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

Aisha Bah (pronounced: eye-sha) -- she/her

Former (MS + HS) debater. Current coach at Eleanor Roosevelt High School under Washington Urban Debate League.

I attend Wesleyan University! Woo!

aishadoesdebate@gmail.com

TLDR:

I am a strong proponent of tabula rasa (as much as it's possible). I’ll vote on pretty much anything. I’m good on Theory, T, K, CP, DA, whatever. Pls send analytics. Just be kind to one another and have fun! Feel free to ask questions if you have them. I’m here to help you.

Email Chains:

I want to be on it. Email: aishadoesdebate@gmail.com.

Speed:

I’m good with speed of any kind. Just be clear. If you’re unclear on analytics, they may not get flowed, so be sure I can hear what you’re saying. I'm only saying "clear" once.

Cross:

Closed if there’s a maverick in the round. Otherwise, I don’t care. Decide amongst yourselves.

Tech v Truth:

I default to tech unless you explain to me why it should be otherwise. I really like tech-y arguments.

Policy v Kritik:

I don’t have a particular preference either way. I do believe that both extremes can be harmful for debate. Running 15 off and case just because you can, then going for the most undercovered argument in the 2NR is definitely cheap. I also think running the most obscure K you can and then winning off of raw confusion is cheap. Being somewhere in the middle is your best bet. Explain your Ks well and format good-faith arguments, and you’ll be perfectly fine.

Framework/framing:

You’ve got to be comparative when giving me these. If one team reads extinction first and the other team reads structural violence first, without any explanation for why I should prefer one over the other (clash) or contextualization for why this round calls for something specific, it often ends up being a wash. ROB/ROJ is a must. I love good clashy framework debates that go beyond the 1AC and talk about what the debate space should look like.

Theory:

I love a good theory debate. However, there needs to be very specific clash because these debates fragment very easily. I'll definitely vote on it if you win it and prove it to be a voter. Get off your blocks though.

Ks:

I love the K. I generally believe vague alts are bad, but I will still vote on it. Links of omission aren't links. Explain your K well. Chances are if you were banking on confusing the other team, you’ve confused me, and I can’t vote for a K that you can hardly articulate.

I'm super familiar with the scholarship of Black fem (Audre Lorde, Frances Beal, and the like), straight-up fem, anti-Blackness (Wilderson, Gordon, Fanon), Hegel (dialectics), and Marxism.

K Affs:

I love them. I need a firm role of the ballot to not just simply roll over into the negative’s framework. I also believe they need a strong solvency mechanism. For the framework debate, prove specifically why your world of debate is better.

T:

I really like well-explained standards and block extensions that indict in-round conduct by the aff. I’ll vote on T, no problem.

Signposting:

Do it. If you hop back and forth between flows without warning, you’re not going to get all of what you want me to hear flowed. I’ll be trying to figure out what you’re talking about.

Extending:

When you extend evidence, give me warrants over the author’s name. When it comes to varsity rounds, too many cards and authors are thrown around for you to expect me to remember exactly what Smith 2020 said and what flow it’s on.

Bonus (the melodic gamble):

If you play music during prep time and it slaps +0.3 speaks. If the music is trash, -0.3 speaks.

Overall, try your best and have fun. I’m more than happy to answer any questions.

4 years HS policy, currently debating @ dartmouth.

she/her, shay-ma.
.
.
.
Email Chain:
sheimadebate@gmail.com

subject should be formatted like Texas Doubles '24 – AFF Dartmouth CE vs NEG Dartmouth BC

Online:

re truf blog - I am not flowing your doc, if something is incomprehensible, I am just as likely as your opponent to not have it down and will not post-facto fill gaps in my flow from your speech doc.

Other things:

I am good for what you're good at.

I should fall in the clash section of your pref sheet.

I think conditionality is probably(?) good

I judge kick unless u tell me thats so bad

Speaker Points:

no LD tricks or PF off-time roadmaps

ev ethics challenges r not case negs

"concede the ballot and lets have a discussion" = L 24 to the initiator
Student Safety:Your opponents are not your enemies, be respectful toward each other.

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

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

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

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

'23 National Urban Debater of the Year

LD

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

College policy

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

Highschool policy

TL;DR

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

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

speed? – sure

open cx? – sure

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

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

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

tell me how to evaluate the round.

Full Version

Bio

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

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

K’s / K Aff’s

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

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

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

Theory & topicality

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

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

card clipping/evidence ethics

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

*unless the tournament has alternative procedures.*

6,7,8+ off

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

misc

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

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

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

debaters stop stealing prep challenge. level: impossible. ☹

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

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

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

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

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

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

-great for impact turns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Version:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

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

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daryl Burch

currently the director of high school debate for McDonogh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

db

Hi! I am your judge :) I would like to be on the email chain at BrandyCarboneDebate@gmail.com

Background:

I was a pretty successful high school policy debater (carried my banker boxes a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away ...) followed by a stint of college public forum debate. I stepped away from debate until my child participated in middle school parli which returned me to judging. This is my return to policy and/or public forum as a judge. NOTE: I am more familiar with policy over pubic forum but have judged all type of debate. Time yourself.

I'm a big fan of debate both as an activity through which students express themselves and acquire knowledge and skills and as a competition. Clearly things have changed over the last 30 years. The introduction of email chains is cool, but I think it allows people to forget how to clearly speak since every word you care about can be read. We spread when I debated (of course) but we also had to compete in Extemp because we were not allowed to lose our ability to communicate in our policy fervor. Clue: I still consider this a speech competition.

I am tabula rasa. I will take whatever argument you want to throw at me, but you have to be able to explain it, defend it and weigh it. If you want it to be important to me, you have to tell me. A sure way to lose a round with me is to leave the round to my opinion.Clue: I will vote for the team that can convince me their arguments are the best with evidence, logic and (ideally) a little reason.

I am more easily convinced by arguments when the framework is clear, addressed and refuted. I am more persuaded by arguments that are debatable. If there are no arguments against yours unless they are racist, sexists, etc, then the position is not debatable its just a fact and makes the round unwinnable for the other side. I am still tech > truth so take that as you will.

I flow on paper, and organization and structure in speeches are important for me. I really appreciate it when teams identify their arguments when giving them. Signpost please.

There are probably some current theory issues that will be new to me. I do think there is, and should be, room in debate for issues that affect the broader frameworks and circumstances within which policy is created. I am not absolute about it and will listen to arguments on both sides. I'm more current on policy and current events than I am on theory. Clue: I will listen to the arguments and pick the one argued best. I want to hear your understanding of the argument, and a demonstration of why it matters.

Final speech summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and identifying the key few issues and assessments I should be making and how they should be made. Clue: Weigh! Weigh! Weigh!

Good luck!

(you can email me if you want extra feedback. but i am a bit blunt at times)

General Stuff

High School: Bronx Science CM 2018-2021

College: Binghamton TC 2023-2024

Send the email chain to achoud19@binghamton.edu

Put the subject in this format please:

Aff (Aff Team Name) v. Neg (Neg Team Name) (Tournament Name) Round X

I currently do policy debate in college and did four years of policy debate in high school. I have gone for many types of arguments on the policy, kritik, and theory aspects of the debate, so as long as you're explaining your arguments clearly you will win my ballot.

KvK

Give me a clear Role of the Ballot/Role of the Judge and explain how it applies to your theory of power and you'll be good.

KvFW/T

I've been on both sides of this debate and understand the strategies employed by both teams to win it. As a college debater, I don't read Framework against K-Affirmatives as frequently as I did in High School, but I am still open to voting either way in these arguments.

Policy v Policy

I like evidence comparisons in these debates.

The more I think about my paradigm and debate the more I realize that my opinions are constantly evolving and thus I will probably not be straight down my paradigm in round.

The bold is important highlights throughout. Enjoy

TOC UPDATE:If you are a sophomore/jr/undecided senior and are considering debating in college, find me and talk to me about TU debate!

Quick overview:

I debated at Calvert Hall for four years (2017-2021), debate at Towson University (2022-2025). I ran policy arguments in high school and some college, did performance debate in college.Make it simple for me, I don't like doing work. Run what you want and do your job to explain to me why it matters. I tend to be a pretty expressive judge so you will probably know when I'm following well, when I'm lost, when I'm thinking, etc.

yes I want to be on the email chain, christd550 [at] the google mail service .com

You should leave pen time whether or not I'm flowing on my laptop or paper - I want to make sure I get all your warrants!

here's how I would pref me:

1 - Policy (soft-left) or policy vs the K

2 - K Affs/Identity Arguments/Performance Debate

3 - policy (heg/nuke war/super big stick things)

4 - High theory K's

Specifics:

Overview/Debate rant:

I think debaters have gotten too comfortable dumping cards and not really explaining them or using cards to make arguments instead of just being a debater and making arguments yourself. I challenge you to push yourself to make arguments and use evidence that is of higher quality instead of dumping cards that don't really have any warrants - y'all are smart, show me you are! With that being said -- I don't like "read the card after the round" or "insert rehighlighting" -- I think this allows me to inject too much interpretation into the round of how I think evidence interacts with each other instead of relying on what you tell me is most important; contextualize your ev for me!

Affs:

I think K affs are good for debate. I really like seeing you incorporate aspects of your performance into later speeches, and strategic cross-applications of your performance to answer things like framework. I have experience running plan-based affs and performance-based affs, I don't really have a preference either way and I am comfortable in both situations.

I think the most important thing for me is contextualizing how your specific method is able to resolve your impacts, this means I probably err neg on presumption in debates where solvency isn't well explained.

Neg:

DA:

Better link debating is better debating and will earn you higher speaks.

Live laugh love the politics disad.

T:

Neg teams should probably have a case-list or at least a categories to demonstrate what your vision of the topic includes, otherwise I'm not sure what topics will devolve to, especially if I am judging you on a topic that I don't have a lot of experience on yet.

Framework:

I think that being non-topical is also important but it's the affs burden to prove the role of engagement and why their model is preferable. I like model debates, what does your model justify vs theirs for the activity as a whole, why is this round the key internal link to your model, etc.

Explain my role as a judge clearly. What am I voting for, what am I justifying in the community writ-large? Why the other side's interp is uniquely bad/violent and you have a good chance at picking up my ballot. What specifically does my ballot justify?

If you're aff give me specific examples of why the aff is uniquely good for debate/is topical.

CP's:

PIC's are alright - not my favorite thing, but I'm willing to listen to anything and learn why we shouldn't include a certain part of the aff. Not the best for CP theory debates -- going for theory wasn't ever my style.

Theory:

Theory debates are often very late-breaking and difficult to resolve. I am not the best for lots of debate theory, especially without good line-by-line and comparison. I'm sure your theory blocks are great but what am I supposed to do with that and how does it interact with your opponent? See above: slow down so I get your warrants, especially when you are flying through a pre-blocked argument.

Condo:

I think condo is good unless I'm told it's not/the negs vision is really abusive. Multiple condo worlds are fun. I probably draw the line somewhere around 4 but that's a gray area; I can be convinced that 4+ is good and I can be convinced that more than 1 is abusive.

K's:

Anything super high theory (Baudrillard, psychoanalysis, deluze, etc.) I'm not as familiar with the lit so you're going to have to explain it to me. I think critical engagement with each other and the resolution is really important. Do your thing but you might have to do more explanation than throwing buzzwords around.

Other Thoughts:

- Impact calc is very important, tell me exactly why I should prioritize your impacts. If this means framing cards, go for it.

- I'm willing to vote on anything (except things like racism good), just make it interesting and well explained, and do you!!!

- Don't be rude to your opponent, be respectful and nice, debate is competitive but fun.

If I'm judging you in high school and you're interested in debating in college at Towson plz lmk after the round or visit this link -- https://www.towson.edu/cofac/centers/debate.html

accomplishments you don't care about:

3x NDT Qualifier

1x CEDA Octafinalist. Double Octafinalist

1x TOC Bid recipient

Email: mcalister.clabaugh@wudl.org

I was a pretty successful high school debater and a pretty unsuccessful college debater in the 1990s, then judged probably 10-12 tournaments on the national high school circuit. Stepped away from debate for about 20 years, then started judging again in 2016 as a volunteer for the Washington UDL, judging around 5 tournaments/year since then.

I'm a big fan of debate, as an activity through which students express themselves and acquire knowledge and skills, and as a competition, and coming back as a volunteer and now UDL staff member has been rewarding for me, and hopefully helpful for the students I've judged and worked with outside of rounds.

I flow on paper, and organization and structure in speeches are important for me. I really appreciate it when teams identify their arguments when giving them. For example, a 1NC that labels their off-case arguments as "Off" before reading them makes it harder for me to flow the round than a 1NC that announces "Capitalism kritik," or "Politics disad," etc. 1NCs that don't label off-case arguments will get lower speaker points. Same for case arguments - please let me know where on case - solvency, advantage one, advantage two, framing, etc.

I have some experience judging kritik affs, and while I've followed their evolution in debate over the last several years, I'm not particularly current or knowledgeable on some of the theory issues around them. I'd like to change that, but if you run kritik affs, there are probably some issues that will be new to me. I do think there is, and should be, room in debate for issues that affect the broader frameworks and circumstances within which policy is created, and ones that have an educational purpose, but I'm not absolute about it and will listen to arguments on both sides.

I have and will vote on neg kritiks, and am more likely to do so if the neg demonstrates in speeches and CX that they have a thorough understanding of their position and its grounding - more than repeating taglines in the neg block & 2NR. I want to hear your understanding of the argument, and a demonstration of why it matters. I've been impressed by the evolution of kritiks in terms of how they're organized and how teams execute them, both on the aff and neg. I'm also somewhat surprised by how frequently teams seem unprepared to debate kritiks that are run against them.

I'm more current on policy and current events than I am on theory, and the IP topic touches on a lot of issues that I've worked on professionally, debated before, or have personal interests and curiosity about.

On issues like solvency and advantages/disads, I'm a big fan of specificity and mechanisms through which A leads to B leads to C, and how/why that happens. Internal links matter. A good analytical highlighting a missing internal link is a good argument.

I think topicality is a useful tool for negatives. That said, on T, theory, framework debates, my experience has been teams that read their generic blocks and don't adapt in-round to the specific warrants of the K do not do particularly well. Especially on these kinds of debates, clash is essential.

I prefer clash over a race for offense with tons of dropped arguments on both sides. Good impact calc - on any kind of argument - that compares aff vs neg impacts is a quick way to win the ballot. Reiterating your impacts without comparisons is not particularly effective.

2NR/2AR summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and identifying the key few issues and assessments I should be making and how they should be made.

Good luck.

--Highlights

Email: swwpolicy@gmail.com

Call me Eric instead of judge.

Have 1AC in the inbox by start time.

Good for Ks and policy. I prefer policy, but I'm fine with whatever.

I don't enjoy evaluating theory debates to resolve the round, but I will. More below.

Good with speed. If you're unclear and I don't catch something, it is what it is. **Slow down on theory**

Don't steal prep. You all are out of control. Why are we typing responses while the stand is getting set up? Why are you telling your partner to write answers to something you didn't get to after the prep timer goes off?

Please track your time.

--Experience

Been coaching for ~6 years. Debated policy throughout high school and college (Georgetown). The strategy was usually policy, but I have some experience going for the K at both levels. I also have some experience judging PF and LD at the high school and middle school levels.

--General

If there are any unanswered questions, definitely feel free to ask me before the round starts, and I'm always happy to give follow-up comments after rounds if you shoot me an email.

Make sure acronyms are full written out somewhere in the card.

I'll usually be paying attention during cross to help wrap my head around arguments. Cross usually helps me contextualize the arguments being made (especially true for kritiks). Cross is binding. Cross is also where you can get a decent bump to speaks - go in with a strategy.

I won't read your evidence at the end of the round unless I'm instructed to. Debate is a communicative activity, therefore you need to be able to verbally convey the key warrants in a piece of evidence to me. If I have to read the evidence myself to find the warrants, you haven't done your job. I will also read evidence if there's an evidence indict. Please make evidence idnicts. A lot of people try to get away with reading terrible evidence, and you shouldn't allow it.

--Kritiks

General thoughts:

I typically enjoy judging k debates. I can be on board with the concept and ideas of most kritiks, but you need to be able to explain it in a way where I understand all of the mechanisms and nuances tying it to the aff. At the end of the round, I want to be able to put the thesis of the kritik into my own words.

I'm not the biggest fan of kritiks that are gimmicky, BUT I will vote on it if you execute and do everything you need to on the flow. If you have to ask if your K is gimmicky, chances are it is.

Specific stuff:

Open to it all (except troll arguments) but probably most familiar with cap, IR (especially if it's about China reps), and antiblackness. Least familiar with psychoanalysis, queer theory, and high theory. Still happy to judge the latter options, just put extra emphasis on explanation. This is especially true for psychoanalysis and high theory.

I default to in-round impacts outweighing (ie psychic violence in-round outweighs US-China war). I can and have been convinced otherwise, but if there's no comparative analysis, this is how I will default to weighing things.

For the link debate, I generally find links to the consequences of the AFF to be the most persuasive along with links to specific things that come out of the mouths of the opponents. On the second part, I'm referring to indicts of the way tags are written or lines the AFF may read that are highlighted and underlined.

I find that many arguments teams articulate as reasons to reject the team are really just reasons to reject the argument, or it's not explained well. If you're going to say something is a reason to reject the team, you need to go beyond the explanatory work of why they have done/said something bad. You need to also explain why that is grounds for rejection and why rejection is good.

--Framework/Neg v K AFFs

Absolutely love hearing framework speeches. Easily my favorite position in debate to talk about and listen to speeches on.

If the speech is straight analytics, slow down. I think this is primarily a problem for people that are reading out of docs full of analytics.

While I enjoy framework, know that neg teams won't have a leg up on the affirmative. They still need to debate it well. My personal feelings are irrelevant during the round. What ultimately matters is what both teams do on the flow.

11/11/24 edit: I still like framework but I don't love it as much. It's getting a bit stale. Engage the AFF and problematize their method. Give me a reason to vote on presumption other than the ballot doesn't spillover. Disprove their theory of power and explain how that implicates their ability to win. Read a DA, K, or CP. Do something fresh. I'll still evaluate framework fairly but I find myself wanting more innovation and creativity in terms of how people engage K AFFs. 2Ns that go for something other than framework in the 2NR will be rewarded with a bump in their speaks. It is good to engage K AFFs on substance as I think it means you have invested more time into preparing for the debate by considering the unique elements of the AFF. I also think it lead to more educational debates for everyone when the K AFF is engaged on substance. This does not mean I will punish you for reading framework, just that I'll reward other options.

--Theory

If you wanna go for the ballot on theory, I suggest you spend most of your time in the final rebuttal on theory.

I don't enjoy resolving rounds based on theory. If there are examples of in-round abuse, I'm much more open to resolving the round on theory. If theory is dropped, I'm open to voting on it. Please note that you still need to do explanatory work when extending dropped theory in the final rebuttal. I need to be clear on the standards I'm voting for, how they get to your impacts, and why I should care about the impacts.

I have miscellaneous thoughts about various issues. If a particular issue isn't listed, it's because I don't have strong feelings about it.None of these are set in stone (except condo). These are just starting points I have when thinking about these theory arguments, but I can always be convinced to change my mind. Just keep these predispositions in mind if you decide to go for the position.

a.) PICs bad - lean neg but can be convinced otherwise depending on the PIC.

b.) Process CPs bad - lean AFF but can be convinced otherwise.

c.) Condo - three conditional positions is where I become open to voting on condo.

d.) Perf con - neg gets multiple worlds + contradictory advocacies are fine as long as it's resolved by the block.

e.) Disclosure - I think it's silly unless the other team is genuinely being really shady with their disclosure practices.

--Misc

When thinking about your big-picture strategy in rounds, think about what would be the easiest thing for me to pull the trigger on. I love it when teams make my life easier by going for the most strategically sound combination of arguments at the end of the round.

Does fed follow-on mean states links to politics? Talk to me about it depending on the DA.

Tend to lean tech over truth

I prefer teams go for substance rather than spraying each flow with theory arguments and hoping one of them gets dropped.

Please be ready to put together and send a card doc that only includes the cards you think are relevant at the end of the round. I'll usually ask after the 2AR if I need one, but more often than not, I'm fine.

--Speaker points

Hopefully, nobody needs this reminder, but don't be rude. If you're blatantly disrespectful to the opponents and/or your partner, I will tank your speaks. I get that ethos is big for some teams, but that doesn't excuse being a terrible person. I promise you I will give you terrible speaker points if I think you're being rude to anyone in the room.

Let your partner speak for themselves. Jumping in on occasion is understandable and expected. However, don't jump in to the point that you make me think your partner doesn't know what they're doing or talking about. More of a pet peeve than anything else.

Clarke Dickens

Former Debater (Middle and High School) under the Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

Summary:

I’ve judged rounds for novice and JV and Varsity. I have also participated in national circuit tournaments. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on your scholarship as presented to me in round.

My preferences (heavily influenced by David Trigaux):

Pre-Round

1. Speed: I prefer a mix of good speed and clear argument(s).

2. Policy v Kritik: No preference

3. Theory: I often find these debates shallow/lacking details and trading-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and show me why you don't have other options.

4. I usually do not vote on T.

5. Performance: Not something I favor, but still open to. Focus on why / what the net benefit is of the unique argument / argumentation style.

6. Shadow Extending: I don’t flow author’s names, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you.

7. Email Chains: I do look at email chains during the round. If I don’t hear it, I won’t flow it, but I do look to make sure both teams are sending the documents they said they would. I’ll look through the cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your citations.

• Creativity + Scholarship: I look for creative thinking, and original research. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat.

Don't / Pet Peeves

1. Being disrespectful (includes being rude, demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.)

2. Make Debate Less Accessible: This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own) when in person.

3. Overviews: Keep them short.

Counterplans: Do run a Topic/Aff specific CP, with a detailed, well written/explained CP Texts and/or Topic nuance for Generics (like Courts).

Don’t forget to perm. As well as default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses too.

Kritiks: I love K debates that include aff specific links, the solvency needs to be thoroughly explained, and it should also be able to be explained in your own words.

Role of the Ballot: Surprise me.

Danielle Dupree - danielle.dupree@wudl.org- she/her

23 y/o DMV Debater & WUDL Program Coordinator/ Tournament Director

The things you're probably looking for...

Speed:

I've got auditory processing issues so - a comfortable speed is fine if you slow down on tags & analytics. If you speed through analytics,please include any analytics in whatever you send me, otherwise don't hate me if you're unclear and it doesn't get flowed. I think not sending analytics is a cheap and annoying tactic that doesn't throw off your opponent as much as it throws off your judge. Fair warning!

Kritiks:

Preference for K debate. I mostly have experience in antiblackness and femme noire literature, so any other theses should take more care to explain in round vs real-world impacts & implementations. If you have not been able to explain the thesis in your own words with no jargon by the end of the round, I'm probably not voting on it.

If claiming something is a reason to reject the team, it's essential to go beyond explaining their wrongdoing and clarify why rejection is justified and beneficial otherwise to me, it's just a reason to reject the arg.

Performance:

I love an unconventional debate when it's done well, meaning make it abundantly clear why your form of debate is necessary. If you're doing a half-baked performance it is a lot harder for me to give you solvency/framing and 90% of my RFD will probably be about how I wished you had sung me a song or stood on a desk and did a little dance, etc.

Theory:

I prefer teams go for substance rather than spraying each flow with theory arguments and hoping one of them gets dropped. My general stance on the most common theory args can be swayed, I have voted against my preference when convinced. However, it's harder to sway me on Condo - I think 3 conditional positions are where I'm comfortable voting on Condo. Also, on performative contradictions - neg gets multiple worlds & contradictory advocacies are fine as long as it's resolved by the block.

My Strategy Reminders...

Tech VS Truth: If your strategy for every round is winning based on tech over truth or vice versa, I'm probably not the best judge for you.

Shadow Extending: I don't flow authors and I don't re-read evidence post-round unless instructed. So don't just extend your 'John 22' card without reminding me of the warrant. (I do flow authors for novices, but I still expect the warrants)

Usage of Artificial Intelligence: This needs a lot of exploring in the world generally but also in Policy Debate so I'm open to opposition with warrants. For now, I'll say I'm fine with pre-written overviews done by AI so long as it's disclosed that it was AI. However, the use of AI mid-round is cheating in my opinion.

Stolen from McAlister C: " 2NR/2AR summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and what assessments I should be making. I love overviews that crystallize 2-3 key points and compare aff/neg positions before going to individual args/line-by-line."

Timing: PLEASE I'm not great with keeping your prep so be sure you're also keeping it yourself. - Also I stop flowing as soon as the time goes off, pls don't try to shove your last arg in after the alarm

Cross: Cross is binding. The only time I will insist on closed cross is if someone's going mav. I do like it when you stand but again it's not mandatory.

Topicality: Violation & definition are never enough, no limits & grounds, no case. I appreciate creative violations and T's that are brought into the real world. ALSO pls tell me where you want me to flow things if you're a cross-apply warrior.

FW & ROB/J: I default the actor of the policymaker unless directed otherwise. If you are going to direct me otherwise, I'd suggest the sooner the better.

Troll: I need to hear BOTH teams enthusiastically consenting to a troll round, otherwise at the end of the round you will lose.

All of that is to say, do whatever you want, just make sure you work hard on it, be respectful and make it fun for all of us :)

she/her

Washington Urban Debate League '22 Yale '26

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

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

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

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

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

Language matters. Genocide is not a buzzword.

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

**College Policy Note**

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

**see additional note below from k affs

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

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

K Affs v FW

Aff

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

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

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

Neg

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

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

DAs

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

CPs

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

T v policy affs

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

Theory

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

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

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

Have fun!!

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.

FW

I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.

Kritiks

These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.

CPs

CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.

1. No judge kick

2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.

Plans

YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.

Presumption.

Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.

LD Specific

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

*Please start the email chain without me - I flow without the doc.
Debate is a game that requires dropped arguments to be evaluated as true in order to function. That means I will vote on anything. If you want me to end the round, tell me.
—CX—
One of the most important parts of the round. I will shake my head if you ask about a card that wasn’t read.
—Ks—
2NR must explain why either the plan or plan focus is bad.
Quotes from evidence, cx, and references to their performance are persuasive.
An offensive reason for why they shouldn’t be able to weigh case + a link to the affs reps is sufficient.
You do not need an alternative because framework provides uniqueness.
—Policy vs K—
2AR must explain why either their reps are good, or why plan focus is good.
Perm double bind.
Links have three levels: link, internal link, impact. Answering any one of these is usually sufficient.
—K affs—
DAs to the negs model must be intrinsic - your offense should be about something their interp mandates.
Alternatively, you can read a DA that establishes why their performance in this round is a reason they should lose.
Most aff framework angles rely on winning debate shapes subjectivity - this is probably the most important argument in any debate where the impact is clash.
If the impact is fairness, affs should have reason for why debate is more than a game, alternatives to competition are possible, etc.
Ballot key?
—Framework—
The impact to fairness is fairness. However, it is your job to prove that.
2NRs should win that debate is a game and content is neutral
Explain why their DAs don’t apply to your model. Explain why their C/I links harder.
—Policy Vs Policy—
Can evaluate. Higher thresehold for explanation when it comes to competition debating.

I debated at Georgetown University for 4 years (2019-2023) and coached there for a year (2023-2024). I'm currently affiliated with Northwestern University.

Please let me know if you would like me to rate your speeches using the BOOM meter.

egreerdebate@gmail.com

Update for TOC

-Please conflict me if you are a graduating senior who is committed to attending Northwestern.

-I haven't been actively involved in coaching or judging high school debate this season, so I'm not super in tune with things like topic acronyms or argumentative trends.

-I reserve sole discretion to end the debate in the event that a debater did something to make the debate round hostile or unsafe. I am rarely receptive to arguments by participants within the debate that direct me on how to exercise this authority.

Overall Thoughts

-I prefer debates involving arguments about the topic. I think that policy debate should reward research and innovation within the topic area rather than incentivizing teams to recycle generics from year to year.

-Effective communication is imperative. Be clear; use numbers, emphasis, and sound bites to differentiate arguments; and focus on telling a cohesive story about why you win the issues that are most important for the debate. Don't be the kind of team that gets annoyed because I didn't think the one-sentence argument made five minutes into the final rebuttal was important for my decision.

-I have a very high threshold for accepting procedural arguments and "independent voting issues." If I can resolve an issue without throwing out a substantive debate (such as by rejecting an argument or card), I will. I will only assign an automatic loss to in-round conduct in instances where I think that a team's behavior meant that a productive or educational debate could not continue.

-I will categorically refuse to vote on arguments about an opponent's behavior outside the debate.

-Ad hominems are prohibited.

-In general, I have an aversion to voting for arguments designed to sidestep clash with the affirmative.

-I don't really care about whether an impact is "existential." Talk about impacts like a real person.

-I give speaker points in a normal distribution with 28.5 at the center.

-I don't check the speech doc while flowing, but I will have it open in case I want to read evidence later.

T (vs. Policy Affs)

-Topicality is a germane criticism. Affirmative teams must take it seriously and answer it like any other argument.

-Community consensus doesn't impact how I view T interps. Popular affs are still subject to the criticism that they are not topical.

-I'm an affirmative researcher, and I like being able to cut new and interesting affirmatives throughout the year. As a result, I care about aff ground and tend to hold the neg to a higher standard for proving the aff's interpretation is bad. The negative can reverse this presumption by winning a larger limits DA to the affirmative's interpretation - I still want the topic to be functional.

-I care a lot about whether an interpretation is a faithful representation of topic literature. Being "right" about the topic matters more to me than to most judges.

-I don't actually think that T is best described as "substance crowd out."

"Plan text in a vacuum" = no.

CPs

-Infinite conditionality is good. Persuading me otherwise is an uphill battle.

-Interps like "the neg gets two conditional advocacies" and "we get what we did" don't make sense. Conditionality is a yes/no question.

-Process CPs should present a reason why doing the plan is bad. It is much harder for the negative to win these arguments in front of me than it is for the affirmative to answer them.

-The states CP is fine. I think that the federal structure of the U.S. government means that the states CP presents a germane opportunity cost to federal government action in a way that international or private actor fiat do not.

DAs

-I won't vote for intrinsicness unless dropped. The politics DA is a dumpster fire right now - read the news and learn how to answer it.

-I don't think anything can be "zero" risk. You're better off talking about risk in relative rather than binary terms.

-I follow politics closely because doing so is my job.

Ks (vs. Policy Affs)

-Few debaters think through the implications of their framework arguments for other portions of the debate. It annoys me when neg teams say "the plan is not the focus of the debate" but then make arguments that presume a plan-centric model of evaluating offense (such as calling a perm "intrinsic" or acting like the affirmative team can't weigh impact turns to links because "the plan doesn't solve them").

-I consider myself neg-leaning on framework interpretations that exclude Ks from debate. I believe that affirmative teams are so obsessed with framework debates that they forget to contest basic premises of negative arguments, which are often poorly reasoned and unsupported by quality evidence.

-I consider myself aff-leaning on framework interpretations that prevent the affirmative from weighing the case or that imply the negative does not have to defend a solvent alternative. Reasons the affirmative is good and the alternative is bad should always be affirmative offense.

-My aversion to voting for arguments that sidestep clash with the affirmative is relevant here. I am not persuaded by strategies that single out small, isolated parts of the 1AC to critique. "We re-highlighted the un-underlined parts of your evidence..." "Your author said something we don't like on Twitter..." are not real arguments.

-"PIKs good/bad" is the same argument as framework. The premise of a PIK is that the negative does not have to disagree with the plan in order to win the debate, which is identical to the premise of negative framework arguments.

-Alt solvency is, also, a framework question. If the neg can win by introducing any disagreement with the 1AC, the material solvency of an alternative approach to the world is not very relevant.

-Fairness is important, though I don't think it (or anything else) can be an "intrinsic" good.

K Affs and T/FW

-I spend approximately zero percent of my time coaching or thinking about framework debates. I find that I rarely understand what's happening in these debates. For some reason, I often judge them anyway.

-Framework debates usually involve teams talking past each other and relying on enthymemes in the place of explanation and warrants, which makes rendering a decision difficult.

-Flaws in the topic are negative ground and therefore not offense against framework. Arguments such as "nuclear policy is imperialist" are potentially relevant Ks of topical affirmatives, but they are not justifications for reading a non-topical aff.

-Arguments that boil down to "I should never have to say something with which I personally disagree" irritate me. College students do not have infallible understandings of the world. Debate intrinsically involves confronting the possibility that you could be wrong about your most closely-held beliefs - this is a feature, not a bug, of the activity.

-I prefer it when aff teams defend a specific model of debate. Speak granularly to the role your interp provides for clash/negation. Talk about core points of disagreement under your model and why this disagreement produces better debates.

Tips for Higher Speaker Points

-Demonstrate that you've read this paradigm without specifically referencing it.

-Read cards where the warrants are highlighted and point out where your opponents have failed to do the same.

-Send docs before ending prep.

-Don't send cards in the body of the email.

-Don't ask flow check questions (including "reasons to reject the team").

-Don't refer to the case pages as "advantage 1" and "advantage 2" when the 1AC provided more descriptive labels, such as "economy advantage."

-Don't read cards written by undergraduates.

-Don't reinsert rehighlighting unless the lines have already been read by the other team.

cool with anything just run it well especially if running k's, k-aff's and framework. no spreading

Noah Joshua

Former Debater

Spreading: Not a fan - I like a mix of speed and clear arguments. If I cannot flow it.. well.. shrug.

Email Chains: If I don’t hear it, I won’t flow it, but I do look to make sure both teams are sending the documents they said they would. I’ll look through the cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your citations.

Policy action NEEDS to be substantial. I will vote for any case if it is explained well enough and is flushed out.

Kritiks are welcome but as long as the advocacy AND ROB is robust. I am very picky about what I think a good K should look like. It should include aff specific links, the solvency needs to be thoroughly explained, and it should also be able to be explained in your own words.

·Do:

o Read a K that fits the Aff. Reading the same K against every aff on a topic isn't often the most strategic thing to do.

o Read Aff specific links. Identifying evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links.

o Have coherent Alt solvency with real world examples that a non-debater can understand without having read your solvency author.

o Make it clear what the role of the ballot is. Whether it is for a plan of action or "democracy". This is key.

Don't:

o Read a K you can’t explain in your own words.

Sportsmanship is key and will have an impact on your speaker points.

Open/Closed Cross Ex is up to you. I don't have a preference. But if your partner constantly asks and answers for you, they're stealing your speaker points.

Extending:I don't flow authors names - talk to me about warrants.

All of the arguments I evaluated are in my RFD.

hinnantnoah@gmail.com

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

As of the 2024-2025 season I've been judging rarely, so my ear is less well trained for speed and my opinions on the topic are less well-researched than my general judging history might indicate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous: These are feelings I have about debate that I feel somewhat more strongly about than the argument preferences expressed above but less strongly about than the non-negotiables below.

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

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

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

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

Non-negotiables:

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

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

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

Jake Lee (He/Him)

Math Teacher and Director of Debate at Mamaroneck High School

For Email Chain: jakemlee@umich.edu

Also add: mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

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

-

General:

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

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

Respect your opponents

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

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

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

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

I really do not understand why plan text in a vacuum makes sense.

Competition debates are also difficult for me to wrap my head around. If I am judging one of these debates, I will try my best to grasp with the arguments. But I would appreciate judge instruction a lot. I understand these debates are cool, but it seems so pointless to think about.

Why is K debate becoming so watered down to the fiat K/microaggressions. I'm honestly just genuinely shocked with some decision making with people that go for this version of the K when the actual links of the K are just decimating the AFF. You can win framework without the Fiat K. It is how K debate has been successful in the past. Framework block botting your way to K victories is becoming really sad and stale.

-

Don't do any of the following below:

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

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

If you answer arguments that were in the speech doc but not read, I won't let you know and just let you waste time, and dock speaker points. FLOW!

If it is clear you are are reading a prepped out backfile from another teammate, I am going to dock speaker points. You have butchered the activity of debate and just resulted to laziness, shame.

If you hide ASPEC or other theory arguments = cowardly, I will give the AFF MASSIVE amount of leeway to re-answer it since you did something so cowardly.

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

I'm a versatile judge but also keeping in mind that this is policy debate, I intend on voting at least with the barest minimum required:

1. Framework - what's yours, reasons to perfer, why is your opponents f/w undesirable, etc.
2. Impacts - what is the urgency? In round impacts included. If going for theory, what's the terminal impact of that.
3. Risks - what conquenses will be made from an opposing ballot?
4. Solvency - evidence of proof
5. Topicality/Theory - if there are no voters, I will not be voting on the argument. Independent voters need to be impacted out.

K affs have the burden of proof which means even if you don't claim fiat, solvency is still required. Evidence can be used as proof but there's going to be a deeper analysis needed to support your commitment and legitimacy of your advocacy if it is a performative style of debate especially. I still expect clash and line by line. You cannot get caught up in the argument that you refuse or forget to engage in actual debate. If by the end of debate I don't understand the solvency mechanism being used to solve the impacts of the aff and no analysis on reasons to perfer affs f/w I'm probably going to vote on persumption.

Lastly but should've been firstly, after years of debating and over a decade of judging, I have seen an upward trend in bad ethos in debate. Lets keep it respectful. If there are trigger warnings, they need to be addressed before the debate starts.

Open cross-x is fine.

I'm not going to evaluate any questions past cross x but if you want to ask simple questions during your prep during contructives, that's fine.

my background

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

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

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

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

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

general

if you are a novice -- do not worry about too much of the below. i promise i'm a lot more flexible for your rounds. focus on getting the fundamentals down more than my quirks, and have fun!

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

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

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

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

keep track of your own time.

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

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

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

ld

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

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

public forum

for novices - do not worry about the below! do your thing :)

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

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

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

*wear a mask if you are any degree of ill*

neutral or they/them pronouns // aprilmayma@gmail.com

me: 4 yrs TOC circuit policy @ Blue Valley West ('19: surveillance, china, education, immigration) // BA Political Science @ UC Berkeley ('22) // [Current] PhD student, Political Science @ Johns Hopkins. did not debate in college.

conflicts: college prep (2019-present), georgetown day (2023-2024), calvert hall (2023-2024)

judging stats: 264 sum, aff: 126(46.8%) - neg: 143(53.2%) // panels: 63, sat: 6x, split: 19 // decisions regretted: like 2, maybe 3

non-policy: dabbled but will evaluate like a policy judge.

its been a hot minute since ive judged, have mercy on me

[][][][][]***i literally dont know anything about this topic!***[][][][][] read:I know nothing :-)

___

juj preferences

[me] my debate opinions are influenced primarily by KU-affiliated/Kansas debate diaspora (ian beier, allie chase, matt munday, jyleesa hampton, box, hegna, Q, countless others, peers I had the privilege to debate against). i read heg affs as a 2A. I went for the K, impact turn & adv cp, and T as a 2N. Great for policy/T, policy/policy & policy/K, OK for K/policy, mid for K/K & theory. I think i'm good for a fast/technical debate for someone having been out of debate for 6 years. LOL. have mercy on me.

[norms] CX is a speech except when using extra prep. I do not care about respectability/politeness/"professionalism", but ego posturing/nastiness is distinct from assertiveness/confidence/good faith. respect diverse skill levels and debating styles. non-debate (interpersonal) disputes go straight to tab, NOT me. I am a mandated reporter.

[rfd] I will take the easiest way out. I try to write an aff and neg ballot and resolve one of them with as little intervention as possible - read: judge instructions necessary. I only read cards if they're extended into rebuttals w authors & warrants. Ev work, like Mac dre said, is not my job. framing the round through offensive/defense framing, presumption, models, etc. also helpful (if consistent). i flow on paper so slow down where it matters.

[online] do not start if my camera is off. SLOW DOWN, like slower than an in-person tournament, or else your cpu mic/my speaker will eat all your words; I will type "clear" in the round chat box once per speech.

[IRL] I'll clear u once per speech & stop flowing if i don't understand. my facial expressions reveal a lot about what I do/dont understand. track your own prep, but if you're bad at stealing prep (aka, I can tell), you will not like your speaks. cut my rfd short if you need to prep another round immediately.

[gen] debate is not debaters adjusting to the judge. do the type debate you are good at, not what you think I will like. I will meet you where you are, as long as you can explain your args. I like efficiency & will not punish a shortened speech unless its prematurely concluded. i do not read "inserts", a recut card is still a card - read it. I will not evaluate what I cannot flow & I do not flow analytics off the doc. #lets #signpost. clarity > speed, tech > truth. content warnings/disability accommodations/etc should be made verbally before disclosure/round.

** TLDR: I like good debate; as in, the more rounds I judge, the less strong feelings I have about specific arguments. I can be persuaded by most arguments (if you are good at being persuasive). do the work and you will win me over. good luck and have fun! :)

___

argument notes

[ETHICS VIOLATIONS] Teams must call an ethics violation to stop the round. if verified, the violating team drops with lowest speaks. otherwise, the accusing team drops with lowest speaks. [clipping] usually necessitates recording, contingent on debaters consent & tournament rules. clipping includes being unclear to the point of being incomprehensible & not marking.**I am following at least the 1AC and 1NC - read every word. seriously READ ALL THE WORDS!!!! if I notice clipping and no one else calls it out, I will not stop the round, but your speaks will reflect what I hear.

[case] yes. plan texts are my preference, but not a requirement. #1 fan of case debate. case turns too. does anyone go for dedev anymore?

[K-aff] okay, but not my neck of the woods. being germane to the resolution is good, or affs must resolve something or have offense. don't miss the forest for the trees- ex: 2NR responds LBL to the 1AR but fails to contextualize to the rest of the debate. I find myself often w a lot of info but unclear reasons to vote. judge instruction prevents judge intervention (esp. re: kvk debate).

[K-neg] sure. tell me what ur words mean. I'm familiar with most neolib/security/ontology-relevant K's, but never never never assume I know your theory of power. idk your white people (heidegger, bataille, schlag, baudrillard, wtv). K tricks r dope, if you can explain them.

[disads] yes. impact turns/turns case are awesome. idk anything about finance, spare me the jargon or at least explain it in baby words.

[cp] okay. slow down/signpost on deficits & impact out. "sufficiency framing" "perm do ____" are meaningless w/o explanation. abolish perm vomit! adv cp's r awesome!! I evaluate the risk of the net ben before CP solvency (unless told otherwise... judge instruction is your friend). remember to actually "[insert aff]" in your cp text.

[T] good (but I'm waiting for it to be great...). default to competing interps/framing through models unless told otherwise. caselists are good. SIGNPOST. slow down, i need to hear every word. + speaks for T debate off the flow. Impress me, & your speaks will reflect it! [re: T vs. K-aff]: I admittedly lean neg for limits being good & personal familiarity of args, but can be persuaded. i find K-aff v. fw rounds are increasingly uncreative/unadaptive... TVA's are persuasive (aff teams are not good at debating against them). judge instruction is your friend!

[theory] rule of thumb: equal input, equal-ish output. aka, blipped theory warrants blipped answers. do not expect a good rfd if you are speeding through theory blocks like you are reading the Cheesecake Factory menu. I will not vote on theory if you are simply asserting a violation - it is procedural argument, treat it like one.

[speaker points] i am anti speaks inflation. everyone starts at 28. I drop speaks for aforementioned reasons + disorganization + offensive/bad faith behavior. speaks are earned via efficient/effective speech construction, cx usage, succinctness, and strategy. 29.2+ reserved for exemplary speeches. below 28 indicates more pre-tournament prep is needed.

The briefest background info ever:

former 2A at Binghamton - I did a lot of K debate.

1- K, phil

2- policy/LARP

3/strike- theory/tricks

Put me on the email chain

cgmarin186@gmail.com

Do whatever you want* just tell me how to vote, what to vote on, and why I should vote on it

* Misc things that are not up for debate

- problematic behavior/rhetoric/language/vibes means your speaks = the number of hours of sleep I got last night

- I will flow shared speeches, please do not feed lines to your partner, just say them yourself

- If you're reading Schmitt or Heidegger your speaks are capped at 26 regardless of whether or not you win

- if you are reading afro pess blocks to answer a position that's not afro pess I am subtracting 1 point from your speaks

- Brownie points in the form of speaks for a well-executed phil strat in any event (that includes util if you do it right)

- if you spread your unsent analytics at card speed im only going to evaluate what i was able to flow so be careful

My default procedure for evaluating a debate -

*I believe very strongly that the three points under this heading are up for debate - these are just defaults*

1. Who am I, what is the round, what is the ballot and what can it do? Absent arguments that tell me otherwise:

- I am a recently graduated college debater who majored in linguistics and psychology, I care a lot more about the activity than policymaking

- The round is a competition predicated on your ability to persuade me to vote for you

2. What are the roles/burdens of the aff and the neg

- I don't care if the aff reads a plan, defends a change from the status quo, makes no arguments at all, you just have to explain why it means I should vote aff

- the negs job is to convince me to vote neg

3. Who solves which impacts and how do I evaluate/compare them?

- I start my evaluation with framework/framing

- discourse/education matter (ie. I would rather you just go for liberalism good than argue that your reps aren't important)

more detailed takes for people who want them:

K's:

I have probably read your lit base, if I haven't I'm equally excited to hear it

Do something fun and exciting, do something we've all seen before, just do it well and enjoy doing it. It's your round, I'm just living in it

There are probably no perms in a methods debate, but you still have to win that

DAs:

Love them (and never get to judge them lmao)

Don't be afraid to go for a DA and case just don't forget presumption

CPs:

Solvency advocate theory is probably true

These are a solid and underutilized strategy against k affs

Theory/T:

think of this as like a break glass in case of emergency option in front of me; if you can demonstrate and impact out in round abuse then do it

I am very persuaded by perf con

Disclosure theory means I need screenshots with a timestamp

if you're a circuit debater and your opponent has no idea what's going on I will deck your speaks

T FW/T USFG

I'd rather you go for education than fairness and win that policymaking/topic education are good

if you're going for fairness it's important to me that you win that there was in-round abuse; explain why the specific aff you're debating against was unfair/undebatable

TVAs that have nothing to do with the aff are a pet peeve

affs

I've read all kinds of affs.

K aff's- literally do whatever you want. I don't care if you mention the topic. I don't care if you have a c/i on fw.

I will vote for soft left affs, and honestly, I miss them, probability>magnitude is very winnable in front of me.

Policy affs- please keep your internal link chains alive ???? - tell me how the aff solves your extinction scenario

Extra

+.1 speaks for a one piece reference

+.2 speaks if you make me laugh

Debate en Español

Si quieren mandar documentos, pueden hacerlo por medio de este correo: dennisdebate2003@gmail.com

¡Hola! Soy Dennis Martinez. Actualmente soy Estudiante en la Universidad de Maryland donde estudio economia y cienca politica. Durante sus debates por favor usen mucho su evidencia pero tambien explicen en sus propias palabras sus argumentos. Procuren usar todo el tiempo en sus discursos para explicar sus argumentos. No tengo preferencias por ningun argumento y mi decision se basara en como han explicado sus arguementos y como han respondido a los del otro equipo.

¡Buena Suerte!

If there is an email chain please add me: dennisdebate2003@gmail.com

Background

Debated policy for three years for Northwestern High School as part of the Washington Urban Debate League.

General

Speed is fine but i'll make sure to let you know if you're unclear. No penalty for tech issues but please communicate what is going wrong to the room.

Racism, anti-blackness, sexism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia, misgendering and other forms of violence are an immediate L and 0.

Topicality

Aff - Counter-interpretation cards are critical. Tell me why your interpretation is better or neutral for the topic. Examples of what ground the aff team loses under their interpretation are critical. Treat your reasons to prefer as impacts and make comparisons in your rebuttals.

Neg - Make sure to draw a clear distinction of what the the aff doesn't meet. Examples of what affs are topical under your interpretation are super helpful. Treat your standards as impacts and explain why they matter.

Disads

Neg - I enjoy listening to disads. I like politics disadvantages however make sure your uniqueness evidence is up to date. Often disad debates lead to both sides having a risk of extinction so please make it easier for me and provide impact calc in your final rebuttal.

Aff - Same as the neg, evidence quality matters the most and please do impact calc in the final rebuttal

Counterplans

Neg - I enjoy listening to counterplan debates. Make your net-benefit story clear by the block and explain how the CP prevents it or doesn't link.

Aff - Too many aff teams rely on perms on cp debates. Make sure to explain solvency deficits and how your aff and only your aff prevents your impacts.

Kritiks

Neg - I am not familiar with as much K literature but I am open to listening to kritiks and becoming educated on them. Kritiks that use links as disads to the aff are especially persuasive to me. Make sure to explain the alt a little more to me as I may not be familiar with your authors and their theories.

Aff - I think the aff has to do more than tell me I should weigh the aff. Make sure to defend the process of policy-making and scenario planning.

T - USFG/K Affs

AFF - I enjoy listening to K affs that have a relation to the topic. I am probably not as familiar with your theory or authors so please make sure to simplify it for me during your final rebuttals. I never read a K aff when I debated but I believe there is value in challenging the resolution.

Neg - I was often debating T against K affs. If you read T - USFG make sure it's more than "state good" or "policy making" good arguments. Explain the impacts of moving away plan-focused debate.

Theory

I lean towards condo good. Agency CP's are probably legit. Some K alternatives could probably be utopian and vague. Plan texts can also often be vague. Just make sure to prove to me what ground/education you've lost.

Thank you debate community for all the support throughout the years. My email is martinez(dot)kathy312(at)gmail(dot)com, if you need to reach me.

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means I will make the decision that requires no work from me unless neither team has a ballot which requires zero work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Flowing Practices

I flow 1AC and 1NC cross-x just in case it becomes important to the debate. For 2AC and 2NC cross-x I am mostly listening and writing feedback about the constructive. I will flow 1AC & 1NC with the speech doc open next to the flow. I am reading along with the speech and will catch if you do things like hide aspec so don't worry about that. For the other 6 speeches I am probably not looking at the speech doc. and just flowing what I hear. Don't read into it if I close my eyes or look up and away; I'm just trying to increase my focus to flow better.

Online Debate Update
If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. "Reject the argument solves all their offense" is an unwarranted claim and teams should capitalize on this more. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows holistically.

DA:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

CP:

For the neg I prefer that you have a solvency advocate. For the aff I think solvency deficits to the CP probably win most in front of me. I'm alright for competition debates if you are good at them. Spreading one liner standards in the 1ar and then exploding on them in the 2ar will make me have a very low threshold for 2nr answers look like. Similar for the 2nr, but I think the 2nr needs to flag the analysis as new and tell me it justifies new 2ar answers.

K:

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Please leave the cards in the file and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points. For aff v K perm is probably your best weapon, answer the theory of power especially if there is an ontology claim, and FW which outright excludes the K is probably weaker than a FW which just says the aff gets to weigh their impacts.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. I'll vote on framework/topicality, for negs running it I think the "role of negation" is particular convincing and I need an offensive reason to vote, but defense on each aff standard/impact is just as important.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise. Perms test mutual exclusivity and I normally think they do this by resolving links through the perm. Multiple perms good/bad is a question to be debated on theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Complete line by line in the order that the opponents made the arguments
  • Productive CX

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
  • Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
  • Being really boring
  • Being rude

PF Specific

• I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
• If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
• Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
• In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
• Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

• 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
• Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
• Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

Email: simonpark101@gmail.com
Conflicts: Centennial, McDonogh, Atholton, River Hill, Reservoir, Capitol Debate, Georgetown Day

2024 Update (Random thoughts from recently judging, read this if time is limited)

• Everyone, it is now 2024. You ALL have the responsibility of making paperless debate run EFFICIENTLY. PLEASE learn/know how to reply to an email chain with an attachment.
• PLEASE FLOW. I'll say again: PLEASE FLOW. And I mean flow the SPEECHES, NOT the SPEECH DOCS. There is definitely a difference. My biggest pet peeve is when I see a debater get up and yell "we win because they dropped XYZ," when I saw you the past 3 speeches staring off into space and/or barely paying attention. I PAY ATTENTION TO EVERYTHING. As unfair as it is, from my time talking to judges from all backgrounds and ranges of debate knowledge, how you come across and are perceived IN THE ROUND play an enormous psychological component to judges when they give their decision and speaker points.
• Depth > Breadth. I love debate. However, I am a little disappointed that the popular negative strategy now is to read 8+ contradictory off-case positions with 3+ conditional advocacies. It is NOT the shear NUMBER of arguments that gets me disappointed, but rather the strategy of reading 1-3 positions that you know you can/will go for and reading 5-7 positions you know you will NEVER go for and reading them SOLEY for the purpose of SKEWING the 2A. So this goes without saying, but I highly encourage affirmative teams to go for conditionality/performative contradictions and/or to straight-turn half of the 1NC and I highly encourage negative teams to focus more on the DEPTH of GOOD arguments that are VIABLE 2NR options rather than ways to contrive the 1NC to "trick" the 2A. Do not get me wrong: I have seen very impressive speeches and voted for very good debaters that employ this strategy. I am writing this point more for affirmative teams that can use the lack of depth of the negative's arguments to their advantage.
• An extension of an argument requires a claim, warrant, and reference to author/date (if applicable). I am not reading any evidence post-round if final rebuttals do not reach this threshold of explanation.
• The best speeches I have seen are where the debater 1) uses their flow to guide their line by line , 2) has ethos/pathos, 3) connects and communicates to the judge in the speeches AND CX, 4) articulate the warrants of their main arguments embedded within the opponent's arguments/warrants, and 5) give smart framing and meta-level explanation (impact calculus, CP solvency framing, how FW on the K implicates the rest of the debate etc.)
• Please have fun and be competitive!

Top-Level

• Don’t clip/cross-read/cheat in any way
• Tech > Truth. However, the worse your argument is, the more explanation is needed even though it may be dropped.
• Presumption goes towards less change
• Debate is a communication activity. If you aren't communicating with me in your speeches, you're not doing your job. In other words, be clear and confident. Gabe Koo said it best "...If I hear you muttering how awful your 2AR is right as it ends, why do you think I would want to vote for you? If you don't think you won, why should I convince myself you won?"

"Clash" Debate

• I have read an affirmative without a traditional plan text and also have been negative reading only Framework
• To me, these debates are won by the side that best argues their interpretation creates the best model for debate while solving for all, if not most, of the opposing side's offense.
• The case debate MUST be relevant to the debate, unless the negative team is WAYYYYY ahead on the Framework proper debate (I have yet to see this).
• There are typically two routes for the negative. 1. Liberal 2. Hard-core Right. I personally think the hard core right is better because if you go the Liberal route, the Aff is able to either include themselves in your interpretation and your internal link thresholds are a lot weaker, or the Aff can solve for your terminal impacts a lot easier. I think the most persuasive way to go for Framework is to go for limits/clash as an internal link to fairness and advocacy skills/decision making. Make a bunch of turns case/solves case arguments as well. I do think the Liberal version of Framework can be persuasive when there is a good link argument to the aff that proves a trade-off. However, given the way people read no-plan affs now-a-days, that is hard to win. When the Liberal version of Framework is executed correctly, it is devastating.

Theory and where I lean

• 3+ Conditional Advocacies/Conditions CPs/Word PICs/Process CPs/Object Fiat/Contradictions Bad – Aff
• 1 Conditional Advocacy/Topical CPs/Unconditionality/Intrinsic & Severance Perms – Neg
• 2 Conditional Advocacies/International Fiat/50 State Fiat/Agent CPs/Floating PIKs – Middle

Counterplans

• the 2NR has to explicitly say the judge has to kick the CP
• Solvency advocates are necessary
• Well-researched process-based CPs/PICs are my favorite

Disadvantages/Impact Turns

• Top-level disad impact calculus and straight impact turns I feel like almost became a lost art
• Smart and analytical "turns case" arguments are underrated
• Politics is cool

Topicality

• Mostly aff leaning on reasonability vs. competing interpretation questions but can be persuaded otherwise
• Generic fairness/education impact calc is boring. That should all be contextualized to the aff/what the aff justifies
• I give the 1AR leeway when T is extended for like 1:30 or 2 minutes in the block. Because if it is only1:30~2:00of the block, it was probably super blippy and in most cases, awful

The K

• Link/impact contextualization to the aff’s plan mechanism/internal link triumphs contextualization to the aff saying "USfg" in the plan/the impact card the aff reads
• Role of the ballot/judge arguments getting thrown around a lot but never being implicated is my biggest pet peeve. Given that, I think it is kinda ridiculous how some K debates go down vs. policy affs. Obviously debate isn't ONLY be about the plan vs. squo/competitive policy option and obviously debate isn't ONLY about whether the aff's reps/epistemology/ontology/other are ok. Each side needs to win why their framework is a better model for debate that can also solve the opposing side's offense.
• 2ACs impact turning the K is an underrated strategy. I don't know why people don't go for imperialism/capitalism/biopolitics good as much as people used to. If you’re going to defend the hard right, might as well stick to it.

Left on Left

• This is where anything goes. Do you and do what you do well.
• Most of these debates I have judged primarily came down to whether the affirmative gets a permutation. I am right down the middle and can be persuaded either way.

Email for chain:Jsantor9@binghamton.edu

Hi, I'm Jeremy. I did 4 years of policy debate in high school and three in college. I did almost exclusively critical debate with an emphasis on post-structuralism and marxism.

A couple nit-picky things:

• Have the chain made and 1ac sent out by the start time.
• Send evidence in a document, not the body of the chain.
• Adjust your speed and clarity in online rounds. I will evaluate the round based off what I can hear and flow.
• If you are going to continue crossx after time, run prep.

General Thoughts:

• Do what you do best and win the flow. Overcorrecting too much is probably a bad thing.
• Debates are won and lost in the final rebuttals. When those speeches pick a decisive ballot path, provide judge instruction by flagging key framing questions, and utilize those framing questions to evaluate and bracket out offense on the line by line, the probability that I vote in your favor increases. I find role of the judge arguments to be useful, especially when they provide me with an epistemic/ethical position from which to adjudicate arguments on the flow.
• Debate is ultimately a communicative activity that requires you to persuade me to vote in a particular way. If I need to sort through evidence at the end of the debate to make a decision, I will be disappointed. I would much rather debaters draw out warrants from their evidence and spin them as necessary to convince me of the validity of their claim relative to their opponents. That being said, if you have a really good piece of evidence that you want me to look at, specifically flag it in your speech and tell me to do that as part of your judge instruction.
• I think robust case debates can be useful, especially by the late rebuttals. I find that negative teams are disadvantaged when affirmative teams get to weigh 100% of their case. Impact defense, internal link takeouts, and solvency deficits can be powerful tools when deliberately incorporated into comparative impact analysis. Well researched case turns are also very persuasive.
• I tend to find impacts that are material and proximate to be more persuasive than those that are abstract and distant. What does my ballot solve?

K affs vs Framework

• I tend to be skeptical of whether models of debate really exist or not. There seems to be just an actual debate occurring in front of me that requires adjudication and those often take a myriad of forms. I find that affirmative teams are more persuasive when they dispute a focus on models and instead shift the nexus of the debate to the validity and utility of the practices of the activity. When the debate is evaluated through the question of models, I find that it favors the negative team.
• I find concessionary ground claims to be largely unpersuasive given the diversity of ways programs have found to engage with critical affirmatives without resorting to framework. It seems like many teams choose to read framework to avoid substantive engagement. However, against new affirmatives, I may be more receptive to such claims.
• Fairness is certainly an internal link to many things such as skills and education. I think it can be an impact in its own right when attached to external implications such as people quitting and debate dying as an activity. However, those implications still beg a question about the value of the activity and thus why it ought to be preserved. That is a premise that you must win to win this argument in my mind.
• I feel similarly about clash as an impact. I think it often lacks external implications. Those are as far as I understand, are skills and education.
• I find TVAs without solvency advocates to be unpersuasive because they do not prove that there is a viable affirmative case that could be written. TVAs cut from affirmative evidence are especially persuasive.
• Affirmative strategies with an external piece of offense to weigh vs the negative impact + some kind of defense (counter-interpretation or otherwise) tend to be a persuasive strategy.

K v K Debates

• I think affirmative teams get to a perm, theoretically speaking; but if they are unable to defend that they get the perm when challenged I won't grant them it.
• I find an effective affirmative strategy to be either 1) a permutation with case, link turns, and an alternative disadvantage as Net benefits or 2) case outweighs with a disadvantage to the alternative.
• A find an effective negative strategy to be outweighing the affirmative's impact while having some form of defense whether it be an alternative that resolves a significant portion of the aff, impact defense, or solvency takeouts.
• Robust case debates vs k affs are particularly persuasive. I am willing to vote on presumption.

Policy v K Debates

• Aff: Win that you get to weigh case and the substance of the case, outweigh the k. Defense on alt solvency helps.
• Neg: Win that the aff does not get to weigh the case OR have an impact that outweighs and some case defense.

DA/CP

I don't judge these debates very often and thus don't have any specific thoughts that aren't captured by stuff i said above. just win the flow.

2023 - Policy Debate Update

You should consider me a newer policy judge and debate accordingly. Here are some general thoughts to consider as you prepare for the round:

Add me to the email chain: My email is shibley@bxscience.edu.

Non-Topical Arguments: I will not understand Ks or non-topical arguments. I DO NOT have an issue with these arguments on principle, but I will not be able to evaluate the round to the level you would expect or prefer.

Topicality: I am not experienced with topicality policy debates. If you decide to run these arguments, I cannot promise that I will make a decision you will be satisfied with, but I will do my best.

Line-by-line: Please move methodically through the flow and tell me the order before beginning your speech.

Judge Instruction: In each rebuttal speech, please tell me how to evaluate your arguments and why I should be voting for you. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.

Speed: Please slow down to a conversational pace on tags and analytics. You can probably spread the body of the card but you must slow down on the tags and analytics in order for me to understand your arguments. Do not clip cards. I will know if you do.

If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it: psusko@gmail.com

Default

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

Topicality

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

Counterplans

Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.

Disadvantages

I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.

Criticisms

I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.

Performance

I judge around 2-3 performance debates a year. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.

Flowing

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

Notes

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

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

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

Depth > Breadth

David Trigaux

Former competitor: St. Petersburg High School (4 yr), University of South Florida (4 yr)

Director, Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

** Fall 2024 Update **

The implications of the 2024 election most arguments are substantial. If you haven't adjusted your blocks and done some updates, expect to lose in front of me to someone who has.

Accessibility:

I run an Urban Debate League; it is my professional responsibility to make debate more accessible. I work with 800+ students per season, ranging from brand new ES and MS students refining their literacy skills and speaking in front of someone else for the first time to national circuit teams looking to innovate and reach the TOC. Beginners and ToC debaters are equally valuable members of the community and things that make debate less accessible for either party are a big issue for me. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on whatever scholarship / political strategies as presented, but folks gotta be able to access the space first.

If you erect a barrier to accessing this activity for someone else, I will vote you down, give you the lowest possible speaker points, report you to TAB, complain to your coach, and anything else I can think of to make your time at this tournament less enjoyable and successful. This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own). This is a big accessibility question for the activity that gets overlooked a lot especially post pandemic, many of our debaters still use paper files and don't have their own computers / only have relatively iffy Chromebooks.

5 Min Before Round Notes:

I judge 30 rounds at national circuit tournaments each year, cut A LOT of cards on each topic, and am somewhere in the middle of the argumentation spectrum. I often judge clash debates, though I enjoy policy v policy rounds too. I like Politics DAs and I also like performance Affs. I have some slight preferences (see below), but I amexcited to hear whatever style/substance of argumentation you'd like to make.

• Creativity + Scholarship: *Moving up for emphasis* Go do some research! I've judged a lot over the years and have seen basically everything.Be clever, do something I haven't heard before, or have a unique twist on an old favorite. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat. (Read: Don't barf Open Ev Downloads)
• Speed: I can handle whatever you throw at me but it doesn't mean that full speed is always best. 75% Speed + emotive gets more speaks than adding a crappy 7th off you'll never touch again.
• Policy v Kritik: I was a flex debater and generally coach the same way, though I have run/coached 1 off K and 1 off policy strategies. Teams that adapt and have a specific strategy against the other team almost always do better than those that try to just do one thing and hope it matches up well against everyone.
• Theory: I often find these debates shallow and trade-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and prove to me why you don't have other options.
• Performance: “Back in my day….” Performance Affs had a lot more actual “performance” to them (music, costume, choreography, etc.). Spreading 3 lines of poetry and never talking about it again doesn't disrupt any existing epistemologies and is performative at best. I have coached a few performative teams and find myself more and more excited about them....when the performance is substantive and has a point.
• Shadow Extending: I intentionally don’t flow author’s names in Varsity rounds, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you. Novices get a lot of latitude here; I am always down to help folks develop the fundamentals. Trying to extend things is appreciated even if it isn't perfect.
• Email Chains: This is a persuasive activity. If I don’t hear it/flow it, you didn't do enough to win the point and I’m not going to read along and do work for you. Pull the warrants out in the debate. I’ll look through the cards generally as the round goes on if something interests me, if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your evidence.
• About "the State": I was born and current live in Washington D.C., have a graduate degree in Political Science, and have worked in electoral politics and on public policy issues outside debate. This has shaped a pre-disposition that "governance" is inevitable, and power isn't automatically evil. The US government has a poor track-record on many issues, but I findgeneric "state always bad" links unpersuasive, historically untrue, and/or insufficiently nuanced. I think you are better than that, and I challenge you to make nuanced, well researched claims instead. Teams that do usually win and get exceedingly high speaker points, while those that don't usually lose badly. This background also makes me more interested in implementation and methodology of change (government, social movement, or otherwise) than the average judge, so specific and beyond-the-buzzword contextualization on plan/alt, etc. solvency are great.
• Artificial Intelligence: I will continue to listen to the great, thoughtful peers in the community, but as far as I'm concerned thus far, getting AI assistance to write rebuttals mid-round is cheating and actively anti-educational. Be better than that. If you suspect the other team is, raise it as an ethics issue. I'll be very open to hearing it.

Ways to Lose Rounds / Speaker Points:

1. Being Mean -- I am very flexible with speaker points, heavily rewarding good research, wit, and humor, and am very willing to nuke your speaker points or stop the round if you are demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.
2. Leave D.C. Out: Don't leave D.C. out of your States CP Text or other relevant advocacy statements. Its bad policy writing and continues a racialized history of erasure of the 750,000 + majority black residents who live here and experience taxation and other abuses without representation. Don't perpetuate it.
3. Rude Post-Rounding (especially if it is by someone who didn't watch the round): I will contact tab and vigorously reduce speaker points for your team after submission.
4. Multi-Minute Overviews: Don't.
5. Extinction Good: Don't be a troll, get a better strategy that isn't laced with nasty racial undertones.
6. Trolly High Theory Technobabble Arguments: If you just want to demonstrate how smart you are by winning a debate by running nonsense, strike me. What you say should contribute to our understanding of the world / human relations, otherwise don't waste my time.
7. Highly Inaccurate Email Chains: Unfortunately, some folks put a giant pile of cards they couldn’t possibly get through in the email chain, and skip around to the point of confusion, making refutation (and flowing) difficult. It’s lazy at best and a cheap move at worst and will impact your speaks if I feel like it is intentional.
8. **New Pet Peeve** Plan / Counterplan Flaws: The plan text / advocacy statement is the focus of the debate -- you should put some effort into writing it. I've found myself very persuadable by plan flaw arguments if a substantive normal means argument can be made.

In the Weeds

Disadvantages:

· I I like DAs. Too many debates lack a DA of some kind in the 1NC.

o Do:

§ I am a huge sucker for evidence quality / recency debates, and will make it rain speaker points. Have some creative/Topic/Aff specific DAs.

o Don’t:

§Read an Elections DA after the election / be wrong about what the bill you are talking about does on Agenda Politics DAs. I wouldn't have to put it here if it didn't keep happening folks....

o Politics DA: Given my background in professional politics, I am a big fan of a well-run/researched politics DA. I read Politico and The Hill daily and many of my close friends work for Congress -- I nerd out for this stuff. I also know that there just isn't a logical scenario some weekends. Do your research, I’ll know if you haven’t.

Counterplans:

I like a substantive counterplan debate.

o Do:

§ Write a detailed, well written CP Text and/or have some topic specific nuance for generics (like Courts).

§ Use questionably competitive CPs (consult, PIC, condition, etc.) supported by strong, real world solvency advocates.

§ Substantive, non-theoretical responses (even if uncarded) to CPs.

o Don’t:

§Default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses.

Procedurals/Topicality:

· Can be a strong strategy if used appropriately/creatively.

o Do:

§ Prove harm

§ Slow down. Less jargon, more examples

§ Creative Violations based in literature or debate-ability.

o Don’t:

§Use procedurals just to out-tech your opponents, especially outside of Varsity. If you hope to win on Condo, strike me.

Case Debate:

· More folks should debate the case, cards or not. Do your homework pre-tournament!

o Do:

§ Have specific attacks on the mechanism or advantage scenarios of the Aff, even if just smart analytics.

o Don’t:

§ Spend a lot of time reading arguments you can’t go for later or reading new cards that have the same warrants already in the 1AC

Kritiks:

· I started my debate career as a 1 off K Debater and grew to see it as part of a balanced strategy, a good strategy against some affs and not others.

o Do:

§ Read Aff specific links. Identifying evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links.

§ Have coherent Alt solvency with real world examples that a non-debater can understand without having read your solvency author.

§ Tell a non-jargony story in your overview and tags

o Don’t:

§ Read hybrid Ks whose authors wouldn't agree with one another and don't have a consistent theory of power.

§ I see more and more teams giving pre-prepared 2NCs on the K that aren't responsive to the 2AC. Be better than that.

§ Read a K you can’t explain in your own words, one that you can’t articulate it's role in a competitive forum, or what my role listening to your words is.

§ I find Psychoanalysis arguments frustratingly unfalsifiable and hard to believe or follow. I'd love to be proven wrong, but run at your own risk.

o Literature: I have read a lot of K literature (Anti-Blackness, Cap, Fem, Security, etc.) but nobody is well versed in all literature bases. Explain your theory as if I haven't read the book, I will not do work for you and assume to understand your buzzwords.

o Role of the Ballot: I default to serving as a policymaker but will embrace alternative roles if you are clear what I should do instead in your first speech. Doing so later seems pretty cheap, and just isn't good persuasion.

Non-Policy Formats of Debate:

I did a fair amount of Congress and old school LD and enjoyed it. Congress and Exempt offer unique opportunities for participants and can contribute to the accessibility of the activity for beginners. Once you get comfortable arguing, the peer reviewed research about the comparative benefits of policy debate is unassailable. Before you mention it, modern LD is just policy for people who can't work together with a partner. Get over it, develop some life skills.

On Public Forum and other similar anti-intellectual formats

I find the growing popularity many formats like PF that are proud their lack of rigor and anti-intellectualism detestable. Notable research shows that formats of debate that value style > substance are discriminatory against women and minorities, and preferring them anyway is a searing indict of those who participate.

If I'm somehow judging one of these formats anyway, something went wrong in tournament admin, and they made me feel guilty enough that I haven't found a way to get out of judging this round. My apologies in advance. I'llbe grumpy and use your pre-round time to tell you how PF was created as a result of white flight far more than you want to hear (but less than you need, if you are still doing PF).

If you do not have evidence with proper citations, you paraphrase, and/or you don't have full text evidence ready to share with the other team pre-round, I will immediately vote for your opponents. If both of you ignore academic integrity, I will put my feet up, not flow, see if the Tabroom will allow me to give a double loss, and if not, vote based on.....whatever vibes come to me, or who I personally agree with more.

s.k.wallace.09@gmail.com

I am an undergraduate studying physics, math, and English. I prefer they/them pronouns. I debated for ~8 years in CX (college and HS), LD, and PF. I competed at many different tournaments with many different judges (WACFL, NDT, etc), so I am generally comfortable judging any sort of round.

Apologies for the length of this paradigm; you should really only read the first section. The rest contains various opinions/biases that I have noticed sometimes factor into my decisions.

Must Read:

I believe debate is a game with only one axiomatic principle: that the role of the affirmative is to prove that a deviation from the status quo is desirable, and that the role of the negative is to disprove this. As a judge, I will flow the debate and attempt to answer two questions based exclusively on this flow: first, "what ethical framework determines the desirability of an advocacy?" This could be phrased in debate terminology as "what arguments are logical affirmative and negative ground?" Second, "under this framework, is the affirmative's advocacy desirable?"

Absent contestation, I assume that my decision will be about the desirability of a topical plan, which is determined by the relative risk of the harms caused and solved by the plan. Relative risk is determined by magnitude and probability.

I have four exceptions to this "anything goes" paradigm.

1. Cheating is not allowed: clipping, texting, violating speech time/order, stealing prep, etc.
2. I will not evaluate cards written by debate coaches or competitors while they were/are active in the activity. This includes Dr. Reid-Brinkley's and Dr. Bankey's theses, since they were active coaches at the time, but does not include, for example, Dr. Gillespie's academic work published since he left the activity.
3. I will not consider arguments that are clearly offensive or irredeemably stupid. My bar for the former is similar to every other judge and likely does not need clarification. There are vanishingly few arguments that meet my bar for the latter, especially in CX; most are LD classics (Xeno's paradox comes to mind). A good rule of thumb: if you were to make your argument in an academic setting, and you would not be asked to leave or laughed out of the room, then your argument is probably fine with me.
4. I will only flow the debater who is supposed to be giving the speech.

Less important thoughts:

I only read evidence if I absolutely have to in order to resolve an argument critical to my decision.

"Try or die" framing makes no logical sense to me. In my mind, there is no difference between the probability of the plan being able to solve a harm, and the probability of the harm occurring in the status quo. If the negative wins solvency defense, then they reduce the risk of the advantage just as much as if they had won impact defense.

I have a terrible memory for debate jargon, which affects me most when judging debates about counterplan competition - I appreciate when the 2NR/2AR focus heavily on the logic/debate theory of a couple of key arguments.

In most of the debates I judge, the affirmative reads a plan and the negative goes for a K. I also judge a lot of policy vs policy debates. I don't think I have ever judged a KvK debate, but I certainly had a lot of KvK debates when I was competing.

It is very easy to convince me that something other than the plan should matter for determining the desirability of the aff's advocacy, and much more difficult to convince me that that "something" matters more than the consequences of the plan. Put differently, I have given many decisions on "extinction outweighs" and very few decisions on "only the plan matters."

I have never voted for a K 2NR that did not extend framework. I think a public policy style framework for determining desirability includes link uniqueness. 2NRs a la "the plan is capitalist, capitalism causes extinction, therefore the plan causes extinction" are nonsensical.

Any argument that animals’ lives or well-being have less value than humans’ is abhorrent to me. I very strongly believe that consuming animals or animal products is extremely unethical, and that consuming meat is simply evil.

Messai Yigletu: Head Debate Coach at BASIS DC

4 years experience as a debater in high school, LD.

Coach for policy debaters, middle & high school. (Presently coaching.)

I currently coach the policy debate team at BASIS DC and have done so since the 2020 season.

would like to be on email chains for case files: messaiyigletu@gmail.com

if you are reading this, that means I will be hearing you debate pretty soon! good luck! take a minute to read a few important points that will help you in this debate.

Arguments/Debate

not usually a fan of spread/speed. Usually fine + can keep up if I have case files & you read taglines

if you completely spread analytics, I would like the docs to be shared. Not going to struggle to flow due to the level of speed that is becoming normal in debate. If you are going too fast and I miss something, welp.

SIGNPOST ALL ARGUMENTS! Expecting me to guess what off you are reading based on evidence is irritating and causes unnecessary confusion + various different names/key words in round for the same block/arg. Be clear and straightforward.

Prefer to hear roadmaps at the beginning of every speech.

fine with K as long as it is clearly explained and set out in the speech. not guaranteed that I will have prior knowledge and even if I do, prefer a deep and analytical explanation of your thesis. Make sure to give a detailed/clear explanation - especially w/framing + alt.

comparative + clear clash & addressing all arguments on flow are key winning points for me. Clear story for why you should win at the end, dislike when debaters at the end go for “if you don’t buy _, you can buy __” done with every single argument. Indicates you believe you aren’t confidently winning any flow - 2AR/NR should be straightforward and concise - trying to write my ballot for me.

do not assume I will automatically indicate drops in anyone's favor. if drops occur, you are responsible for addressing and explaining the warrants for why the drop is key relative to the round. (Actual drops occuring, plz don't just try and lie in 2AR/2NR. yes - it has happened.) all args on flow should be extended or specifically kicked out of throughout the debate by both sides.

speaker points are awarded basis on quality of speeches, time usage, and clarity.

keep it respectful, especially during CX. intensity and passion are fine and even encouraged, but never make it personal/attempt to take it to a point of disrespect.