much more specific philosophy for Parliamentary and Policy. In short: I am an anti-interventionist judge. I will attempt to evaluate every argument made before me in the round, and I will not insert my own views of debate or of the world to interfere with that. I have 6 years of varsity level debating experience and currently do parliamentary debate at the University of Oregon.

SHORT VERSION: Essentially, do what you want. Also, feel free to just call me Daniel, not judge. 

1. Theory: feel free to read it in front of me, will vote on it if there are impacts to it. 

2. Kritik: feel free to read it in front of me. Read your craziest kritik of all time, I'll listen to it. Break your new K in for the first time against me, I want to hear it. Run your experimental performance about drinking chocolate milk and dancing on the table while reading poetry. As long as you give me a way to evaluate your argument in the round, I WILL listen to it and evaluate it as such. 

3. Speed: Im comfortable with any level of speed, I'll be able to flow the round regardless. If I can't understand you, I'll likely shout "CLEAR" really loud at you.

4. Organization: I'm a flow judge through and through. However, subpoints in your 1AC and 1NC are probably a good idea for the sake of the organization of the round as a whole. A lot easier to respond to arguments directly this way and keeps my flow more organized. 

 

 

More specifically:

Theory: Feel free to read theory in front of me. I am not opposed to voting on theory if the position is not responded to adequately. As long as you give me an interpretation of your theoretical objection, some standards through which to evaluate the position, and impacts as to why it's a voter, theory can be a voting issue for me. Unlike others on this site, I won't list "good" and "bad" theory arguments; I don't think that kind of value judgement is needed in debate. If you read theory, no matter what it is, I'll listen. When responding to theory, always provide a counter-interpretation, and some counter-standards to evaluate your counter-interp through. Your response to a topicality, for example, should be more than "Gut check, judge. Do we seem topical? I think so." 

Kritik: I am more than comfortable with the K debate: chances are I have heard of your critical theorist, but in case I'm not, its always smart to offer a thesis statement at the top of your K shell. I'm most DEFINITELY the judge to read your crazy criticism against. Read your new K that you've never read before in front of me. Impact it out fully, clearly explain the ways in which they link. I prefer topic specific links for your K which gives it a little more uniqueness, however generic links are ok so long as they are well-warranted and articulated. Lastly, answer K's with offense. Putting entirely defensive arguments on a K guarantees a good K debater will run you into the floor. Link Turns are the way to go. Multiple, multiple link turns. 

Speaker Points: Typically 26-30. You've got to be pretty bad to warrant me giving anything less than a 25. At the same time, you've really got to sparkle in order to get a 30. 

In the final speeches: The best way to win in front of me is to clearly explain why you are winning the argument you're going for, and what impact that argument has. Impact weighing with final rebuttals is a must, too many debate rounds nowadays end with odd summaries of the line by line debate that don't fundamentally resolve the key issues in the round. Walk me through the ballot, literally say, "Daniel, you can pull the trigger and sign aff/neg because _____". 

 

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

hey all, i'm john spurlock. i debated for ckm for four years and currently debate for uc berkeley. when i used to do prefs, i was looking to answer four questions about the judge, so i'm just going to ask and answer those four questions as best i can.

1. is this person qualified/experienced enough to judge my debate?
well this is up to you, but i've been in policy debate for five years and had a lot of rounds at high levels of competition. i have some solid experience, and i've thought about debate a lot. i can't guarantee that i am qualified or experienced enough to judge your debate, but i can assure you that i feel qualified and experience enough to judge your debate (if that means anything lol).

2. is this person fine with the type(s) of argument(s) that i read in debates?
almost assuredly yes, i am convinced there is value in almost every form of debate and every type of argument. short of blatantly offensive argumentation, i am willing to consider almost every position that an aff or neg team might introduce. i've read framework, read no-plan affs, gone for politics, the k, etc. how you debate is so much more important than what you are debating about. i don't think there is any team that should not prefer me because of a certain type of argument that they make.

3. how does this person go about deciding debate rounds?
my process is slightly different for every debate that i judge, but i think there is an overall trend in my process based on the debates i've judged so far. i want to vote on arguments that are in the 2nr/2ar that i can easily trace back to previous neg/aff speeches. after the debate ends, i go through my flow and make a list of the key arguments from the 2nr and the 2ar in the debate. i put this on a separate sheet from my flow and try to assess (a) what i think the other team has said against this key claim, (b) whether it is new, (c) who wins this point, and (d) what impact this claim has on the debate. from here, i find myself able to render my decision.

4. what are the special things about this judge that i need to be aware of?
i'm probably like most judges in most ways, but i will include a few short facts here.
(a) i will probably flow on paper.
(b) i will almost assuredly not call for cards unless to settle a factual question. i will not call for cards in 98% of debates. i will not call for cards if you say "our evidence is good on this question." you need to explain to me why your evidence is good. you need to explain to me why their evidence is bad. i will not reward debaters who use cards as a substitute for argumentation.
(c) i need every speech that you give to be clear enough such that i can discern every word that you say. this includes the text of your cards. if i cannot understand you due to a prioritization of speed over clarity, you will suffer in speaker points and in terms of what arguments i count. this is related to point (b) in that the only way to prevent people from lying about the content of their cards is to be clear enough such that i can hear your cards.
(d) i place a high value on filtering and framing arguments in all styles of debates. your setting up a smart, strategic lens for how i evaluate the debate (and the impacts in the debate) can cause me to place a lesser weight on particular arguments even if you are not winning every single argument on the flow.

A little background:
I was an LD and Policy debater at CSU Sacramento from 2012-2015. As a policy debater I was a 1A/2N. As a debater, I have run most arguments including high theory on the AFF and NEG, please feel free to run any argument.

That being said, I will address important questions here, as they arise:
CPs - I really love specific CP's that make a concerted/evidenced attempt to subsume some specific aspect of the aff. If you go and cut one of your opponent's solvency articles and made a CP out of it, I'm gonna think that you're at least relatively awesome.

Disads - I love them, but think it's kind of silly that they've turned into a "who can read more cards" contest. I think smart analytical arguments are incredibly valuable/underrated and, although I do not read evidence if I can manage, would prefer to hear two pieces of wonderfully specific & warranted link evidence than six cards with one word in reference to the aff somewhere at the bottom.

Framework & Topicality – To me, this is simply/should be questions of what we should do when we enter a debate round, why that version of the activity is a good one, and how your methodology is the most effective/productive. If you are able to answer those questions, you’re in a good position. I will not on face reject a non-topical affirmative, but for goodness’ sakes, please have an answer to topical version of the aff. Topicality requires deep and warranted explanation and I am definitely not familiar enough with your literature critiquing topicality itself to comfortably vote on it unless you really flesh it out. (What does the phrase "flesh it out" really even mean? Weird.)

I believe that the affirmative should defend a topical plan action taken by the “USFG,” however, I do not think this is the ONLY thing that the affirmative can or “should” necessarily be held to doing. If the affirmative chooses NOT to defend the implementation of a topical plan, they must also explain to me how voting aff achieves something in the context of your arguments (i.e. an explicit explanation of how my ballot will do anything besides signify the winner and loser to the tabroom). 

If a negative team reads topicality or framework against a non-topical affirmative, there MUST BE SOME ENGAGEMENT of the affirmative’s argument in order for me to justify voting neg… I believe that topicality is an a-priori issue and comes first in almost every instance, and I absolutely do not think that reading topicality is wrong or EVER a reason to vote against the negative (unless it’s explicitly offensive, of course); however, if the affirmative is making arguments about why their ethics precede topicality or something of the like, the negative will not be able to win simply BECAUSE they ran topicality. 

Other things that are still quite important:
For better or worse, I am NOT going to call for a bunch of evidence after the round unless it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Most commonly I have called for evidence on a Politics DA.

I really enjoy a hefty & comparative case debate in the block.

If you are rude to your opponent in cross ex, I will be so distracted by your attitude that I will probably not want to listen to your answers or give you good speaker points. People who make smart arguments & are KIND to their partner/opponents will get really good speaker points.

When prep stops that means so do you fingers and lips, once time has stopped there is no note taking or conversing about the debate. I do not consider flashing prep time unless during paperless blunders I get the feeling that something shady is happening. In those instances I will start prep again. 

I have been doing policy debate for about 6 years now. Did 2 years in high school, debated for 1 semester at UC-Berkeley, and then ended up coaching for 4 years in college. I have a lot of experience with K debate, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for a T violation or a fire framework debate.

For evaluating K debates - Please make sure you contextualize your arguments into the world of the affirmative. ( my theory says this which implicates the affs ability to do x) Read whatever you want, but just make it clear why and how I should vote.

* amendment as of february 17th * : read whatever you want, but make sure you can contextualize your theory into a real world example. I'm totally down to theorize outside of current realities/ mindsets/ whatever, but if the debate becomes too theoretical

( deleuze v deleuze) or even afro pess v afro pess then i'll get lost. I'm not the judge in the back that knows everything. This becomes an issue when teams try and re read authors against folks in order to win super intricate links... which of course - only make sense if you are really deep into the literature or it gets really explained in the block. These concrete examples help me latch onto to your argument and better evaluate.

For evaluating T/Framework debates - Blippy violation extensions are intimidating and will end up on the flow, but if you don't impact them out in front of me, then I can't really do much for you when it comes time for an RFD. Predictability might make it to the end of the debate, but if you haven't done work on why the debate was hurt then why vote neg?

Policy vs K debates

These may come down to " extinction on the physical plane vs death on some sort of identity axis". If the policy aff beats the k in explaining why their framing comes first or outweighs - i'll vote aff. Please do the work of winning why yours comes first ( for either side) like how pusha T did to Drake - it just makes it really easy for me once rfd time comes.

Policy heavy debates --> you need to explain scenario stories very explicitly in rebuttals if that is your specific reason for winning. Easy way to get my ballot is to slow down for a second and break down the internal links between your argument. If you don't have a " HELLO - judge wtf" moment in your rebuttal ( especially for LD) , then these can be hard to judge debates for me.

If i'm ever giving an RFD, and stop mid sentence. Then it means I've worked through some random argument and am now changing my mind about how I feel usually. Or i'm just awkwardly re framing something. I may end up "re nigging" on my decision especially when tournament staff is being pushy/ forcing us out of rooms/ threatening folks with tournament fees if they don't submit a ballot or evacuate a space in time. So, yes to the few who I had to force out of rooms sorry. I try to hold myself and others to a high standard of theorization and sometimes that just takes longer than we have.

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – April 2024

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.

2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 - Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging) - You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

Background: I debated policy back in high school, but it's been years since then so I would slow down (speed).

K's: OK but it needs to be VERY clearly explained.

T: if you're going for T or theory then voters need to be extended and your case of abuse/potential abuse needs to be articulated.

Flash time counts as prep (policy). Please don't shake my hand.

2022 Update

Not coaching anymore, but still running tournaments and judging. Last night I realized that my paradigm was showing up for the CHSSA State Tournament and the NSDA Last Chance Qualifier, and I am judging Congress at both. Do not apply the things below to Congress, with the exception of signposting. Congress is completely different, and I have expectations of decorum, professionalism, knowledge of proper procedures, and efficiency in showing what you can do. Your rank depends on polished speeches, concise questions, knowledgeable responses to the questions you are asked, and demonstrating that you are better at those things than other people in the room. Things like crystallization speeches are awesome if you know what you're doing. We're at higher level tournaments, so I'm optimistic that you probably know what you're doing. Clash is wonderful, as always, but it needs to happen within the realm of Congressional decorum. Not the lack of decorum that many politicians have shifted to, but genuine people coming together to try and make something happen for the greater good. That leads to people being civilized to one another. Keep it classy, Congress!

2021 Update

You must signpost. That will help me follow your arguments better than any roadmap. I'm looking for solid argumentation, with assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts.

2/4/2020

Below is some 2015 nonsense, for sure. Written for policy so please don't try to apply it to everything. Some is still true, but let's all have a hearty laugh. Since last updated, I finally earned a Diamond with the NSDA. I still work for the same program, and have expanded my knowledge a great deal. I still love speech. I love Congress more than ever. I was elected VP of Debate and Congress for my league, and have been on the Board of Directors for the California High School Speech Association for the last five years. See the large gaps in judging? I only judge at a couple tournaments a year because I'm helping run the rest. I like rules and procedure. I stopped liking 99.99% of your kritiks. I actually want to hear that you did research on your topic. Don't try to drag circuit policy practices into other events. They are different for a reason. I still flow non-standard. I still think about your mom's hair and car commercials because I am still easily distracted. I still dislike bad roadmapping and pretentious windbags. The later in the day it is, the more likely I am to start squirreling. But wonder if that really is bad, because squirrels are simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Distracted!

4/4/2015

I am currently the assistant coach for the Claremont High School team in Claremont California. My area of expertise is speech, but that doesn’t deter me from being active in judging debate. Before I started coaching anything, I was judging policy. I have judged all forms of debate over the last three years, including at State and Nationals. I frequently judge prelim and elim rounds at West-coast invitationals, including Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Lutheran, and La Costa Canyon.

My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round. That said, I do like some good clash.

I flow in a non-standard manner. It works for me. Speed is okay, as long as you are loud and clear. If you aren’t, I will let you know.

Because I don’t spend all of my time in the debate rooms, some of the terminology slips my mind. You are already saying thousands of words to me. Please just add a couple more to make sure I am completely following your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. If you are talking about fiat, please don’t allow me to get distracted thinking about car commercials. Perms are that thing your mom did to her hair in the 80s, right? Keep me focused on your tactics and what you are really trying to do in the round.

I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t. I will sit there hoping the opponents will call each other out on holes in the case, and maybe write about it on my ballot after the round. My job as the Judge is to only be influenced by the things that are said in the round, not by what I know from my education and experience.

I really hate people stealing prep under the guise of “off time roadmaps”. I believe they are one of the reasons tournaments run late. Please be concise in the time you have been allotted for your speech. If there are other judges in the room and they want a roadmap, please be brief with your “off time”. Signposting is preferred. Longwinded RFDs are the other reason tournaments fall behind. If we are at the point where the tournament is allowing us to take the time to give a RFD, I will probably only have a couple solid reasons for why I voted the way I did. If I have more, someone has really messed something up.

Don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But sarcasm is heartwarming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cal debate 13-17, coached for Cal 18-22, currently coaching Houston.

I'm online for Georgetown but expect to judge in person at Texas and the NDT. Online, please slow down a bit and record your speeches in case there are connection issues.

Debate is for debaters; I'll vote for no-plan Affs, Ks, and even conditionality bad. Of course, arguments that attack opponents as people, wipeout*, spark, and "new Affs bad" will never be considered.

Default is judge kick. This can be reversed but requires ink before the 2AR.

I take judge instruction very seriously.

I have a very high bar for ethics challenges and will presume good faith error by the accused.

*Saying another value matters more than extinction is perfectly fine.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Wu%2C+David

Background:

I debated npda/npte parli for UC Berkeley from 2011 to 2015, where I graduated with a degree in computer science.  I also debated three years of circuit LD in high school.  Overall, I largely view debate as a game, and think that you should do what you think gives you the best chance to win it.

 

Overview:

- I am fine with whatever level of speed you wish to debate at, but be sure to make sure the rest of the debaters in the room are as well.

- I will listen to any type of argument you like, as long as you are able to justify it.  However, I’ll go into further detail in later sections as to my tendencies that might deviate from the average parli judge.

- I evaluate the round based on my flow.  As of now I'm not sure what to do about arguments telling me this is bad.  Perhaps the best case for you if you tell me this method of evaluation is problematic is that I will be slightly less picky about my flow, but don't count on it.

- My overall knowledge of the world is limited mostly to news headlines and debate experience.  If you are reading an intricate scenario, just explain it carefully and you should be fine.

- My personally experience of debate was split fairly evenly between policy and critical.

- I do have a moderate preference that the affirmative defend the resolution (perhaps if you want to be critical, find a topical way to do so without fiat).  That being said, good argumentation can certainly override this preference, and while I might like a good framework debate, I will not give credence to a bad one.

 

Case Debate / Disads:

- For both the aff and neg, the more specific your links are to the plan the better.

- Be sure to fully terminalize your impacts, I might feel uncomfortable doing that work for you.  If the terminalized form of your opponent’s impacts are not obvious, I find pointing this out to be a strong way to outweigh them.

 

Counterplans:

- I have little bias for or against condo, debate to your style here.

- If you want to run other “cheater” counterplans, I find that topic specific reasons those counterplans should be relevant are persuasive responses to theory.

 

Theory/Topicality:

- A personal favorite of mine, at least early in my career.  I will appreciate nuanced and well thought out theory debate, but don’t think that I’ll give you credence on a bad shell or make internal links for you.

- I default to competing interpretations, and absent a clear definition of some alternative, I find it very difficult to evaluate theory under reasonability.

- Competing interpretations means you need to either win a we-meet or superior offense to a counter interpretation.

- I personally find fairness claims more compelling than education, but any arguments about the order of these two made it round will instantly override that.

- By default I will assume any 4 point shell is reject the team, and any paragraph theory (often seen as responses to cheater perms) is reject the arg, absent the team reading the shell specifying the opposite.

- RVIs will be a very uphill battle, if you really want to go here please read unique, maybe round specific arguments.

 

Kritiks:

- I read and collapsed to Ks in the majority of my neg rounds.  I believe I would be comfortable evaluating most Ks that could come up in parli.

- Specific warrants and examples from the real world, as opposed to making the same assertion that your author claims, will generally help put you further ahead both when reading and answering a K.

- A pet peeve of mine is when every alt solvency argument is just a perm pre-empt (you'd be suprised how often I've seen this).  Please also warrant why your alt solves your K.

- I might be slightly less inclined to wave away the framework of a K than the average parli judge, especially if there are more specific arguments being made than the standard stuff where everyone’s impacts seem to end up getting compared on the same level.  That being said, if all you plan to do is read the super generic K framework arguments, I’m perfectly fine if you just cut it out from the beginning and go for root cause.  Side note, if you do this, be wary of timeframe on extinction impacts.

- I read a lot of pomo as a debater, so if you want to bite the bullet and make people to justify why intuitive things are real/bad, go ahead and do so.

 

Aff-Ks:

- As I said earlier, I prefer that teams find a way to defend the topic.

- I find topic specific critical affirmatives or smart critical advantages to be very strategic.

- If you are answering framework, saying that the shell is a re-link to the K is not independently a logical takeout of the theory.  Often these debates devolve and become a circular mess of each position denying that the other should exist.  Find a way to make your approach to this problem more nuanced than your opponents'.

 

 

last updated: 1/3/2016

Amor Fati

TL;DR: I strongly prefer advantage/disadvantage/counterplan debates. I like theory, just run it well. I don't have a lot of experience with K debate and I don't enjoy it. I default to net bens whenever possible and will vote for most arguments if they're not offensive.

Experience: high school parli, NPDA at SRJC and UNR, NFA-LD at SRJC

General:

I vote on the flow and default to net benefits. I'll call clear and slow but if you don't listen and adapt, that's your issue. Please number and tag your arguments and generally provide structure to your speech and the debate. Temember proper structure of advantages/disadvantages (uniqueness/harms, links, internal links, impacts) as well as procedurals (interpretation, violation, standards, voters).

Preferences: 

I really like advantage/disadvantage/counterplan debate! I prefer probability and timeframe over magnitude, but run whatever you can justify. 

I'm down to listen to any theory debate you want to have so long as it's coherent and justifiable.

On the K: I don't have much direct experience with K debate so don't go your top spead and speak like we're both deep in the lit! I'll vote for whatever I feel wins the round, but I don't enjoy the K because most rounds where I've picked one up in high school, it's been because the losing team was so confused, not because the argument was run well. If you insist on it in front of me, 1) listen to me when I call clear or slow and don't assume your opponent or I know your lit, 2) provide detailed links! 3) provide alt solvency that isn't total bs!! (because it almost always is) 4) have a reasonable framework, tell me what your opponent must do under that framework to win the ballot, and don't drop your framework if it's at all contested. If you're refuting the position then keep the above in mind too.

DEFEND THE RES ON AFF. If you don't defend the res as aff, you need to make it REALLY clear to me how your opponents have equal ground under your framework. If you have a truly legitimate problem with the resolution, then consult with your opponents in prep and choose a new one or something (? consult with the tournament. I'm not responsible for you taking that advice).

If your in-round conduct is offensive, expect your speaker points to reflect that. If you're conduct is horrendous enough I'll drop you, but I haven't had that happen before. If your opponents are offensive, make that a major voting issue. 

In general, I encourage you to make the round entertaining and have fun.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or a specific round, please ask me questions anytime. If you can't find me, facebook me.