John Edie Holiday Tournament at Blake

2014 — MN/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Victor Anaya Thomas Kelly High School 7 rounds None

Steven Appelget South 7 rounds

Last changed on Thu December 31, 2020 at 8:44 AM CDT

(c&p from the old wikispaces one, so it addresses mostly old policy stuff)

Now with updated information and more bad jokes!

"the last hypothesis tester alive in captivity"

(Sadly, we have received news of the passing of the last known hypothesis tester alive in captivity sometime during 2013. We bid a fond farewell to this dinosaur and hope its fossilized bones find their way to a Museum of Mesozoic Paradigms to be studied and argued over by scholars in the years to come)

High School: Wayzata
College: Macalester
Past (debate) employers: Wayzata; Bloomington Schools (MN)
Proud past honoree as a Blake Tab Room Turkey

I don't hear as well as I once did, so I like speakers to be loud and clear. I will usually also sit closer to the speaker than other judges.

Old ramblings about the K:

Kritiks are fine, but I want to see/hear a good solid link to the affirmative's advocacy or actions. I think framework arguments are very important, but I think framework spews are a waste of everybody's time. I have already heard your camp blocks and would appreciate it if you left them in your tubs. Fewer and better points are to be preferred to more and weaker points.

New ramblings about the K:

I don't really disagree much with my soon-to-be-fossilized past self, but I will attempt to be a bit clearer.

I think it is important for the K team--whether affirmative or negative--to clearly identify what they are critiquing. Is it a method of thought? Is it a structure? Is it a particular word? Most Konfusion seems to start from a Kritik that is vague in its kriticism. If the target of the K is not clear when it is first presented, a poor debate usually results. This failure to identify the target has given K an unfair reputation of being shifty and even "cheating". Do everybody in the round a big favor and identify the target of the kritik.

Framework is, in theory, a great argument. I appreciate the fact that some people started to go beyond debate coach evidence (blech!) and delve into discourse and political theory to create some arguments that get into the reasons why debate should or should not be done a certain way. I much prefer a small, tight framework argument to a sprawling "throw it all at the wall and see what sticks" style.

Style

I have already said I like volume.

I rarely call cards unless there is a dispute about the card--if you want me to pay attention to a card, read it in the round and extend it.

I generally don't buy the argument that 2NC cannot run new arguments.

I dislike the use of the term "abuse" as a substitute for an argument.

Special Update for the 2020 MSHSL State Debate Tournament

So, I've been out of the policy realm for a couple of years. In spite of this, your coaches have chosen me to judge at the state tournament. Go figure.

Because I have not judged any policy rounds this year, you cannot assume I know the intricacies of arguments that have developed this year. You must explain them. You also should fully define any abbreviations or acronyms that have come into vogue this year--I have not heard them before.

I love speed, but I can no longer hear speed. I will make an effort to use "clear" to signal you that I am having difficulty hearing you. I don't want to judge rounds based on what I can or cannot hear, so please, please, please, pay attention when I am shouting at you from the back of the room!

Special Update for 2021 MSHSL Sections / State Debate Tournaments

I haven't judged or coached this year. This means I may be unfamiliar with acronyms or abbreviations specific to the topic. The first time you use an acronym or abbreviation in a round, please say the original word or phrase so I will know what you are talking about.

Marquis Ard Hire 7 rounds

David Arnett Hire 1 rounds

Rohit Asirvatham Notre Dame High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 16, 2017 at 8:14 AM EDT

asirv001@umn.edu

I debate at the University of Minnesota. I mostly do policy stuff. I appreciate the amount of effort debating requires, so I will take judging your round seriously.

Clarity is important.

Ev quality and highlighting are important.

Tech is way more important than truth.

Feel free to insert re-highlighting of the other teams ev as a reference to what you are talking about.

Case:

Case+Topic DA is the most fun neg strategy.

I will reward negative strategies that take up debating the case.

2ACs have to fully answer 1NC arguments.

I will give credit for deep 2NC explanation, even though the 2NR is usually too time pressed to re-do it.

It’s not that hard to get me to vote neg on presumption.

Don’t just read impact defense—you don’t need cards to beat bad advantages.

DAs:

Link usually matters more than uniqueness.

Smart analytics that are properly applied are equal to cards, unless the cards are qualified and equally warranted.

There are lots of silly disads that I would classify as having zero risk.

CPs:

I am very suspicious of the legitimacy of states and process CPs.

Advantage CPs are fun—especially smart analytic ones

PICs out of something the aff does are fun

Condo is almost infinitely fine

Theory other than condo is a reason to reject the argument

T vs policy affs:

Limits are much more important than aff ground.

Competing interpretations make more sense than reasonability.

T vs K aff:

I am bad for the aff when the neg makes competent arguments.

Fairness and clash are difficult to beat, because they seem more important and intrinsic to debate than the content of debates.

If the neg wasn’t prepared to test the affirmatives arguments, why would I presume the aff arguments are true?

Topic education and state education good seem silly—we can learn about that stuff somewhere else and in other debates.

T versions don’t have to solve the aff—just show that the resolution is a debatable concept.

The participation DA to T is persuasive for the aff.

Policy Aff vs K:

I am bad for the neg when your links are to the squo and you don’t disprove the case.

I am good for the neg when your links are to the aff, your stuff makes the aff impacts inevitable and so it becomes try or die for the alt.

Kevin Bancroft Niles West High School 4 rounds

David Basler WDM Valley 7 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 12, 2019 at 5:15 AM CDT

POLICY PARADIGM FOR DAVID BASLER (Updated for 2019-20 season)
FORMER POLICY DEBATE COACH AT WEST DES MOINES VALLEY (IOWA)

A QUICK SUMMARY (if you are accessing this on your iPhone as the round is starting):
Speed is OK.
T, theory, Ks and K Affs OK
I do not require you to take prep time for sharing/sending speech docs.
Be kind to your opponents, your partner and the judge.
I will not be on Facebook during c/x.

"Clearly, some philosophies aren't for all people. And that's my new philosophy!" - Sally Brown, You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown, 2012

I BE ME. I have recently left coaching after having been a high school policy debate coach for the last eight years, mostly at West Des Moines Valley (2010-2015, 2016-2019) and also at Dowling Catholic (2015-16). I typically judge between 70-100 policy rounds a year. The last couple of years were unusual in that I did not judge as many rounds and did not judge at all at Glenbrooks, Harvard, Blake, etc. I try and stay familiar with the arguments run by top regional and national teams and with the content being put out by the top policy debate camps. Some good teams even pref me.

I was a successful CEDA debater in college, but I did have a wicked mullet so that could explain the success.

U BE U. What kind of arguments do I like? I enjoyed watching Michael Jordan the basketball player more than Michael Jordan the baseball player. I want to see you do what you do best. My preferences in regard to certain arguments should not matter. I try to come into each round with no position on what the voting issues should be, although I do still believe in negative presumption. I also believe you can still rock in America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB3kQZJ2aLw

F/WORK. When it comes to framework, I will listen to arguments in support of any position, but if neither team wins the framework debate I will default to the question on the ballot- "I believe the better debating was done by ..." I will reject framework in favor of a K aff when the affirmative team gives me the more persuasive reasons why having a plan text, defending the state, etc. is bad. I will vote against a K aff on framework when the negative team gives me the more persuasive reasons why not having a plan text, not defending the state, etc. is bad. I will vote for teams that do not have a plan text and I will also vote against them.

MAKE ME LAUGH, GET GOOD SPEAKS. I really enjoy creative arguments. I appreciate humor. I respect debaters who can speak both quickly and clearly. I used to love doing c/x and I still love hearing a good c/x. I like debaters with cool nicknames like "Q" or "DanBan." I also like the words "kitchenette" and "flume."

POLICY TEAMS. Heg good. Heg bad. The government reads your email, so they know how you really feel, but I am cool with whatever. Because I am kind of a political junkie I love a good politics disad but that doesn't mean your link chain can stink.

WHAT ABOUT THE K? Bring it. Some of my absolute favorite debates I have judged have been K debates. However, reading dense philosophical texts at 350 words per minute is not helpful to comprehension. You know what else is almost always not helpful to comprehension? Super long taglines that are impossible to flow and lengthy overviews. Do it on the line-by-line. I would say I have heard just about everything but I am most familiar with economic theory, identity arguments, and Ks of consumption, technology and consumerism. I am less familiar with psychoanalysis but will always vote for stuff I think is persuasive (which means you just need to make me understand it). I am not a teacher (I am a lawyer) so I am only "in the literature" as a former debate coach whose teams sometimes gravitated toward and read Ks and Affs with no plan text.

As I try not to intervene as a judge, I am not going to give you the benefit of everything I know about a particular philosopher, legal argument, theory argument or a particular policy option. You always need to explain your arguments.

PERFORMANCE/"PROJECT"/NON-TRADITIONAL TEAMS. Sure. It is your community. I like the idea that you get to write the rules. Dance, sing or drum like there is nobody watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItZyaOlrb7E

"I wanna go fast."- Ricky Bobby, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, 2006

SPEED. If you are clear, I will be able to flow you. However, though speaking quickly has become a community norm in policy debate, debate is still fundamentally about the quality of your oral advocacy and communication. I think it is my job as a judge to say who was winning when time expired. This means I will rarely call for cards unless there is a disagreement over what the card says or I don't know how else to decide the debate. As Big from Gonzaga says in his paradigm- "Making a decision after re-reading read evidence in a debate distances judges from the performance of the speech and increases the likelihood of interpretive hubris. I don’t think either of those things are desirable characteristics of a decision."

THEORY. I am sometimes fine with multiple conditional arguments, 50 state fiat, etc. I am sometimes not fine with it. Win offense to win your theory argument. Recall that it is harder for me to flow 8 points of theory than two pieces of tagged evidence and please slow down.Strategic use of theory is smart because it almost always takes more time to answer the argument than it does to make it, however, this also means I am going to cut the other team some slack in making their answers and evidence of actual in-round abuse is the easiest way to get me to vote on theory.

PREP. I do not require a team to use prep time to send their speech to the other team. Don't steal prep time while the other team is sending you their arguments. Also, if you still need to re-order all of your papers when you get up to the podium, you are still prepping.

"Gretchen, I'm sorry I laughed at you that time you got diarrhea at Barnes & Nobles." - Karen Smith, Mean Girls, 2004

MEAN PEOPLE SUCK. Even though I believe the sarcastic slow-clap to be an underutilized method of cross-ex, I expect you to be respectful and courteous to your opponents, your partner and to the judge. I can assure you that the best advocates out in the real world (whether they are trial attorneys, lobbyists, politicians, activists, writers, Comedy Central talk show hosts, etc.) understand the difference between vigorous disagreement in a debate forum and mutual respect and even admiration outside of that forum. I believe in a debate round we should all strive to disagree agreeably, and as soon as the round is over the disagreement should end. This is especially true given the divisive nature of modern day political rhetoric and/or many people's strong feelings about Taylor Swift.

It should also go without saying (but if it wasn't an issue I wouldn't be saying it) but you should not be touching or throwing things at anyone in the debate room. Always be mindful of the diversity of life experiences that debaters bring with them into the debate space and this includes, but is not limited to, an increased sensitivity to violence or violent imagery.

TECH OR TRUTH? If something is totally counter-intuitive and empirically false, telling me that (you have to speak the words) is probably enough to defeat an argument. However, I also like it when people take counter-intuitive positions and explain why they are true, even if our first instinct is to reject them. But yeah...try not to drop shtuff.

WELL DONE, YOUNG PADAWAN. I have nothing but respect for people who choose to use their free time developing their critical thinking skills and engaging in an academic exercise like debate. It will serve you well in life, whatever you choose to do, and this is why I place such a high value on the activity. I promise you I will do my best to be fair, constructive, encouraging and engaged. Hopefully that is all you would want from a judge. That and, during the winter, copious amounts of facial hair.

Stefan Bauschard Lakeland District Debate 7 rounds

Mike Baxter-Kauf Hire 4 rounds None

Katherine Bleth Rosemount 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 10:01 AM CDT

Pronouns: they/she (either is fine)

Please just call me Katherine.

Email: kbleth976@stkate.edu

I have coached at Rosemount High School since 2011 (policy until 2019, currently LD). I primarily judge LD nowadays, but I’ll include my opinions on policy positions in the off chance I have to judge a policy round. I’m sure it will mostly be an overlap.

Etiquette & Common Questions

I don't care if you sit or stand, where you sit, etc. Your comfort matters most to me.
Being rude to your opponent or to me will never bode well for you.
Bigotry will absolutely never be tolerated.
@ circuit debaters:If your opponent is clearly non-circuit/more local/more traditional...it does not look good to me for you to spread them out, read a bunch of crazy theory/arguments, etc. when they clearly will not be able to keep up nor have anything to say. I'm not saying to completely match their style/level nor abandon what you like to do, but try to at least be kind/understanding in CX and potentially slow down. Steamrolling people and then being condescending about it will never result in good speaks. To me, good debate is educational and fair. Keep that in mind when debating in front of me!

Spreading

tl;dr I have no problem with spreading and can flow it fine.
However, if you are not clear, that's not my problem if I can't flow it. I am not going to call out "clear!" because it is your responsibility to be clear.
The best way to be clear is to slow down on your tag/author. There is no reason for you to spread tags the same speed you spread everything else.
Sign-posting will honestly solve most problems. Just saying "and," "next," "1/2/3" etc. will make it significantly easier to flow you.
I don't flow speech documents. I flow you. If I didn't catch it in your speech, but it was in your speech doc - not my problem.
I hate when people spread theory/analytics. I'm not saying to read it at a normal speed, but slow down.

Paragraph long tags

I hate tags that are a paragraph long. I flow by hand. Tags that are 1-2 sentences? Easy. Anything beyond that? How am I supposed to write any of that down? Can you not summarize your argument in 2 sentences? If you write tags like this, I am not the judge for you. If you get me as a judge anyway, see my thoughts on spreading. Slow down on your tags.

"I did not understand your argument" is a possible RFD from me

To be fair, I've only given this as an RFD maybe 2 times. But still. It is on you to properly explain your argument, especially if it is kritikal/theoretical. You need to explain it in your own wordsin a way that is understandable to your opponent and to me. I'm familiar with a decent amount of K lit, but not a lot. I primarily judge on the local Minnesota circuit and attend a few national circuit tournaments a year. I don't know all the authors, all the Ks, etc. Debate is about communication. You need to properly communicate your arguments. I'm not reading your speech documents. Act like I only know the basics. This sort of explanation can happen in CX and rebuttals when answering questions and getting more into "explaining the story" and voters. It's okay to just read your cards as is in the constructive, but beyond that, talk to me as if I'm hearing this for the first time.

Topicality/Theory

Proper T/theory has a clear interpretation/violation/standards/voters. Obviously if it's condo theory, just standards/voters is fine. If pieces of this are missing, I am disinclined to care as much.
Clash. If there are two separate shells that don't actually interact, which do I prefer? Compare interps. Compare standards.
Voters. You need to tell me why I vote on your theory. Why is it a voter? Was their abuse - a loss of fairness, education, etc.? Personally I'm more inclined to vote on theory if a proof of abuse is providedorthe case for potential abuse is adequately made. Is it drop the arg, drop the debater? Is it a priori, is it just another voter in the round? How do I weigh it? I need to know these answers before I make a decision.
This is a personal thing, but I just hate theory for the sake of theory (I don't necessarily feel the same way about T, but that is much more applicable to policy than LD. I think T debates are good in policy period.). I do love theory/T when done well, but if it's showing up in the rebuttals, there better be an actual reason why I care. If you're not actually checking any abuse or potential abuse, then where are we going?
If you go for T/Theory in the 2NR/2AR: Then you better go all out. I hate when people go for non-theory and theory at the same time. If you go for a DA and T - which one am I weighing? Which one comes first? If you never articulate this, I'm going to take this as the green light to just vote on the DA if I think there is more offense there.

Disclosure Theory

Unless there has been genuine abuse and you literally had no ground in the round, I strongly dislike disclosure theory. I've never seen it done in a way that actually checks abuse. Maybe this is because I come from policy where I've never seen anyone actually go for disclosure - I just don't get it. If this is your strat, don't pref me.

Tricks

No thanks!

K/Methodology/Performance Cases

I've voted on all sorts of fun things. I'm completely open to anything.
Provide a role of the ballot and reasons why I should prefer your RoB.
Be prepared for a framework (not LD framework - framework on how we do debate) debate. I've seen so many K affs (in policy) fail because they aren't prepared for framework and only attack it defensively. Provide a framework with its own voters. Why should we adopt or at least allow your methodology? I will have no qualms voting on framework even if you are winning your K proper.

Kritiks

See earlier remarks on tags, explaining concepts, etc. I don’t like vague links on Ks or super vague alts. Please link it specifically to the aff. Provide a solvency mechanism for your alt, and please explain how exactly it solves.

CPs/DAs/etc

No specific remarks in the realm of policy. I am fine with these in LD. I am okay with more policy-like LD rounds, and I’m very familiar with these positions.

Framework (LD)

Framework is very important to me. Surprisingly, I prefer more traditional LD rounds (framework, contentions) over the policy ones, but my preference doesn't impact how I view one over the other. Link your impacts into your framework, weigh frameworks, etc. It plays a significant role in how I vote.

Random thought on util

I am very tired of hearing "utilitarianism justifies slavery." I'm putting this here as an opportunity for you to look into why that is a bad argument and look into better ways to attack util. This is not to say I won't evaluate that argument, especially if your opponent doesn't respond to it and if you explain it fine. I just think it's very poor and easily dismantled.

Overviews/Underviews

I personally really like overviews when done well. I like overviews that are brief and simply outline the voters/offense you have before you go onto the line-by-line. Overviews do not need to be more than 30 seconds long. Underviews are for posers.

At the end of the day, I’m open to any position and argument. For the longest time, my paradigm just said "I'll vote for anything," and it's still true to an extent. Well-executed arguments can override my preferences. I want you to have fun and not feel like you have to severely limit yourself to appease me. If you have specific questions, please ask me. Happy debating!

Jacob Bosley Broad Run 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:14 AM EDT

Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at NSU University School

Last Update: November 2023---Thoughts on "Disclosure" and "Evidence Ethics" in PF added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. I don’t think I have particularly controversial views, but have tried to be thorough where it matters for prefs/pre-round prep.

Policy vs. K---An argument is an argument, assuming it’s complete, warranted, and applicable.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly. I flow on a computer without much shorthand.

Evidence---I read it during debates. When referenced in CX, I’ll likely go to it. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Fiscal Redistribution" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer, and at this point in the season still do not have strong views on most of the debated T issues like “FR = tax and transfer” or “FJ = no subsets.” From grad school studying health policy, "Social Security can be turned into single-payer health insurance" seems a bit absurd, but I’ll let evidence dictate decisions.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

Brett Bricker Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:22 PM CDT

Associate Director of Debate @ KU

Last Updated: Pre-GSU 2016

Quick pre-round notes:

I would prefer speech docs while I judge. Please email them to bricker312@gmail.com.

The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.

I reward teams that demonstrate a robust knowledge of the topic and literature concerning the topic.

More info:

1. The word "interpretation" matters more to me than some. You must counterdefine words, or you will likely lose. You must meet your theory interpretation, or you will likely lose.
2. The words "voting issue" matter more to me than some. I am not searching for cheap shots, nor do I especially enjoy theory debates. However, I feel that I would be intervening if I applied "reject the argument not the team" to arguments that debaters did not explicitly apply the impact takeout to. That said, proliferation of empty voting issues will not only hurt your speaker points, but can be grouped and pretty easily disposed of by opponents.
3. "Turns the case" matters more to me than some. Is it offense? Does the link to the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent turning the case? Does it mean the aff doesn't solve? Questions that should be answered by the 1ar.

I believe that debaters work hard, and I will work hard for them. The more debaters can show they have worked hard: good case debates, specific strategies, etc. the more likely it is I will reward debaters with speaker points and higher effort. In the same vain, debaters who make clear that they don’t work outside of debates won’t receive high speaker points.

Argument issues:

Topicality – It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I have not yet been persuaded by arguments in favor of reasonability; however, the reason for this usually lies with the fact that affirmatives fail to question the conventional wisdom that limits are good.

Kritiks – It will be difficult to convince me that I should completely disregard my conceptions of rationality, pragmatism and my aversion to unnecessary death. As a general rule, I think of Kritiks like a counterplan with net-benefits. The more aff specific the better.

Counterplans – I am up in the air about textual vs. functional competition – they both have their time and place, and are probably not universal rules. The cross-ex answer “for your DAs but not your counterplans” has always made negative sense to me. I understand that there are MANDATES of the plan and EFFECTS of the plan; I find this distinction more understandable than the usual c-x answer.

Rundown of general thoughts about counterplans:

Conditionality – it's feeling like a little bit much at the moment
PICs – Good, especially if they PIC out of a part of the plan
Consult/Condition – Up in the air and context specific. Solvency advocates, aff stances, etc. can change my feelings.
Delay – Aff leaning, but might be more competitive based on the structure of the affirmative, or a cross-ex answer. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage that takes the position the advantage can only be solved if it happens before "X" date, then the counterplan to do it after that date seems competitive.
Word PICs – Aff leaning
Alternate non-USFG actors – Aff leaning

Demeanor issues:

Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. All types of discrimination are prohibited. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. Don't misclose.

Finally, our community relies on host tournaments with classroom space - don't steal, defame or destroy it.

Any questions, ask.

Taylor Brough Denver School of the Arts 4 rounds

Adriane Brown Washburn High School 4 rounds None

Daryl Burch McDonogh 7 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 10:13 AM EDT

Daryl Burch

currently the director of high school debate for McDonogh

formerly coached at the University of Louisville, duPont Manual High School (3X TOC qualifiers; Octofinalist team 2002) the head coach for Capitol Debate who won the TOC. McDonogh won the TOC in 2007. 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 find.

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

Christopher Callahan Walter Payton College Prep 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 25, 2024 at 7:15 AM CDT

Glenbrook South 2014, Northwestern 2018, now Dartmouth, he/him/his

Email chain: c.callahan45@gmail.com

General thoughts:

The older I get and the more time out of debate I spend, the more of a curmudgeon I become. I am interested in in-depth, well-researched debate, and uninterested in things that are not that. This has two implications.

First, I am most likely to vote for strategies that are based in coherent literature bases, lend themselves to high-quality and detailed evidence, and have deep defenses of the way their conclusions arise. I care a lot about interactions between flows -- I'm most comfortable voting for teams that structure coherent narratives across multiple flows and through multiple speeches, and I'm uncomfortable when basic thesis claims are in tension across positions.

Second, I find that I am more willing than other judges to issue decisions in T or theory debates that amount to "I know it when I see it." Just because one relatively reasonable practice might justify the most extreme form of that practice doesn't mean those two are indistinguishable. This doesn't mean I'm unwilling to vote on T or theory. On the contrary, I'm perfectly happy to do so when the other team has engaged in a facially unreasonable practice -- just not otherwise.

K things:

If recent history is any indication, I am an excellent judge for the neg when going for a critique like security or neolib against a typical policy aff. I do think, however, that objective truth is a real thing and that well-defined actions to improve the world are generally good, so I tend to be reluctant to accept most flavors of political or philosophical nihilism.

I'm also willing to vote for teams that don't read plans. My biggest concerns in T/framework debates are the role of the negative and the kind of debates that would take place in an alternative vision of the topic. This means going beyond the typical "you could have read the cap K" and developing a coherent theory for how debate operates and why a topic without a resolutional focus would still promote clash and in-depth debate. I find it hard to vote aff when the neg has won that the aff's interpretation makes debate shallow and prevents the specific testing of aff arguments.

Old man yells at cloud:

If you answer arguments included in the previous speech's document but not read, your speaker points will suffer.

If you spend a significant amount of cross-ex time just figuring out which cards were and weren't read, or asking the speaker to simply restate their arguments, your speaker points will suffer.

If you ask the speaker to remove everything they didn't read from a speech doc, I will tell them they don't have to do that.

Better-than-average for:

50-state fiat bad, dedev, the intrinsic perm against process counterplans, author indicts/debates about qualifications

Worse-than-average for:

Climate change not real, the perm double bind, con con, any argument that could be described as trolling, cards with sentences highlighted across multiple paragraphs, impact arguments that use the word "miscalc" as a substitute for explanation

Ethics stuff:

In general, my priority in cases of ethics questions is to maximize the amount of good-faith debating that can occur. If there is a way to resolve the issue and continue the debate, I will do my best to find it.

I would generally like to assume ignorance rather than malice when it comes to things like mis-citing or mis-cutting evidence. By this I mean cards being cited incorrectly, parts of cards not appearing in the original article, cards being cut in the middle of paragraphs, etc. If this kind of thing happens, I would prefer to just disregard a piece of evidence rather than deciding an entire debate about someone's card-cutting practices. Mistakes happen and people are people, and I would like to think that all debaters are here in good faith. However, if something is super egregious, I can be convinced that it should be a reason for a team to lose.

There needs to be a recording to accuse someone of clipping cards. This is a debate-ender: if you accuse someone of clipping, I will decide the debate on that issue. It has to be clear and repeated, not just missing a line or two. I will often glance at speech docs during a debate, but I do not closely read along with the debaters.

Melanie Campbell New Trier High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 25, 2015 at 8:17 AM CDT

Melanie Campbell

Georgetown

University of Kansas

Updated Kentucky 2015

Big picture

“I do my best to judge rounds from the perspective presented by the debaters. I have voted for just about every kind of argument imaginable. […] I try my best to resolve a debate based on what the debaters have said in their speeches. I try not to impose my own perspective on a debate. […] The purpose of my ballot is to say who I think won the debate not to express my personal opinion on an issue or to stimulate social transformation. That said I do have some preferences.” - Dr. Harris

I reward debaters who work hard, demonstrate robust knowledge of the topic, and come in with well-researched strategies.

Good debaters recognize that they are almost assuredly losing at least some arguments in the debate, and account for this in the rebuttals.

Post-GSU Military Presence Thoughts

After judging a few of these debates, I’ve become increasingly skeptical of vague aff answers to ‘what does significantly reduce military presence in X region/country mean.’ The vaguer the aff is, the more I find myself giving the neg leeway on link/CP competition questions. When you read an aff about Air-Sea Battle, and you won’t clarify whether your purposefully vague plan removes our carriers from the region, I feel like this: http://i.imgur.com/UVbALQs.gif. This topic is awesome and has real topic disads – let’s debate them.

I also tend to think the aff only gets to fiat a reduction of presence, and generally must defend decreased presence in the region is good. So relocating troops to mainland Japan or another base in Okinawa is probably competitive. I also find it hard to reconcile why CPs that increase military presence in the same region as the aff shouldn’t be competitive.

Arguments

Topicality - It’s a real thing. Reading an aff all year or nebulous 'it's the heart of the topic' claims do not make you topical. I default to competing interps and think that even questions of reasonability generally require the aff to extend a counterinterp that is reasonable.

Disads – There can be such a low risk that any rational person would consider the risk to be zero in their decision calculus. The idea that because 'you are controlling X issue means that their is only a risk of Y issue' is not incredibly persuasive - the fact that CIR is going to pass seems to have no impact on whether the plan is popular, nor does the (un)popularity of the plan dictate the status squo's chances of CIR passage.

Try or Die – Can be useful if a) there is a chance of 'trying' being successful b) the other team doesn't also 'try'

Counterplans - I tend to be neg leaning on cp theory questions, however, I’m increasingly convinced that there is a clear distinction between the mandates of the plan the effects of the plan – counterplans that compete off the first are fair game, counterplans that compete off of the second probably aren’t actually competitive. Caveats to this: a) counterplans that are clearly in the literature b) I think the neg should get CPs that compete off of positions the aff has explicitly taken in their speeches or CX. So if the aff reads an adv to federal action or cards that say only congressional action solves, the neg should get the states or court CP. (tl;dr – the cx answer of ‘we’ll defend X for DAs but not CPs’ makes me cringe).

Limited conditionality is good and I default to the 2NR’s world unless otherwise explicitly instructed that the squo is an option.

Kritiks – Are fine, especially if you fall under the ‘KQ/economics of speed’ category and not the ‘I love Baudrillard’ category. Ks of the affs mechanism/fundamental premise are more persuasive than random rep Ks of an aff impact or links to the state being evil.

Kate Carroll Iowa City High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon December 20, 2021 at 6:38 AM CDT

If you're not going to be cordial and polite, do not expect exceptional speaks. The "best" debater is a reflection of skill, execution, and decorum.

I reserve the right to reject the debater AND the team for hostile actions/behavior that occurs in the context of a round; pre round prep/disclosure, after the debate has started, and while the round is being decided. I consider my role to be as an educator first, and an adjudicator second. If it would not be acceptable during school, it will not be acceptable in front of me. I will absolutely NOT tolerate any personal attacks.

(be kind or go home)

and yes, I would like to be on the email chain katecarroll4[at]gmail[dot]com

PF:

• showing up to rounds when they are supposed to start, or late without good reason is disrespectful to your competitors, your judges, and the tournament hosts. if a team shows up late, or exactly when the round is supposed to start, they will automatically forfeit the flip. absent exceptional circumstances, tardiness is a reason to give you lower speaks.

Refer to Christian Vasquez’s Paradigm for the PF translation of my philosophy.

• I will flow, clarity is important, and arguments must be impacted.

• Paraphrasing in front of me is not a good idea.

• Paraphrasing is uniquely bad and bad for debate. I consider paraphrasing to be a reason to vote you down. I consider paraphrasing to be equivalent to card clipping, which is cheating.

• At best, if you paraphrase in front of me I will not consider paraphrased arguments with the same weight as carded arguments w/ warrants.

• Disclosure is good, you will not win "disclosure bad" theory arguments in front of me.

• if it wasn't evident with the policy background.. yes, speed is fine.

• give a roadmap. a roadmap looks like: "I will start on our case, contention 1: war, contention 2: oceans, contention 3: terrorism, then I will go to the opponent's case, their contention 2: oil, contention 1: tariffs"

• for the first constructives tell me: 1, how many "sheets" I will need. Can mean either physical paper or spreadsheet tabs.

• overviews are a waste of time.

• if you do not have a plan, you do not have fiat. pf has no plans = no fiat

• Winning a defensive argument does not mean that you win the debate. I consider a turn that is not impacted as a defensive argument.

• Offense to me means impacts, you can interpret that as consequences.

• Terminal impacts do not need to be held to the threshold of nuclear war, but they also need to be more than "econ decline is bad." Your impact explanation should (at the bare minimum) look something like this: "econ decline is bad because XYZ happens"

This debate is about the resolution/topic: being a good/bad idea. This debate is not about the hypothetical implementation of any plan. there is no such thing as "fiat" in PF because there is no plan.

MOST IMPORANTLY:

"Strike me if you're not going to read cards. These are cards. If I have to ask for a card at the end of the round and what you show me isn't close to that, I'm just not considering it for the round. I'll just evaluate my flow as if it wasn't there.

Telling me that you've summarized this part and that part of a 40 page PDF is ridiculous. More than half the time the article isn't about the actual debate topic and you're just hoping no one calls you out for it. Paraphrasing in public forum is out of control and it's really become intellectually dishonest.

Here's even a link to Verbatim, a macro template that works with Microsoft Word so that card cutting is really easy."

Policy: JV/Novice Specific:

I try to be more of a teacher than a judge. I believe that it's part of my role to make sure that you're using best practices, and that both teams have an idea of what is going on in the round.

if you show me your flows and they're good, I could give you extra speaker points.

that being said:

you must have a full debate with all 4 constructive speeches and all 4 rebuttals. you have to try.

I'm willing to be flexible, if you need something ask. If you're confused about the structure or how to do things, or need tech help let me know.

general policy things:

Clarity is important and will be reflected in speaks. I will not hesitate to yell clear if I am having trouble understanding you.
Be on time! start the debate on time! if you're late absent a compelling reason it will negatively impact your speaks.
I'll listen to anything, but in the spirit of best judging practices it’s good to know that I am not the best judge for niche kritiks
in order to win the debate you must win the line by line
Be nice to each other, will be reflected in speaks if you're a jerk to your partner/opponent
Pet peeve-when sides call the advantages/off case different things. don't do that
Tech over truth
If your overview is longer than 1 min it's no longer an overview, it's just a waste of your time. put the link overview on the link debate, the uniqueness overview w/the uniqueness debate, etc.
You must impact dropped args/args in general
Generally think t is not a question of solvency, I am easily convinced that limits are good.
Reading wipeout, Schopenhauer, death good, time cube, and/or death cult in front of me is a waste of your time.
Conditionality is meh, the argument for 3 being bad is a lot more compelling than 2 ill default to in round abuse. but will likely not be compelled to vote on two is abusive.
You must extend an interpretation and violation or CI if you're going for T!!!!!!!!!
I'd prefer email chains to flashing 1) faster, 2) no worries about viruses and 3) less prep thievery
I believe that card clipping is a reason to reject the team, but you must have coherent evidence (audio/video recording). If I catch you I will call you out and you will lose the debate (If the other team doesn't notice or calls you out). The team card clipping will get zero speaks. If you choose to stake the debate on this violation I will evaluate the evidence and if there is substantial evidence the team that card clips will lose the debate. Substantial evidence is an audio recording.

do your thing, do it well and I'll vote for you.

I would rather you not read a plan text than read a meaningless plan text. Either be policy or don't be policy, the in-between sacrifices a lot of offense.

If you are a debater that reads non-traditional arguments know a few things:
1. you still have to win the line by line to win the debate, regardless if it is on FW or the aff.
2. you must answer all relevant theory arguments
3. "help" me flow, frame things from an impact/link/etc. perspective.

if you have any questions for me, ask.

regardless:

I will still vote for you if you win the debate. (absent any sorts of cheating/card clipping)

fun facts:
my favorite topic in hs was the transportation topic
I lost to one off t-its once as a sophomore
favorite color is green

Wayzata 14'
University of Minnesota 18

email me if there's any other questions katecarroll4[at]gmail[dot]com

Joe Carver The Meadows School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 24, 2023 at 1:49 AM PDT

It has been a very, very long time since I judged a competitive high school or college debate. I have the fortune of being close to a number of high quality coaches and judges in the activity and have stayed moderately abreast of the happenings with regard to the high school topic as a result. All of the following is where I stood when I last judged and little has probably changed.

I was always a bigger fan of CP/Politics debates than critical debates. I am capable of slowly digesting the arguments of critical teams but I get squeamish about the bastardization of the literature to fit the context of debate. Do politics debates do that too? Sure, but in a way that I am much more comfortable resolving ( read as "smart enough to"). I suppose I can discern either style but one suits me more than the other.

So feel free to do whatever you are inclined to do in front of me but with the above as a caveat.

While I am sure that my flow is not up to standard for a top 10 high school debate, I think that it will manage for most other rounds and I am technologically proficient enough to adjust to the changes in file sharing etc that have evolved since i left. If you have the misfortune/luck to have me in the back of the room for the single tournament that i am likely to judge this decade you can expect to have a critic who will be attentive, engaged and will do all I can to resolve the issues in the debate using the flow and speech docs. A note on flowing - I will. Debaters should too. I am aware of the steady decline in this skill but the flow - not a speech doc - is what i will use to make my decision. It works to your advantage to use yours to make strategic decisions.

Perhaps this doesn't need to be written but I am categorically intolerant of disrespect in debate. Engage it at your peril. My obligation/social contract to adjudicate your debate fairly ends when you cannot extend kindness and respect to everyone you compete with.

Speaker Points - I am sure that mine would trend fairly high in the absence of ignoring any of the above recommendations.
Enjoy yourselves.

David Coates Eagan High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 8:44 AM CDT

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Kate Cole Homewood-Flossmoor High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 3:15 AM CDT

Current head coach at Homewood-Flossmoor High School since 2014.

Previous Policy debater (Not about that life anymore though...)

If you start an email/doc chain - kcole@hf233.org

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

When it comes to LD, I am 100% more traditional even though I've spent time in policy. I don't believe there should be plans or disads. LD should be about negating or affirming the res, not plan creation. You should have a value and value criterion that is used to evaluate the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

Traditional PF judge here. I dont want to see plans or disads. Affirm or negate the res.

Card Calling ----- If someone calls for your cards, you better have it very quick. I'm not sitting around all day for you to locate cards you should have linked or printed out in your case. If it gets excessive you'll be using prep for it. Same for obsessively calling for cards --- you best be calling them because you actually need to see them instead of starting card wars.

IN GENERAL

I'm not into disclosure so don't try and run some pro disclosure theory because I won't vote on it unless it's actually dropped and even then I probably wont vote on it.

I'm not going to fight to understand what you're saying. If you are unclear you will likely lose. I also feel like I shouldn't have to follow along on a speech doc to hear what your saying. Fast is fine, but it should be flowable without reading the docs. Otherwise....what's the point in reading it at all.

BE CLEAR - I'll tell you if I cannot understand you. I might even say it twice but after that I'll probably just stop flowing until I can understand you again. Once again -- Fast is fine as long as you are CLEAR

I am an advocate of resolution specific debate. We have a resolution for a reason. I don't believe running arguments that stay the same year after year is educational. I do, however, think that in round specific abuse is a thing and can be voted on.

K's- Most of the common K's are fine by me. I am not well read in K literature. I will not pretend to understand it. If you fail to explain it well enough for me and at the end of the debate I don't understand it, I will not vote for it. I will likely tell you it's because I don't understand. I will not feel bad about it.

Be a good person. I'm not going to tolerate people being rude, laughing at opponents, or making offensive comments.

Elyse Conklin Walter Payton College Prep 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:10 AM UTC

elyse.conklin@gmail.com

I graduated from the Comm Masters Program at Wake Forest where I coached for two years (2015-2017). I coached Whitney Young Magnet (2010-2014) and Walter Payton College Prep (2014-2018). I am not currently coaching and spent the last couple years working as a pastry chef. I have a good base knowledge of the topic, but I might need some clarity on more niche references to argument trends, particularly T if you want to talk about other team's affs as examples of good or bad education.

“Who did the better debating” will always be the last question I ask myself before hitting the Submit button unless there is an extremely pressing reason not to. This also means I'm hesitant to vote for a team that wins one argument but loses the rest, “cheap shots” have to be well-impacted.

I judged quite frequently when I coached and am well-versed in most areas and styles of debate. I tended to coach "high theory" teams (whatever that means), but I think in order to be good at debate you have to engage and understand what other people are saying. If someone described me as a "technical" judge, I would be pleased. Judges who say "Plan or GTFO" or the reverse are doing everyone a disservice.

I am more dispassionate than dogmatic when it comes to substance -- I try to reward quality, up to date research related to the topic, and to respect the work of debaters and coaches by giving my best effort to give a well-explained decision. At the same time, I'm very willing to vote on presumption if the other side has not given me a coherent, justifiable reason to vote for them. The most direct and creative impact turns from any ideological standpoint make for fun debates. Heg and cap good args are fine enough, but I need these positions to be contextualized within current political events and trends, not only theory and impacts. By the final rebuttals I tend to flow straight down and line them up the best I can, but I prioritize typing the content as much as I can during the speech.

Time your speech, your partner's speech, the other team, and prep. If suddenly it seems like you have given a 12 minute 2AC, I will become even grumpier than usual and dock everyone's speaks .1

Cody Crunkilton South 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 31, 2023 at 3:08 AM CDT

I debated five years at the University of Minnesota, graduated in 2015. I have always been a 2N.

Pre-round synopsis: Bad for Ks, conditionality is good, enjoys impact turns, dislikes aff vagueness, good for reasonable/less than extinction impacts, zero risk and presumption are things, better than average for the aff on theory vs questionable CPs, better than average for the neg on T (limits are good). On the 2023 topic I've only judged one tournament pre-NDT, so be aware.

Post-2022 NDT notes:

1. I never really went for process CPs as a debater, so I have much less well developed thoughts on competition than people who have debated recently (2021/2022 seemed to have a lot more of those).

2. After a doubles debate I judged + watching finals, I thought I should mention that 1) I enjoy impact turn debates a lot 2) If the 1AC says they solve something then tries to do take backs I'm not very likely to be sympathetic and 3) warming good was my favorite impact turn as a debater and holds a particular place in my heart, though I recognize the evidence has gotten worse since 2014.

**Extended Thoughts**

Kritiks:

Topshelf: I find it very difficult to vote on something which is not an effect of the implementation of the plan. I have no idea how to compare things like ontology to the aff saving people. It is possible to convince me otherwise, but the amount of work you will have to do will be so high that nineteen out of twenty times you would be better off doing something else. I won't hold it against you if you like Ks, and am not going to feel like my time was wasted or you are destroying debate or anything - I am just genuinely very confused about how kritiks answer the aff. I recognize I am way outside of the community norm on this - something just doesn't click for me with kritiks and I want to make sure that no one is caught off guard.

Aff arguments I like:

- Theory: the neg only gets the status quo or fiat from a resolutional actor

- Perm double bind

- New arguments are OK because the neg changed their argument/explained the alt/stopped being vague in the block/2NR

T-USFG note: For whatever reason, I’m mildly friendlier to no plan affs vs framework than I am for kritiks on the neg.

Conditionality:

It isn't impossible to get me to vote on, but one of two things need to happen:

1) the aff explains why something actually bad happened ("they read 6 counterplans" is an FYI, not an arg). For example - Harvard CM counterplaned out of straight turns to disads Wake MT could have read in doubles at Northwestern in 2018. That seems to hurt the aff’s ability to debate. It might be fine! But there's an argument there.

2) the aff goes into depth on why either the neg's model puts an undue burden on the aff, with many specific examples and hypotheticals, or why the neg's model produces a bad educational experience (i.e. depth on CPs > depth on the aff because topic-wide education > plan focused education). Both sides should talk about what the world of debate looks like under your interpretations. Being specific is really important.

The neg args I like the most are testing the aff, reasonability, and skews inevitable/not unique to their interp.

Judge kick I can go either way on, tell me what to do.

Theory:

Impact calc is good. Cheap shots are bad. Reject the argument not the team for everything but conditionality. Severance perms will never be a reason to reject the team.

States, international fiat, and agent/process/consult/condition CPs are probably not necessary.

All of these predispositions can be modified if the literature supports a debate over a specific counterplan.

My ideal form of debate is aff reads a plan neg gets the squo and CPs with a resolutional agent.

Topicality:

I’m friendlier to limits and lit/precision than the average judge.

Disads:

Winning a higher risk of your disad is better than turning the case. I generally care more about links than uniqueness.

Vagueness:

is a real argument. I haven’t been in a situation where it has been the 2nr, but if what the aff does meaningfully affects neg strategy I will vote for it.

**Archive: Old/High School Stuff - can ignore, saved for historical reasons**

Conditionality is good: It isn’t impossible for me to vote on it but probably won’t happen. Judge kick I’m unsure about, so tell me what to do.

Extinction/high magnitude impacts: Most are silly (obvi) and I’m very open to voting on “less than extinction but really bad outweighs 1% risk of extinction). I’m less enamored with try or die than a lot of other judges. If you’re really into doing the high probability/low magnitude stuff you should look at the “K affs with a plan” section below.

Flowing: I flow on paper. I will miss things. Be sure to slow down on important things, and consider slowing down in general.

Wipeout: is not a good argument. However, it is a better argument than most K’s because at least it says the aff is bad and can’t be permed. Aliens wipeout is better than Schopenhauer wipeout.

Presumption: If there’s a counterplan/alt it goes aff and if there isn’t it goes neg but I can be persuaded otherwise. I also am willing to vote on zero risk of the aff/da if you set that framing up and are really beating them on their case/disad.

Offensive stuff: Don't be mean. But, being able to explain why things like imperialism are bad is something debaters should be able to do. There isn't any reason for you to use gendered/ableist/racist language so you should avoid it.

K’s: explain why the aff is bad. Saying “method first” without explaining why that matters is not sufficient. I am very receptive to the neg doesn’t get to fiat different actors than the aff. My problems with Ks are more with the form than with the content, so if you can make your k arguments into reasons why the aff is bad I am much more likely to vote for you.

K’s vs K affs: Read more into my section on K’s than my section on K affs without a plan. I tend to vote aff on the perm/alt does nothing in those debates, but that also might be because people haven’t been explaining links well. Despite going for Marx a lot in college I think that most identity arguments today are set up well to answer it and haven’t voted for it too much recently. Class is likely the most important thing, but other things matter too.

K v K debates: I won't know what your authors say - I'll be asking myself a) is the neg different/not perm-able by the aff and b) which is a better idea. It would likely help if you explained your stuff more than you thought you needed to, and going away from theory and towards examples would be better.

K affs without a plan: T is the path of least resistance. I think we choose topics for a reason and switching sides/some predictability is good. I don't know why reading plans requires teams to "roleplay" the USFG and also think that most of the arguments for why being forced to defend the federal government is bad are silly. The problem is how we do risk calc. If you don’t read a plan and are in front of me, the 3 scenarios where I vote aff tend to be either a. your version of debate gets more people from under-represented groups into debate and debate matters more to them than to others b. the neg team says something silly like if you win the state is bad you win and you technically win that arg, or c. there is a severe skill differential. If you are going for T against a not the topic aff, I am much more likely to be persuaded by limits/skills/stasis point than roleplaying the state makes us awesome policymakers.

K affs with a plan: I am not good for high theory k affs. I am good for affs with reasonable impacts who say they do something and say the neg’s arguments are silly. The best way to win is to take out the probability of their disads- you don’t have to read complexity/predictions cards, but make args why their stuff isn’t true/leaves stuff out. Nate Cohn’s risk calc stuff makes a lot of sense to me (http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,5416.0.html) so take a look at that if you want.

**Archive: 2019 (Prez power) topic thoughts**

- T: I heard a couple of blocks on T subsets at Wake. I found them somewhat persuasive. The topic seems big.

- ESR theory: it is probably OK but I think I could be convinced to vote aff. I am concerned with the size of the topic, but prefer to limit via T than via counterplans.

- I haven't heard a very persuasive answer to "perm do both shields the link to politics" on ESR.

Luke Cumbee Sioux Falls Roosevelt 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:22 AM CDT

Experience

18th year in debate. Currently the Director of Debate at SF Roosevelt from South Dakota. Debated 4 years in high school doing traditional LD. Since then I have coached circuit and conservative policy and public forum debate.

Big things - quickly

-Novice: if you aren't prepared for any of the below then don't worry! Just do your thing and welcome to the most educational activity on the planet! Also no matter how unprepared you feel, I didn't know the rebuttal even existed in my first debate! Is this activity hard? Yes. But doing hard things will make everything else in your life easy. All the nerves, preparation, late nights, and beat downs against people whose ACT score blew mine out of the water prepared me for a life where everything was much easier. Stick with it and you'll thank me later! Half of college freshman drop out in their first year, but debaters finish college over 95% of the time - that is no accident!

-Warrants win. Turns win. Weighing wins. Offense wins. Yes I flow.

-Big believer in collapsing in the 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary. Do not go for everything! Your first two speeches add up to 8 minutes and your last speech is 2. How do you expect to go for 8 minutes of argumentation in 2 minutes without sacrificing some serious quality?! Many have tried - all have failed.

-Evidence should be accurately applied throughout the entire debate. It is very annoying when you read 8 minutes of evidence and then never talk about it again. I could have been hanging out with my dogs.

-Quoted evidence is more credible than paraphrased evidence by quite a bit. Paraphrased evidence is more credible than analytics, but only by a little bit.

-I believe the activity is approaching the point where it should be the norm to send all the evidence you read over to your opponent, before your speech, rather than doing this inefficient 1 card at a time nonsense. Whatever you do, please be efficient and it won't be considered prep time.

-If you are at a TOC bid tournament and don't disclose on the wiki then you should consider me a solid 50/50 on voting for disclosure theory.

Small things - rant style

This event should be accessible to all--meaning please keep your rate of delivery in check. No... that does not mean you have to be painfully slow. In fact, you can go fast enough where a typical person would think to themselves "that person is speaking fast." That person, however, should not think to themselves "I can not understand them." 98% of PF debaters are within my expectation here--the 2% should know who you are. Both teams have the right to request their opponent to slow down if they are struggling to keep up. Debate should be for everyone and not just those who can afford debate camp and those who speak English as their first language. If both teams love fast debate, and everyone agrees to it, then let's go all out speed because I enjoy fast debate too (just give me a heads up).

Crossfire is less important to me than most--if something important happens, get it on the flow in your next speech. Grand crossfire is not an opportunity to bring in arguments you didn't get to in the summary. If it wasn't in the summary and the final focus, I probably won't vote on it. Yes, you should frontline in the 2nd rebuttal.

Public Forum time structures are probably not suitable for debating Kritiks with alternatives. However, debating ethics directly related to the topic and arguing it outweighs/should come first is good with me. If you're going the Kritikal route, you should have some fire links to the topic (my threshold is higher on that). Despite having extremely admirable goals and intentions, non-topical K's make this event less accessible and empirically do not make this space more inclusive - otherwise policy numbers would be thriving.

No plan texts or counterplan texts please (Note: a counterplan text is not saying 'another solution is better than the solution being presented by the resolution' -- that's just an argument and you should answer it...)

High threshold on theory. Despite being tech over truth 95+% of the time, I have limited tech expectations on theory since I don't want to punish students who couldn't afford debate camp to learn the technical aspects of theory. If something truly unfair happened in the debate, then go for it by arguing 1) we should have this norm and 2) you violated that norm. To beat theory argue it 1) shouldn't be a norm or 2) you didn't violate the rule or 3) we should have a different norm instead of the one you provided. If you argue theory every debate, I'm not the judge for you. It is a check on unfair debate practices, not a strategy to catch your opponent off guard. I believe I have voted on theory 2 times in the hundreds of rounds I've judged--I have yet to vote on theory in PF.

Random things:

-Link turns need to win a non-unique to be considered offense. You can win a debate with me by going for just this

-Post-dating is good, but you need a warrant for why the date difference matters

-Going for everything is a bad idea. In a typical debate, 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary should start the collapsing process. I agree with the coaches who call 'making choices' the most important skill in debate.

-I am a judge who sees most arguments in gray - not black and white. I struggle with most decisions and not because I didn't understand your arguments.

Finally, debate can be stressful--if you find yourself in an important debate with me as a judge, it might be a good idea to watch the following video. I may be stressed as well and watching it during prep time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZZkZPcxp_I

Questions? Just ask!

Alix Dahl Roseville Area High School 7 rounds

Blaize DePass Washington Tech 4 rounds None

Sydney Doe Evanston Township High School 7 rounds None

Miranda Ehrlich Wayzata 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 15, 2022 at 4:12 AM EDT

Ehrlich, Miranda

About me: I debated policy in college for four years at the University of Minnesota and was a semi-finalist at the NDT in 2015. While I have many years of experience judging and coaching policy debate, it's been several years since I've judged at a tournament, and the Wisconsin State Debate Tournament is my first time judging online debate. These are also the first rounds I am judging on this topic, so please err on the side of more explanation of acronyms, key concepts, etc.

Couple of top-level comments:

--Dropped arguments need a claim, warrant, and implication – “perm do both” without an explanation of how it solves the net benefit is not a winning argument

--Impact calc is extremely important, but underutilized

--Clarity in speaking is important to me. Please strive to be comprehensible on both tags and card text!

Some specifics:

Disads – The more specific, the better, but if politics is your primary strategy, I’m a perfectly fine judge for you.

Counterplans – Many are theoretically questionable, but affirmatives rarely push back on this. Substantive PICs are awesome – multi-actor international object fiat is the worst. Everything else is somewhere in between.

Kritiks – Can be a viable strategy in front of me, but they need to be applied specifically to all portions of the case. I would highly recommend extending case defense to bolster your K – the most common aff argument I vote on against K’s is “case outweighs”. I also like K affs that are topical, defend a real-world impact, and critique disads – especially if you can point out why the disad is contrived and silly, which it likely is. Generic postmodern K’s, on the other hand – not my cup of tea, and I’m not familiar with the lit base. On many popular K's, the link seems to be "you don't solve enough" rather than "you actively do something bad". If you can't figure out a way to phrase your link as offense and impact it, you will have a hard time winning my ballot.

Non-traditional – It is important to me that the aff explains how they solve the harms that are presented. If they fail to do this, I can be persuaded by presumption. I am skeptical of the "you don't get a perm in a method debate" argument, but could see myself voting for it if debated poorly by the other team or debated exceptionally well by the negative. Affs should be aware that I generally find a well-debated framework argument to be persuasive. When I vote against framework, it is usually because the aff convinces me that they either have a) out-teched the other team or b) that the neg has mishandled a fundamental thesis claim of the aff that interacts with framework. When I vote for framework, it is usually because the neg has both won some offense (usually with an internal link based on predictable limits) and also mitigated the case by explaining how framework can resolve it (such as T version of the aff) or through case-specific defense.

Theory – I generally think conditionality is good, but I can be persuaded to vote on it, especially if the neg has read 3+ conditional advocacies. I do, however, think that if the neg makes performative contradictions – for example, reads a security K and then a terrorism impact on a disad – it can be justification for the aff to sever their reps or argue for judge choice. I do not default to judge kick unless told to do so. Theory is usually a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Other - I will not vote for arguments that are blatantly morally reprehensible, such as racism good, sexism good, genocide good, etc.

Pauline Esman Northside College Prep 7 rounds None

Jordan Foley Notre Dame High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 16, 2014 at 3:40 PM EDT

Background

4 years of policy debate in high school at Little Rock Central

5 years of policy debate in college at Missouri State University

1 year coaching policy debate at the University of Michigan.

Currently, I am a first-year graduate teaching assistant in Wake Forest's communication department.

last updated: 1/16/14

Philosophy

I have very few preferences for how you go about making the argument that you would like to make in the debate. I truly do love the process of argumentation itself more than the ins and outs of any particular argument. Although there are some obvious ones I may be more familiar with I think the general principle that Link + Impact = Argument is true and that your argument will work better if it is tied to a broader strategy you plan to deploy against the argument you are facing. That being said, there can be a level

In my time as a debater, I could pretty squarely be considered in the ‘traditional policy’ camp. I read (and often went for) topicality and framework arguments against teams that did not defend governmental action on the aff. I still find many of the arguments surrounding these positions to be very persuasive, but my voting record does illustrate my openness to alternative styles of argumentation as well.

In my short time as a judge in college policy debate, I have continued to find myself in new ‘judging dilemmas’ that I had never previously considered. A lot of the fault lines that come up in rfds have rested on a few issues that I will mention before getting into some of the other aspects of my judging philosophy

Basically, I have a small set of data to work with but I do think that there are two notable patterns in many of the decisions I have given so far. These areas of argument encompass a lot of the difficulty I have when resolving debates during rfd time and will help you understand where I am coming from when evaluating some arguments. Not all encompassing, for sure, but absolutely things to keep in mind.

1. 1. Clarity of interpretation

This is a pretty blanket category, but I think it helps articulate a major frustration I have when. Whether it is a topicality/framework interpretation or an analytical argument about how a judge should evaluate or weigh certain impact claims, I often find myself wishing one team would provide a more vivid description their interpretations of how certain arguments should function within debate rounds.

In framework debates, the clarity of your ‘interpretation’ of what debate and/or the ballot is/does is just as important as making sure I understand your counterplan text. If the other team controls this interpretation via a lack of clarification of adequate elaboration then the other team essentially controls what your counterplan does. If they control my understanding of what your counterplan does, they will make it link to their DAs and win. Control what your evidence means to me and how I should read it in light of broader link/impact claims.

This is as true for topicality as it is for any attempt at a theoretical discussion of a how people/groups/nations/states act in a particular context in relation to a topic disad or sociological criticism. Debates often hinge on these questions and when they are poorly fleshed out, many other issues that have time invested in them become far less relevant and much more of the debate’s deciding factors will be up to my interpretation of the interaction of arguments and not yours which is a dangerous place to be in a verbal argument about very complex complex and interwoven concepts

2. 2. Articulation of comparative significance –

This is related to the first, but I find myself in a lot of debates where I give the following rfd: “ultimately, I had a lot of reasons to vote against the other team, but not a lot of reasons I should be voting for you”

Whether it’s a 2ar without enough impact calculus or a 2nr who doesn’t do justice to the alternative/cp solvency evidence they are extending, many of my decisions seem like they fall in this category. Debaters from both teams do a moderate to excellent job of executing their core argument but fail to rhetorically distinguish and compare their core arguments from the other team’s position.

I try reward debaters not only engaging with the argument they are debating on their own terms (our ‘x’ evidence answers this by saying ‘y’) but also engaging with the language used by their opponents and the evidence they read to make comparative claims. Controlling my interpretation of a piece of evidence from the other team will usually get you further than perfectly explaining your own.

As a judge, I view my role to be an educator, not a competitor. I have argument preferences and professional academic interests that certainly expose me to different literature bases in both debate and non-debate research, but I try to maintain as open of a mind as possible to arguments outside my comfort zone. It is unavoidable that certain vernaculars (critical and policy alike) that I am too unfamiliar with to make the judgment calls that are required when one of the above two things are done poorly.

Odds and Ends

I will likely be flowing on my laptop – I do this for a few reasons. First, I type faster than I write so I genuinely believe that my flow is more accurate and more importantly, readable. Secondly, I do it because I do not like to have my head down looking at my flow during your speech for extended period of times. I like to watch speeches because I think that aesthetics of giving a speech are important. Timely gestures to emphasize main points are just as relevant as the white foam you've developed on your mouth 4 minutes into your speech and I like to be able to get a more full picture of your speaking style. At times, this tendency can cause you to think I am awkardly staring at you too much - please do not read too much into this because I am honestly trying to soak up the full force of the way you make your argument in additions to technical, content related questions.

There is a decent chance that I request speech documents prior to speeches using electronic evidence. I am still experimenting a bit with this, so its application will not be entirely consistent but I think it is useful for two main reasons. First, it helps deter and catch card clipping – which I will discuss in more detail below. Secondly, it drastically reduces the amount of decision time dedicated to transferring evidence at the end of a debate. I do not ever intend, however, to have a debater feel like the choice to call for speech docs was in any way motivated by the debaters as individuals or the perceived reputation of a squad in general. I am honestly a young judge trying to find my norm, so please bear with me on this issue.

I very much value my decision time after debates are over. If there are flashing issues between teams or extended bathroom breaks before speeches, I will become frustrated if the time delay starts approaching the 10-15 minute range. More judging time = better decisions = better debaters.

Conditionality – fwiw, I have not had many decisions that come down to this argument but I will say that the gulf between the 1ar and the 2ar explanation of their position is usually the pivot point in the debates I have had come down to this issue.

Card clipping – I take this matter pretty seriously and will not hesitate to assign a loss and zero speaker points for verified violations. I am very hesitant about unilaterally halting a debate where neither team has brought the issue up, although I have never faced an egregious case that I have had such a visceral reaction (or any reaction so far, really) that would make me do that. But, if someone does make a challenge, an audio/video recording is essential.

Do not speak into your laptop – lower whatever you are speaking from in order to make eye contact and let me see your mouth move. For some reason, this has become a massive pet peeve of mine. In the past, I have prompted speakers to change where their podiums are situated, but I don’t think that should be my prerogative during a debate so please be mindful of what you look like to me when you are speaking.

Speaker Points – I have consistently given between a range of 27.5 and 29. I have given very few 29+ but quite a lot of 28.2-28.6’s. Here is a rough rubric based on my perception of what I have given out so far.

Below 27.5 – major mishaps likely occurred, these can be things like offensive language or disrespectful behavior but certainly glaring strategic miscues and/or speech delivery issues that substantially affected the content of my decision will put you in this camp as well.

27.5-27.9 – Excessively mediocre. Speech delivery issues were likely a component, but these scores I find myself giving more to people that seem are far too underprepared with the evidence and arguments they are deploying. Debaters who normally receive these speaks from me have received a lot of advice about reaching beyond buzzwords and taglines as well as evolving their arguments more generally as the debate progresses.

28-28.4 – This category, for me, has encompassed many of the teams that are on the ‘bubble’ and some of the lower-middle teams that exhibit a fairly coherent grasp of their argument strategically, there is normally some delivery issue associated with the lower end of this spectrum.

28.5-28.7 – This is about what you should expect if I find you to have a solid speaking style and a strong grasp of the arguments you are forwarding. There is usually a point in these debates where this debater does something notably awesome rhetorically or strategically but that lacks a sustained follow-through the rest of the debate. There are flashes of brilliance, but consistency is a key distinction between this category and the next one.

28.8-29.2 – If you get these speaks, you are likely a debater who excelled in not only their grasp of their own arguments but demonstrated a consistent ability throughout the debate of making smart strategic and rhetorical decisions. You were likely incredibly clear as a speaker and are debating at a very high level in terms of balancing word choice, time management, and quality evidence choice in addition to sustained comparative evaluation of key arguments in the debate.

29.3+ - Not going to lie, the likelihood you receive this or higher is exceedingly low. It takes not only what was mentioned in the above category but also requires a level of sophisticated argumentation that makes me feel like you were a top 5 speaker in that debate and/or that I could reasonably see you in quarters or better based on that performance.

For all of these categories of speaker points: landing solid jokes, being colloquial and respectful of your opponents, and the perception that you are truly enjoying yourself all have the potential to place a light, but impactful finger on the scale when I am assigning these points along this rubric.

If you every have any questions about any of this philosophy or a specific question about a debate I judged/watched (even if you did not participate), feel free to shoot me an email: folejm13 AT wfu DOT edu

Eric Forslund Greenhill School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:53 PM EDT

email: eforslund@gmail.com

Copied and Pasted from my judge philosophy wiki page.

Recent Bio:

Director of Debate at Pace Academy

15 years judging and coaching high school debate. First at Damien High School then at Greenhill. Generally only judge a handful of college rounds a year.

Zero rounds on the current college topic in 2020.

Coached at the University of Wyoming 2004-2005.

I have decided to incentivize reading strategies that involve talking about the specifics of the affirmative case. Too many high school teams find a terrible agent or process cp and use politics as a crutch. Too many high school teams pull out their old, generic, k's and read them regardless of the aff. As an incentive to get away from this practice I will give any 2N that goes for a case-only strategy an extra point. If this means someone who would have earned a 29 ends up with a 30, then so be it. I would rather encourage a proliferation of higher speaker points, then a proliferation of bad, generic arguments. If you have to ask what a case strategy involves, then you probably aren't going to read one. I'm not talking about reading some case defense and going for a disad, or a counterplan that solves most of the aff. I'm talking about making a majority of the debate a case debate -- and that case debate continuing into the 2NR.

You'll notice "specificity good" throughout my philosophy. I will give higher points to those teams that engage in more specific strategies, then those that go for more generic ones. This doesnt mean that I hate the k -- on the contrary, I wouldn't mind hearing a debate on a k, but it needs to be ABOUT THE AFF. The genero security k doesnt apply to the South Korean Prostitutes aff, the Cap k doesnt apply to the South Korea Off-Shore Balancing aff - and you arent likely to convince me otherwise. But if you have an argument ABOUT the affirmative --especially a specific k that has yet to be read, then you will be rewarded if I am judging you.

I have judged high-level college and high school debates for the last 14 years. That should answer a few questions that you are thinking about asking: yes, speed is fine, no, lack of clarity is not. Yes, reading the k is ok, no, reading a bunch of junk that doesn't apply to the topic, and failing to explain why it does is not.

The single most important piece of information I can give you about me as a judge is that I cut a lot of cards -- you should ALWAYS appeal to my interest in the literature and to protect the integrity of that literature. Specific is ALWAYS better than generic, and smart strategies that are well researched should ALWAYS win out over generic, lazy arguments. Even if you dont win debates where you execute specifics, you will be rewarded.

Although my tendencies in general are much more to the right than the rest of the community, I have voted on the k many times since I started judging, and am generally willing to listen to whatever argument the debaters want to make. Having said that, there are a few caveats:

1. I don't read a lot of critical literature; so using a lot of terms or references that only someone who reads a lot of critical literature would understand isn’t going to get you very far. If I don’t understand your arguments, chances are pretty good you aren’t going to win the debate, no matter how persuasive you sound. This goes for the aff too explain your argument, don’t assume I know what you are talking about.

2. You are much better off reading critical arguments on the negative then on the affirmative. I tend to believe that the affirmative has to defend a position that is at least somewhat predictable, and relates to the topic in a way that makes sense. If they don’t, I am very sympathetic to topicality and framework-type arguments. This doesn’t mean you can’t win a debate with a non-traditional affirmative in front of me, but it does mean that it is going to be much harder, and that you are going to have to take topicality and framework arguments seriously. To me, predictability and fairness are more important than stretching the boundaries of debate, and the topic. If your affirmative defends a predictable interpretation of the topic, you are welcome to read any critical arguments you want to defend that interpretation, with the above stipulations.

3. I would much rather watch a disad/counterplan/case debate than some other alternative.

In general, I love a good politics debate - but - specific counterplans and case arguments are THE BEST strategies. I like to hear new innovative disads, but I have read enough of the literature on this year’s topic that I would be able to follow any deep debate on any of the big generic disads as well.

As far as theory goes, I probably defer negative a bit more in theory debates than affirmative. That probably has to do with the fact that I like very well thought-out negative strategies that utilize PICS and specific disads and case arguments. As such, I would much rather see an affirmative team impact turn the net benefits to a counterplan then to go for theory (although I realize this is not always possible). I really believe that the boundaries of the topic are formed in T debates at the beginning of the year, therefore I am much less willing to vote on a topicality argument against one of the mainstream affirmatives later on in the year than I am at the first few tournaments. I’m not going to outline all of the affs that I think are mainstream, but chances are pretty good if there are more than a few teams across the country reading the affirmative, I’m probably going to err aff in a close T debate.

One last thing, if you really want to get high points in front of me, a deep warming debate is the way to go. I would be willing to wager that I have dug further into the warming literature than just about anybody in the country, and I love to hear warming debates. I realize by this point most teams have very specific strategies to most of the affirmatives on the topic, but if you are wondering what advantage to read, or whether or not to delve into the warming debate on the negative, it would be very rewarding to do so in front of me -- at the very least you will get some feedback that will help you in future debates.

Ok, I lied, one more thing. Ultimately I believe that debate is a game. I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are very few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other. Finally, although I understand the strategic value to impact turning the alternative to kritiks and disads (and would encourage it in most instances), there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to those include: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t. You are just going to piss me off.

Juan Garcia Wayzata 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 2, 2019 at 11:25 AM EDT

Juan Garcia-Lugo

UT-San Antonio

They/Them

jgl.debate@gmail.com

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. I don't follow along with speech documents, but I will usually read most of the cards (I'm curious!).

If an argument is complete, I will evaluate it. While my judging and coaching experience heavily leans towards the critical side of debate, I prefer you read something that you are passionate about and are prepared to debate. Tech and Truth both matter. A conceded argument is a true argument but the significance of that argument is still up for debate. There are many ways to do debate, and when two different styles are present, framing arguments are important for establishing argument priorities. I default to the framing arguments presented and won by the debaters. Otherwise, look below for some of the ways I think about arguments.

Kritiks

I understand most K theory through the use of examples, please provide and debate them. I find presumption strategies against K aff's unpersuasive if the affirmative can articulate and defend a form of action. I find them more persuasive against K aff's that are describing a theory of power. K's that don't defend an alternative are fine, but often necessitate strong framework arguments or decisively won offense against the affirmative.

Framework

I'm usually concerned with "what makes debate a valuable activity?". The idea of a fair game for its own sake is less persuasive to me than the idea of a fair game being necessary for producing valuable education. Quality evidence on framework goes a very long way for me. I don't like evidence that comes from debate textbooks and manuals, but will vote on them.

Theory

Have an interpretation and defend it. I prefer that interpretation not be arbitrary (we get 2 conditional arguments v 3 conditional arguments). When it comes to offense, less is more. Winning 2 big arguments for why process counterplans are good is better than your 8th argument about "best policy option". This is also the only part of debate I strongly stress slowing down on. The impact to most theory arguments is to reject the argument not the team (conditionality is exceptional).

Robert Glass Stuyvesant 7 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 4, 2024 at 10:19 AM CDT

Affiliation: University of Houston

I’ve been judging since 2011. As of January 2nd, 2022 I am the third most prolific college policy judge in the era of Tabroom. Ahead of me are Jackie Poapst and Armands Revelins, behind me are Kurt Fifelski and Becca Steiner. Take this how you will.

Yes, I want to be on the E-mail chain. Send docs to: robglassdebate [at] the google mail service . I don’t read the docs during the round except in unusual circumstances or when I think someone is clipping cards.

The short version of my philosophy, or “My Coach preffed this Rando, what do I need to know five minutes before the round starts?”:

1. Debate should be a welcoming and open space to all who would try to participate. If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible.

2. Have a fundamental respect for the other team and the activity. Insulting either or both, or making a debater feel uncomfortable, is not acceptable.

3. Debate is for the debaters. My job, in total, is to watch what you do and act according to how y’all want me. So do you and I’ll follow along.

4. Respond to the other team. If you ignore the other team or try to set the bounds so that their thoughts and ideas can have no access to debate I will be very leery of endorsing you. Find an argument, be a better debater.

5. Offense over Defense. I tend to prefer substantive impacts. That said I will explicitly state here that I am more and more comfortable voting on terminal defense, especially complete solvency takeouts. If I am reasonably convinced your aff does nothing I'm not voting for it.

6. With full credit to Justin Green: When the debate is over I'm going to applaud. I love debate and I love debaters and I plan on enjoying the round.

Nukes thoughts:

The amount of time, reading, discussion, and even writing I have dedicated to American and International nuclear strategy is hard to overstate. Please treat this topic with respect.

The standard argumentative thoughts list:

Debate is for the debaters - Everything below is up for debate, and I will adapt to what the debaters want me to do in the round.

Aff relationship to the topic - I think affirmatives should have a positive relationship to the topic. The topic remains a center point of debate, and I am disinclined to think it should be completely disregarded.

"USFG" framework: Is an argument I will vote on, but I am not inclined to think it is a model that best suits all debates, and I think overly rigid visions of debate are both ahistorical and unstrategic. I tend to think these arguments are better deployed as methodological case turns. TVAs are very helpful.

Counter-plan theory: Condo is like alcohol, alright if used in moderation but excess necessitates appropriate timing. Consultation is usually suspect in my book, alternative international actors more so, alternative USFG actors much less so. Beyond that, flesh out your vision of debate. My only particularly strong feeling about this is judge kick, which is explained at the bottom of this paradigm.

Disads: I have historically been loathe to ascribe 0% risk of a link, and tended to fall very hard into the cult of offense. I am self-consciously trying to check back more against this inclination. Impact comparison is a must.

PTX DAs: For years I beat my chest about my disdain for them, but I have softened since. I still don't like them, and think intrinsicness theory and basic questions of inherency loom large over their legitimacy as argumentation, but I also recognize the role they play in debate rounds and will shelve my personal beliefs on them when making my decision. That said, I do not think "we lose politics DAs" is a compelling ground argument on framework or T.

Critiques: I find myself yearning for more methodological explanation of alternatives these days. In a related thought, I also think Neg teams have been too shy about kicking alts and going for the "link" and "impact" (if that DA based terminology ought be applied one-to-one to the K) as independent reasons to reject the Affirmative advocacy. One of the most common ways that other judges and I dissent in round is that I tend to give more credit to perm solvency in a messy perm debate.

Case debate: Please. They are some of my favorite debates to watch, and I particularly enjoy when two teams go really deep on a nerdish question of either policy analysis or critical theory. If you're going down a particularly deep esoteric rabbit hole it is useful to slow down and explain the nuance to me, especially when using chains of acronyms that I may or may not have been exposed to.

Policy T: I spend a fair chunk of my free time thinking about T and the limits of the topic. I used to be very concerned with notions of lost ground, my views now are almost the opposite. Statistical analysis of round results leads me to believe that good negative teams will usually find someway to win on substance, and I think overly dramatic concerns about lost ground somewhat fly in the face of the cut-throat ethos of Policy Debate re: research, namely that innovative teams should be competitively rewarded. While framework debates are very much about visions of the debate world if both teams accept that debate rounds should be mediated through a relationship to policy action the more important questions for me is how well does debate actually embody and then educate students (and judges) about the real world questions of policy. Put differently, my impulse is that Framework debates should be inward facing whereas T debates should be outward facing. All of that should be taken with the gigantic caveat that is "you do you," whatever my beliefs I will still evaluate warranted ground arguments and Affirmative teams cannot simply point at this paradigm to get out of answering them.

Judge Kick: Judge kick is an abomination and forces 2ARs to debate multiple worlds based on their interpretation of how the judge will understand the 2NR and then intervene in the debate. It produces a dearth of depth, and makes all of the '70s-'80s hand-wringing about Condo come true. My compromise with judge kick is this: If the 2NR advocates for judge kick the 2A at the start of 2AR prep is allowed to call for a flip. I will then flip a coin. If it comes up heads the advocacy is kicked, if it comes up tails it isn't. I will announce the result of the flip and then 2AR prep will commence. If the 2A does this I will not vote on any theoretical issues regarding judge kick. If the 2A does not call for a flip I will listen and evaluate theory arguments about judge kick as is appropriate.

Online Debate Thoughts:

1. Please slow down a little. I will have high quality headsets, but microphone compression, online compression, and then decompression on my end will almost certainly effect just how much I hear of your speeches. I do not open speech docs and will not flow off of them which means I need to be able to understand what you’re saying, so please slow down. Not much, ~80% of top speed will probably be enough. If a team tries to outspread a team that has slowed down per this paradigm I will penalize the team that tried for said advantage.

1A. If you're going too fast and/or I cannot understand you due to microphone quality I will shout 'clear'. If after multiple calls of clear you do nothing I will simply stop flowing. If you try to adapt I will do the best I can to work with you to make sure I get every argument you're trying to make.

2. I come from the era of debate when we debated paper but flowed on computers, which means when I’m judging I will have the majority of my screen dominated by an excel sheet. If you need me to see a performance please flag it for me and I’ll rearrange my screen to account for your performance.

3. This is an echo of point 1, but it's touchy and I think bears repeating. The series of audio compressions (and decompressions) that online debate imposes on us has the consequence of distorting the high and low ends of human speech. This means that clarity will be lost for people with particularly high and low pitches when they spread. There is, realistically speaking, no way around this until we're all back in rooms with each other. I will work as hard as I can to infer and fill in the gaps to make it so that loss is minimized as much as possible, but there is a limit to what I can do. If you think this could affect you please make sure you are slowing down like I asked in point 1 or try to adapt in another way.

4. E-mail chains, please. Not only does this mean we don't have to delay by futzing around with other forms of technology but it also gives us a way to contact participants if (when) connections splutter out.

5. The Fluffy Tax. If during prep or time between speeches a non-human animal should make an appearance on your webcam and I see it, time will stop, they will be introduced to the debaters and myself, and we shall marvel at their existence and cuteness together. In the world of online debate we must find and make the joy that we can. Number of times the fluffy tax has been imposed: 3.

6. Be kind. This year is unbelievably tiring, and it is so easy to both get frustrated with opponents and lose an empathetic connection towards our peers when our only point of contact is a Brady Bunch screen of faces. All I ask is that you make a conscious effort to be kind to others in the activity. We are part of an odd, cloistered, community and in it all we have is our shared love of the activity. Love is an active process, we must choose to make it happen. Try to make it happen a little when you are in front of me.

Sam Glenzer SPASH 7 rounds

Julia Goldman St. Mark's School of Texas 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed December 17, 2014 at 8:15 AM EDT

Rowland Hall '14
George Washington University '18

In high school I was the 2N/1A for the first 3 years, I was the 2A/1N my senior year and in college.

tldr: You do you. I will do whatever I can to evaluate what you give me.

People I think similarly to/shaped how I debate -- Mike Shackelford, Greg Zoda, Brian Rubaie, Brett Bricker, Jordan Foley, Tasha Jhangiani, Ethan Arsht

Debate is a game, but unlike a lot of other activities there aren't a lot of set rules. This is your activity so I think that you should make it what you want it to be. The rest of this is how I have viewed debate in the past but my opinions are constantly changing, and I've found myself enjoying both policy v. policy and k v. k rounds.

Prep time and other logistical things - Prep ends when the flashdrive leaves the computer. I believe that clipping is a serious problem in the community and if there's an ethics challenge presented I will immediately stop the round and evaluate the recording (I'm abiding by the NDCA guidlines on clipping to determine if there has been a violation). If I conclude that the team has in fact clipped it will be an automatic loss and 0 speaker points. I never thought I would have to say this but when you start the timer I expect the next either 8 or 5 minutes to be filled with you talking, in otherwords you cannot take prep in the middle of the speech.

Things about me – I don’t like calling for cards because I believe that evidence should only be given the weight in decisions that they were given in the round. That means that if you tell me to vote on a specific piece of evidence but don’t explain it you shouldn't be surprised when I don’t evaluate the 17 awesome warrants in the card that you didn't talk about.

T – I think this can be a good option and I love watching these debates when they’re done well. That being said, I think you need to have either in round abuse or very specific potential abuse. Why should I care if you don’t get the spending DA? Do you lose critical CP ground? Why do things like ground and fairness matter? Those things are just internal links to impacts so make sure that you win why your rules for debate are good.

Theory – A lot of what I said about T applies here. I probably err aff on CP theory and neg on things like conditionality. That being said 2 condo are fine, 3 can be ok if they don’t conflict and 4 is pushing it but anything can be justified.

Case debate - When done well this can win the round for either team. I believe that impacts can be reduced to zero risk or negligible risk. Sidenote: I really love well done hege debates because this is essentially what I'm studying in college.

DAs – Aff-specific links and external impacts are key here. Impact framing is key and I think a strong DA paired with an advantage CP and some case defense is a great strategy.

CPs – The more specific the better. I can go either way on competition. I tend to err aff on cheating CPs and I need a strong competition story, otherwise the 2A that sits on the perm is going to do pretty well.

Ks – Often one of the best options, I find that whichever team talks about the aff the most is usually the one that wins. For example, let’s say the aff reads a heg aff and the neg read Baudrillard’s critique of power. Instead of reading generic Baudrillard indicts, the aff should defend their epistemology and knowledge production. On the other side, the neg should make turns case args and not just throw around jargon. I’ve read a lot of the lit so there is a good chance that I know what you’re talking about. That being said, my prior knowledge doesn’t mean that I expect a lower level of explanation. I think you need specific links to the 1AC, not just to the resolution as a whole. I also differ from some judges in that I don’t think that you necessarily need an alt to win the K because if you win the K you have presented a reason the aff is bad so they should lose. Given that, I think to win that debate when you're neg you need to win a framing where only things in the round matter rather than just the fiated implications of the plan. You should note that it will be very hard for you to get me to vote on an aff framework interpretation that says that there shouldn't be ks in debate.

K affs – I have read everything from heg affs to affs without a plan text. I think that the aff should probably be related to the resolution in some way but I can be convinced otherwise. I think that you need some type of more concrete impact. I feel like a lot of K affs assert something like “cap is bad” or “conventional knowledge production is bad,” but that idea is never totally explained and gets lost in pure theory. Make sure you use your K tricks well and do what you want.

I feel the need to add a small section on role of the ballots. I feel like a lot of teams confuse this with the method debate. Even if the other team concedes that I should vote for the team that best does whatever it is that your aff does I still believe the debate is a question of competing methods and who has the best one. Essentially I find self serving ROBs annoying and probably won't give them a lot of weight in the round.

Framework – This can be a good strategy against affs that say nothing or do nothing. I often find myself believing the basis of framework arguments that limits are good and that the topic is good. The major problem I've seen in framework debates is that people assume that things like fairness and decision making skills are impacts in and of themselves. Instead, these things are internal links to things like education. Tell me what you’re going to do with your decision making skills and why we can only get them in debate; otherwise, I’ll be easily swayed by a 2AR that gets up and says that something like decision making is inevitable. I also find that many people don't have a specific defense of their limits or their view of debate which is where the team reading fw generally runs into trouble. When you’re aff against framework I generally think that impact turning is the way to go and that calling out an impact-light 2NR is the easiest route to victory.

Speaking style and other random things –
I've found that my speaks tend to range from 27.6-28.9 with most debaters falling between 28-28.4.
Don’t talk down to people but I appreciate sassiness. Be funny if you’re funny (I like frozen and jokes about time being linear). I want to hear the text of your cards not just the tags otherwise your speaks will suffer. Efficiency is measured in arguments per minute not words per minute. I reward good technical work and good strategies. It also may help you to know that I'm studying international affairs with a focus in economics and security policy, and gender studies in college. Do what you will with that information.

**** You may or may not receive a small speaker point bump if you make Elliot Kovnick or Jaden Lessnick jokes

Drew Gordon SPASH 7 rounds

Donald Grasse Hire 7 rounds

LaToya Green Hire 7 rounds

Gerard Gueringer Lindblom Math and Science Academy 7 rounds

Last changed on Tue December 15, 2020 at 6:57 PM CDT

Experience: 4yrs of high school, mostly in the UDL. 3 years coaching for Lindblom Math and Science

Run whatever your best at running. No biases that I may have about certain arguments will effect my decision. I will vote for whatever team gives me the best reason to vote for them no matter how absurd the argument may be. The following comments more so to give you an idea of how to make the debate easier for me to evaluate, enjoyable for me and possibly boost your speaks.

I know a lot about debate, but that doesn't mean some things won't go over my head. You will probably be able to tell if I don't understand something through facial expressions, but for safety, If you think I would be confused by something, explain it clearly and thoroughly.

I don't have any major biases towards arguments. I prefer strategic choices in terms of arguments to read, but your are probably best off reading whatever you think you can win on. I won't drop you because I don't like the 1AC or 1NC. Link specificity is really important for me. It isn't essential for it to be carded but some analysis needs to be done there.

I will only evaluate things that are said in the round, so if you say "extend "x" evidence" without saying what claim "x" evidence makes , your argument will mean very little to me. Also, I love warrants. I prefer you answer args with warrants in previously read evidence instead of more evidence. It makes me happy. If there is a ton of evidence read, chances are I'll have to call for something and I hate doing that so just avoid reading new evidence unless it's necessary.

In terms of speed, if by any chance I'm judging you and flowing on a computer, you may wan't to either be clearer, slow down, make a big deal out of things you want me to make a big deal out of, or a combination of all the previous stated. However if I'm flowing on paper, which I usually will be, go as fast as you'd like while maintaining clarity.

I'm tabula rasa when it comes to arguments but for specifics:

Topicality: I was a T hack in highschool. Debating this well makes me happy. I default to competing interps but can be persuaded toward reasonability if debated well. Also education and fairness aren't impacts, you need to explain why I should care about a loss of education or fairness if you go for T.

Dis-Advantages: They're fine. I think timeframe is the most important to win but can be persuaded otherwise. Link specificity is important as well.

Counterplan: CP abuse isn't set in stone, please do not kick out of a CP because they put theory on it. If you provide a reason on why the CP is even 0.01% better than the plan or perm, I'll vote on it. Also perm abuse is not set in stone. I will be angry if you don't go for the perm because there is theory on it.

Kritik: I'm pretty well versed. Went for them all the time I have a lot of thoughts about K's so it's probably best to ask me specific questions before the round. Link analysis needs to be undoubtedly solid so be specific.

Non-Traditional stoof: Same with K's. I need a reason to vote for you, otherwise you're good.

Theory, I love it, but please do not go super fast on theory because I won't get everything. I default to rejecting the team if not told otherwise with warrants except for perm theory (default to rejecting the arg). Please don't try to avoid theory debating by kicking out of things with theory on them.

Some ways to boost your speaks: GOOD DECISIONS, jokes, being interesting, not being an asshole

I don't take prep for flashing but be timely

Dillon Hall Westminster Schools 6 rounds

Kevin Hamrick Montgomery Bell Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:58 AM CDT

KRHAMRICK@GMAIL.COM

I've been judging debates for a long time. I prefer listening to debates wherein each team presents and executes a well-researched strategy for winning. The ideological flavor of your arguments matters less to me than how you establish clash with your opponents’ arguments. I am open to most anything, understanding that sometimes “you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do” to win the debate.

At the end of the debate, I vote for the team that defends the superior course of action. My ballot constitutes an endorsement of one course relative to another. To win the debate, the affirmative must prove their course is preferable when compared to the status quo or negative alternatives. That being said, I interpret broadly exactly what constitutes a plan/course of action. An alternative is proven a superior course of action when it is net beneficial compared to the entirety of the plan combined with part or parts of the alternative. Simply solving better than the affirmative is not enough: the alternative must force choice. Likewise, claiming a larger advantage than the affirmative is not enough to prove the alternative competitive. A legitimate permutation is defined as the entirety of the "plan" combined with parts or parts of the alternative. Mere avoidance of potential or "unknown" disadvantages, or a link of omission, is insufficient: the negative must read win a link and impact in order to evaluate the relative merits of the plan and the alternative. The 2AC saying something akin to "Perm - do the plan and all noncompetitive parts of the counterplan/alternative" is merely a template for generating permutation ideas, rather than a permutation in and of itself. It's your job to resolve the link, not mine.

I believe there is an inherent value to the topic/resolution, as the topic serves as the jumping off point for the year's discussion. The words of the topic should be examined as a whole. Ultimately, fairness and ground issues determine how strict an interpretation of the topic that I am willing to endorse. The most limiting interpretation of a topic rarely is the best interpretation of a topic for the purposes of our game. The topic is what it is: merely because the negative wishes the topic to be smaller (or the affirmative wishes it bigger, or worded a different way) does not mean that it should be so. An affirmative has to be at its most topical the first time it is run.

I don’t care about any of your SPEC arguments. The affirmative must use the agent specified in the topic wording; subsets are okay. Neither you nor your partner is the United States federal government. The affirmative is stuck with defending the resolutional statement, however I tend to give the affirmative significant leeway as to how they choose to define/defend it. The affirmative is unlikely to persuade me criticisms of advocacy of USFG action should be dismissed as irrelevant to an evaluation of policy efficacy. I believe that switch-side debating is good.

All theory arguments should be contextualized in terms of the topic and the resultant array of affirmative and negative strategies. Reciprocity is a big deal for me, i.e., more negative flex allows for more aff room to maneuver and vice versa). Conditional, topical, and plan inclusive alternatives are presumptively legitimate. A negative strategy reliant on a process counterplan, consultation counterplan, or a vague alternative produces an environment in which in which I am willing to allow greater maneuverability in terms of what I view as legitimate permutations for the affirmative. I’ve long been skeptical of the efficacy of fifty state uniform fiat. Not acting, i.e., the status quo, always remains an option.

Debate itself is up for interrogation within the confines of the round.

I tend to provide a lot of feedback while judging, verbal and otherwise. If you are not clear, I will not attempt to reconstruct what you said. I tend to privilege the cards identified in the last two rebuttals as establishing the critical nexus points of the debate and will read further for clarification and understanding when I feel it necessary. Reading qualifications for your evidence will be rewarded with more speaker points. Reading longer, more warranted evidence will be rewarded with significantly more consideration in the decision process. Clipping cards is cheating and cardclippers should lose.

I value clash and line-by-line debating. Rarely do I find the massive global last rebuttal overview appealing. Having your opponent's speech document doesn't alleviate the need for you to pay attention to what's actually been said in the debate. Flow and, for god's sake, learn how to efficiently save/jump/email/share your speech document. I generally don't follow the speech doc in real time.

"New affs bad" is dumb; don't waste your time or mine. When debating a new aff, the negative gets maximum flexibility.

I believe that both basic civil rights law as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment.

Liam Hancock West 4 rounds

General Info:

The information below reflects my personal opinions about different issues in debates. If I am not told to think about the debate in another way, these views will become the default. If these meta-issues are debated, I will change my views but probably have a very slight and uncontrollable bias towards my own views.

As a general standard for argumentation, I prefer truth over tech. With that said, I find debaters consistently loose because they just discuss what the truth is without directly reconciling the truth with the other teams technical arguments.

I'm a big fan of slowing down and connecting in rebuttals. Controlling the big picture dominates minutia and wins debates, demonstrating your ability to do that will be rewarded.

I do not include flashing as part of prep time, don't abuse that.
PLEASE BE CLEAR, I debate with Jeffrey Ding so I know it's possible to cover without spewing rapid nonsense.

Topicality

I am sympathetic to reasonability claims, but given how terribly teams usually defend reasonability I almost always end up evaluating the debate through competing interpretations. As for the Transportation Topic, I am not even remotely familiar with topic norms for what is and is not considered topical, these debates will be resolved entirely off of your explanations. Inane T arguments used to establish disad links or counterplan competition are appreciated, but ASPEC for its own sake is annoying. Impact calc also applies to T, don't forget that. Kritiks of T are an uphill battle.

Counterplans:
Theory discussed later. I prefer explanation over evidence. Logical appeals work really well for solvency either way and for "CP links to the net-benefit" arguments. I have a relatively high threshold for counterplan competition and am open to very creative ways of making Perm do the CP legitimate. I will kick the counterplan and evaluate the status quo on its own unless I'm told not to. However, I will not do impact calculus for the negative in that world, so 2NRs should discuss how I should view things if the counterplan goes away.

Disads:
Turns case arguments and external impacts make these debates much easier to resolve. Impact calc that isn't comparative is a waste of time. Zero risk can be assigned. Intrisicness arguments are defensible.

Kritiks/K Affs

I almost exclusively debated policy arguments in high school and continue to do so in college. No objection to kritiks, but I am not the most knowledgeable when it comes to this literature. If I can't explain to the other team how the k works and how it beat them, I won't vote for the K. Referencing specific aff cards for link arguments will get you very far. Neg teams can win frameworks in which the plan doesn't matter and Aff teams can win frameworks in which I totally ignore the K, but I am most persuaded by more reasonable frameworks.For K affs, I am persuaded by arguments about why the aff has to defend a plan text, but it depends mostly on how its debated.

Theory:

I guess I should probably be considered aff leaning in terms of theory simply in that I'm not inherently opposed to a theory debate in the first place. Theory is your chance to control the rules, and I have a great appreciation for using theory to your advantage. Strategic and unique interpretations of theory arguments are useful. I'll let you do anything you can justify, and punish any team you can prove should be punished. I default to a view of competing interpretations so make sure you have an interpretation and have offense defending it.

Kevon Haughton Hire 3 rounds

David Heidt Westminster Schools 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:10 PM EDT

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.

All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.

1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.

Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.

2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".

How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.

On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.

Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.

3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."

I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.

But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.

4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.

5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.

6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.

7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.

Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).

This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.

Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.

And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.

There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.

2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.

3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.

4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.

5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.

What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

David Herman Westminster Schools 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 21, 2018 at 8:17 PM EDT

GDS 12, Harvard 16

Overriding principle is, whatever arguments you make, I'll do my best to evaluate the round objectively. Also, try to have fun. It's why we debate, and if it's not, it should be.

The rest of this is just attempting to outline my default thoughts (which with few exceptions are all malleable). Hopefully it's helpful!

General Thoughts (that apply to most arguments)

Dropped arguments are true, but need to have a link and impact to matter. In addition, the way I think about drops is that an argument is new if my understanding changed substantially since it was last articulated. If your strategy is reading a 3 line politics thumper in the 2AC with the tag "thumper", I'm probably going to give the neg reasonable leeway.â€¨

I tend to think evidence is important and research is one of the more valuable aspects of debate. This is true for both "critical" and "policy" arguments. All else equal, I think that theory interpretations that incentivize good research are preferable to ones that don't.â€¨

That being said, I always hated it when judges would substitute reading evidence for paying attention and flowing debates - evidence is just an effective way to substantiate and support arguments you're already making (and impacting). I'm pretty unlikely to call for every card and piece together a messy debate after the fact. Weaving together all the research you've done into a cohesive narrative for why I should vote for you is difficult, but awesome if you do it well.

Theory

Didn't really go for theory much until the very end, but genuinely enjoy thinking about it. Some thoughts on how it often goes down:

-tend to prefer logical / predictable interpretations over arbitrary / useful ones.

-my default is that the neg either gets no conditionality or infinite conditionality. have yet to hear a logical explanation for any number in between.

-don't think you get much from reading evidence that your counterplan is awesome and educational. a counterplan can be awesome and educational, but still not be competitive.

-on the other hand, evidence can be very helpful in establishing counterplan competition, but primarily by defining words in the plan to generate an opportunity cost. I do not think the aff automatically gets to define the words in the plan just because they're aff. mostly defer to the best evidence, or the best logical interpretation of the plan, whichever side presents it.

-topicality debates are great and I wish they happened more often. but note, I've only been to one tournament this year, so if you're going for T at the NDT (2018), be aware that I might not automatically know what all the acronyms or references to other teams' affs are, and take the 10-15 seconds to explain them.

-slow down! I genuinely want to flow everything, but if you're reading a theory block like a card, I'm going to process it like the text of a card...â€¨

Disads

Trying to mathematically calculate risk in debate seems futile, but you can win that something is so improbable that its magnitude is irrelevant. Practically, this means I don't think you need "terminal impact defense" to beat a disad (or to win a disad against an aff with an "extinction" impact). Most impact defense is internal link defense anyway. Probably not surprisingly, I've always been a bit puzzled by the staying power of "big stick" extinction/nuclear war impacts.

I can't remember the last time I've voted for a politics disad. Most iterations I've seen recently don't rise to the threshold of "this makes sense" (and that's before the 2AC even starts).

Kritiks

Don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other. In general, I think learning about the stuff should be inevitable, even if you never go for the k in your life (you still have to answer it, and good luck if you have no idea what you're talking about).

I find fairness impacts much more compelling than education impacts when the neg is going for framework. It's pretty easy for me to understand why the aff not reading a plan makes it significantly harder for the neg to win, but it's much harder for me to understand why traditional policy education is inherently more valuable than the literature associated with most k's.

Random other stuff

As a general rule, I will not vote on assertions that the other team should lose because of something that happened outside the current round (i.e. the time between the start of the 1AC and end of the 2AR). I have zero interest in adjudicating ongoing interpersonal disputes between debaters/coaches/teams. If this is your strat, don't pref me.â€¨

Paperless: Unless everything is taking an exceptionally long time, I usually don't care. I understand that computers sometimes fail and mistakes happen. If your computer crashes in the middle of your speech/prep, just say so and you can stop the timer while you fix it.

Kevin Hirn Glenbrook North 7 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 5:09 AM EDT

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

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan

Head Debate Coach, University of Chicago Lab Schools

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23)

Last updated: April, 2024 (new FR thoughts in the Topicality section, random updates throughout)

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

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college nuclear forces topic and the HS fiscal redistribution topic. For fiscal redistribution, I gave the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp and I wrote both the Topicality and Job Guarantee Aff/Neg files for their starter pack

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

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

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

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

0) Online debate

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

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow: I will take Casey Harrigan up on his flowing gauntlet/challenge any day (he might be able to take me if we were both restricted to paper, but on our computers, it's a wrap).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) General Philosophical Disposition

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

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

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

3) Topicality and Specification

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

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

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

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

For Fiscal Redistribution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

4) Risk Assessment

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

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

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

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

5) Counterplans

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

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

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

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

There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and in truth if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a relatively workable debate relative to alternatives.

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

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you.

I don't default to the status quo unless you explicitly flag it at some point during the debate (the cross-x or the 2nc is sufficient if the aff never contests it). I don't know why affs ask this question every cross-x and then never make a theory argument about it. It only hurts you, because it lets the neg get away with something they otherwise wouldn't have.

All that said, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

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

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

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

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

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

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

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

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

10) Procedural Norms

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

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

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sharon Hopkins University Prep HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 21, 2018 at 11:39 AM EDT

Sharon Hopkins

Occupation: High School U.S History Teacher
Past Affiliations: Director of Debate at University Prep HS in Detroit, MI & Assistant Debate Coach, University of Iowa

I am in my 8th year of coaching. I have had two teams clear at national tournaments including New Trier, Iowa Valley, University of Michigan, Glenbrooks, Scranton, Blake, & Lexington. Winner of the Berkeley Tournament in 2014 & the NAUDL Tournament in 2014 & 16. I have also had two teams qualify to the TOC and one Semi-Finalist.

Updated 4/21/18

The Topic
I am familiar with many of the arguments on this topic.

The Basics
A wise judge once said "Win what you are good at". Pretty much Anything goes as long as you understand what you are saying with the exception of "racism good". Debate is about critical thinking and often times teams rely solely on the cards and not the merits/effects of the policy and their understanding of them. Argumentation outweighs evidence. I prefer that you explain arguments thoroughly through your own understandings rather than reading a bunch of cards. If an argument is explained well, it will be given just as much weight as a card. I believe in persuasian over tech. With that being said, I rarely call for cards after the round. I prefer for debaters to debate it out, and not to construct my own story after the round.

In your rebuttals, you must do a good job of framing the debate. I don't like to have to nitpick my flow to decide what's important & should be voted on. You need to tell me which side I should vote for and why its your side

Paperless
No prep time for flashing but ABSOLUTELY be quick about it.

Speed
Slow down on the tags. If you spread through them and I can't flow them, this can be detrimental to your speaks and the overall round.

Topicality

I will vote for it but it is not my favorite debate especially if the aff is clearly topical. If you run T, you need to really explain the standards, not just re-read them.

CP's

CP's must solve the harms of the affirmative or I won't vote on it. If you run a PIC, the net benefit must be explained well and extended throughout the debate.

DA's
Have a good link story and impact it throughout the round.
Politics DA's- I find it difficult to evaluate these debates especially when the link is flimsy & the impact scenario is far-fetched & very much removed from reality.

Theory
Most of these debates are a wash except for Perf Con.

Kritiks

I really like to listen to a good K debate where the Kritik is explained in laymen's terms. In addition, the links need to be specific or you need to explain how the aff's methodology, reps, etc links to the K. If you take this route, your burden becomes more difficult but is still winnable.

Critical Affs
Aff-I'm your judge.
Neg-Have an inclusive framework and respond to case directly.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye... A Word About Performance "A project is a temporary endeavor with a defined beginning and end (usually time-constrained, and often constrained by funding or deliverables),undertaken to meet unique goals and objectives, typically to bring about beneficial change or added value."Based on this definition every 1AC is a project. In addition, not all performance teams are the same. Some critique debate itself. Others critique the resolution, some critique the government, while others have a plan text or advocacy statement that is a policy implementation, the performance is just the method in which debaters make their arguments more inclusive or put simply, makes it more interesting for a 16 year old to incorporate what they like into what they love. The best teams find a way to make their performance a discussion of the topic. I have seen some of the best critical thinking happen in these rounds where young people really found there voices. I do think that this argument should be accepted just as any other, and over time it will be, just as the Kritik was a taboo in the beginning, but is now commonplace. Teams need to be prepared for this type of argument just as they would any other, and not just read framework. They must actually interact with the effects of the advocacy.

*This does not mean just because you run a critical affirmative or performance that I will automatically vote for you. If you drop util arguments and such, I will vote accordingly.

If you have any questions, please ask before the round. Ultimately, be nice to each other, learn, and have fun. Everything else is secondary.

Lia Isono Niles West High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 6, 2019 at 10:07 AM EDT

***UPDATE 2019

I have not judged a debate round in awhile. I do not know the specifics of this year's topic so please keep that in mind if you are going for case specific/topic specific arguments.

Updated paradigm 12/18/14

I have only judged 3 maybe 4 rounds on this year's topic. If you are going for a case specific strategy or a topic specific argument, please explain your argument more to me more than you would to a judge who has heard more rounds. I have debated for four years for Niles West High School, so I understand the mechanics of debate.

With that being said, the arguments that you should go for are the ones that you feel most comfortable with. Basically, you do you.

If you are wondering if you can run a K aff in front of me the answer is yes. However, I am not as familiar with the literature as other judges, so again, you need to EXPLAIN your argument and it's implication for the round. When it comes down to it, I do evaluate tech over truth.

Older version:

First, I debated for Niles West High School in Illinois for four years. I am open to any argument that you feel comfortable going for.

Here are my thoughts about specific arguments:

DA + Case. Yes! I think that a DA/Case strategey is never a bad thing. It's the bread and butter of debate and I think that sometimes people aren't willing enough to go for straight up DA case in the 2NR. I think a case throwdown is generally a good option

CPs. Also a yes. I think that they are a great way to generate offense besides the SQ. I think it is a good idea to have multiple worlds coming out of the 1NC so you have more variety for the block.

Ks - I think that someone who articulates the link really well and doesn't spit K jargin at me is comparatively better than someone who is just reading K blocks hoping that the other team doesn't answer them back. With the K, I think a good debater will extrapolate the nuances of it. That really makes it easier to judge as well as engage me in the arguments you are actually delivering.

T- Most judges don't like T debates because they can get very messy but if you modulate where you are on the flow and give a clear story of your interpretation you're in good hands. I think some general things to remember is to really think of the impact of T.

Theory - I don't mind theory (see the T description above because theory debates parallel T debates). If you find yourself in a spot where you think going for theory is your best option, please don't let this disuade you from doing so. I'm pretty open to any theory argument, but I don't think the 2AC should have 9 theory objections, that kills your ethos.

I guess this is just some general stuff:

1st - make sure you are flowing everything (besides cross x) but seriosly, FLOW.

2nd - don't be rude. I absolutely hate rude people. I think that it is good to have confidence and know what you are talking about, but don't be jerks (I will lower speaker points)

3rd - LOOK AT THE JUDGE DURING CROSS X. I don't understand why people look at eath other like they are trying to pursuade the other team they are right. Ovi that's not going to happen because y'all are debaters. This does not mean stare at me all round because that's awk, but having eye contact with the judge is a good thing.

4th - go line by line.

If you have any other questions you can ask me in round

Toby Jacob Georgetown Day School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu December 4, 2014 at 11:21 AM EDT

I have not judged a lot, so I won't pretend that I have serious argument preferences or strong default settings. A few things that are important:

YOU PROBABLY ONLY NEED TO READ THIS --> I'm a new judge, I don't know what I like, hate, or feel about any specific argument. You should come into the round assuming I don't know anything (which is true) and you should explain your arguments like I'm 5. I'm not saying you have to explain to me what link uniqueness is but you will have to explain your arguments more than you likely normally do to more experienced judges.

Here are some thoughts I agree with:

1. Make arguments that compare the relevance of impact calculus filters. Is magnitude or time frame more important? Why should I disregard low probability arguments? I'm not annoyed when teams introduce the standard filters, but the most successful impact debaters don't stop there.

2. Analytic arguments can be as effective as having a card. The standards for evidence quality these days is pathetic. After highlighting, most evidence teams read lacks any credible warrant. Logical arguments are unlikely to get you to *zero* risk, but they can significantly reduce the probability of an advantage or DA. This is particularly true in the context of politics DAs. It is easy to convince me that a good analytic argument should hold as much weight as a card from a staff writer that uses the phrase political capital.

3. I'm pretty comfortable with the politics debate as it made up a lot of my 2NCs. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity of evidence. I think in general that the best answer is impact d [or uniqueness if you have a trick/are sure you are just right]. Rarely do I think that affs can win a link turn because in general someone will inevitably oppose the plan. A lot of disads have no link uniqueness, negatives should be smart about that and affs should point it out.

4. K Affs: I will vote on framework, to be clear. But I have no predispositions against any affirmative position. I don't think the aff has an inherent obligation to have a plan text or even an advocacy statement. I think that is easily defensible. Again, much like comments on criticism, I want these arguments to be specific to the resolution in a sense: abstract framework debates are made interesting by focusing on what this means for the practice of debate in the context of the topic. This includes if you're an aff critiquing the topic.

Speaker point stuff:

Cross-x – reference it in speeches, ask about relevant issues
Go for defense – talk about what their cards say, don’t say, why that matters
Don’t steal prep – this means stop writing/typing while the jump drive is being passed around
Even ifs – recognizing where you’re behind and adjusting
Blowing off stupidity – A-spec comes to mind
Clarity is very very important, excessive volume is just annoying

Andrew James Eagan High School 7 rounds None

Tasha Jhangiani Edgemont 6 rounds None

Taylor Johnson Berkeley Prep 7 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 3, 2024 at 1:25 PM EDT

2024 TOC update:

I have exclusively been coaching/judging college debate for the last 2 years and have done almost zero research on this year's high school topic. Please keep this in mind if I am judging you and err on the side of over-explaining.

General things:

Please add me to the email chain.

tayjdebater@gmail.com , dukesdebate@gmail.com

Currently the Interim Director of Debate at JMU. I debated on the local Missouri Circuit as a high school student and debated for 3 years at UCF when they still had a policy team (2011-2014). I coached Berkeley Prep for 2 years while in college, coached JMU as a grad student, took some time off to finish my PhD, and have recently returned to debate.

My MA thesis was about Indigenous anti-nuclear movements and I've spent a fair amount of time researching the intersections of settler colonialism, environmental justice, and nuclear testing/uranium mining/radioactive waste storage, so I have a higher-than-average amount of topic knowledge on that end of the topic, but probably a lower-than-average amount of knowledge on the various weapons systems/tech/military strategy side of the topic.

If I seem crabby in the round, there's a high probability it's not your fault. The later in the tournament it is, the higher that probability gets - my ability to mask my crabby faces/moderate my vocal tone is inversely related to my tiredness/hunger/stress levels, so I'm probably not actually mad at you, just irritated at the world.

My decision-making process/how I approach debates:

I tend to prioritize solvency/links first when evaluating a debate. I think it's totally possible to win zero risk of an impact and I'm definitely willing to vote on presumption (but if that's your strategy I expect you to do the work to make it explicit).

I like well-explained, smart arguments. I would rather hear you explain something well with good examples than read a ton of cards that all say the same thing. I'll stick as close to the flow as I can and judge the debate based on how the debaters tell me to judge.

An argument has a claim, warrant, and impact. Dropped things only matter if you make them matter. It is your job to frame the voting issues in the round for me and make it clear how I should weigh arguments against one another.

I prefer to minimize how much evidence I read after the round. I expect you to do more than shadow extend things. If all I have on my flow by the end of the round is an author name, I'm not hunting that card down to figure out the warrant for you.

I flow on paper and line things up on my flow. Please give me sufficient pen time on analytics, signpost, and keep things organized. If I am unable to get something on my flow because you did not do these things or because you were not clear, that's a you problem. I will always do my best to get everything written down, even if it's in the wrong place, but it will make it more difficult for me to meaningfully weigh arguments against each other, which means longer decision times and probably worse decisions.

I don't flow CX, but will pay attention throughout CX and jot down notes if something particularly important/eye-catching seems to be happening. If something occurs in CX that you want me to vote on, it needs to make it into a speech.

I do not follow the speech doc while flowing. I may have the document open and refer to specific cards if they are referenced in CX, but I won't be flowing from your doc or reading your evidence along with you during your speech.

Stylistic things

Prep ends when you hit send on the email, and unless you're planning to ask questions about the extra cards they added, please don't make us wait to start CX until they send them. I will keep as close to a running clock as possible - we all have a role to play in making sure the tournament runs on time, and we all want a chance to get a halfway decent amount of sleep.

If you play music/videos/etc. while you are speaking, please ensure the volume of the music is substantially quieter than the volume of your voice. I have some auditory processing issues that make it extremely difficult for me to understand people's voices while there is any kind of background noise. I want to flow and evaluate your arguments, but I can't do that if I can't process your words.

I vote on things that happened during the debate. I do not vote on things that the other team (or their friends, coaches, squad-mates, acquaintances, enemies, etc.) did during pre-round prep, in the hallway yesterday, at the bar last tournament, this morning at the hotel, etc. I will not attempt to adjudicate interpersonal events I was not present to witness.

I generally think debate is good. That doesn't mean I think debate is perfect. There are absolutely valid critiques of debate that should be addressed, and I think there is value in pushing this activity to be the best version of itself. However, if your arguments rely on the assumption that debate is irredeemably bad, I'm probably not the right judge for you. I think you need a model of debate that you think is desirable and achievable within the confines of an activity in which two sides argue with each other and at the end one side is selected as a winner.

Most debaters would benefit from slowing down by about 20%. Not because speed is bad, but because few debaters are actually clear enough for the average judge to get a good flow when you're going at 100% speed.

Examples, examples, examples. If you take one thing away from my paradigm, it is that I like to be given examples. What does your theory look like in practice? What kinds of plans are included/excluded under your T interp? Etc.

Please do not assume I know what your acronyms/etc mean. If I don't know what the bill/organization/event you're talking about is, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to evaluate your link story.

I will open the speech doc, but will not necessarily follow along. I may look at a card if something spicy happens in CX, if you're referring to a card in a rebuttal, etc., but I do not look at or flow from the doc. If you are not clear enough for me to flow without looking at your doc, I will not fill in gaps from the doc.

Ethics Violations:

I take ethics challenges extremely seriously. I consider them to be an accusation of academic dishonesty equivalent to plagiarism. Just like any other instance of academic dishonesty, ethics violations can have serious consequences for debaters and programs, and the perception that our activity condones such behavior could have serious repercussions for the survival of our activity. If an ethics challenge is issued, that is the end of the debate. If the tournament invitation includes a protocol for handling ethics challenges, I will follow the tournament rules. If the tournament does not have a clear set of protocols, I will clarify that an ethics challenge has been issued, make a determination in regards to the challenge, and either vote for the team issuing the challenge or for the team against whom the challenge was issued.

If you become aware of something you think might be an ethics violation prior to the round (you notice a card that is cited incorrectly, etc.) I would STRONGLY PREFER that you reach out to the team/their coach before the round and let them know/give them a chance to fix it, rather than initiating an ethics challenge in the round.

Because of the seriousness of ethics challenges, I consider it the responsibility of the team issuing the challenge to 1) prove that a violation (defined as card clipping or intentionally manufacturing or mis-representing the source or content of evidence) occurred and 2) provide a reasonable degree of evidence that the violation was intentional or malicious (i.e., I do not consider someone mumbling/stumbling over words because they were tired to be the same thing as intentional card clipping, and do not think it should have the same consequences).

That said, I understand that proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt is an impossible standard. I do not expect you to prove exactly what was going on in the other team's mind when the event happened. However, you should be able to show that the other team reasonably should have known that the cite was wrong, the text was missing, etc. and chose to engage in the behavior knowing that it was unethical. I do not think we should be accusing people of academic dishonesty as a strategy to win a round. I also do not think we should be engaging in cheating behavior to win rounds. No one debater's win record is worth more than the continued health of our activity as a whole. If we would like this activity to continue, we must have ethical standards, including not cheating and not frivolously accusing people of cheating.

Speaker Points:

These are relative for each division (e.g., what I consider an "average performance" that gets a 28.3 in novice will be different from what I think of as an "average performance" that gets a 28.3 in varsity)

29.5-30: You should be in the top 3 speakers at the tournament. I can count the number of times I have given above a 29.5 on one hand.

29-29.5: This was an incredible performance. I expect you to be in late out rounds at this tournament and/or to win a speaker award

28.6-29: This was an above-average performance. Something about your speeches/CXs impressed me. Keep this up and I anticipate you will clear.

28.3-28.6: This was an average performance. You had some good moments, but nothing incredible happened.

27.5-28.3: I like your attitude. Some rough things happened during this round. Maybe you dropped an off-case position, only read blocks, were extremely unclear, etc.

Below a 27.5: Something majorly wrong has happened in this round. You failed to participate meaingfully in the debate and/or failed to demonstrate basic human decency toward other people in the room.

Case debate

Yes, please. I love a good case debate, particularly when it is grounded in specific and detailed analysis of what the aff claims their plan/advocadcy does vs what their cards actually say.

T/Framework

I judge a lot of these debates, and enjoy them. Ultimately, these are debates about what we think debate should be. Because of that, I think you need a clear description of what your model of debate looks like, what it includes/excludes, and why that's a good thing.

Debate is an educational activity unlike any other, and I think that's a good thing. I generally default to believing education is the most important impact in these debates, but can absolutely be persuaded that something else (i.e. fairness) should come first.

Despite what I just said, I think the competitive nature of debate is also good, which means there should probably be at least some parameters for what the activity looks like that allows both sides a reasonable shot at winning. What that looks like is up for debate.

I prefer affirmatives with some clear tie to the resolution. That doesn't mean you have to fiat a topical plan text, but I do think it means debate is better when the affirmative is at least in the direction of the topic and/or about the same general content as the resolution.

Your TVA needs to actually access whatever offense the aff is leveraging against T. Lots of TVAs fail this test. I think a good TVA can be super important, but a bad TVA is typically a complete waste of time.

Against policy affs, I think giving me specific examples of ground you lost (not just "we lost some DAs" but "We specifically couldn't read these 2 core DAs and this core CP") is important. If you can show in-round abuse via spiking out of links, that would be ideal.

Please give me pen time.

Counterplans

If your counterplan has a bajillion hyper-specific planks, you need to slow down enough for me to at least get an idea of what they are in the 1NC.

I like counterplans that are specific, well-researched, and have a clear basis in a solvency advocate. I don't love counterplans that have a million planks that are not clearly explained until the block or the 2nr and are not grounded in some kind of solvency advocate/literature.

You should be able to clearly articulate how the implementation of the CP works. I think most aff teams should spend more time articulating solvency deficits based on the negative team's inability or refusal to articulate what the implementation process of the CP looks like in comparison to the aff.

I think conditionality is good, within reason. I think PICs are good, within reason. I think multi-actor fiat, counterplans with a zillion planks, etc. are probably not great, but generally are reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I can be convinced that any of the above opinions are wrong, given the right arguments by either team.

Disads

Please make clear what your acronyms mean, what your specific link story is, etc. early in the debate. I don't spend a ton of time judging giant big-stick policy rounds, so I'm probably not as versed in this literature as you. Please don't make me spend 20 minutes after the debate trying to decipher your impact scenario. Give me a very clear explanation in the 2nc/1nr overview.

Kritiks

I think the aff gets to weigh their impacts if they prove that the ideas underwriting those impacts are good and accurate. I think the neg gets links to the aff's reps/discourse/etc. I think the negative needs to win a specific link to the aff (i.e., not just to the status quo) and also either that the links are sufficient to undermine the aff's internal links (i.e. I should vote on presumption) or that the alternative can resolve the links. I don't think any of those statements are particularly controversial.

The role of the ballot is to decide who did the better debating in this round. Always. How I should evaluate what counts as "better debating" is up for debate, but I am pretty unsympathetic to obviously self-serving roles of the ballot.

If you say the phrase "vote aff to vote neg" or "vote neg to vote aff" in a round I am judging, you owe me $10.

Willie Johnson Hire 7 rounds

I feel the need to fix this huge communication issue in the debate community it will start with my judging philosophy. If you are a debater who say any of the following "Obama is president solves for racism" or "we are moving towards less racism cause of Obama or LBS" and the opposing team reading a racism arg/advantage or colorblindness I will instantly vote you down with 25 points for the debater who said it.

Jumping: Novice please don't but if you must which you all will you have 20 seconds after you call for prep to be stop till I consider it stealing prep and instead of restarting prep I will just measure it by the ticker timer in my head (which you do not want). I suggest that you carry a debate jump drive, viewing computer or the cloud system. For Open debaters I get even more angry with the lack of competence you guys have with being responsible when it comes to jumping files and card. I have a soft warmness for debaters who are mostly paper and may involve me smiling like a boy with a crush don't be alarmed it is just me remembering my old days.

Speaking: I believe that clarity comes before all other ideals of what we often fantasize a good speaker to be, a debater has to be clear so that I spend more time analyzing and processing what is said then trying to comprehend what the hell is being said. This helps in the rebuttals when there is more cross applying of arguments instead of me sitting there trying to ponder what argument reference is being made. Speed is something I can adjust to not my general forte yet if you are clear I can primarily make easier adjustments (look I sound like a damn metronome). I tend to give hints towards the wrongs and rights in the round so I won’t be put off if you stare at me every now and then. Debates should be a game of wit and word that upholds morals of dignity and respect do not be rude and or abrasive please respect me, the other team, your partner and of course yourself

The Flow: My hand writing is atrocious just incredibly horrible for others at least I generally flow tags, authors and major warrants in the world of traditional debate. Outside of that with all the other formats poetry, performance, rap, theatricals and so forth I just try to grasp the majority of the speech incorporating the main idea

The K: yeah I so love the K being from a UDL background and having running the K for a majority of my debate career, yet don't let that be the reason you run the K I believe that a great K debate consist of a in-depth link explanation as well as control of the clash. There should be Impact calculus that does more then tell me what the impact is but a justification for how it functionally shapes the round which draws me to have a complete understanding of the Alt versus the plan and there must be some idea of a solvency mechanism so that the k is just simply not a linear disad forcing me to rethink or reform in the status quo (K= reshape the Squo)

The T debate: First I find it extremely hard to remember in my entire debate career where I cast a ballot for topicality alone yet it is possible to get a T ballot you must have a clear abuse story I will not evaluate T if there is not a clear abuse story. Voters are my best friend and will become a prior if well explained and impacted, yet I do believe education and fairness have extreme value just want to know why.

The D/A: Well I actually find myself voting more on the Disad then the K I just think that the disad debate offers more tools for the neg then the K yet it is the debater who optimize these tools that gain my ballot, link debates should contain at least a specific link as well as a an established Brink generic links are not good enough to win a D/A ballot and any good aff team will destroy a a generic link unless there is some support through a link wall. Impact debates must be more than just nuke war kills all you have to place comparative value to the status quo now and after plan passage. Yet a disad is an easier win with the advantages of solvency deficits and the option of competitive counter plans.

The Counter Plan: Competition is key if there is no proof that the end result is not uniquely different from the aff plan it is less likely to capture my ballot. So C/P solvency and competition is where my voter lies on the C/P flow this involves establishing and controlling the clash on the net benefit. PIC's usually rely on proving that the theoretical value of competition is worth my jurisdiction.

Theory: cross apply T only thing with a theory debate that is different is you must be able to show in where the violation actually happens yet I find theory to be easy outs to traditional clash.

Framework: this is where my jurisdiction truly falls and it is the teams’ job to not only introduce the functioning framework but to uphold and defend that their framework is worth singing my ballot towards. I have no set idea of a framework coming into the round your job is to sell me to one and by any means my job is not to look at what framework sounds good but which is presented in a manner that avoids judges intervention (really just the team that prevents me from doing the bulk of the work if any).

In general: I love a good old debate round with tons of clash and where there is an understanding and display of your own intellect I find it hard to judge a round where there is just a display of how well a team can read and make reference to evidence, usually I hope that ends or is done less coming out of the 1AR. I'm a man who finds pleasure in the arts and execution of organic intellect and can better give my decision and opinion based mainly on how one relates back to competitive debate, if debate for you is a card game then it forces me to have to make decision based off my comprehension of the evidence and trust me that is never a good thing, yet a round where the discussion is what guides my ballot I can vote on who upholds the best discursive actions.

Kyle Joseph Iowa City High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 8:22 PM CDT

1. Conflicts [as of 10/04/2020]

No Univ of Chicago Lab
No Iowa City

2. Short Version

tech over truth
strong analytics/analysis can beat carded evidence
prioritize your impacts
have fun!

3. Pandemic Social Distancing Related Technology Notes

Please slow down 5-10%. Emphasize your warrants. Without a microphone stem, your quality fluctuates. Keep in mind that I still flow on paper.
Please get explicit visual or audio confirmation from everyone in the debate before beginning your speech. I may use a thumbs up to indicate I am ready.
If my camera is off, unless I explicitly have told you otherwise, assume I'm not at the computer.
If the current speaker has significant tech problems, I'll try to interrupt your speech and mark the last argument and timestamp.

4. Some Detail

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but have not really had the time. My hope is that I end up judging better debates as a result of this updated philosophy. I am now changing to a more linear philosophy, it is my hope that you read this in its entirety before choosing where to place me on the pref sheet. I debated for four years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the south Chicago suburbs from 2007-2011. During that time I debated, Sub-Saharan Africa, Alternative Energy, Social services and substantial reductions in Military presence.

Nearing a decade ago, during would would have been the h.s. space topic. I started at the University of Northern Iowa, Where I debated NDT/CEDA Middle East/North Africa while judging a few debate rounds across the midwest. After my freshman year I transferred to the University of Iowa, where I started coaching at Iowa City High School. This year, I will continue to coach the City High Debate team.

Framing, Issue choice and impact calculus are in my opinion the most important aspects of argumentation, and you should make sure they are components in your speeches. Late rebuttals that lack this analysis are severely.

I preference tech over truth. Your in round performance is far more important to me, as it is what I hear. I greatly attempt to preference the speaking portion of the debate. Increasingly, I've found that my reading evidence is not necessarily an aspect of close debates, but rather results from poor argument explanation and clarification. The majority of 'close rounds' that I've judged fall into the category of closeness by lack of explanation. In some limited instances, I may call for evidence in order to satisfy my intellectual fascination with the activity. Anything other than that--which I will usually express during the RFD--probably falls upon inadequate explanation and should be treated as such.

I feel my role as a judge is split evenly between policymaker and 'referee' in that when called to resolve an issue of fairness. I will prioritize that first. Addressing inequities in side balance, ability to prepare and generate offense is something may at times find slightly more important than substance. In short, I consider myself a good judge for theory, THAT BEING SAID, rarely do I find theory debates resolved in a manner that satisfies my liking - I feel theoretical arguments should be challenged tantamount to their substance based counterparts. Simply reading the block isn't enough. Though I was a 2A[≈ High power LED current, peak 2.7 A] in high school I have since found myself sliding towards the negative on theoretical questions. I can be convinced, however, to limit the scope of negative offense quite easily, so long as the arguments are well explained and adjudicated.

I consider reasonability better than competing interpretations, with the caveat that I will vote on the best interpretation presented. But topicality questions shouldn't be a major concern if the team has answered.

I have a long and complicated relationship with the K. I have a level of familiarity with the mainstream literature, so go ahead and read Capitalism or Neolib. Less familiar arguments will require more depth/better explanation.

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:31 PM EDT

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.

LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

aaron kall Hire 2 rounds

Director of Debate at The University of Michigan

General Judging Paradigm- I think debate is an educational game. Someone once told me
that there are three types of judges: big truth, middle truth, and little truth judges. I would
definitely fall into the latter category. I don’t think a two hour debate round is a search for
the truth, but rather a time period for debaters to persuade judges with the help of
evidence and analytical arguments. I have many personal biases and preferences, but I try
to compartmentalize them and allow the debate to be decided by the debaters. I abhor
judge intervention, but do realize it becomes inevitable when debaters fail to adequately
resolve the debate. I am a very technical and flow-oriented judge. I will not evaluate
arguments that were in the 2AR and 2AC, but not the 1AR. This is also true for
arguments that were in the 2NR and 1NC, but not in the negative block.

Counterplans/Theory- I would consider myself liberal on theory, especially regarding
plan-inclusive counterplans. Usually, the negative block will make ten arguments
theoretically defending their counterplan and the 1AR will only answer eight of them- the
2NR will extend the two arguments that were dropped, etc. and that’s usually good
enough for me. I have often voted on conditionality because the Aff. was technically
superior. If you’re Aff. and going for theory, make sure to answer each and every
negative argument. I am troubled by the recent emergence of theory and procedural
debates focusing on offense and defense. I don’t necessarily think the negative has to win
an offensive reason why their counterplan is theoretically legitimate- they just have to
win that their counterplan is legitimate. For the Aff., I believe that permutations must
include all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan. I think the do the counterplan
permutation is silly and don’t think it’s justified because the negative is conditional, etc. I
do realize this permutation wins rounds because it’s short and Neg. teams sometimes fail
to answer it. On the issue of presumption, a counterplan must provide a reason to reject
the Aff. Finally, I think it’s illegitimate when the Aff. refuses to commit to their agent for
the explicit purpose of ducking counterplans, especially when they read solvency
evidence that advocates a particular agent. This strategy relies on defending the theory of
textual competition, which I think is a bad way of determining whether counterplans
compete.

Topicality- When I debated, I commonly ran Affirmatives that were on the fringe of what
was considered topical. This was probably the reason I was not a great topicality judge
for the negative my first few years of judging college debate. Beginning this year, I have
noticed myself voting negative on topicality with greater frequency. In the abstract, I
would prefer a more limited topic as opposed to one where hundreds of cases could be
considered topical. That being said, I think topicality often seems like a strategy of
desperation for the negative, so if it’s not, make sure the violation is well developed in
the negative block. I resolve topicality debates in a very technical manner. Often it
seems like the best Affirmative answers are not made until the 2AR, which is probably
too late for me to consider them.

Kritiks- If I got to choose my ideal debate to judge, it would probably involve a politics
or other disadvantage and a case or counterplan debate. But, I do realize that debaters get
to run whatever arguments they want and strategy plays a large role in argument
selection. I have probably voted for a kritik about a half of dozen times this year. I never
ran kritiks when I debated and I do not read any philosophy in my free time. Kritik
rhetoric often involves long words, so please reduce your rate of speed slightly so I can
understand what you are saying. Kritiks as net-benefits to counterplans or alternatives
that have little or no solvency deficit are especially difficult for Affirmatives to handle.
Evidence Reading- I read a lot of evidence, unless I think the debate was so clear that it’s
not necessary. I won’t look at the un-underlined parts of cards- only what was read into
the round. I am pretty liberal about evidence and arguments in the 1AR. If a one card
argument in the 1NC gets extended and ten more pieces of evidence are read by the
negative block, the 1AR obviously gets to read cards. I think the quality of evidence is
important and feel that evidence that can only be found on the web is usually not credible
because it is not permanent nor subject to peer review. I wish there would be more time
spent in debates on the competing quality of evidence.

Cheap Shots/Voting Issues- These are usually bad arguments, but receive attention
because they are commonly dropped. For me to vote on these arguments, they must be
clearly articulated and have a competent warrant behind them. Just because the phrase
voting issue was made in the 1AR, not answered by the 2NR, and extended by the 2AR
doesn’t make it so. There has to be an articulated link/reason it’s a voting issue for it to
be considered.

Pet Peeves- Inefficiency, being asked to flow overviews on separate pieces of paper, 2NRs that go for too much, etc.

Seasonal voting record:

Alex Kane Georgetown Day School 5 rounds None

Patrick Kennedy Niles North High School 4 rounds

Nathan Klish Bronx Science 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 7, 2016 at 8:42 AM CDT

Bio:
Debated in high school 1.5 years at SPASH (WI)
I debated 1.5 years at the University of Minnesota

For doc chain purposes and if you have any questions, my email is nathanklish@gmail.com

Things to know about me:
1) I like arguments that make sense - they don't necessarily have to be tied to a card, smart analytics are often times better than reading cards that say functionally the same thing.
2) Politics disadvantages are awesome and I think knowing about the current political climate is a good thing.
3) Be extra clear (not necessarily slower, but wouldn't necessarily hurt) on theory/T debates - more clear development of args will help my flow and your results.
4) Kritiks that have a clear explanation of how the alt/links interact with the aff is going to be the surest way of getting my ballot - the more specific interaction the better. Generic K things are boring.
5) Be a good person - light humor, jokes, and general friendliness will boost speaks. Don't be an asshole. Elitism is my least favorite thing ever. Compassion is not a finite resource.
6) I don't coach and I don't judge a lot so I probably know nothing about the topic - explain things please.

My views of "traditional" debate vs. "non-traditional" debate:
I'm pretty easy going these days, my general feeling is that debate is a game and people do it because people find that it's a good thing to do - there's probably some common ground somewhere. When I debated, I read mostly policy-style arguments, but I think non-policy-style arguments are also really cool and make debate more textured in terms of people, ideas, etc. I think the best way to get my ballot is to be upfront about debate being a competitive activity, and basing arguments in that - e.g. exploiting debate as a game is good because winning legitimizes our argument or competition incentivizes smarter arguments, or addressing the competitive nature of debate in some way.

Michael Koo Centennial High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 29, 2023 at 12:22 PM EDT

Background (updated 9/29/23)

General - I graduated from Johns Hopkins University in 2018 with majors in Biomedical Engineering and Applied Math/Stats and a minor in Africana Studies. I am currently a student at the Tuck School of Business and in a combined MD-MBA program with the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth (class of 2025)

Competitive - 5 years of circuit policy (2009-2014) at Centennial High School (as a part of Capitol Debate, yes they used to do policy mainly believe it or not) being coached by Daryl Burch. 2014 TOC Champion in policy. I debated 4 years of American parliamentary (APDA) and British parliamentary (BP) at Johns Hopkins University (2014-2018).

Coaching - I have not been in any coaching capacity since the start of the 2020-2021 school year (med school will do that to you). I've judged 1 tournament a year for the past 3 years (2020-2023) and have not worked at a summer camp since 2014.

Philosophy (updated 9/29/23)

If there is a chain I want to be on it - mkoo7000@gmail.com

I do NOT open speech docs until the debate ends, speaking clearly is key and if I can't understand you, I will just discount the arguments rather than opening the speech doc.

I have very little clue what the topic is, please assume I don't know common acronyms/terminology related to the topic.

In 90% of rounds, I submit my ballot within 3 minutes of the final speech ending. Here are the major implications:

- Clarity (in speaking, organization, and explanation) is my first priority. The main reason I've realized I submit my decisions quickly is not because the round is lopsided/underwhelming in quality, but because of the degree to which I value communication during the round. The team who communicated their story into my head while I am listening to their speech usually prevails over the team who may have had a warrant that I barely flowed while struggling to keep up with their communication. I will be actively deciding who is currently winning and exactly what I think the other team has to do to undermine that as the round goes on, thus leaving most questions answered in my head as the final speech ends. I concede that there is potential for error in my approach, but I figured that I would rather reward the more persuasive team rather than digging through and examining each and every technicality.

- My substantive preferences are very fluid. I have debated and judged almost every type of substantive arguments at the highest levels of high school competition so my real preference is to do what you think you do best. But as nobody is truly a blank slate, I have some explicit preferences and substantive decision-making quirks clarified below for both LD and policy.

- Cards are only read when their quality/warranting are explicitly contested. The corollary to this is that warranting explained during the speeches will always trump the existence of a card that may answer those warrants in my decision-making process.

- I put a heavier emphasis onto the final rebuttals in my decision-making process.

I am a STICKLER for timeliness during rounds

- Efficient and proactive conduct in evidence exchange and round preparation/conduct will be rewarded with speaker points.

- Flight 2 - I expect the first speech to be sent and ready to spoken, immediately after my RFD from flight 1 ends. I encourage/expect you to set up in the room as soon as the final speech ends (or even before in between speeches) and will not perceive the disturbance as rude.

- For LD especially - specifying which parts of speech docs your opponents did/didn't read requires prep time and is NOT a courtesy I am willing to allow during dead time. Please do not flow off the speech doc and flow the speech proper. However I will be sympathetic to clarifications after unclear speeches.

General Substantive Preferences (all formats)

- Impact comparison/explanation/tangibility is the first thing I sort through when making an RFD.

- Tech>truth - protection must be WARRANTED or probably won't be evaluated.

- If the best arguments are deployed on both sides, I lean neg (55-45) on whether a K aff gets a perm - the best arguments are usually nowhere close to being deployed.

- If you're going to go for the K, you better talk about the case and explain the implications for winning framework in the 2NR.

- I consider framework and the alternative to be 2 sides of the same coin. I think either can make up for a weakness in the other.

- Solvency advocates for CPs will make me neg leaning on theory/competition. If the solvency advocate is in the context of the aff, it will make it very hard to persuade me that the CP is theoretically illegitimate as I think the value of research/education incentivized by these kinds of CPs vastly outweigh any fairness concerns.

- For policy, very neg leaning on conditionality (up to 2), barely aff leaning on 50-state, international, and object fiat, really don't care about anything else.

LD specific preferences

- Please disclose immediately when requested if the pairing is out, EVEN if you are in flight 2. I think pre-round disclosure is educational and think the "30-minutes before the round" standard is arbitrary and silly. Getting me to vote on this is highly unlikely (more on this below) but I will happily reward/punish teams who point out this happened with speaker points (+0.2/-0.2 respectively).

- I am not a fan of theory/tricks/phil arguments. This is primarily due to the incomprehensible speed/clarity at which these arguments are usually deployed. I do not open the speech doc while flowing and will not refer to it to flow warrants I missed. I also find reasonability to be an extremely persuasive argument for most theory/tricks arguments (don't disclose cites, you wore shoes, etc). Arguments this does not apply to are theory arguments common in policy (conditionality bad, aff didn't disclose at ALL, 50-state fiat, PICs bad, international fiat, etc).

- I think the existence of a time skew biased in favor of the neg to be a persuasive argument in LD (take advantage of this in theory debates!!). Due to this, I find myself being more lenient to the 1AR/2AR in terms of tech (ie, not being super strict on dropped args, focusing more on the story than minute tech details). In high level debates, aff teams NEED to collapse in the 2AR to be able to win.

- Conditionality bad much more persuasive to me in LD comparatively to how I view it in policy. 2 or less in policy and 1 or less in LD are usually easily defensible to me.

Ethics/Procedural Challenges
- If you believe the other team is guilty of an ethics violation and I am notified, the debate will end there and I will determine if you are correct. If I notice an ethics violation, I will not stop the round but decide the round based on it after it ends if I believe it was sufficiently egregious. If there is an easy way for me to access speech docs, I will follow along at random moments during the debate.
- Card clipping/cross reading – Any form of misrepresenting the amount of evidence you have read is considered card clipping. It is your opponents’ burden to ask for a marked copy of your speech but it is yours to make sure that is ready IMMEDIATELY. This means if you forget to physically mark during a speech, you better have a crystal clear memory because you will lose if you mis-mark evidence. Audibly marking during a speech is acceptable as long as you explicitly say the words “mark it at ‘x’”. Intention does not matter. I understand if you were ignorant or didn’t mean to but you should have to take the loss to make sure you are MUCH MORE careful in future. Video or audio recordings are a necessity if you want to pose a challenge about card clipping. Anything that is 3 words or less (no more than twice a speech) I am willing to grant as a minor mistake and will drop the accusing team for being petty. Double highlighting is not card clipping, just make sure your opponents know which color you are reading, a simple clarification question can resolve this.
- Evidence fabrication – it is hard to prove this distinctively from evidence that cannot be accessed – if a team is caught fabricating (making it up) evidence they will lose.

Problematic not an ethics violation (these can be persuasive arguments to win my ballot)
- Evidence that cannot be accessed – this is necessary for teams to be able to successfully refute your research. If this is proved, I will ignore the evidence and treat arguments related to it as merely claims in my decisionmaking
- Out of context cards – this will seriously hurt your ethos and your opponents will probably definitively win their competing claim
- Misdisclosure – the only reason why this isn’t above is because there is almost no falsifiable method to prove that a disclosure wasn’t honest – this is probably the most serious of this category and can garner you major leeway in my decision making if you can successfully prove how it has impacted your ability to debate this round.
- If I catch you stealing prep (talking during dead time to your partner about the round, messing around on your computer, etc), I will dock half of your remaining prep time

Long ramble (this is the first draft of my judge policy I wrote when I was a young first year out that I just didn't want to delete because it's fun to keep. Only read this if you're bored or have too much time on your hands, a lot of it is probably outdated)

- The most influential aspect of determining how to pref a relatively new judge was seeing how they debated, talk to people who’ve judged/watched me (if they still remember)before to see what I rolled with in debates.
- I always enjoyed/found much more helpful the longer/thorough judge philosophies so be prepared to read a lot of my thoughts/rants that are coming
- Daryl Burch (coach) is the single biggest influential figure in my development as a debater. Srinidhi Muppalla (partner for 2 years) would probably come second. Go look at their philosophies.
- I was a 2A for 3 years and then a 2N for my senior year – I have read affirmatives all over the spectrum (complete performance, 10 impact policy affs, k affs that defended a plan) – and went for whatever on the neg (at one point my senior year, some team asked me past 2NR’s and I answered: T-economic engagement, give back the land K, black feminism K, asian counteradvocacy, warming good + geoenginnering CP, mexico politics DA, process CP, dedev, afropessimism K, warming good + politics DA, warming good + politics DA, framework)

Top Level Thoughts
- I see debate as an intellectual forum where individuals come to advocate for some course of action – the type of action desired is for the debaters to choose and discuss and for me to evaluate whether it’s a good or bad idea – note, this means you MUST defend SOMETHING (even if it’s nothing)
- Ethos is underrated – most judges know which why they will decide right after the round ends and spend the time after justifying and double checking his/her choice. Your persuasive appeal in every way you conduct yourself throughout the round is a massive factor in this. Know what you’re talking about, but more importantly, sound like you know what you’re talking about and show that you EXPECT to win.
- Speak clearly – if you can’t you should be doing a LOT of drills (trust me I was there too) – Judges who didn’t let me know they couldn’t understand me assuming that was my burden annoyed me to no end – I will be very explicit in letting you know if I can’t understand you – after the second time I call clear, I will not evaluate any cards/arguments I call clear on afterwards – I'll flow the next of your cards if I can understand them, this would be strategic as then the other team is responsible for answering them
- Speed = arguments I THINK the other team is responsible for answering – if it’s not on my flow then it’s not an argument so do your best to make sure it gets there
- I am awful at keeping a straight face while judging – use this to your advantage
- Set in stone – speech times, only one team will win – everything else is up for debate
- An argument is a claim and a warrant – dropped claims are NOT dropped arguments – dropped ARGUMENTS are true and you should avoid dropping ARGUMENTS – my understanding of rejoinder is that claims can sufficiently be answered by claims
- Conceding an opponent’s argument makes it the truest argument in the round – use this to your advantage
- I don’t protect the 2NR unless explicitly asked to – specific brightlines and warranted calls for protections (anytime) will be zealously adhered to
- Being aggressive = good. Being aggressive and wrong = bad. Being mean = worst. Debate should strive to be a safe space. There is a fine line between a politics of discomfort (which can be productive) and being violent toward another individual. This fine line is up to subjective determination by a “know it when I see it” test.
- I do believe that arguments about a debater’s actions/choices outside of the current round do have a place in some forms of debate. My biggest problem is that most of these arguments are non falsifiable and really impossible to prove. I think that it is important to be genuine but do know that debate is also a strategic game where strategy can conflict with genuine advocacy. Once again I’ll employ a subjective “know it when I see it test” and will update my thoughts on this issue as I judge more debates.
- I think all debaters should play an proactive role in doing their own prefs as soon as possible – it is quite the rewarding learning experience that helps you learn your judges
- Cards can undisputedly settle factual questions – analysis (including analysis about cards) settles everything else
- I will only call for a piece of evidence if there is an explicit cite referenced during the explanation of the argument – If I am asking questions like “Can you give me the piece of evidence you think says ‘x’,” then I am either doing annoyed or the debate is way too close for me not to double check.
- Debate's a technical game - do line by line and answer arguments - don't be surprised if I make decisions that seem debatable based upon technical concessions
- Assuming all positions are well prepared and executed close to as well as possible this would probably be my favorite to least favorite 2NR's - DA + case, DA + CP, advantage CP + DA, topic K, any strat with generic impact turns, any strat with politics, any strat with a process CP, generic K, topicality
- Cheap shots will only be voting issues if you give me no other option - what I mean about this is you better go HARD or go home, anything under 1 minute of explanation/warrants/asking for protection will probably be dismissed as a rule of thumb - cheap shots are not good arguments that were dropped, those don't apply to this section, but argument that are sufficiently stupid that they can only be won because they were dropped
- I'm super lenient on paperless rules - as long as you don't take forever and I don't catch you stealing prep you'll be fine - if your computer crashes mid speech just let me know

Framework
- I honestly feel like this section determines a lot about how people pref judges these days
- I will start off by saying that I am a firm believer in ideological reflexivity – people go a long way in trying to understand each other’s arguments and even embrace them instead of crying exclusion/trying to exclude.
- But yes, if you win the tech battle I will vote for framework
- Flipping neg greatly hurts your ability to go for ANY arguments based upon procedural fairness
- Real world examples from the debate community go a long way in proving points in these types of debates – use them to your advantage
- I think debate is most educational when it is about the topic – however I think there are multiple ways to defend the topic
- Arguments about procedural fairness are the most strategic/true in my opinion – however impacting them with just fairness is unpersuasive and you should couch your impacts upon the education (or lack of) from debates with little clash
- It is worth noting that I have stopped running procedural based framework arguments by the end of my senior year – however this was mainly due to the fact that I was very bad at going for framework and instead found much more strategic to engage affirmatives on the substance of their arguments (because I had a genius coach who was very good at thinking of ways to do that)
- If an aff defends a plan I will be EXTREMELY unpersuaded by framework arguments that say the aff can only garner advantages off the instrumental affirmation of the plan

Non-Traditional
- If you know me at all you should know that I am completely fine with these
- CX makes or breaks these debates – yes I do believe that you can garner links/DA’s off of things you say and the way you defend your advocacy even if your evidence says something else
- Always and forever I will prefer that you substantive engage your opponent’s advocacy, you’ll get higher points and the debate will be more educational, fun, and rewarding – however I do understand when there are cases you need to run framework and shiftiness in the way an advocacy is defended can be persuasive to me
- Watch out for contradictions – not only can it make a persuasive theory/substantive argument but I find it devastating when the aff team can concede portions of neg arguments they don’t link to and use it as offense for the other neg arguments
- The permutation is a tricky subject in these debates – I do believe that if the best arguments are made by both sides the negative will probably win that the aff team should not be able to garner a permutation – arguments couched upon opportunity cost and neg ground are the neg pushes I find most persuasive – however the aff arguments I always found persuasive are the substantive benefits that a strategy involving the permutation can accomplish
- Aff teams should have a clear non-arbitrary role of the ballot – these questions can go a long way in framing the debate for both sides
- Evidence can come in many forms whether it be music, personal narratives, poetry, academics, etc – all of it is equally as legit on face so you should not disregard it
- I need to be able to understand your argument – I always had a weakness for understanding high theory based arguments so if that is your mojo just know how to defend it clearly – most rounds you will know your argument the best so you’ll sound good and I’ll know it better than the other team so you should still be fine with running these and picking up my ballot
- Alternative styles of debate is not an excuse for actually debating, do line-by-line, have organized speeches, and answer arguments, I am very flow oriented when judging any type of debate, even if the general thesis of your argument may be superior and all-encompassing, YOU need to be the one to draw connections and explain why the other team's technicalities don't matter

Aff/Case Debate
- Add ons are HELLA underrate - PLEASE utilize them
- 2AC’s and 1AR’s get away with blippy arguments, punish them in the block for them
- K affs with a plan in my opinion were some of the most strategic and fun affs to utilize
- If the neg has an internal link takeout but didn’t answer the terminal impact, that does NOT mean you dropped an impact, logical internal link takeouts can single handidly undermine advantages even without evidence
- Make sure your advantages are reverse casual, many affirmatives fail at this and negative teams should expoit that
- Super specific internal links that get to weird places were always intriguing and show you are a good researcher, they make me happy

Kritik
- Contrary to popular belief, I only went for the K v. a traditional policy aff three times my senior year. I lost 1/3 of those rounds but never lost a round when the 2NR involved a CP/DA/impact turn. Take that how you will

- Explaining a tangible external impact (not only just turns case args, although those are also necessary) is key to winning on the neg, most teams don't do this
- As a debater I’ve always had trouble conceptualizing high theory criticisms, maybe I’m just illiterate but I will have trouble voting for something I can’t explain in my own words
- Don't drop the aff, 90% of K 2NR's that don't directly disprove the aff in some way will probably lose.
- Permutations are pretty strategic, phrase perms as link defense to some of the more totalizing k impacts and defend the speaking of the aff and you should be fine
- Framework and the alt are usually 2 sides of the same coin, please please impact what winning framework means
- I am most familiar with kritiks based in critical race theory, mainstream k’s (neolib, security, cap, etc.) I can also easily understand
- Death good is not a strategic (or true) K in my opinion at all, however there is a BIG difference between death good and fear of death bad

Topicality
- Probably more a fan of competing interpretations
- Reasonability is a reason why the aff could win without offense – It means that the aff is topical to the point that topicality debates should not be preferred over the substantive debate and education that could’ve been had by debating the aff
- Big fan of reject the argument not the team
- I think the T-it's debate on the topic this year is very interesting and could go both ways based on evidence/execution on both sides
- more persuaded by T-miiltary means structures not actions
- effects T is underrated on this topic - try and directly increase exploration/development not some regulation or be prepared to defend that regulation as exploration/development

Disadvantages
- I’m on team link determines the direction of uniqueness
- Politics theory arguments are meh in front of me, I personally never went for them, I just found substantive arguments more strategic
- Short contrived DA’s are strategic but ONLY because aff teams don’t call them out for their bad internal links and only read terminal impact defense to them – fix that and they should go away
- I always loved good impact turn debates, warming good, de-dev, anything
- Turns case arguments are awesome – use them to your advantage and don’t drop them

Counterplans/CP Theory
- Big fan of advantage CP’s – plank them all you want (but kicking planks is probably abusive because every permutation of the diff planks are now another conditional option)
- Solvency advocates go a long way in helping you with theory – I firmly believe that they are good for debate
- I’m an agnostic on the theory of CP’s that compete off of immediacy and certainty
- Agnostic about almost every theory question, more persuaded by the aff on 50 state fiat, international fiat, and object fiat
- Interpretations are good – you should always have one (even if its self serving)
- In my last 3 years of debate, I have NEVER been on a team that went for conditionality for 5 minutes in the 2AR, 2 or less conditional options will be an uphill battle for the aff

Speaker Points
Points are based on two things: content and style. Content is simple, the more your argumentation helps you win a ballot, the better your points. Content includes things like warrant explanation, strategic execution, and strategic vision. Style is as important if not moreso than content. These are all the intangible parts of your debating that garner my respect. This would include organization (very very very VERY important), presence, clarity in delivery, and respect for the activity and your opponents. I also have a horrible sense of humor, by that I mean anything that isn't violently offensive is ok under my book and I'll probably find it funny (this includes awful jokes and bad puns) - take advantage of that

I will shamelessly admit that I was that debater who obsessed over points because I liked to calculate things/wanted to know where in the bracket I was. Ask me afterwards and I’d probably tell you what I gave you

Random bonus like things that would boost your points –
- Successful and badass risks (impact turn an aff for 8 minutes, kicking the case, all-in’s on strategic blunders, etc)
- Making fun of my friends (It has to be funny)
- Make fun of Simon Park or Gabe (It doesn't have to be funny)
- Memes, pokemon references, mainstream anime references, etc
- Leftover speech/prep time (although if you deliver poorly that shows false arrogance which will hurt you more)

Ian Lee Millard West 7 rounds None

Brett Lind Edina HS 5 rounds None

Max Lubell Notre Dame High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 17, 2020 at 11:09 AM EDT

Debate Experience:

2011-2014: Policy Debater at Notre Dame High School

2014-2015: Policy Debater at the University of Michigan

2015-2018: Executive Director of Detroit Urban Debate Education (which included judging and coaching for Detroit Urban Debate League schools in Policy)

Overview:

I currently work at the University of Chicago Crime and Education Lab — an urban social science research organization — evaluating youth-based violence prevention and academic programs. I also studied criminology intensively as a Sociology student on a Law, Justice, and Social Change sub-track at the University of Michigan. This experience often involved going into local correctional facilities firsthand to discuss incarceration, state violence, and policing with individuals who were incarcerated. Based on what I learned there and my current work at the Crime Lab, you can assume I have a baseline understanding of the major policy issues and social theory in the criminal justice field. Still, while I have probably judged over a hundred debate rounds, I am not currently active in the debate community. Do not assume I am caught up on all topic-specific arguments. Please be clear.

Please use Speech Drop instead of emailing me speeches.

A note on virtual Debate:

Virtual debate, as is the case for all remote activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, is inherently biased towards certain people. Access to and knowledge of technology is a privilege. Unfortunately, even for those who have the technology, having a safe space to join Zoom rounds is also a privilege. I hope to recognize technological disparities and the collective trauma caused by the pandemic in my judging by being reasonable, empathetic, and flexible. If there is anything that I can do to make the virtual round more accessible to you please do not hesitate to let me know.

Generally, I will incorporate these norms during virtual debates:

- If possible, I would appreciate it if you had your video on, but I know this is not possible for everyone. My RFD and speaker point assignment will not change based on your video being off.

- Unless otherwise mandated by the tournament, I will incorporate 10 minutes of "tech time" for troubleshooting issues. Please do not abuse this time. It is NOT the same as prep time.

- Please try and show up to your round as early as possible. In the virtual world, it is harder to ensure everyone is accounted for and that the 1AC starts on time, so this is one way to help.

- If there is a tech issue that occurs during your speech for longer than 3-5 seconds, I will interrupt and try to troubleshoot with you in the moment. This time will not be taken out of your speech.

- Everyone should be on mute at all times except for the people currently speaking.

Philosophy:

I try as much as possible to evaluate based on the arguments in the round. While I obviously hold implicit biases for or against certain arguments, I try as hard as possible to not let that impact my decisions. I have experience debating, coaching, and judging critical- and policy-oriented rounds. I wouldn't call myself swayed toward one side or the other.

That being said a couple of notes:

- Bad arguments are bad. If your argument is illogical — for example, reading a disadvantage without a link in the 1NC or your evidence not making the warrants needed to uphold your argument — then I will likely not want to vote for it. It will not be hard for the other team to convince me otherwise. While I do not want to vote for a bad argument, that does not mean the opposing team can just ignore it.

- I am willing to vote against my own beliefs and the burden to persuade me is on both teams. However, I don't tolerate obvious hateful/rude arguments or behavior. Everyone deserves to feel safe in this activity.

- I tend to end up using a cost-benefit analysis to help me make decisions: Quantifying the risk of all impacts, seeing if the logic or warrants behind the impact uphold or minimize that risk, incorporating how much the other team's defense minimizes that risk (or thumps the impact all-together), and comparing this analysis for each impact. It is not uncommon for me to literally graph out how probable I find each impact to be (plus or minus the defense from each team) before an RFD as a decision making tool. I can't begin to tell you how many debates I have judged where one team won simply because the other team forgot to extend defense. All of this being said, I will incorporate any role of the ballot arguments accordingly, even if it means not using this decision making framework. This is simply my norm, but certainly not the overarching rule.

For novice debaters, the following acts will result in an increase of speaker points: flowing every speech, communicating with your partner, not talking over your partner, not talking into your computer, using up all of your time in cross-ex asking questions, giving the evidence you read to the other team efficiently, and keeping track of your own time (I will keep track too, but it's a good behavior to start).

Feel free to ask me questions before/after the round.

Matt Malia Edgemont 2 rounds None

Dikshant Malla Polytechnic School 6 rounds None

Kevin McCaffrey Glenbrook North 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 6:43 AM EDT

Updated 9-26-2013

Kevin McCaffrey

Assistant Debate Coach Glenbrook North 2014-
Assistant Debate Coach Berkeley Preparatory School 2010-2014
Assistant Debate Coach University of Miami 2007-2009
Assistant Debate Coach Gulliver Preparatory School 2005-2010

I feel strongly about both my role as an impartial adjudicator and as an educator – situations where these roles come into conflict are often where I find that I have intervened. I try to restrain myself from intervening in a debate, but I make mistakes, and sometimes find myself presented with two options which seem comparably interventionary in different ways, often due to underarticulated argumentation. This effort represents a systematic effort to identify the conditions under which I am more or less likely to intervene unconsciously. I try to keep a beginner’s mind and approach every debate round as a new learning opportunity, and I do usually learn at least one new thing every round – this is what I like most about the activity, and I’m at my best when I remember this and at my worst when I forget it.

My default paradigm is that of a policy analyst – arguments which assume a different role (vote no, performance) probably require more effort to communicate this role clearly enough for me to understand and feel comfortable voting for you. I don’t really have a very consistent record voting for or against any particular positions, although identity- and psychology-based arguments are probably the genres I have the least experience with and I’m not a good judge for either.

Rather, I think you’re most interested in the situations in which I’m likely to intervene – and what you can do to prevent it – this has much less to do with what arguments you’re making than it does with how you’re making them:

Make fewer arguments, and explain their nature and implication more thoroughly:

My unconscious mind carries out the overwhelming majority of the grunt work of my decisions – as I listen to a debate, a mental map forms of the debate round as a cohesive whole, and once I lose that map, I don’t usually get it back. This has two primary implications for you: 1) it’s in your interest for me to understand the nuances of an argument when first presented, so that I can see why arguments would be more or less responsive as or before they are made in response 2) debates with a lot of moving parts and conditional outcomes overload my ability to hold the round in my mind at once, and I lose confidence in my ability to effectively adjudicate, having to move argument by argument through each flow after the debate – this increases the chances that I miss an important connection or get stuck on a particular argument by second-guessing my intuition, increasing the chances that I intervene.

I frequently make decisions very quickly, which signals that you have done an effective job communicating and that I feel I understand all relevant arguments in the debate. I don’t believe in reconstructing debates from evidence, and I try to listen to and evaluate evidence as it's being read, so if I am taking a long time to make a decision, it’s probably because I doubt my ability to command the relevant arguments and feel compelled to second-guess my understanding of arguments or their interactions, a signal that you have not done an effective job communicating, or that you have inadvertently constructed an irresolveable decision calculus through failure to commit to a single path to victory.

In short, I make much better decisions when you reduce the size of the debate at every opportunity, when you take strategic approaches to the debate which are characterized by internally consistent logic and assumptions, and when you take time to explain the reasoning behind the strategic decisions you are making, and the meta-context for your arguments. If your approach to debate strategy depends upon overloading the opponent’s technical capabilities, then you will also likely overload my own, and if your arguments aren't broadly compatible with one another, then I may have difficulty processing them when constructing the big picture. I tend to disproportionately reward gutsy all-in strategic decisions. As a side note, I probably won’t kick a counterplan for you if the other team says just about anything in response, you need to make a decision.

Value proof higher than rejoinder:

I am a sucker for a clearly articulated, nuanced story, supported by thorough discussion of why I should believe it, especially when supported by high-quality evidence, even in the face of a diversity of poorly articulated or weak arguments which are only implicitly answered. Some people will refer to this as truth over tech – but it’s more precisely proof over rejoinder – the distinction being that I don’t as often reward people who say things that I believe, but rather reward fully developed arguments over shallowly developed or incomplete arguments. There have been exceptions – a dropped argument is definitely a true argument – but a claim without data and a warrant is not an argument. Similarly, explicit clash and signposting are merely things which help me prevent myself from intervening, not hard requirements. Arguments which clash still clash whether a debater explains it or not, although I would strongly prefer that you take the time to explain it, as I may not understand that they clash or why they clash in the same way that you do.

My tendency to intervene in this context is magnified when encountering unfamiliar arguments, and also when encountering familiar arguments which are misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally. As an example, I am far more familiar with positivist studies of international relations than I am with post-positivist theorizing, so debaters who can command the distinctions between various schools of IR thought have an inherent advantage, and I am comparably unlikely to understand the nuances of the distinctions between one ethical philosopher and another. I am interested in learning these distinctions, however, and this only means you should err on the side of explaining too much rather than not enough.

A corollary is that I do believe that various arguments can by their nature provide zero risk of a link (yes/no questions, empirically denied), as well as effectively reduce a unique risk to zero by making the risk equivalent to chance or within the margin of error provided by the warrant. I am a sucker for conjunctive/disjunctive probability analysis, although I think assigning numerical probabilities is almost never warranted.

Incomprehensible value systems:

One special note is that I have a moderate presumption against violence, whether physical or verbal or imaginary – luckily for me, this has yet to seriously present itself in a debate I have judged. But I don’t think I have ever ended up voting for a pro-death advocacy, whether because there are more aliens than humans in the universe, or because a thought experiment about extinction could change the way I feel about life, or because it’s the only path to liberation from oppression. While I’d like to think I can evaluate these arguments objectively, I’m not entirely sure that I really can, and if advocating violence is part of your argument, I am probably a bad judge for you, even though I do believe that if you can’t articulate the good reasons that violence and death are bad, then you haven’t adequately prepared and should probably lose.

Email me:

I like the growing practice of emailing flows and debriefing at the end of a day or after a tournament – feel free to email me: kmmccaffrey at gmail dot com. It sometimes takes me a while to fully process what has happened in a debate round and to understand why I voted the way I did, and particularly in rounds with two very technical, skilled opponents, even when I do have a good grasp of what happened and feel confident in my decision, I do not always do a very good job of communicating my reasoning, not having time to write everything out, and I do a much better job of explaining my thinking after letting my decision sit for a few hours. As such, I am very happy to discuss any decision with anyone in person or by email – I genuinely enjoy being challenged – but I am much more capable and comfortable with written communication than verbal.

Michael McGrath Hire 7 rounds None

Val McIntosh Niles West High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 1:47 PM EDT

Debate Coach - University of Michigan

Debate Coach - New Trier High School

Michigan State University '13

Brookfield Central High School '09

I would like to be on the email chain - my email address is valeriemcintosh1@gmail.com.

A few top level things:

If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is. This also includes forwarding the argument that death is good because suffering exists. I will not vote on it.
If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
I'm a very expressive judge. Look up at me every once in a while, you will probably be able to tell how I feel about your arguments.
I don't think that arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates are at all relevant to my decision and I will not evaluate them. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.

Pet peeves

The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start
Asking if I am ready or saying you'll start if there are no objections, etc. in in-person debates - we're all in the same room, you can tell if we're ready!
Email-sending related failures
Dead time
Stealing prep
Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team
Asserting things are dropped when they aren't
Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards
Disappearing after the round

Online debate: My camera will always be on during the debate unless I have stepped away from my computer during prep or while deciding so you should always assume that if my camera is off, I am not there. I added this note because I've had people start speeches without me there.

Ethics: If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points.
*NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me.

Organization: I would strongly prefer that if you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn that it go on its own page - its super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders. Ditto to reading advantage CPs on case - put it on its own sheet, please!

Cross-x: Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions. If you don't start the timer before you start asking those questions, I will take whatever time I estimate you took to ask questions before the timer was started out of your prep. If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Translated evidence: I am extremely skeptical of evidence translated by a debater or coach with a vested interest in that evidence being used in a debate. Lots of words or phrases have multiple meanings or potential translations and debaters/coaches have an incentive to choose the ones that make the most debate-friendly argument even if that's a stretch of what is in the original text. It is also completely impossible to verify if words or text was left out, if it is a strawperson, if it is cut out of context, etc. I won't immediately reject it on my own but I would say that I am very amenable to arguments that I should.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate: I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting. This can also be accomplished by reading those lines in cross-x and then referencing them in a speech or just making analytics about their card(s) in your speech and then providing a rehighlighting to explain it.

Topicality: I enjoy judging topicality debates when they are in-depth and nuanced. Limits are an an important question but not the only important question - your limit should be tied to a particular piece of neg ground or a particular type of aff that would be excluded. I often find myself to be more aff leaning than neg leaning in T debates because I am often persuaded by the argument that negative interpretations are arbitrary or not based in predictable literature.

5 second ASPEC shells/the like that are not a complete argument are mostly nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans: I would say that I generally lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps, but obviously am more than willing to vote for them if they are debated better by the negative.

I think that CPs should have to be policy actions. I think this is most fair and reciprocal with what the affirmative does. I think that fiating indefinite personal decisions or actions/non-actions by policymakers that are not enshrined in policy is an unfair abuse of fiat that I do not think the negative should get access to. The CP that has the US declare it will not go to war with China would be theoretically legitimate but the CP to have the president personally decide not to go to war with China would not be. Similarly CPs that fiat a concept or endgoal rather than a policy would also fall under this.

It is the burden of the neg to prove the CP solves rather than the burden of the aff to prove it doesn't. Unless the neg makes an attempt to explain how/why the CP solves (by reading ev, by referencing 1AC ev, by explaining how the CP solves analytically), my assumption is that it doesn’t and it isn’t the aff’s burden to prove it doesn’t. The burden for the neg isn’t that high but I think neg teams are getting away with egregious lack of CP explanation and judges too often put the burden on the aff to prove the CP doesn’t solve rather than the neg to prove it does.

Disads: Uniqueness is a thing that matters for every level of the DA. I am not very sympathetic to politics theory arguments (except in the case of things like rider disads, which I might ban from debate if I got the choice to ban one argument and think are certainly illegitimate misinterpretations of fiat) and am unlikely to ever vote on them unless they're dropped and even then would be hard pressed. I'm incredibly knowledgeable about politics and enjoy it a lot when debated well but really dislike seeing it debated poorly.

Theory: Conditionality is often good. It can be not. Conditionality is the ONLY argument I think is a reason to reject the team, every other argument I think is a reason to reject the argument alone. Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Kritiks: I've gotten simultaneously more versed in critical literature and much worse for the kritik as a judge over the last few years. Take from that what you will.

Your K should ideally be a reason why the aff is bad, not just why the status quo is bad. If not, you're better off with it primarily being a framework argument.

Yes the aff gets a perm, no it doesn't need a net benefit.

Affs without a plan: I generally go into debates believing that the aff should defend a hypothetical policy enacted by the United States federal government. I think debate is a research game and I struggle with the idea that the ballot can do anything to remedy the impacts that many of these affs describe.

I certainly don't consider myself immovable on that question and my decision will be governed by what happens in any given debate; that being said, I don't like when judges pretend to be fully open to any argument in order to hide their true thoughts and feelings about them and so I would prefer to be honest that these are my predispositions about debate, which, while not determinate of how I judge debates, certainly informs and affects it.

I would describe myself as a good judge for T-USFG against affs that do not read a plan. I find impacts about debatability, clash, iterative testing and fairness to be very persuasive. I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I am not very persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.

I generally am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.

I don't think debate is roleplaying.

I am uncomfortable making decisions in debates where people have posited that their survival hinges on my ballot.

Dustin Meyers-Levy Wayzata 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 14, 2024 at 12:31 PM CDT

Misc procedural things:

1. He/him/his; "DML">"Dustin">>>"judge">>>>>>>>>>"Mr. Meyers-Levy"

2. Debated at Edina HS in Minnesota from 2008-2012, at the University of Michigan from 2012-2017, and currently coach at Michigan and Glenbrook North

3. Please add me to the email chain: dustml[at]umich[dot]edu. College debaters only: please also add debatedocs[at]umich[dot]edu (note that this is not the same as the community debatedocs listerv).

4. Nothing here set in stone debate is up to the debaters go for what you want to blah blah blah an argument is a claim and a warrant don't clip cards

5. Speaks usually range from 28.5-29.5. Below 28.5 and there are some notable deficiencies, above 29.5 you're going above and beyond to wow me. I don't really try to compare different debaters across different rounds to give points; I assign them based on a round-by-round basis. I wish I could give ties more often and will do so if the tournament allows. If you ask me for a 30 you'll probably get a 27.

6. If you're breaking something new, you'll send it out before your speech, not after the speech ends or as it's read or whatever. If you don't want to comply with that, your points are capped at 27. If you're so worried that giving the neg team 9 extra minutes to look at your new aff will tip the odds against you, it's probably not good enough to win anyway.

7. You will time your own speeches and prep time. I will be so grumpy if I have to keep track of time for you.

8. Each person gives one constructive and one rebuttal. The first person who speaks is the only person I flow (I can make an exception for performances in 1ACs/1NCs). I don’t flow prompting until and unless the assigned speaker says the words that their partner is prompting. Absolutely no audience participation. If you need some part of this clarified, I’m probably not the judge for you.

9. I am a mandatory reporter and an employee of both a public university and a public high school. I am not interested in judging debates that may make either of those facts relevant.

10. If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

11. Online debates: If my camera's off, I'm not listening. Get active confirmation before you start speaking, don't ask "is anyone not ready" or say "stop me if you're not ready," especially if you aren't actually listening to/looking at the other participants before you check. If you start speaking and I'm not ready or there, expect abysmal speaker points.

TOC notes:

I cannot express just how bad I am at economics. It is my kryptonite. I am an extremely unreliable judge for any debate that involves treating anything more complicated than the supply-and-demand graph as a given. What's a bond? No idea. Keynes? Never heard of him. Gini coefficient? Sounds like a bad coffee shop. I will be lost in any debate that is more complicated than your freshman year econ class (I'm talking pre-AP) without a lot of explanation. Conversely, it will be much easier to impress me by walking me through your arguments and breaking them down as simply as you possibly can, telling me what it means when your evidence references basically any economic concept, etc. More explanation can only help. This also means you can probably convince me of just about anything if you make it simple enough and line it up with what your evidence says.

Good judge for:

Process counterplans that are topic-specific, especially versus new affs.
Presumption arguments against affs without a plan. I prefer depth over breadth--I'm more likely to vote for one well-developed presumption argument that sets up a clear burden for the aff than I am three or four "vote neg on presumption" one-liners scattered across the flow without a warrant.
K affs that explicitly redefine what being "topical" means, especially when paired with reasonability arguments about what I should choose to understand as a "reasonable" affirmation of the topic. I think affs should be topical, but I'm open to arguments about why being "topical" doesn'tneed to be based in definitions.
Ks with developed alternatives that you're willing to defend the details of. I'm an easier sell on Ks that let the aff weigh the plan and give the neg some leeway on what they get to defend with regards to the alt than "you link you lose"-adjacent framework pushes.

Not a fantastic judge for:

Complicated econ DAs. I'm very sorry. While you were studying the markets, I studied the blade (by which I mean Deleuze).
1ACs/1NCs that are largely opaque or obfuscatory, especially when the team in question is unwilling to clarify in cross-x. If you aren't willing to answer basic clarification questions about your argument from an opponent who isn't following, strike me.
Neg framework blocks that don't change based on the aff. I think framework is best deployed as an internal link turn to the aff's method and appreciate when neg teams use the aff's language/phrasing to explain that. When that's not happening, I think it's a lot easier for the aff to characterize the neg's arguments as exclusive.
Arguments about anything other than the things that both teams say during the span of the round that I'm judging. If you can connect some external thing to an argument that your opponent is making, that's fair game. If you want to win (or your opponents to lose) based purely on that external thing in a vacuum, you may want to focus on the other judges on the panel.
Fiat Ks.

Top-level:

When making my decisions, I seek to answer four questions:

1. At what scale should I evaluate impacts, or how do I determine which impact outweighs the others?

2. What is necessary to address those impacts?

3. At what point have those impacts been sufficiently addressed?

4. How certain am I about either side’s answers to the previous three questions?

I don’t expect debaters to answer these questions explicitly or in order, but I do find myself voting for debaters who use that phrasing and these concepts (necessity, sufficiency, certainty, etc) as part of their judge instruction a disproportionate amount. I try to start every RFD with a sentence-ish-long summary of my decision (e.g. "I voted affirmative because I am certain that their impacts are likely without the plan and unlikely with it, which outweighs an uncertain risk of the impacts to the DA even if I am certain about the link"); you may benefit from setting up a sentence or two along those lines for me.

Intervention on my part is inevitable, but I’d like to minimize it if possible and equalize it if not. The way I try to do so is by making an effort to quote or paraphrase the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR in my RFD as much as possible. This means I find myself often voting for teams who a) minimize the amount of debate jargon they use, b) explicitly instruct me what I need in order to be certain that an argument is true, and c) don’t repeat themselves or reread parts of earlier speeches. (The notable exception to c) is quoting your evidence—I appreciate teams who tell me what to look for in their cards, as I’d rather not read evidence if I don’t have to.) I would rather default to new 2AR contextualization of arguments than reject new 2AR explanation and figure out how to evaluate/compare arguments on my own, especially if the 2AR contextualization lines up with how I understand the debate otherwise.

I flow on my computer and I flow straight down. I appreciate debaters who debate in a way that makes that easy to do (clean line-by-line, numbering/subpointing, etc). I’ll make as much room as you want me to for an overview, but I won’t flow it on a separate sheet unless you say pretty please. If it’s not obvious to me at that point why it’s on a separate sheet, you’ll probably lose points.

Consider going a little bit slower. I prefer voting on arguments that I am certain about, and it is much easier to be certain about an argument when I know that I have written down everything that you’ve said.

Presumption always initially goes negative because the affirmative always has the burden of proof. If the affirmative has met their burden of proof against the status quo, and the negative has not met their burden of rejoinder, I vote affirmative.

I am "truth over tech." I will not vote for something if I cannot explain why it is a reason that one side or the other has done the better debating, even if it is technically conceded by the other team. Obviously, this is not to say that technical concessions do not matter--they're probably the most important part of my decisionmaking process! However, not all technical concessions matter, and the reasons that some technical concessions matter might not be apparent to me. A dropped argument is true, but non-dropped arguments can also be true, and I need you to contextualize how to evaluate and compare those truths.

I appreciate well-thought-out perms with a brief summary of its function/net beneficiality in the 2AC. I get frustrated by teams who shotgun the same four perms on every page, especially when those perms are essentially the same argument (e.g. “perm do both” and “perm do the plan and non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt”) or when the perm is obviously nonsensical (e.g. “perm do the counterplan” against an advantage counterplan that doesn’t try to fiat the aff or against a uniqueness counterplan that bans the plan).

I appreciate when teams read rehighlightings and not insert them, unless you’re rehighlighting a couple words. You will lose speaker points for inserting a bunch of rehighlightings, and I’ll happily ignore them if instructed to by the other team.

I prefer to judge engagement over avoidance. I would rather you beat your opponent at their best than trick them into dropping something. If your plan for victory involves hiding ASPEC in a T shell, or deleting your conditionality block from the 2AC in hopes that they miss it, or using a bunch of buzzwords that you think the other team won't understand but I will, I will not be happy.

I generally assume good faith on the part of debaters and I'm very reticent to ignore the rest of the debate/arguments being made (especially when not explicitly and extensively instructed to) in order to punish a team for what's often an honest mistake. I am much more willing to vote on these arguments as links/examples of links. Obviously, there are exceptions to this for egregious and/or intentionally problematic behavior, but if your strategy revolves around asking me to vote against a team based on unhighlighted/un-underlined parts of cards, or "gotcha" moments in cross-x, you may want to change your strategy for me.

K affs:

1. Debate is indisputably a game to some degree or another, and it can be other things besides that. It indisputably influences debaters' thought processes and subjectivities to some extent; it is also indisputably not the only influence on those things. I like when teams split the difference and account for debate’s inevitably competitive features rather than asserting it is only one thing or another.

2. I think I am better for K affs than I have been in the past. I am not worse for framework, but I am worse for the amount of work that people seem to do when preparing to go for framework. I am getting really bored by neg teams who recycle blocks without updating them in the context of the round and don’t make an effort to talk about the aff. I think the neg needs to say more than just “the aff’s method is better with a well-prepared opponent” or “non-competitive venues solve the aff’s offense” to meaningfully mitigate the aff's offense. If you are going for framework in front of me, you may want to replace those kinds of quotes in your blocks with specific explanations that reference what the aff says in speeches and cards.

3. I prefer clash impacts to fairness impacts. I vote negative often when aff teams lack explanation for why someone should say "no" to the aff. I find that fairness strategies suffer when the aff pushes on the ballot’s ability to “solve” them; I would rather use my ballot to encourage the aff to argue differently rather than to punish them retroactively. I think fairness-centric framework strategies are vulnerable to aff teams impact turning the neg’s interpretation (conversely, I think counter-interpretation strategies are weak against fairness impacts).

4. I don't think I've ever voted on "if the 1AC couldn't be tested you should presume everything they've said is false"/"don't weigh the aff because we couldn't answer it," and I don't think I ever will.

5. I think non-framework strategies live and die at the level of competition and solvency. When aff teams invest time in unpacking permutations and solvency deficits, and the neg doesn’t advance a theory of competition beyond “no perms in a method debate” (whatever that means), I usually vote aff. When the aff undercovers the perm and/or the alt, I have a high threshold for new explanation and usually think that the 2NR should be the non-framework strategy.

6. I do not care whether or not fiat has a resolutional basis.

Ks on the neg/being aff vs the K:

I am getting really bored by "stat check" affs that respond to every K by brute-forcing a heg or econ impact and reading the same "extinction outweighs, util, consequentialism, nuke war hurts marginalized people too" blocks/cards every debate. That's not to say that these affs are non-viable in front of me, but it is to say that I've often seen teams reading these big-stick affs in ways that seem designed to avoid engaging the substance of the K. If this is your strategy, you should talk about the alternative more, and have a defense of fiat that is not just theoretical.

I care most about link uniqueness and alt solvency. When I vote aff, it's because a) the aff gets access to their impacts, b) those impacts outweigh/turn the K, c) the K links are largely non-unique, and/or d) the neg doesn't have a well-developed alt push. Neg teams that push back on these issues--by a) having well-developed and unique links and impacts with substantive impact calculus in the block and 2NR, including unique turns case args (not just that the plan doesn't solve, but that it actually makes the aff's own impacts more likely), b) having a vision for what the world of the alt looks like that's defensible and ostensibly solves their impacts even if the aff wins a risk of theirs (case defense that's congruent with the K helps), and/or c) has a heavy push on framework that tells me what the alt does/doesn't need to solve--have a higher chance of getting my ballot. Some more specific notes:

1. Upfront, I'm not a huge fan of "post-/non-/more-than/humanism"-style Ks. I find myself more persuaded by most defenses/critical rehabilitations of humanism than I do by critiques of humanism that attempt to reject the category altogether. You can try your best to change my mind, but it may be an uphill battle; this applies far more to high theory/postmodern Ks of humanism (which, full disclosure, I would really rather not hear) than it does to structuralist/identity-based Ks of humanism, though I find myself more persuaded by "new humanist" style arguments a la Fanon, Wynter, etc than full-on rejections of humanism.

2. There's a new trend of Ks about debt, debt imperialism, etc. I may not be the best judge for these arguments, simply because of my difficulty with understanding economics on its own terms, let alone in the context of a K. It's not for lack of trying to understand or familiarize myself, I just have tremendous difficulty understanding even basic economic concepts at a fundamental level, and this is seriously amplified when those concepts are being analyzed by relatively complex critical theory. This isn't to say these arguments are unwinnable in front of me (I've voted for them this year and in past years), but you may want to consider something else and/or investing a really large amount of time in explaining the fundamentals of your arguments to me.

3. I also don't really get all these new Ks about quantum physics in IR and stuff. Again, it's me, not you. I was an English major; every time I try to read these articles I get a headache. I'm interested, I promise, and if you can explain it to me I'll be very appreciative! But for transparency's sake, I think it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to both explain the argument to me in a way that I can comprehend AND invest the time necessary to win the debate in your 36 collective minutes of speaking time.

4. I'm quite interested in emerging genres of critical legal theory. I think I would be a good judge for Ks that defend concrete changes to jurisprudence and are willing to debate out the implications of that.

5. I think that others should not suffer, that biological death is bad, and that meaning-making and contingent agreement on contextual truths are possible, inevitable, and desirable. If your K disagrees with any of these fundamental premises, I am a bad judge for it.

6. I don't get Ks of linear time. I get Ks of whitewashing, progress narratives, etc. I get the argument that historical events influence the present, and that events in the present can reshape our understanding of the past. I get that some causes have complex effects that aren't immediately recognizable to us and may not be recognizable on any human scale. I just don't get how any of those things are mutually exclusive with, and indeed how they don't also rely on, some understanding of linear time/causality. I think this is because I have a very particular understanding of what "linear time" means/refers to, which is to say that it's hard for me to disassociate that phrase with the basic concept of cause/effect and the progression of time in a measurable, linear fashion. This isn't as firm of a belief as #5; I can certainly imagine one of these args clicking with me eventually. This is just to say that the burden of explanation is much higher and you would likely be better served going for more plan-specific link arguments or maybe just using different terminology/including a brief explanation as to why you're not disagreeing with the basic premise that causes have effects, even if those effects aren't immediately apparent. If you are disagreeing with that premise, you should probably strike me, as it will require far longer than two hours for me to comprehend your argument, let alone agree with it.

7. "Philosophical competition" is not a winning interpretation in front of me. I don't know what it means and no one has ever explained it to me in a coherent and non-arbitrary way.

8. There's a difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism. I'm open to critiques of the former; I have an extremely high burden for critiques of the latter. I'm not sure I can think of a K of consequentialism that I've judged that didn't seem to link to itself to some degree or another.

Policy debates:

1. 95% of my work in college is K-focused, and the other 5% is mostly spot updates. I have done very little policy-focused research in the preseason.

For high school, I led a lab this summer, but didn't retain a ton of topic info and have done exclusively K-focused work since the camp ended. I probably know less than you do about economics.

2. “Link controls uniqueness”/“uniqueness controls the link” arguments will get you far with me. I often find myself wishing that one side or the other had made that argument, because my RFDs often include some variant of it regardless.

3. Apparently T against policy affs is no longer in style. Fortunately, I have a terrible sense of style. In general, I think I'm better for the neg for T than (I guess) a lot of judges; reading through some judge philosophies I find a lot of people who say they don't like judging T or don't think T debates are good, and I strongly disagree with that claim. I'm a 2N at heart, so when it comes down to brass tacks I really don't care about many T impacts/standards except for neg ground (though I can obviously be persuaded otherwise). I care far more about the debates that an interpretation facilitates than I do about the interpretation's source in the abstract--do explanation as to why source quality/predictability influences the quality of debates under the relevant interpretation.

4. I think judge kick makes intuitive sense, but I won't do it unless I'm told to. That said, I also think I have a lower threshold for what constitutes the neg "telling me to" than most. There are some phrases that signify to me that I can default to the status quo by my own choosing; these include, but aren't necessarily limited to, "the status quo is always a logical policy option" and/or "counter-interp: the neg gets X conditional options and the status quo."

5. I enjoy counterplans that compete on resolutional terms quite a bit; I'd rather judge those than counterplans that compete on "should," "substantial," etc.

6. Here are some aff theory arguments that I could be persuaded on pretty easily given a substantive time investment:

--Counterplans should have a solvency advocate ideally matching the specificity of the aff's, but at least with a normative claim about what should happen.

--Multi-actor fiat bad--you can fiat different parts of the USFG do things, and international fiat is defensible, but fiating the federal government and the states, or the US and other countries, is a no-no. (Fiating all fifty states is debatably acceptable, but fiating some permutation of states seems iffy to me.)

--No negative fiat, but not the meme--counterplans should take a positive action, and shouldn't fiat a negative action. It's the distinction between "the USFG should not start a war against Russia" and "the USFG should ban initiation of war against Russia."

--Test case fiat? Having osmosed a rudimentary bit of constitutional law via friends and family in law school, it seems like debate's conception of how the Supreme Court works is... suspect. Not really sure what the implications of that are for the aff or the neg, but I'm pretty sure that most court CPs/mechanisms would get actual lawyers disbarred.

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

Bruce Miller Bishop Guertin 7 rounds None

Ian Miller Niles North High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 4, 2022 at 5:16 AM CDT

I debated for Wake Forest in college and SPASH in high school. I coached debate at Niles North/West. I then went to law school.

I prefer and reward the speaker points for:
- clarity
- organized debates
- strategic thinking
- well researched arguments

I dislike the following and dock speaker points for:
- unclear speaking
- prep stealing/wasting
- being belligerent/overly aggressive

I've updated the argument preference section. I think overall judges should try to fairly evaluate everything before them no matter what the argument is. However, all judges have preferences. If you have the flexibility, here are my most favorite to least favorite types of debates:

Tons of fun:
Specific case neg/DA

Aff-specific CP/PIC (not a word pic - a pic out of something substantive in their aff or a CP that comes from the lit about their aff).

Impact turning the aff

K of the specific aff

Totally fine:
Generic DA/Case
Substance CP (not process based) and a DA
Generic middle of the road K (security, neolib, cap, biopower, topic K)
A good T argument (not ASPEC/OSPEC)

OK but a high threshold for good research and practice:
Agent CP's
Wilderson/anti-blackness
Performance arguments

No. Please don’t read or go for these:
Baudrillard/Nietzsche/Lacan/Psychoanalysis/Bataille
Process based arguments: consult CP's, rider da's, veto cheato, con con, etc
ASPEC/OSPEC

Do these things when going for these arguments to maximize speaker points and win

K's: 1. Focus on the link and turns the case arguments - these should be your primary focus. 2. Avoid relying solely on cheap-shots like "you dropped value to life".

T: 1. Be slow and clear. 2. Have a case list of what you include, what the aff includes, and why your caselist is better for debate.

3. Impact your arguments and compare them to your opponents.

DA's: 1. The link is the most important to me. 2. Have specific/reasonable turns the case arguments (not nuke war turns terrorism, but instead trade turns terrorism).

CP's: 1. Be as specific as possible to the aff. 2. Don't compete based on the process. 3. Debate the comparative impact to the solvency deficits to the net benefit.

Michael Moorhead Appleton East 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 18, 2017 at 6:13 AM CDT

Michael Moorhead
Affiliation: Appleton East

Updated: 1/17/2017

I hardly judge debate anymore, but when I do it is generally LD. I do a little bit of coaching for Appleton East, but not in an official capacity. I prefer progressive style debating, but you are more than welcome to have a traditional values oriented debate. Beyond that, I consider myself tabula rasa and all my policy opinions stated below apply to progressive-style LD.

Updated: 11/7/15

If you're not going to participate in community norms of past argument disclosure and flashing speeches, then you should not pref me. I write this because of an experience I had while judging LD, but will say I have not experienced this to be a problem within policy debate. I will tank your speaks if you think there is any reason to not allow your competitors access to review your evidence while you are in the debate because it promotes a poor form of deliberation. I interpret your reluctance to make your evidence accessible as a petty antic to secure a minor advantage within the debate space and haven't heard a legitimate reason to think otherwise.

Updated: 8/16/13

Experience: I debated in high school for Appleton East. Although it is a small school in northern Wisconsin, my experience is predominantly on the national circuit at bid tournaments. My 2NRs in high school were about an even split between policy based arguments and Ks. I am now the Varsity Debate Coach at Appleton East High School.

Short Version (to be read during pre-round prep)

I believe debate is about hard work. If you do not believe the same or do not put much work into debate, you should not pref me.

I prefer good argumentation/execution above all else. I would much rather see someone get rolled on death good than a K team try to run a politics disad or vis-à-vis. As more of an abstract concept, you should do what you do best in front of me. I should not affect the strategy you were planning on running against the team you are now debating. Nearly everything in my philosophy is debatable, and you as a debater should realize that my opinions are merely that: things that are open to change. This is the part where I give the schpiel about me trying not to intervene except when only left with that option. Being involved in debate as a debater gives me an interesting perspective in that I try to judge as I think that my favorite judges did while adjudicating me. I genuinely believe I am better at judging debate than doing the debating first hand.

Long Version

Miscellaneous:

In complete honesty, I don’t believe I have the personal ethos to be like “I refuse to let this argument be read in front of me” and have probably read a variation of whatever you could possibly read at some time or another. The bottom line is that if you have a consult counterplan that some big wig coach wouldn’t listen to, don’t think that their opinions apply to all of us. This should NOT be interpreted as “I want to hear a time cube debate,” but more like, if someone can’t beat a cheater counterplan, then they deserve to lose to one.
This should go without saying, but you can read as fast as you want. If you are fast at reading, and know you can do it reasonably clearly, we will not have problems. If I am telling you to be more clear while you are speaking, you will likely have heard you have clarity issues before.
I am very firmly tech over truth. I believe a dropped argument is a true argument, except in the instance in which that argument is objectively false. It is worth noting, however, that you first need to meet the criteria of an argument before it has the ability to be dropped by the opposing team.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations. Whenever I see a good T debate with the aff emerging victorious, it is generally because their interpretation is better for debate for reasons of limits or education rather than because it seems reasonable. Reasonability (taken in any other context of debate) seems silly, and seems to necessitate intervention. The times when I am likely to lean more towards reasonability are instances in which the neg reads arbitrary definitions or has trouble defending their own. Don’t get me wrong, reasonability is very good for the aff, but is not a round winner in all instances. The real question you should ask before embarking on a T debate while neg is if you have a contextualized definition that is specific in excluding the aff you are trying to prove is untopical. If the answer to that question is yes, you will likely do well in front of me providing you can argue T technically and proficiently. Clash and impact comparison is just as important in a T debate as in any other aspect of debate. Ks of T essentially function as impact turns, which means impact calc is still a must, but make it contextual obvi (or just don’t do it because it is dumb). Aspec, Ospec and all other relevant spec arguments are generally not round winners unless the other team is pulling even more intellectually deficient shenanigans. These arguments are better suited either on CPs for questions of competition or as instances of abuse on different T violations.

Counterplans: Bread and butter of a debate. They should be competitive both functionally and textually. While counterplans that only compete off one of those have won in front of me, my presumption is that they are not entirely competitive. Just as a precursor to reading my thoughts on which counterplans are most competitive, this should mean little when preparing for a debate. What I have found generally is people willing to run process counterplans are best able to defend them theoretically. I don’t roll my eyes when someone reads a process/consult counterplan, I just think there are often more strategic options. With all of that being said, I do think the best strategic decision for the affirmative when faced with a process/consult counterplan is to go for theory (in most instances).

In order from most legitimate to least:
Advantage CPs (ran individually)
Plan Inclusive Counterplans (not including word PICs)
Actor CPs
Multiplank CPs
International CPs
Multiactor CPs
Conditions CPs
Threaten CPs
Process CPs
Consult CPs (i.e. commissions, qtr, etc.)
Delay CPs

Theory: I don't mind theory. I default to rejecting the argument except in the instance that the debate proves irrevocably altered by the theory violation (i.e. condo). I went for condo a decent amount while in high school and think it can be a round winner but only in select circumstances. In round abuse is probably a pretty standard prerequisite to getting me to vote on theory unless you can somehow convince me otherwise. I find myself leaning neg on condo (and most questions of theory), but closer to the middle than most judges you will probably find. Being double twos in the later part of my high school career, I am sympathetic to negs that run 2 CPs and a K, but could also paint a very reasonable picture of someone going for condo in that scenario. It will truly come down to how well you argue theory in that instance. On this thread, I believe performative contradictions in a debate beg the question of why the aff couldn’t sever their representations/methodology/whatever in a similar fashion. I don’t find “they introduced those reps/methodology/whatever first” to be a captivating argument or even a logical response to perf con. A defense of multiple worlds debate being good is probably a better answer, or better yet, just not contradicting yourself. Dispo is probably condo in disguise, and if you are running a CP/K dispo together, you will likely find yourself in a pickle. Otherwise, cheap shots are a reason to reject the argument and not the team, but first need to rise to the level of being an argument. Saying “politics isn’t intrinsic” is not an argument. In the instance that someone were to drop that in the block, then you explode on it in the 1AR, I would likely not credit their arguments in the 2NR as being new simply because you didn’t make an actual argument until the 1AR. I also believe theory is a question of competing interpretations, but could see a more logical argument for reasonability on a theory flow than a topicality flow.

Criticisms: I like GOOD K debates. I have a good background in psychoanalysis specifically, typical reps Ks, and then random flourishes of epistemology based k tricks I would typically deploy while running more normative kritiks. This should mean relatively nothing to a talented debater. If you are actually good at running the K, the amount of background I have in the literature should be relatively irrelevant. I generally think that the framework debate is a race to the middle in who allows the most ground for both sides. Affs should probably be able to weigh their advantages but that shouldn’t discount questions of ontology/method/reps/etc. I can play out many instances in which the aff wins they should be able to weigh their impacts but then loses on the K turning solvency, so that is something you should look out for if you are aff. Link/impact questions are more important to me than the alternative provided you are making the proper framework arguments. As Gabe Murillo once told me, alternatives are generally 2 things. 1. Dumb and 2. Uniqueness counterplans for your K. As such, so long as you can defend that your alt can solve whatever you are criticizing, it can be as dumb as you are willing to make it. Good Neg K debaters will: Employ all of the typical K tricks (Framework, Method First, Epistem. First, Reps First, Floating PIKs, etc.); have a short overview (if necessary) articulating their position on the K in the 2NC, but a larger overview in the 2NR that would reasonably answer most levels of the K debate via embedded clash, and be talented technical debaters that do not group the perm debate. Good Aff debaters answering the K will: Leverage FW as a reason they should be able to weigh their advantages, have a defense of their method/reps/etc., make perms (double bind is probably most captivating), and attack the link of the K.

K affs/Performance: These are generally fine. They are better/more easily judged if they include a topical plan text and defend the resolution, but if your thing is running an aff with a plan you don’t defend because the state is bad or whatever then that is cool too. I find topicality arguments to be more captivating than less definitionally sound framework interpretations. I don't think that non-traditional debating is bad, but I do think resolution based debating is good. That means I probably slightly err neg on an "ideal" topicality debate, but if you are a non traditional debater and win on it often, I will be a more than adequate judge for you.

Disads: Obviously they are good and you should run them. I love a great politics debate more than anything. Refer to my theory section above about cheap shots/politics theory for more information on that. If you have generic evidence, it’s important to frame the disad in the context of the aff. Do impact calc – absent so your disad holds little relevance to the aff. If your turns case argument is garbage, it won’t get you very far unless dropped, if it’s well developed, it could be a round winner. For the aff: Don’t just contest the impact, differentiate your aff from the generic link; if the impacts of the case interact well spend some time drawing differentials/making comparisons. Conceded turns case arguments in the 1AR can be problematic if developed properly.

Kentucky Morrow Glenbrook North 7 rounds None

Amelia Moser West 3 rounds None

Kate Mozynski Hawken 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 5:44 AM EDT

They/them pronouns

IMPACT CALC WINS DEBATE ROUNDS!

LGBTQ+ rights/litigation attorney during the week, debate coach by weekend.

Coaching/judging CX for about 15 years now, but definitely not a topic expert. Please explain your topic specific jargon. I don't judge a ton on the nat circuit because my work schedule limits my ability to travel, but in general, I'll adapt to your style.

Tech over truth, insofar as it minimizes my own intervention. But that's not an excuse to throw out a bunch of poorly developed/bad quality args. I also find that debaters sometimes lose the forest for the trees- even if you're ahead on tech, you still need to synthesize and explain WHY that matters in the round.

In general, it's your debate, not mine. You can choose to follow my preferences on here if you want to, but never limit your ability to debate based on my personal preferences.

I find that case debate is frequently underdeveloped on the high school level. At the end of the round, I'm basically going to ask myself if the aff is a good idea. As the neg, don't make it harder than it needs to be- tell me why it isn't. As Aff, give me good impact calc and spend time weighing the impacts of case v. off.

T- I have a relatively high standard on T. The standards debate is important and needs to be fleshed out well. I tend to default to reasonability in a world where the standards debate isn't developed or impacted out properly. That being said, if you do the work in the standards debate thoughtfully, you can definitely get my ballot.

Theory- Make it interesting. Super generic theory is lame, and it makes me very sad, especially when you use it to avoid poignant and interesting debate. I really hate rounds that are just people reading blocks at each other instead of actually engaging. That being said, I really appreciate nuanced framework and pre-fiat args, so go for it- tell me all about how fiat is illusory. Tell me all about how policy debate is inherently elitist and how valuing procedural fairness is a bad idea. Or tell me it's a key prereq to structural fairness. Or not. Engage and have critical thought.

Condo is fine, PICS are fine, dispo is silly.

I love good K debate. However, you need to truly know and understand your K and articulate it well. Even if I know your cards, I'm not going to interpret them or argue them for you- that's your job. Good analysis always preferred over bad cards. I'll appreciate it if you do a nice job with the alt debate- make me understand the post alt world and flesh out alt solvency. Perf con matters on a reps focused K.

Framework debates can sometimes really frustrating to judge when they are just block vs. block. If the framework debate is what really matters, engage in it with critical thought and clash, and explain to me your vision for the debate space.

K affs are fine, with some notes. If there's absolutely no potential for clash or when the K aff is just making for really lazy aff debaters, that's sad to me. I don't need a plan, but I appreciate an advocacy statement. I think non-resolutional debate can be really valuable, but I also think that topic education is important, and I hate when either Aff debaters or neg debaters use the K as a way to bypass properly engaging with the topic lit.

Other Notes:

Speed is fine as long as you're clear. I'll tell you if you aren't. I appreciate it if you slow down on your tags, especially super long ones. For the love of all that is holy, if you spread those Lacan tags at me, we will not be friends.

If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc., you will absolutely pay for it in your speaks, and we're gonna have a post-round chat.

A good analytic is always better than a bad card.

Be conscious of how you are communicating with your opponents. Give meaningful trigger warnings. Respect pronouns. Be kind. Don't talk over people in cross. Be good humans.

At the end of the day, debate is a game. Have fun and learn stuff.

Faroz Mujir Wayzata 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 3:14 PM CDT

Former Assistant Coach for Wayzata (2012 - 2016)
Experience: Debated for Wayzata (2009 - 2012), and on and off for University of Minnesota (2012 - 2016), Assistant Coach at University of Minnesota (2020)

ONLINE DEBATE

I understand this isn't exactly what every one was hoping for this season to look like, and I also recognize that most of us will be experiencing a new form of debate together--I am hoping that we will work together during rounds to ensure that the online video call debate experience goes smoothy. Please remember despite this being frustrating for some of you, this is an incredibly important movement to make debate more accessible to more members of the community.

On this note of online video call, I have some preferences:
1) Camera: If you are speaking, please keep your camera on. You may turn it off once your speech is over.
2) Volume: Be wary of your speaking volume. Some times mics don't pick up spreading well because of the volume changes. I struggle sometimes with flowing every single argument, so this is really really important to me.
3) Recordings: I know you all will be recording these rounds--I am uncomfortable with being recorded consistently during the round. We live in a very different world than before, and I want people to recognize that recordings will be leaked and edited. For that reason, I'd prefer not to be recorded for long periods of time. I recognize this is frustrating.

POLICY PARADIGM
1) Dropped Arguments -- They need a claim, warrant, and implication. You cannot just say they dropped and therefore it is true.

2) Impact calc, Impact calc, Impact calc. Please do it.

3) Tech > Truth - I interpret this as I will judge things as they go on the flow, not as how I think things should go. I try to intervene very little. Intervention sometimes, but only if something comes across / is problematic.

4) Flow Troubles -- I'm forthcoming about this, so please work with me! I still flow on paper, so there is nothing I love more than a structured flow. It will reflect in your speaker points. On clarity, I will say clearer three times before I give up flowing.

5) Email Chain - I always want to be on the email chain.

Some specifics:

1) Disads - case specific disads are fun-- I like them. I'm not particularly sure if I like politics at all, but I'll vote for it. I get exhausted by trump oriented conversation though...

2) Counterplans – Many are theoretically questionable, but affirmatives rarely push back on this. Substantive PICs are awesome – multi-actor object fiat is the worst. Everything else is somewhere in between. I care about what the perm looks like post fiat AND how it functions in round. Please explain it to me.

3) Framework – So I think I have changed opinions on the K since I started only judging clash rounds in recent years--and I have been surprised to learn that I tend to lean towards "a more inclusive form of debate is good". I often am pref'd by policy aff teams hoping for lenience in K debates, and I want to highlight that this isn't the wisest strategy given how many times I have voted against framework.

Despite this, I do believe that framework can be a compelling argument in front of me if read in a way that is specific and conscious about the round. Please keep this in mind.

4) Kritiks - I'm not k-illterate and tend to be able to wade through evidence pretty well, but I am not super familiar with the literature. Explain to me the specific link, impact, and alt action, and please explain it specifically. I want you to get detailed and nuanced, and explain the scope of the argument. I really want you to contextualize a specific link to the 1AC / 1NC / Topic literature.

What are more popular kritiks nowadays? Generic postmodernism is something difficult for me sometimes, but then again, I'll vote on many different things. Honestly, I'd prefer you to go to a little slower on this, which would reflect in your speaker points. I like topic-specific K’s. Neolib, imperialism, etc. are all very viable strategies in front of me, but they need to be applied specifically. I would also highly recommend extending case defense to bolster your K – the most common aff argument I vote on against K’s is “case outweighs”.

Off-beat note: Many years into debate, I still like small, soft policy, K-friendly topical affs which defend a small-ish impact, and critique disads / net benefits. I find this kind of debate refreshing. An aesthetic I can stan for.

5) Theory – conditionality is almost certainly good, unless it is way excessive, like 5 counterplans. I do however think that if the neg makes performative contradictions – for example, reads a security K and then a terrorism impact on a disad – it can be justification for the aff to sever their reps/judge choice. I do not default to judge kick unless told to do so.

Finally, I hate wipeout, I think the argument is gross and irresponsible, and I'd appreciate if you don't read it in front of me.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM

I will evaluate the debate using skills from policy -- technical debate will be had!

Connor Munsinger Sioux Falls Roosevelt 7 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 24, 2021 at 2:47 PM EDT

Yes, email chain: cmunsinger@gmail.com

Background

-2nd year judging

-Coaching at UNLV

-Debated at Michigan State

Golden Desert

-I’ve judged zero rounds on this topic, don’t do HS research, and didn’t work at a camp. I’ve been around long enough to pick some things up but don’t assume I know the acronyms, meta, your topic DA, etc.

-Everybody needs to slow way down and focus on clarity, especially on theory and T.

Judging defaults / Top-level notes

-Tech > truth when it’s dropped, tech ≈ truth when it’s messy, truth > tech when it’s really close.

-An argument that is conceded is 100% true. This makes me good for try-or-die when it’s relevant.

-An argument that is not conceded is usually > 0%. This makes me bad for presumption in most cases.

-I’m open to alternative models of risk framing, but this is the default that I adopt when not guided by the debate.

-I will judge kick conditional counterplans and evaluate the squo unless the aff objects before the 2AR.

-Anything not specified in the plan is open to interpretation by either side.

-I will decide a debate on clipping if I’m sure that it’s happening, regardless of whether this is an issue in the debate.

-I won't decide a debate on events that happened outside of the round.

-Assuming relatively similar impacts, likelihood usually matters more to me than comparison.

-I’m pretty flexible when teams are responding to “dropped” arguments that constituted <5 seconds of the previous speech.

Evidence

-Evidence quality influences argument quality. Arguments supported by truly terrible evidence require very little from the opposing team in response and vice versa.

-I tend to follow along with speech docs and read a lot of evidence after the debate, both for my own understanding and for resolving arguments.

-I will not evaluate unexplained re-highlightings. If you want it to matter for my decision, read it in the debate or verbally explain the implication of the highlighted sections.

-Generally very good for the neg on theory and pretty good for the aff on competition.

-The less your CP competes based off of a mandate of the plan the more annoyed I will be by it.

-Arg not team for anything but conditionality.

-2NC CPs out of straight turns feel gross and lazy to me.

-Contrived, silly DAs are sometimes necessary but are still contrived and silly. Aff teams frequently do a poor job of reducing the risk of these DAs with smart analytics.

-Zero link is much more likely than zero impact.

-The link is usually the most important part of the DA.

-Likelihood of your DA probably matters more than how much it turns the case.

T vs plans

-T vs core aff that’s obviously topical = annoying

-T vs highly questionable aff = slight lean neg

-T vs really out there = tough for the aff

T vs planless

-I will always try to mitigate the degree to which my beliefs influence outcomes, but I have certain default views about debate that make negative arguments for topicality persuasive to me. As such, I imagine that the bar for a planless aff to defeat T is higher in front of me than the average judge.

-T impacts based on fairness are more persuasive to me than impacts about portable skills or education.

-Aff teams are likely to find more success when pairing their critiques of the negative’s model with a detailed explanation of what aff/neg engagement and argumentation looks like under theirs.

-Much better when they specifically say the action of the plan is a bad idea.

-I tend to be good for the aff on alts. If I don’t understand what meaningful action the alt takes to resolve the K’s links/impacts or the aff’s advantages, I’m likely to vote aff in the absence of an argument about why alt solvency doesn’t matter.

-It’s generally pretty hard to convince me that the debate shouldn’t focus on whether the hypothetical implementation of the plan is a good idea, but winning this can make a lot of other concerns irrelevant.

-I'm much more familiar with policy stuff, so err on the side of over-explaining terminology and concepts.

Speaker points

-Giving a slight bump to the higher end as my tendency to max out at 29.1 seems behind the times.

Devane Murphy Hire 7 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:10 AM EDT

FOR COLLEGE TOURNAMENTS: ukydebate@gmail.com

FOR HS TOURNAMENTS:devanemdebate@gmail.com

My name is Devane (Da-Von) Murphy, and I'm the Associate Director of Debate at the University of Kentucky. My conflicts are Newark Science, Coppell High School, University High School, Rutgers-Newark, Dartmouth College, and the University of Kentucky. I debated 4 years of policy in high school and for some time in college, however, I've coached Lincoln-Douglas as well as Public Forum debaters so I should be good on all fronts. I ran all types of arguments in my career, from Politics to Deleuze and back, and my largest piece of advice to you with me in the back of the room is to run what you are comfortable with. Also, I stole this from Elijah Smith's philosophy

"If you are a policy team, please take into account that most of the "K" judges started by learning the rules of policy debate and competing traditionally. I respect your right to decide what debate means to you, but debate also means something to me and every other judge. Thinking about the form of your argument as something I may not be receptive to is much different from me saying that I don't appreciate the hard work you have done to produce the content"

***Emory LD Edit***

I'm a policy debater in training but I'm not completely oblivious to the different terms and strategies used in LD. That being said, I hate some of the things that are supposed to be "acceptable" in the activity. First, I HATE frivolous Theory debates. I will vote for it if I absolutely have to but I have VERY HIGH threshold and I will not be kind to your speaker points. Second, if your thing is to do whatever a "skeptrigger" is or something along that vein, please STRIKE me. It'd be a waste of your time as I have nothing to offer you educationally. Another argument that I probably will have a hard time evaluating is constitutivism/truth testing. Please compare impacts and tell me why I should vote for you. Other than that, everything else here is applicable. Have fun and if you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

DA's: I like these kinds of debates. My largest criticism is that if you are going to read a DA in front of me, please give some form of impact calculus that helps me to evaluate which argument should be prioritized with my ballot. And I'm not just saying calculus to mean timeframe, probability or magnitude but rather to ask for a comparison between the impacts offered in the round. (just a precursor but this is necessary for all arguments not just DA's)

CP's: I like CP's however for the abusive ones (and yes I'm referring to Consult, Condition, Multi-Plank, Sunset, etc.) Theoretical objections persuade me. I'm not saying don't run these in front of me however if someone runs theory please don't just gloss over it because it will be a reason to reject the argument and if its in the 2NR the team.

K's: I like the K too however that does not mean that I am completely familiar with the lit that you are reading as arguments. The easiest way to persuade me is to have contextualized links to the aff as well as not blazing through the intricate details of your stuff. Not to say I can't flow speed (college debate is kinda fast) I would rather not flow a bunch of high theory which would mean that I won't know what you're talking about. You really don't want me to not know what you're talking about. SERIOUSLY. I will lower your speaker points without hesitation

Framework: I'm usually debating on the K side of this, but I will vote on either side. If the negative is winning and impacting their decision-making impact over the impacts of the aff then I would vote negative. On the flip side, if the aff wins that the interpretation is a targeted method of skewing certain conversations and wins offense to the conversation, I would vote aff. This being said I go by my flow. Also, I'm honestly not too persuaded by fairness as an impact, but the decision-making parts of the argument intrigue me.

K-Affs/Performance: I'm 100% with these. However, they have to be done the right way. I don't wanna hear poetry spread at me at high speeds nor do I want to hear convoluted high theory without much explanation. That being said, I love to watch these kinds of debates and have been a part of a bunch of them.

Theory: I'll vote on it if you're impacting your standards. If you're spreading blocks, probably won't vote for it.

Priyanka Narayan Wayzata 6 rounds None

Theo Noparstak Niles West High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:09 AM CDT

Niles West High School '14

University of Kentucky '18

Chicago-Kent Law School '24

Northwestern University Coach '18-21

University of Kentucky Coach '22-23

Put me on the chain theonoparstak22@gmail.com

GENERAL THOUGHTS

I decide debates by re-organizing my flow around the issues prioritized in the 2nr and 2ar, going back on my flow to chart the progression of the argument, reading the relevant evidence, then resolving that mini-debate. Tell me what I should care about in the final speeches. Use the earlier speeches to set up your final rebuttals.

I try not to consider personal biases when judging policy or k debates. Debates hinge on link, impact, and solvency questions that have to be argued whether its plan/cp, perm/alt, fw/advocacy.

I believe the most important skill a debater should have is the ability to do good comparative analysis.

I'll read evidence during and after the debate. Evidence quality influences my perception of the argument's strength. Bad evidence means there's a lower bar for answering the argument and vice versa.

When trying to resolve questions about how the world works, I defer to expert evidence introduced in the debate. When trying to resolve questions about how the debate in front of me should work, I defer to the arguments of the debaters.

The debates I enjoy the most are the ones where students demonstrate that they are active participants in the thinking through and construction of their arguments. Don't be on auto-pilot. Show me you know what's going on.

Have an appropriate level of respect for opponents and arguments.

SPECIFIC THOUGHTS

I would strongly prefer not to judge debates about why death is good that may force an ethical debate about whether life is worth living.

K Affs: There is a place in debate for affirmatives that don't affirm the resolution. I will not vote for or against framework in these situations based on ideological preferences alone. I wish the activity had clearer rules for what we consider fair game in terms of links to negative offense/competitive advocacies against affs that don't affirm the resolution/read a plan text because I enjoy debates over specifics more than rehashed abstractions. But I am sympathetic to neg arguments about how the aff precluded those good debates from occurring, depending on what the aff defends in the 1AC.

T: I would prefer neg teams only go for topicality when the aff is very clearly attempting to skirt the core premises of the resolution. Going for silly T arguments against super core affirmatives is a waste of everyone's time. Having said that, T debates have the potential to be the most interesting and specific arguments in debate, so if you feel really good about the work you've put into developing your position I encourage you to go for it.

Theory: I feel similarly about theory. It's hard for me to take theory arguments seriously when they're not made in specific response to some seriously problematic practice that has occured in the debate at hand. Debate is supposed to be hard. People are way too quick to claim something made debate 'impossible'.

K: When the neg is going for a kritik, I find the framework debating from both sides largely unnecessary. The easiest and most common way I end up resolving framework debates is to allow the aff to weigh their advantages and the neg to weigh their kritik. You'd be better served spending time on the link/impact/alt.

CP: When judging process counterplans, I'm most interested in whether there are cards a) tying the counterplan to the resolution b) tying the net benefit to the plan. This is what usually pushes me aff or neg on theory and perm arguments.

DA: I usually think the link is the most important part of an argument

Ana O'Hara University of Chicago Lab Schools 6 rounds None

Eric Oddo Niles West High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 9, 2024 at 9:31 AM CDT

Please put me on the email chain: eriodd@d219.org.

Experience:

I'm currently an assistant debate coach for Niles North High School. I was the Head Debate Coach at Niles West High School for twelve years and an assistant debate coach at West for one year. I also work at the University of Michigan summer debate camps. I competed in policy debate at the high school level for six years at New Trier Township High School.

Education:

Master of Education in English-Language Learning & Special Education National Louis University
Master of Arts in School Leadership Concordia University-Chicago
Master of Arts in Education Wake Forest University
Juris Doctor Illinois Institute of Technology-Chicago Kent College of Law
Bachelor of Arts University of California, Santa Barbara

Debate arguments:

I will vote on any type of debate argument so long as the team extends it throughout the entire round and explains why it is a voter. Thus, I will pull the trigger on theory, agent specification, and other arguments many judges are unwilling to vote on. Even though I am considered a “politics/counter plan” debater, I will vote on kritiks, but I am told I evaluate kritik debates in a “politics/counter plan” manner (I guess this is not exactly true anymore...and I tend to judge clash debates). I try not to intervene in rounds, and all I ask is that debaters respect each other throughout the competition.

Identity v. Identity:
I enjoy judging these debates. It is important to remember that, often times, you are asking the judge to decide on subject matter he/she/they personally have not experienced (like sexism and racism for me as a white male). A successful ballot often times represents the team who has used these identity points (whether their own or others) in relationship to the resolution and the debate space. I also think if you run an exclusion DA, then you probably should not leave the room / Zoom before the other team finishes questions / feedback has concluded as that probably undermines this DA significantly (especially if you debate that team again in the future).

FW v. Identity:
I also enjoy judging these debates. I will vote for a planless Aff as well as a properly executed FW argument. Usually, the team that accesses the internal link to the impacts (discrimination, education, fairness, ground, limits, etc.) I am told to evaluate at the end of the round through an interpretation / role of the ballot / role of the judge, wins my ballot.

FW v. High Theory:
I don't mind judging these debates. The team reading high theory should do a good job at explaining the theories / thesis behind the scholars you are utilizing and applying it to a specific stasis point / resolutional praxis. In terms of how I weigh the round, the same applies from above, internal links to the terminal impacts I'm told are important in the round.

Policy v. Policy:
I debated in the late 90s / early 2000s. I think highly technical policy v. policy debate rounds with good sign posting, discussions on CP competition (when relevant), strategic turns, etc. are great. Tech > truth for me here. I like lots of evidence but please read full tags and a decent amount of the cards. Not a big fan of "yes X" as a tag. Permutations should probably have texts besides Do Both and Do CP perms. I like theory debates but quality over quantity and please think about how all of your theory / debate as a game arguments apply across all flows. Exploit the other team's errors. "We get what we get" and "we get what we did" are two separate things on the condo debate in my opinion.

Random comments:

The tournament and those judging you are not at your leisure. Please do your best to start the round promptly at the posted time on the pairing and when I'm ready to go (sometimes I do run a few minutes late to a round, not going to lie). Please do your best to: use prep ethically, attach speech documents quickly, ask to use bathroom at appropriate times (e.g. ideally not right before your or your partner's speech), and contribute to moving the debate along and help keep time. I will give grace to younger debaters on this issue, but varsity debaters should know how to do this effectively. This is an element of how I award speaker points. I'm a huge fan of efficient policy debate rounds. Thanks!

In my opinion, you cannot waive CX and bank it for prep time. Otherwise, the whole concept of cross examination in policy debate is undermined. I will not allow this unless the tournament rules explicitly tell me to do so.

If you use a poem, song, etc. in the 1AC, you should definitely talk about it after the 1AC. Especially against framework. Otherwise, what is the point? Your performative method should make sense as a praxis throughout the debate.

Final thoughts:

Do not post round me. I will lower your speaker points if you or one of your coaches acts disrespectful towards me or the opponents after the round. I have no problem answering any questions about the debate but it will be done in a respectful manner to all stakeholders in the room. If you have any issues with this, please don't pref me. I have seen, heard and experienced way too much disrespectful behavior by a few individuals in the debate community recently where, unfortunately, I feel compelled to include this in my paradigm.

Anthony Ogbuli Homewood-Flossmoor High School 5 rounds

Thomas Pacheco Hire 7 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 4:16 PM UTC

Email: tapachecolbdb8er@gmail.com; also on debatedocs if that matters.

***2019 NDT/TOC Update***

1) Background

A) College- I have judged fewer than 15 college debates on the executive powers topic. I have done some research on it.

B) High school- I have judged fewer than 20 high school debates on the immigration topic. I have done significant research on it.

C) I have legal knowledge as a background. Rarely has it made any difference in a debate. It has helped in cutting cards in providing a context I would not otherwise have regarding legal processes.

2) Debaters should be better at resolving debates and providing relative comparisons at a meta-level. Tell me why you have won a particular portion of a debate AND why that matters relative to the remainder of the debate.

3) Specificity matters to me. I have found over the course of judging that debates in the abstract are the most difficult to judge. Whether it is the specificity of a disad link or an explanation of limits on T, specificity to the context of a particular debate is critical in terms of how you contextualize your arguments.

***Old Update***

So I thought about my previous philosophy, and I didn’t think I would like it if I were a debater and read it. So I will try to provide (hopefully) more useful insight into what I think about debate. I have no idea what situations will occur and what defaults I may have given my limited amount of judging, but I think explaining what I thought about debate as a debater will help.

I just graduated from college, having debated for 4 years in high school at Loyola Blakefield and 4 years in college at the University of Mary Washington.

The way to get me to vote for you is to tell me what to vote on and how to evaluate it. Force my hand, think about the debate from a holistic perspective. Compare arguments. Make even if statements.

What did I really value that I got out of debate?

Fun- I thought debate was a ton of fun. Thinking quickly on my feet, trying to predict what people would say, cutting a ton of cards. I loved debate.

Critical thinking- I do not think anything ever made me think as hard and as complexly as debate. Limited prep time, strategic decisions needing to be made. Thinking about the best arguments to be made against a certain team or with a certain judge. Thinking the way debate teaches has helped me in undergrad, law school, and in life. It teaches a certain way of thinking that is invaluable.

Advocacy- debate taught me how to make an argument, and how to win it in front of anyone. Strip debate of the jargon, and you know how to make an argument in any context. It enhanced my paper writing and has helped me in a lot of situations I think.

How did I get this out of debate?

Rigorous testing. Equitably difficult debate where both teams rigorously test each other’s arguments produces an activity that I found fun, helped me to think critically in quick and strategic ways, and taught me how to make arguments efficiently. I fundamentally think that debate is about rigorously testing positions. You can have debates about anything, but I think this is how I would describe it to people outside of debate and is what debate should be in my normative world.

Why does this matter?

It shapes what I think about debate positions, or is my default for evaluation. This is one of many possible frames I could use. But this is where I start, and it shapes my perception of topicality, to CP competition, to Ks, to theory, to speaker points.

I do think I am open to listening to alternative constructions of debate, but what that is and looks like needs to be tangible to me for me. The team that answers the question- what world of debate is most equitably rigorous wins. My presumption about rigorous testing can be challenged, and I do not know what I will think once I start judging. It is my default though. I think the topic has value insofar as it sets a stasis for argumentation from which rigorous testing commences. Topical version of the aff arguments are good, but not necessary for the neg. For the aff (saying debate bad), I think uniqueness arguments about exclusion are persuasive. I think the closer the aff is to the topic, the more persuasive reasonability becomes.

Topicality

Topicality debates should be grounded in the literature. I tend to think limits are a controlling issue in T debates because they determine whether the neg has the opportunity to rigorously test the aff. Caselists are useful for either side.

I think arguments contextual to the topic are useful. I think T is important on the oceans topic given its enormity and the lack of unified negative ground. For the aff, I am compelled by aff flex arguments like its and generic CPs make the topic awful.

CPs

For most CPs, I probably default to reject the argument not the team. I do think there are arguments that can be made that bad CPs are a reason to reject the team, but it is not my default presumption. There are two questions that I think are important to answer- does the CP rigorously test the aff AND how critical is the CP in the literature? I do think that most CP theory debates are invariably shallow which makes evaluating them difficult.

Conditionality does not differ for me from other CP theory in that the question is about rigorous testing. I do think conditionality is rampant. I think contradicting positions are bad, but can also have different implications in debates- does using the same reps you k’ed mean that perm- do the alt is legit, or that the alt fails? Probably. Contextualizing conditionality to the specific practices done in the debate makes the argument very persuasive.

My presumption is against intervening to kick the CP for the 2nr. If I am told to do it, I might if the aff drops the argument. If they don’t, I probably won’t.

I think topic-specific critiques can be interesting because they rigorously test the aff. Whichever team controls the role of the ballot typically wins, and neg teams should invest more if the role of the ballot is distinct from my presumption of testing. I also do not think it is strategic for K teams to not answer the aff explicitly – dropping the 1ac usually means I vote aff – meaning my bar is higher on voting for “x comes first”/ “x means the whole aff is wrong” args. Generalizations do not test the aff. Dropping the 1ac does not test the aff.

I think try or die is how I think about ks. Ks that are the strongest in persuading me control the impact uniqueness of the debate. I find aff arguments about trends in the status quo more important than other people because of that (for example, if the environment is sustainable, winning a consumption k becomes much harder). Affs should focus on alt solvency and how to evaluate impacts.

Disads

I tend to think the link controls the direction of the DA, but can be persuaded that uniqueness does.

I think zero risk is possible.

I think turns case arguments really help the neg. I think unanswered turns case arguments by the block in the 1ar are difficult for the aff to come back from.

General

You will receive a bump in speaker points if you read quals.

I flow cross-x.

Demonstrate topic knowledge.

I like specific arguments better than general ones.

I think long overviews are overrated and are a way to avoid clash.

Start impact calculus early.

Indict specific evidence- the quals and the warrants.

Explain to me why I should prefer your evidence over your opponents.

Tell me when an argument is new or dropped.

Be comprehensible.

2as should not blow off arguments on the case.

Smart arguments matter, as long as they are complete. An argument is a claim and warrant.

Clipping is a problem in the activity. Don’t do it. Don’t allege that someone else has done it without evidence via recording – you will not win otherwise. The debate community relies on shared trust. Breaking that trust or accusing someone of doing this is of the utmost seriousness.

Be organized- with yourself in the debate as well as your arguments.

Do not steal prep.

Minimize the amount of time paperless debate causes.

***Previous philosophy***

Short version

I just graduated from college, having debated for 4 years in high school at Loyola Blakefield and 4 years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I have not judged so much that there is a predisposition that is so strong not to be able to be overcome. You do you, most things are up for debate. I prefer specific strategies over general strategies regardless of what those strategies deploy. I prefer CP/Politics or Politics/Case debates. I think the real way to being happy with a decision from me is to tell me what to do and how to assess arguments in the debate. The team that tells me what to do at the end of the debate and has the best reasoning for it will win.

I like hard work. Debaters that work will hard will be rewarded for doing so. I will also work my hardest to give every debater the credit they deserve while I am making a decision.

Coaches who have had a formative impact on me – Adrienne Brovero, Daryl Burch, Tom Durkin.

Judges I liked that I would like to be like – Lawrence Granpre, Scott Harris, Fernando Kirkman, Sarah Sanchez, Patrick Waldinger. I promise I will not be as good as these people, but I use them as a model for how I want to judge.

Background

I was a 2a and a politics debater in college, and a 2n that relied on the cap k and topicality in high school. I have done significant research on the oceans topic, and a little on the college topic.

I default policymaker. I think the topic is set up to be instrumentally affirmed. Again, not so much so that I will not listen to other arguments or perspectives. For the neg, I am strong believer in fairness as well as the skills that debate teaches. I think predictability is necessary for debates to happen. Topical version of the aff arguments are good, but not necessary for the neg. For the aff (saying debate bad), I think uniqueness arguments about exclusion are persuasive. I think the closer the aff is to the topic, the more persuasive reasonability becomes.

Topicality

Topicality debates should be grounded in the literature. I tend to think limits are a controlling issue in T debates. Caselists are useful for either side.

CPs

For most CPs, I probably default to reject the argument not the team. That does not mean that I think that all CPs are good OR that I would be unwilling to vote on a cheating CP. I do think that most CP theory debates are invariably shallow which makes voting on them difficult. Most teams get away with bad/illegitimate CPs because the aff is terrible at executing, or the neg has some trick. I also think the more contextual a CP is within a set of literature, the harder it is to beat on theory questions. I have no predispositions on CP theory – I am willing to listen to it.

Conditionality is different than other CP theory args for me. It is certainly excessive most of the time. It gets egregious when positions contradict. Contextualizing conditionality to the specific practices done in the debate makes the argument very persuasive.

College teams – Pics- I am not completely sold that all/nearly all is the death knell for pics on the college topic. My presumption for pics being good makes me think this is a debatable question, even the resolution tries to write this out of debates. I think what is “nearly all” is what the literature says it is. I am also compelled that maybe the topic is so bad that these pics are important for the neg.

I think topic-specific critiques can be interesting. The more specific to the topic, and the more specific to the aff, the better. Whichever team controls the role of the ballot typically wins. I also do not think it is strategic for K teams to not answer the aff explicitly – dropping the 1ac usually means I vote aff – meaning my bar is higher on voting for “x comes first”/ “x means the whole aff is wrong” args.

Disads

I tend to think the link controls the direction of the DA, but can be persuaded that uniqueness does.

I think zero risk is possible.

I think turns case arguments really help the neg. I think unanswered turns case arguments by the block in the 1ar are difficult for the aff to come back from.

General

I think long overviews are overrated.

Start impact calculus early.

Be comprehensible.

Smart arguments matter, as long as they are complete.

Be organized.

Do not steal prep.

Minimize the amount of time paperless debate causes.

Have fun – that’s why I do this.

Travis Panneck Eagan High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 16, 2020 at 4:25 PM CDT

4 years of high school policy debate, 11 years of coaching for Eagan High School (MN).

Please add eaganpolicydebate@gmail.com to any email chains (but note point 2 below).

My weirdest views that I wish more people would exploit:

* Inherency is a stock issue that the affirmative carries the burden of proof on.

* Topicality is not about limits, fairness, or ground: it's about an interpretation of my jurisdiction as a judge to resolve the round in favor of the affirmative. Most "reasons to prefer" these days are extratextual attempts to relitigate the resolution and punish the affirmative for not adhering to your personal view of what negative ground should look like.

* Most framing pages make huge claims that never interact with the substance of the round. Most teams would be better off dispensing with a framing page and learning to compare impacts.

* Most counterplans fail to resolve the resolutional question in favor of the negative. I'm especially skeptical of topical counterplans.

* Most "kritiks" hardly interact with the plan and don't operate to refute it or the resolution.

***

All preferences expressed below are subject to the facts and circumstances of the round. If you have particular concerns not addressed below, speak to me before the round.

1. Clarity over speed. If you can imagine your theoretical maximum speed, I would like to hear you at about 70%. If you have any doubt, go slower. This is especially relevant in the age of virtual debates.

2. I evaluate debates using my flow of your speeches. Debate is a game of oral advocacy. Accordingly, I don't read evidence during or after the round because I think it increases the likelihood that I am judging my thoughts about the evidence and not the arguments presented in the round. Please use short tags, organize your speeches, label positions, and identify arguments that you are responding to by signpost (e.g., 2AC 1) or short summary (e.g., "off the no link").

3. Affirmatives should present a topical advocacy. A topical advocacy involves advocating that the U.S. federal government take an action to complete the resolutional objective. You will almost certainly lose to a minimally competent negative in front of me if your answer to topicality arguments involves claiming that you don't have to be topical. (In fact, if you claim that you are a prerequisite to affirming the resolution or that you are not topical in the 1AC, all a negative team has to do to win my ballot is to point out that you haven't affirmed.) You should instead argue why you fit under the resolution regardless of a non-traditional presentation.

4. I care most about how the affirmative's proposed action will affect people. Explain to me how your impacts affect the material conditions of people's lives and why your impacts are more important than your opponents' (e.g., via timeframe, probability, magnitude comparisons).

5. I am usually a bad judge for critical arguments. If you are a team that is not flexible enough to read a disadvantage or case arguments, critiques usually lose in front of me because I don't understand the link (links of omission and root cause arguments don't pass muster as links) or because I don't understand why I should hold the affirmative responsible for, say, the entirety of capitalism.

6. My speaker points skew lower than most judges. If I had to guess, median points are between 27.5 and 28. I reward well-executed strategies, clever concessions, insightful case debate, cross-examinations that develop the debate, and displaying respect for your opponents.

7. Unless specified as a requirement by the tournament rules, "disclosure theory" or "new affirmatives bad" are not good arguments.

Neil Patel Glenbrook South High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 1, 2017 at 3:49 PM EDT

Neil Patel

Glenbrook South High School ‘13

Updated: December 2017

Education Topic: Not at all as familiar with the topic as I have been with the past few. Have judged zero debates on this topic.

Debated for four years at GBS and coached for four as well during college. Don't really do any debate stuff anymore.

Debate is a game that is a tremendous learning opportunity for a variety of professional careers and I have experienced first-hand the real world benefits of the activity. I appreciate how it allows you to test a variety of ideas and strategies that you normally wouldn't be able to.

Please resolve issues at the end of debates with not only impact calc, but the implication of you being ahead/winning arguments in the broader context of the debate.

Flow.

Debaters work hard and I feel I should do the same as a judge.

An arg is a claim+impact+warrant.

"You can't beat an argument by simply pointing out that an argument should be ignored. If you cannot logically deconstruct a 'dumb' argument, what does that make you?" - Ben Wolch. At the bare minimum, present a reason why.

1% risk doesn't make sense. Mitigating the risk of something sufficiently enough will make its risk inconsequential.

Try or die only makes sense if the trying somewhat resolves the dying.

I have a a strong emphasis on clarity and efficiency – generally, debates center around a few key arguments but the last rebuttals include a lot of irrelevant substance filling arguments instead of a focus on the core issues.

Pieces of evidence are only useful as support for an argument. Make sure each piece of evidence you read is carefully selected to serve an explicit purpose. Analytics suffice in the absence of evidence as long there is a logical warrant proving the claim true.

The content and source of an argument are relevant, in so far, as the argument that you are making.

My favorite part about debate is research. Take that for what you will.

Truth versus tech is sort of arbitrary. It's not new if it is true.

“I enjoy debaters doing what they do well. If you’re funny, be funny. If you are smart, be smart. Cordial debates are generally more enjoyable. Context matters. If two aggressive teams have a heated rivalry then it’s going to produce an aggressive debate---I get that. Unnecessary aggression/rudeness/etc will result in lower points.” – Jordan Blumenthal

Impact turn + Advantage CP/Case is my favorite strategy.

There is a strategic utility to certain critiques (more commonly known as kritiks) when executed in a fashion that makes it a relevant consideration of the affirmative.

after my time in the activity and experience in the real world, my parting words of wisdom is that the single most important thing I took away from the activity is to maximize your fun. 5 years from now - you are going to tell the stories where you had the most fun.

For questions related to anything, email me:

Neilp1215@gmail.com

Bree Peilen Edina HS 7 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 27, 2020 at 9:45 AM EDT

Quick Background:

I am currently a Cornell Law student, graduating this spring 2021. I will be working for a firm in New York next fall. I am not currently coaching debate, although I am still friendly with many people in the activity. I have not been out of debate for very long, so no need to worry about my familiarity with any arguments or speed comprehension, ha.

Be nice and respectful to everyone in round. If you’re being mean or rude far past the point of friendly competition in round, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

If you have any questions about my philosophy, feel free to ask for clarification before the round or send me an email (bpeilen17@gmail.com).

Debate History:

Edina High School Class of 2014

University of Michigan Class of 2017

Assistant Coach for GBS from 2015-2017

Argument Specifics:

I will do my best to judge the debate based on the parameters set by the debaters and to limit any of my personal biases. That being said, I think it is useful to know the background of your judge. In college I was a 2N who mostly went for DAs + read affs with a topical plan-text. In high school I was a 2A who argued for affs without plan-texts and frequently went one-off. As a coach, I mostly focused on what you would call traditional-style policy arguments.

Counterplans: In terms of “cheating CPs” I’m sympathetic to aff theory arguments after being a 2A throughout most of high school and seeing one too many 12-conditional plank CPs. If you're planning to go for that style of a CP, make sure to lay out reasons why your CP is justified by fairness or educational in the context of the specific aff or resolution.

Topicality/Theory: I like T debates a lot. I think T is much more of an evidence-based question than it is “are limits good or bad?” Explain to me why your interpretation of the resolution is the most reasonable.

Disads: This seems very straightforward. I like them?

Impact Turns: Impact turns can be fun, but these are often based in a lot of junk-science and shoddy evidence. A smart 2A can dismantle most impact turns by picking apart their logical flaws within their field of literature.

Kritiks: I’m well versed in most forms of critical theory. I was an English major with an interest in Marxist and queer theory, and in law school I have studied Critical Race Theory. However, in many debates I think there is a disconnect between the scale of negative links/impacts & the ability of the alt to solve (how do you plan on just getting rid of capitalism?) Explain your alternative or theoretical framework well -what does it mean for me to vote negative? Am I rejecting an unethical argument? Am I setting a precedent for future debates? What should it mean to vote affirmative or negative? Be specific.

Framework: To be frank, I prefer to judge debates with topical plans. The more I worked as a coach, the more I came to appreciate the necessity and benefits of predictable research limits for the negative team. That being said, I do not default to voting for framework. I will vote for whichever team that lays out the best framework/vision of debate as an activity -explain what my ballot will mean when I vote aff or neg. Am I voting negative for the most fair vision of debate, and why is that important? Am I voting affirmative to endorse a particular form of protest or ethics, and why should that override fairness concerns?

Ann Peter Maine East 7 rounds

Sheila Peterson Wayzata 4 rounds None

Scott Phillips The Meadows School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:42 AM PDT

Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and ldemailchain@gmail.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth

My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.

I am a good judge for you if/A bad judge for you if not

You cut good cards and highlight them to make complete arguments in at least B- 7th grade English, which is approximately my level. Read uniqueness. If your disad is non unique, not putting a uniqueness card in the 1NC is not cute, its a waste of time. If your best answers to an IR K are Ravenhall 09 and Reiter 15 you are not meeting this criteria, ditto answering pessimism with "implicit bias is malleable".
You debate evidence quality/qualifications and read evidence from academic sources rather than twitter/forum posts. If you are responding to a zany argument not discussed in academia, blog/forum away. If that is not the case I implore you to ask why these sources are the only ones you can find.
You listen to what the other team is saying and give a speech that demonstrates that you did by answering all of their arguments correctly and in the order in which they were presented . Do not read a collection of non responsive blocks in random order. And then in follow up speeches you compare/resolve those arguments rather than repeating yourself.
You make smart analytics against arguments with obvious weaknesses. Most 1NC disads and 1AC advantages in current debate are incoherent/missing several pieces. You do not have to respond to an incomplete argument, point out it is incomplete and move on. Once completed you get new answers to any part of it.
You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
You understand your arguments/can explain things. In CX and speeches you should be able to explain words/concepts from your evidence correctly, and be able to apply them. If your link card says "the aff is not disarm" thats not a link, thats an observation
You can cover/don't drop things. Grouping things is fine. Making a philosophical argument for why line by line debate is bad, and instead making your argument in the form of big picture conceptual analysis is fine. Randomly saying things in the wrong place, dropping 1/2 of what the other team said and then expecting me to figure out how to apply what you said there is not. I will not make "reject argument not team" for you.

I operate on a "3 strikes" rule: each side gets up to 3 nonsense arguments- a CP that is just a text, a bad disad or advantage, an unexplained perm etc. After that your points and credibility plummet precipitously. If I'm reading your card doc I will stop reading your evidence after 3 cards highlighted into nothing. If you include 3 "rehighlightings" of the other teams evidence that are obviously wrong I will ignore all your evidence/default to the other sides.

If debated by two teams of equal skill/preparation, the following arguments are IMO unwinnable but I vote for them more often than not because the above suggestions are ignored.

-please let us weigh our case or we said the word extinction so Ks don't matter

-the framework is: object of research, you link you lose, debate shapes subjectivity, ethics first without explaining what ethics are/mean

-War good, pollution good, renewables bad- it doesn't matter if these are in right wing heritage impact turn form or academic K form

-the neg needs more than 1cp and 1K for debate to be fair. Arguments like "hard debate is good debate... so make it hard for them" are so bad you should be able to figure it out/not say them

-PICS that do/result in the whole plan are legitimate. The negative can actually win without these, especially on a topic where there are 3 affs.

-counterplans that ban the plan as their only form of competition are legitimate, especially on a topic with only...

Stephen Pipkin Glenbrook North 7 rounds

Dylan Quigley Glenbrook South High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM EDT

Dylan Quigley

Currently an attorney for foster youth, coached at Dartmouth ('11-'13) and Harvard ('13-'16), debated at Kansas ('06-'11)

Updated: 9/2023

Note for 2023:

I've been out of the activity for a bit now so do with that what you will. I did debate on the last nukes topic and have continued to follow nuclear policy some so I should be ok with topic jargon, but probably not more recent K authors or generics.

Some distance from debate also makes me feel that my original paradigm below is a little too serious. It's a game; please have fun.

Note for 2019:

Being out of debate has not substantially changed my views except maybe to deepen my belief in empathy for others. I think the stereotype is that people leave debate and become more skeptical of K alts which is probably true, but I think I have become equally more skeptical of the "pragmatism" of most plans as well.

Original Philosophy:

I like nerdy, wonky, academic debate.

I don't flow that well, slow down.

I like and reward people who take on big debates, rather than avoid them with fancy footwork.

I think I am most impressed by debaters who can use small concessions or the given facts in the debate to create a complex vision of how the world operates.

I try to try hard to resolve debates because it's what I valued most in a judge when I debated and because its what I value most from those judging my kids.

If you are doing your prefs, I may not be a good judge for you if:

I am turned off by highly abstract arguments or things that rely heavily on an anything goes, game playing model of debate. If your jam is irony, conspiracy theory, word pics, OOO, death good and Ashtar, I may not be a very good judge for you. If "trolling" is a word you use to describe your arguments or debating style, I may not be a good judge for you. If your argument is against making the world better in any way, I may not be a good judge for you. [2023 edit: I still sort of believe this but would also tell my past self to chill out a little.]

But since you are mostly likely a policy team about to debate a K team or vice vera, I have pulled the following sections to the top.

Topicality versus non-traditional affirmatives:

As a debater, I both read non-topical affirmatives and also went for topicality against teams that did not defend the resolution. I have found myself very turned off by affirmatives that defend exceptionally minor revisions to the sqo or an unwillingness to defend a large vision for social change and have been voting on T with much more regularity.

I think that the question of the value of debating the particular Aff at hand is very important. For the Aff, I think that explaining clearly what the core controversy of the affirmative is and why the negative should be reasonably expected to negate that claim is key. (Put differently, what is productive about asking the negative team to negate the 1AC you’ve presented?). I want to hear about why and how either teams interpretation facilitates debates over particular mechanisms for social change.

Competition in non-traditional debates:

I do not enter the debate with the presumption that competition functions in the same way in plan focused and non-plan focused debates. I think that one possible way the debate community can facilitate debates that do not necessarily require the affirmative to defend the resolution while ensuring relative side equity and quality debates is to demystify permutations and develop new ways of thinking about competition. I look forward to judging debates about this issue.

Now the rest...

The quick stuff:

-I believe strongly that intentionally conceding the claim of another team means that that argument is true regardless of evidence quality etc.

-I don't believe that the Aff has an absolute right to define the scope/meaning of the plan.

-For some reason, it really bothers me when people look at each other and not me during CX.

-My default facial expression is often a scowl – it’s not you, it’s me.

-I believe zero risk is possible (and often likely) for the purposes of deciding a debate.

-I reserve the right to not vote on a sufficiently stupid theory argument.

-An all-case 2NC will likely receive extra speaker points.

CP Theory:

I find myself leaning aff on some competition questions especially for CPs that could result in the entire Aff. I'm fairly skeptical of states/international cp's - I’m especially interested in the way CP's like states constrains the affirmative research process at a very early point and how it affects the common sense of the debate community as to what counts as a “good aff.” My default is that presumption shifts aff when vs. a CP/K alt.

Critiques:

I have an academic basis in critical theory and debated mostly critical arguments at the end of my debate career. I think many critiques I see are vulnerable to being impact turned and I'm surprised and disappointed I don't see Aff teams doing it more.

In the context of a traditional aff versus a critique, I think the vast majority of debates that center around the question of "should I evaluate the plan or ontology/epistemology/scholarship/whatever first" are a waste of time for both sides. Frameworks that ask me to ignore large portions of the 1AC rarely make any more sense to me than frameworks that ask me to ignore portions of the 1NC. Both sides time is likely better invested in other parts of the debate.

Dig it especially when placing an emphasis on evidence and normative/literature based argument rather than abstract limits based arguments. I think we are almost always served best by drawing our lines from the literature, not imposing them ourselves.

Conditionality/judge choice:

I don’t have any strong feelings about conditionality, though I find myself moderately uncomfortable with judge choice. My default assumption is that if you extend a CP/Alternative in the 2NR, you are giving up the possibility of advocating the status quo. I do not feel comfortable kicking anything for you unless this framework has been well developed earlier in the debate.

Side bias/case debate:

Though I said above that I lean aff on many competition questions, I am disturbed about much Aff teams seem to get away with on extending their case in the 2AC and 1AR. I think just as strong of a burden of rejoinder should apply to the case debate for the Aff as would apply to the Neg on a DA.

Speaker points:

-I care deeply about cross-examination, presence, persuasiveness, eloquence, cross-examination and clarity. By “eloquence” I mean speaking at a rate and style that I can flow and that allows you to talk continually with out stumbling, stopping or repeating yourself unnecessarily. Mentioning cross-examination twice was not an accident.

Chris Randall Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 10:17 AM EDT

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

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

Argument specifics

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

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

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

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

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

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

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

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quaram Robinson Greenhill School 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 9, 2020 at 10:32 AM EDT

I’ve finally been forced to make one of these, my hesitancy in making one is I paid way too much attention to these when I was a debater and they rarely actually predict how someone evaluates debates, your intuition about how someone feels is often more accurate than their self representation.

Believe it or not, I’m open to judging a variety of debates, not just ones that involve the kritik.

Anyways, add me to the email chain: theqnr@gmail.com

I believe that the debate should be guided by the debaters, not the judge. I believe this implicates the way that I judge debates, I am very persuaded by anyone who frames the debate and explains how I should be evaluating the debate, so I would opt in for more judge direction than you might for another judge. Embedded clash is fine, but I think there are limits to this before we get to judge intervention, and I have to feel comfortable feeling like these arguments existed prior to my evaluation.

Speed: make sure I’m flowing at the rate you’re speaking, I will be clear with facial cues if I am not.

Topicality, I feel competing interpretations are easier to evaluate. Do not spread too quickly through the 2ac, it’s important I catch these arguments.

Clash debates, apparently as punishment for my career because I didn’t get enough of these for myself I’ve been summoned to judge all of them. Just kidding, I’m happy to be here and genuinely do not mind a good clash debate. With that being said, I’m very familiar with both sides of the arguments and I feel the issue in a lot of these debates is that people operate from extremely ideological standpoints that I don’t find persuasive.

I think I’m less persuaded by the “we solve your stuff better than you by making you better advocates stuff” and more interested in what your model of debate does outside of solve the affirmatives impacts.

I think that affirmatives should be grounded in the topic. I like when debates are early breaking. Both in terms of how your affirmative interacts with framework and more broadly whatever your critique of topicality is make it clear earlier than later.

Fairness is an impact. With that being said, many iterations of this argument do not make it to the point that it can be voted for as an impact.

Not that persuaded by the idea of rev v rev debates, and similarly am not that persuaded by third and fourth level testing.

I do not think that the neg has to win a TVA to win topicality, it can be helpful but often times find it leaves too much open for the affirmative and is not your responsibility to provide a way to solve the affirmative.

K’s

I’m familiar.

Links are important, you should have some.

Debating the case matters, I could be persuaded that debating the case does not matter but that would require a significant investment in framework.

If you are reading a K that’s a hodge podge of K’s make sure you’re making an argument that’s consistent, I am very open to the argument that incompatibility of kritiks means _____ for the debate.

aff v K: win framework arguments. Don’t just repeat your framework shell from the 2ac, that won’t go very far for me.

DA’s - I would love to see you go for a disad and case in the 2NR.

CP’s do your thing, I will say I don’t prefer overly complicated counterplans with terribly under highlighted evidence.

Some people are convinced that it’s completely true politics discs and certain CPs are terrible for debate, I am not in complete solidarity with that.

Love a good case debate

I don’t believe in a politics of respectability, I’m not going to ask you to be respectful to your opponents but what I will ask of you is to engage each other in good faith, what that means is genuinely try to engage with each others arguments and don’t make characters of them with strong ideological claims.

Jony Ross Washington HS 4 rounds

Rohan Sadagopal South 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 17, 2015 at 8:39 AM CDT

I updated my judge wiki more often than this, so it might be the better thing to check - http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sadagopal,+Rohan

TL:DR - I'm fine with most things. Go slower if you're not super clear in card text (you probably aren't clear enough). I'm a questionable judge for framework. If you want to know general thoughts about debate, they're organized under random thoughts in order of recency. If you want to read a philosophy more conventionally organized, it's at the bottom.

I'm a total debate nerd, and am always happy to talk about all sorts of debate theory/history/randomness. You should always feel welcome to email/message me/find me at a tournament if you want to talk about a round or debate. I think this document is entirely irrelevant to my judging, but some people asked to see it - Judging Stats

My old judging philosophy wasn't really useful, because it was a lot of my thoughts on debate and not reflective of how I end up evaluating the debate. Judging is often subjective, and too often, the questions of how I should evaluate certain arguments, or the round as a whole, aren't addressed. I've tried to provide random thoughts below that might help illustrate how I evaluate a debate when these issues aren't questioned.

Random Thoughts

2015

- I'm told I look grumpy/mad when I judge a lot. I promise I'm not. Same thing for if I'm yawning, I do it a lot, it's not because I'm bored. I'm probably just tired.
- I like to get the speech docs when they're jumped, primarily for the purpose of cross-x. I don't read along/still am fairly unlikely to read many cards in relation to my decision.

2014

- Despite my area of experience, I'm honestly not a great judge for framework based on my track record . In framework debates, I tend to vote Neg when the Aff fails to adequately answer arguments related to limits. I tend to vote Aff when the Neg does not adequately answer arguments about the harms of the Affirmative. I especially find myself voting Aff when I find myself unable to answer the question of what the world of framework does to address the harms or when the Aff wins a question of who particular standards benefit.
- slow down.
- no really, slow down. in order to incentivize this, I am severely limiting my reading of evidence after the debate, and as much as possible will be replacing this by flowing/listening more closely to evidence text when it is initially read.
- I still think of debate as a game (not just a game), though I may understand that statement/how it functions different from many. I think it's an educational game, and the way the game is played matters. How this changes things, I'll leave up to you. It's also definitely notpractice
- Judge kick things - Unless the 2NR tells me to, I won't revert to the status quo for the negative team. The exception to that is if I reject the counterplan but not the team, I will evaluate the remainder of the debate vs. whatever is left (probably the status quo). I am not likely to be persuaded by new 2AR theory arguments about the 2NR going for multiple worlds unless the Neg at some point
- I mostly flow on my laptop. I sometimes flow on paper. How I flow the round varies greatly based on which method I'm using. When flowing on computer, I tend to write down far more, at times basically transcribing the speech. When I flow on paper I am far more selective with what I write down, recording arguments as I understand them and based on what I perceive as key warrants as opposed to the exact words used. As a result, clarity/coherence of argument becomes even more important to my ability to flow when I'm on paper.
- This is especially true if I'm on paper, but there are limits to how fast I can write/type. I'm pretty happy with how fast I can type, but your top reading speed is almost certainly faster than how fast I can type. This is especially true with rapid analytical arguments such as theory or arguments arranged via numerical or alphabetical substructure. Frontloading your arguments helps me out
- The phrase "Perm do the counterplan/alt" means very little to me without more explanation. In several debates, the 2AC has said these 4 words, the block has dropped it, and I still haven't voted on it because it made no sense/isn't an argument by itself.

2013

- I have judged very few debates on this topic. I have been debating in college and coaching a high school team so I am not completely out of the loop, but on Solvency/T questions, you should be wary of assuming I know what you're talking about.

2012

- I think I judge the K differently from when I first started judging. A lot of this has to do with the lack of specificity. I - If the tournament doesn't explicitly prohibit it, I'm cool with you being on the internet during round, mostly because I think it's the least enforceable rule ever. I definitely think you shouldn't be talking to coaches/people outside the round and getting help, but partner communication over email/chat is fine. I also find that emailing speeches instead of jumping is faster and safer virus wise.
- I default to reject the argument not the team - the reason something is bad is a reason why that argument is bad, not why I should vote for you. It is possible for me to vote on theory not related to status (conditionality/dispo), but the burden is on you to provide a reason why rejecting just the argument is insufficient, and why rejecting the team is necessary
- If you are marking cards, you need to say "marked". I'll probably write down the last word I heard you say before that. Failure to declare during your speech that you marked a card will hurt your points
- Just because a team I coach runs an argument doesn't mean I think that argument is true
- I find that I am reading less evidence lately. I think research is very important and one of the most important skills to take out of the activity, but it also matters how you use it. Even when I end up reading evidence, I find that it ends up often not affecting my decision. I think good evidence greatly helps an argument, but I default to the debating that is done in the round. Sometimes I just find it extremely difficult to resolve a debate without evaluating competing evidence, but I try and avoid this. If you want my reading of evidence to matter, make evidence comparisons/indicts. The evidence many teams read is atrocious, but I don't feel like it is my responsibility to determine that. Make these comparisons and your odds of winning go up, as will your speaker points.
- My judging record has been somewhat Aff leaning this year. I'm not entirely positive why this is, but my best guess is that it's partly because the average 1AC scenario is better constructed than the average disadvantage, partly because 2NRs fail to provide a method/basis on which I should evaluate the debate (often times this is a question of impact evaluation, but not always). I think this is lacking in most 1ARs and even in many 2ARs, but the 2NR failure to debate this makes it more likely the 2AR gets leeway on providing this framing
- One factor that does help offset this bias is that I tend to hold the 1AR to a higher standard than most judges. Impact calculus and important framing issues should probably be started in the 1AR. The burden for how in depth a 1AR argument needs to be is often going to be determined by the depth/warrants of the corresponding Neg block argument. If the 2NC is going deeper on a given issue, the 1AR probably needs to give more warranted analysis than they might otherwise.

2011

- Saying something is a d-rule without a warrant is not going to make me vote on it just because it's a d-rule. In order to win your "d-rule", you need to actually give me a reason why I should prefer it over the utilitarian calculus I would normally default to when evaluating impacts
- From a truth standpoint, I think 1 CP + 1 K (test in/test out) is fair. Obviously I can be convinced otherwise, but this just seems to solve a lot of both sides offense while still giving the Neg some flexibility. I've always felt theory debates are a bit more subjective than other issues, and this might be an argument I am slightly more persuaded by than the average judge.

I'm willing to experiment with alt use time if it doesn't contradict other tournament rules and both teams agree. For national/regional tournaments that don't specify prep time, that will mean 14 minutes of "alt use" time. If a tournament specifies prep time, just add 6 minutes to that. You (both teams) should be sure to tell me before the debate if you want to do this

Edit: The "alt use" section probably should have been clearer. You would receive the 14 minutes, but there would not be the normal cross-x times. Instead, after constructives, you can cross-x someone for as long as you have available out of your 14 minutes. If either team has any reservations about using this, you should feel completely free to veto it.

Actual Philosophy

I think about debate a lot, and I have been thinking about what I wanted my judge philosophy to say recently. I wrote the part below recently and I think it should give you some insight into how I will evaluate the round. I often end up skipping right to what I consider the nexus point of the debate, so please do ask me questions afterwards if you think I ignored something or are confused. I also put my email on my ballots, so please do email me if you want to discuss the round.

There are a couple things that might be helpful to know before you debate in front of me
1. I am kind of obsessed with debate. And sports. People who know me love to make jokes about how I have packets memorized and how I know peoples debate careers better than they do. I enjoy thinking about things like sports and debate from a strategy perspective (see number 2), and I just have a weird desire to know things. I'm not really sure what that means for you debating in front of me, I might be more likely to get/enjoy obscure debate references, though if I don't get it I'll probably just think you're weird.
2. I still think of debate as a game to some extent, though I may understand that statement different from some. I think it's an educational game, and the way the game is played matters. How this changes things, I'll leave up to you.
3. October 2014 Edit Despite my area of experience, I'm honestly not a great judge for framework based on my track record, likely because Neg teams fail to properly engage the arguments made in the 1AC. In framework debates, I tend to vote Neg when the Aff fails to adequately answer arguments related to limits. I tend to vote Aff when the Neg does not adequately answer arguments about the harms of the Affirmative. I especially find myself voting Aff when I find myself unable to answer the question of what the world of framework does to address the harms or when the Aff wins a question of who particular standards benefit.
4. I generally think that framework debates when the Neg reads a K are about the wrong thing. It's very unlikely I'm going to decide that one team doesn't get their impacts on the grounds of fairness or education. I believe the better debate should be about impact framing, and reading evidence about reasons to prioritize certain impacts or not evaluate certain impacts. Now, this doesn't mean reading "method outweighs" means the Aff doesn't get their impacts, It just means I should evaluate their method as a prior question - it's up to you to prove that their method is flawed, and that that implicates whatever solvency/impact claims they make
5. Impact analysis. I'm a hack for it. I often see 2NCs doing it and then it getting lost in the 2NR, and 2ARs going heavy on these questions when there are very little in the 1AR. I think these questions from the Aff side should start as early as the 2AC, but probably need to be in the 1AR. I've given 2ARs impact analysis that was just not in the 1AR before, but that often is a result of the negative not making any comparative impact claims, or the 2NR impact comparisons being new.
6. I flow pretty well, I use my computer and I can type pretty fast, so speed is normally not an issue, though clarity might be. I will yell clear once if needed. I am fine with time-saving measures like saying "9" instead of "09" or "2009", or tagging cards simply as "Extinction" for impacts where it makes sense. I am/was slow and can appreciate measures designed to increase speed and efficiency. That's also all I would probably flow of the tag anyways
7. October 2011 Edit: Still enjoy impact turns, but overall strategy outweighs, and this part of my philosophy was resulting in some silly decisions to impact turn in bad ways. It's probably more accurate to say "I like bold strategic decisions" than just "I like impact turns". These kind of things tend to get rewarded in speaker points, assuming they are a good decision.
8. My speaker point scale is fairly average. An average speech is a 27.5, a good speech is a 28. If I think you should be getting a speaker award or something close, you're probably a 28.5. If I think you should be a top 5 speaker, you've got a 29.

Sam Sanchez Phoenix Military Academy 7 rounds None

Sara Sanchez Glenbrook South High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 9:41 AM CDT

Name Sara Sanchez
Affiliation: NAUDL
School Strikes: Glenbrook South, Lexington
Last Edited: 1/21/2024, Edited for Emory 2024

General Overview: I default to the least interventionist way to evaluate the round possible. I’ve pretty much voted on anything that you can think of, and likely some things that you can’t. I have not been historically inclined to accept/reject any arguments on-face. That said, the following is true:

Impact calculus and comparison is your friend. I cannot stress this enough. I'm routinely surprised by the number of quality rounds I judge where each team is weighing their impacts but no one is weighing their impacts vis a vis the other team. It is not enough to explain your scenario for solving/avoiding war, explain to me why that matters in the context of the other team's genocide impact.

I would like you to be driving questions of impact calculus and framing. I prefer to be reading your evidence through the lens you have set up in round. You should be telling me what your evidence says and why it matters. This means I probably give a little more weight to spin than some judges, you should be calling out bad evidence that is being mischaracterized if you want me to read it. Obviously, I have (and will) read evidence on questions that have not adequately been fleshed out in round when it’s necessary, but now you are held accountable for my understanding of the card, which may, or may not, have been on the flow. So please, weigh those issues for me, and we’ll all be happy.

Clarity & Organization: This section used to be a note about speed. It was a gentle request that you keep in mind that reading 3 word theory arguments at the same rate as the cards you are reading was obviously silly and difficult to flow. I am now substantially more concerned with clarity in general. I can understand a pretty rapid rate of delivery. I want to hear the words you say. All of them. That includes the words in your cards and the sub-points of your theory block. I think we as a community have let clarity get away from us. I was recently pleasantly surprised by a few debaters who were both incredibly fast and crystal clear at all points in their speeches. I was also saddened that they stood out as anomalous in contrast to many of the debate rounds that I judge. In addition to the clarity with which you deliver your speeches I believe this also is a component of organization in the round. It is functionally impossible to follow your arguments and apply them correctly when all of the debaters in the room abandon the structure of the flow/line-by-line. Embedded clash is fine. Flat out ignoring the order/structure of arguments and answers is not. While my speaker points have always reflected things like clarity & organization I am going to use them more heavily in this regard in an effort to encourage good practices among the debaters in my rounds. If you are not clear, I will ask you to be clear once, if you are not clear after that, your partner should probably keep an eye on me to make sure I look like I’m following you, because if it’s not on my flow, it’s not in the round. If I cannot understand large swaths of your speeches and/or you are jumping all over the flow with no attempt to answer arguments in the order they were made, your points will be low (think less than 27.5 range). If, on the other hand, I can understand almost every word of your speech, and you consistently following the line-by-line structure of the round, your points will be high (think 29-29.5 range) to ensure you have a better chance at clearing if points become an issue. If you have questions about this, please ask before the round.

Clipping: I am disturbed that the number of clipping incidents seems to be on the rise and that there appears to be some confusion as to what constitutes clipping. Card clipping, is failing to read sections of the card without marking audibly during the speech and on the speech doc (or on paper, if you are not paperless). It can be definitively determined by recording the speech and playing it back with the speech doc. It is an ethical violation and if proven will result in zero speaker points for the debater(s) who have clipped cards and the loss. If an accusation occurs I will stop the round, ask for proof, and make a determination about the accusation at that point in the round. That decision will determine who wins the round. I will also make a point to talk to your coach after the round to explain what I believe happened and why. I reserve the right to adjust the policy according to circumstances (i.e. accidental clipping in a novice round is different than clipping in a senior varsity debate).

Please be nice to each other and have fun. I’ve yet to have someone upset me to the point where it has lost them the round, but I will not hesitate to punish people for being rude via speaker points. Debate is a wonderful activity, that I care about a lot, and we don’t all give up our weekends, nights, and a decent portion of our social lives to be verbally abused or to witness said abuse. That said, competitive spirit is fine, flat out rudeness is not. If you need clarification on where the line is, feel free to ask.

Speaker points Apparently I needed to bump these to align with point inflation, so I have. Points probably start at a 27.5-28. Anything over 29.5 is rare, it's been years since I gave a 30. If you get below a 25 it's probably because you did something offensive/unethical in the round, and I'll likely tell you about it before I turn in my ballot.

27.5-28 Average
28.1-28.7 Good, but probably will miss on points or go 3-3
28.8-29.2 Good, chance to go 4-2 and clear low
29.2-29.5 I believe you should get a top 20 speaker award at this tournament
29.5-29.8 You were one of the most exceptional speakers I've heard in years, and should be in the top 5 speakers of this tournament.

What’s above is more important than what is below, as I will default to the round that is given me, however I’ll include a couple of notes on specific positions. The below list is not exhaustive, if you have specific questions, ask.

Topicality/Theory: I’m more than open to these debates, I have no problem pulling the trigger on them. I tend to evaluate these debates in a framework of competing interpretations. You should have an interpretation in these debates, and you should be able to articulate reasons (with examples, evidence, and comparative impacts) that your interpretation is preferable to the other team's. You should be explaining why your arguments matter and what the world of your interpretation looks like (case lists, argument ground). You should not assume that the 3-word blippy jargon we all use now is an argument, because I don't tend to think it is one. If you've done the above things, and you want to go for theory or T, you're probably fine. That said...

Counterplans: I personally tend to error negative on a lot of theoretical CP objections when these aren't adequately debated in round (dispo, PICs, condo, etc.) I'm probably more sympathetic to objections to consult counterplans, or procedural counterplans like delay, sunsets, etc. I love specific counterplans and adore specific PICs, so you have a bit more of an uphill battle on the PICs bad debate. That doesn't mean I won't evaluate PICs/Dispo/Condo bad args, feel free to make/go for them, see the interpretations note above. I am more likely to vote on nuanced theory arguments than generic ones. For example, conditional, consult, counterplans bad is more persuassive than just conditionality bad.

Condo - couple of extra notes: I think that having more than one K and one CP in the round is pushing the limit on conditionality. You would still need to do work here to earn my ballot, but it's definitely viable. I also tend to think that uniform 50 state fiat counterplans that counterplan out of all solvency deficits are not good for debate. The reason for this is that I tend to like solvency advocates for counterplans and there isn't one for those types of CPs. These are both cases where, if sufficient analysis was done, I'd be okay rejecting the team. For the record, I have not voted on either of these yet, because no one has made these args in a compelling enough way, but the potential exits.

The K: I don’t have a problem with it generally. I’ll entertain various frameworks and interpretations of debate, but this isn't where I spend most of my research time. I’m also reticent to vote on “framework” in terms of "there should be no Ks in debate ever." I don't think this line of argumentation is necessary or desirable—it seems to me people should just be able to answer the arguments that are leveled against their case. I tend to believe both sides should get to weigh their impacts. I find framework debates generally lack a decent amount of clash, which is incredibly frustrating for me to adjudicate. Framework debates that center on the question of accurate methodology, bias and substantive education are by far more persuasive.

If you’re running a K in front of me on the negative, specific links and a solid articulation of what the alternative does will help you. Let me know what the world looks like post-plan and why that is different post-alt. Similarly if you're running a K aff, you should explain to me how your action truly shifts mindsets, what the role of the ballot is, etc.

The above noted, I find myself focusing more on policy literature than critical literature these days. My undergrad and graduate work is in political science and international relations, not political theory/philosophy. I tend to be much more familiar with some K authors than others. I've read a decent amount of Foucault, I've read almost nothing Lacanian. In addition to Foucault I am substantially more familiar with Ks centered around IR theory, non-psychoanalytic capitalism and questions of gender and identity. I am less to not at all familiar with psychoanalysis, Nietzsche and Heidegger. I personally lean towards believing realism inevitable type arguments and that floating PIKs are bad (reason to reject the alt). While I do everything possible to objectively evaluate the round that happened, this is probably why I’ve noticed a very slight tilt towards the policy side of things in these rounds.

Affs that don't have topical advocacies: I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I feel as though I've been asked to objectively and neutrally evaluate a set of arguments where the people proffering those arguments in no way practice the same neutrality has always created a lot of tension for how I evaluate these arguments. To that end I offer my full disclosure of my connections to, and beliefs about, this activity. If you would like to attempt to change those biases, you are welcome to try, but the bar for such debates will be high, because I am not neutral on this.

I came back to debate 15 years ago after a brief hiatus working in politics and public policy because I firmly believe there is no stronger or more effective pedagogical tool. I have routinely been impressed by the skills and information this co-curricular activity provides for the participants that practice it. I chose a career in debate at the time because I think that teaching young people how to debate a topic while switching sides and researching policy and philosophy is one of the best things our educational system has to offer. I worked hard for my debaters, in class, after school, on weekends, and during summers because I believe this game, even with its imperfections, is good. It will be difficult for you to get my ballot if your goal for the round is to convince me that 15 years of my life and countless hours of work has been a mistake. I also see problems in this activity in terms of equity and access. There are good reasons my work after directing large debate programs focused on education policy, equity, and now urban debate. If your arguments are criticisms of debate you should take all of that into consideration when trying to win my ballot.

Topic Specific Addendum: I currently work for NAUDL, I run our national tournament, write curriculum for our coaches, attend the topic meeting every August and work on our file set each year. I judge substantially fewer rounds than I used to and have fewer conversations with friends about the direction of the topic. You should assume I'm familiar with debate arguments but you should not assume I'm super up to date on the latest topic specific acronyms or fanciness. This means a little explanation on what the NSDOQPC* is will probably be necessary if you'd like me to understand your aff/da/etc.

*(The NSDOQPC, to the best of my knowledge, is not a real thing. It's merely an example of the type of insane acronyms/topic specific jargon that gets routinely bantered about on most topics)

Additionally, while I haven't had a chance to test this yet, I'm reasonably certain my tolerance for the truly inane has lowered substantially. I now spend my days working on debate in a more education focused environment that is centered on building many strong programs rather than the TOC arms race. I also spend a bunch of my spare time working in politics and on policy and advocacy campaigns that have real world implications. I'm not entirely sure what the implication of this are for you, but if it's the pre-round and you have two strategies to choose from, one of which is asinine and one of which is more substantive, I'd bet that the more substantive one is going to work out a lot better for you.

Finally, it's been a few months since I've flowed a top speed round. I'm pretty sure I'm still fine there, but if you could keep that in mind, and ease into your top speed in speeches, it would be appreciated.

If you have a question I haven't answered here, feel free to ask.

Good luck. :)

LD Specific Business

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of how I evaluate substance, impacts, etc. However, since I have judged more LD rounds recently it was time for me to clear some of this stuff up.

I spent most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I did teach two LD classes a year for seven years and I judged a large number of practice debates in class during that time. I tried to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: The way theory is debated in LD makes my head hurt. A LOT. It is rarely impacted, often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win (teeny area of the topic, frameworks and definitions that cross the border from strategic to definitionally impossible to debate, etc) it is NOT every single round. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: I am fine with speed. I am not fine with paragraph after paragraph of a prioris/theory/continental philosophy read at a top speed with zero regard for clarity whatsoever. I will say clear if you are engaging in the practice above, and I will stop flowing if you don't alter your delivery to a rate I can understand after that. I will only vote on what is on my flow. I may call for evidence after the round, however, I will not call for your theory blocks because I didn't understand them. Slow down, be clear, and enunciate on that stuff for the love of all that is holy, or you will have very little chance of winning my ballot. Also see the clarity note at the top of this post. It will apply to LD as well.

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

Prep Time: 2 Notes. First, I like Cross-Examination. I pay attention to it and think it is strategically valuable. You should use your CX time. If you would like to ask more questions beyond CX in prep, that's cool. But please make use of CX. Second, prep time is the time you use to prep, that includes actions like giving your opponent your case or whatnot if you haven't done this in a timely manner. There are no alternate time outs or whatever. If you are reading a case off a laptop, you need to make that case available to your opponent before you start speaking OR immediately thereafter. There will not be a non-prep-time time outs while you all figure this out. That time will come from one of your prep times. In other words, if the culprit is the aff, who has not made a computerized case available to their opponent in a timely manner, then the AFF loses prep time while they get it ready for the neg, and vice versa.

Good luck, and have fun.

Taylor Sanchez East Kentwood High School 7 rounds

Courtney Schauer Highland Park Senior High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM PDT

Competed: University of Minnesota
Coach (Present): Emporia State University; College Prep
Coached (Past): Augsburg College; Highland Park Senior High (MN)

PUBLIC FORUM

Although my primary background is in policy, I am familiar with the procedures of public forum and spent a season of my high school career competing in the format. Below are my answers to the suggested PF philosophy questions provided by the TOC.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: Speed of Delivery: Speed is fine so long as clarify doesn't suffer.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?):Both effective line by line and big picture storytelling are important to my ballot.

Role of the Final Focus: Providing a rubric/judge instruction for my ballot

Topicality: Generally these debates are done poorly, it's important to have a comparative metric for evaluating interpretations and a robust discussion of the various impacts to the violation. I do not view topicality in a purely "jurisdictional" way - offense/defense is important.

Plans: Not needed but not automatically disallowed.

Kritiks: Sure although just like any argument, it must be explained, applied, and impacted thoroughly.

Flowing/note-taking: I will flow the entirety of the debate.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Quality and depth of argument is the primary thing I will evaluate, but style is not unimportant by any means.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes.

POLICY

"I view my role in the debate not as arbiter of truth, but critic of argument, as such I attempt to divorce myself from relative "truth" values of arguments." - Chris Loghry

I like to see debaters deploying arguments that motivate and interest them.

I don’t call for many cards. This does not mean evidence quality does not matter, or that I don’t call cards often. What it does mean is: the debaters make the arguments, not the cards. I will not view them as placeholders for warranted explanation. Not every argument requires a card to answer.

Framing matters: provide me a macro-level filter through which to view the micro-components of the debate. The debates I find myself most frustrated with are the ones in which the 2NR and the 2AR have respectively delivered me 2NC #2 and 2AC #2 and left me to sort through the pieces. Rebuttalists that present a clear story while closing the right doors will be rewarded.

The more explicit you are with me in terms of my ballot, the better. This mostly goes for presumption and judge conditionality, but also for competing Frameworks/Role of the Ballots. If debaters are not explicit, there becomes no objective standard for me to use as a reference for when and where I infer these arguments.

Have a plan for Cross-X.

Things I like to see in cross-x: Asking precise, critical questions. Giving succinct, impactful answers. Writing down all concessions for utilization in the next speech.

Things I hate to see in cross-x: Ad-homs. Open-ended softballs. Questions that blatantly indicate a lack of flowing. Refusal to answer reasonable questions. Repetition of questions to avoid giving answers. Poorly-timed invocations of false ethos. 4-person shouting matches.

If you are reading critical literature, whether on the Affirmative or Negative, please explain and utilize your method. Make the links turn the case. Have a robust explanation of the alternative. Strive for internal, philosophical consistency. Your authors have particular theories of subjectivity, violence, etc., and I want to thear them; just remember that they all can and SHOULD be ACTIVELY applied broadly to frame many portions of the technical debate.

A speech doc is not a flow substitute.

Debate matters just as much to your opponents as it does to you, even if for different reasons. Be mindful of this and respect your competitors.

Mimi Sergent-Leventhal Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart 3 rounds

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

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

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

Top level:
- Absolute defense is possible

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

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

- I default to rejecting the argument on theory questions

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

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

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

Misc. thoughts about different types of arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rahim Shakoor Wayzata 6 rounds None

Khalid Sharif Rowland Hall St Marks 7 rounds

Jon Sharp Georgetown Day School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 8, 2018 at 2:24 PM CDT

jon sharp

Director of Debate @ GDS (the actual GDS, not the camp, not the affinity group, not the cultural phenomenon...well, maybe the cultural phenomenon...)

(Relevant) Background: Debated in HS (program doesn't exist any more) and college (Emory); coached at Emory, West GA, USC, New Trier, Kentucky, and GDS; taught around 75 labs (including, but not limited to the Kentucky Fellows, SNFI Swing Lab, Berkeley Mentors, Antilab, and the forthcoming Quantum Lab). This is what i do - i teach, coach, and judge debate(s). This is both good and bad for you.

This is Good for You: One could say that i have been around, as it were. If you want to do something that people do in debates, i got you. If you want to do something that people don't do in debates, i won't freak out.

This is Bad for You: This ain't my first rodeo. If you want to do something that people do in debates, i have seen it done better and worse. If you want to do something that people don't do in debates, i probably remember the last time that somebody did it in a debate.

Are You For Real? Yah, mostly...i just don't think judging philosophies are all that helpful - any judge that is doing their job is going to suspend disbelief to as great an extent as possible and receive the debate in as much good faith as they can muster...but almost nobody is upfront enough about what that extent looks like.

Well, that's not especially helpful right now. OK, you make a strong point, imaginary interlocutor. Here are a few things that may actually help:

1 - Flow the Debate - I flow the debate. On paper. To a fault. If you do not take this into account, no matter how or what you debate, things are going to go badly for you. Connecting arguments - what used to be called the line-by-line - is essential unless you want me to put the debate together myself out of a giant pile of micro-arguments. You Do Not Want This. "Embedded clash" is an adorable concept and even can be occasionally helpful WHEN YOU ARE MANAGING THE REST OF THE FLOW WITH PRECISION. There is no such thing as "cloud clash."

2 - Do What You are Going to Do - My job isn't to police your argument choices, per se; rather, it is to evaluate the debate. If debaters could only make arguments that i agreed with, there would not be much reason to have these rounds.

3 - If you are mean to your opponents, it is going to cause me to have sympathy/empathy for them. This is not an ideological position so much as an organic reaction on my part.

4 - "K teams," "identity teams," and non-traditional/performance teams pref me more than policy teams - Make of that what you will.

5 - Stop calling certain strategic choices "cheating" - This is one of the few things that just sends my blood pressure through the roof...i know you like to be edgy and i respect your desire to represent yourself as having no ethical commitments, but this is one of the worst developments in the way people talk and think about debate since the advent of paperlessness (which is essentially The Fall in my debate cosmology). Reading an AFF with no plan is not cheating; reading five conditional CPs in the 2NC is not cheating; consult NATO is not cheating. Clipping cards is cheating; fabricating evidence is cheating, consulting your coach in the middle of the debate is cheating. An accusation of an ethics violation (i.e., cheating) means that the debate stops and the team that is correct about the accusation wins the debate while the team that is wrong loses and gets zeroes. This is not negotiable. Ethics violations are not debate arguments, they do not take the form of an off-case or a new page and they are not comparable to anything else in the debate.

Also - just ask.

Sam Shore Greenhill School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:23 PM CDT

Edited most recently in Jan 2024. I debated in high school at Greenhill School (2006) in Texas and debated in college at Michigan State (2010). I have been helping coach Greenhill since my graduation. A fair number of the assumptions that one would draw about me being affiliated with those institutions are probably true.

Case Debates – Case debate is underutilized, there are few things that I am more impressed with than beating a team on their own aff. Although, too many teams gloss over the fact that there needs to be uniqueness for neg case turns.

Disads – Defensive arguments are important, and I am willing to assign zero risk of a disad if the affirmative has damning defensive arguments even if the affirmative lacks any offensive arguments. Negatives who rely on there always being a risk of a link will leave me unimpressed. That being said though, I often think that many times a lack of offense does result in a moderate probability of the disad. Affs tend to have issues when they fail to answer turns the case arguments.

CPs – I lean negative on most CP theory issues (more on theory below), although I’m not a fan of the consult cp. I also lean negative on legitimacy of the states CP. This does not mean that affs cannot win theory debates in front of me. Additionally I think some of the arguments that affs make as to why some counterplans are bad, tend to be much better when used as a reason why the permutation is legitimate. Negs should be sure to weigh what happens when there is a solvency deficit to the cp when making their impact calculus arguments. Conversely, affs need to have an impact to their solvency deficits.

Kritiks – Teams must articulate an impact to what happens if they win their framework arguments. I don’t think the negative must have an alternative but I find it hard for the neg to establish uniqueness for their links without one. Affirmatives need to find ways to leverage their aff against the implications of the kritik as well as making sure that they are still able to access their offense if they lose their framework arguments. Negs must also discuss why the aff in particular makes the squo worse. I’m certainly not well versed in much kritik literature so avoiding buzzwords and jargon can help my understanding. If you want me to vote on a kritik, it would benefit you to debate it very much like a CP/DA: turns the case, solves the case, xyz comes first, etc.

Topicality – I tend to view T debates in an offense/defense framework. Its all about competing interpretations, whomever creates the best world for debate should win, issues of abuse are not necessary but can be helpful. That being said, I’m also not a fan of the cult of limits, just going for your interpretation is more limiting will most likely lose to a broader interpretation that is more educational. Also, your K aff's impact turn of T does not amuse me – topicality is a voting issue.

Theory – I lean neg on most theory questions but this is not to be taken to mean that I like to hear your XYZ-Spec argument, your points will go down. Conditionality, or multiple conditional counterplans are both fine. The caveat to this is that I'm not sure if I'm a fan of conditional counterplans with half a dozen planks each independently conditional (ie 2nr could be planks 1-6, or 1-3, or 1&3, etc.). This doesn’t mean I won’t vote aff on theory though, whomever can make their trivial distinctions seem most important will probably win.

Non-traditional affs – I’ve debated at Greenhill and Michigan State, if that doesn’t provide some hint, I’ll break it down some more. The Aff should probably be topical, probably have a plan, and probably also have to defend the effects stemming from the hypothetical enactment of said plan - I've yet to be convinced by a reason as to why any of these things are bad.

General Notes: All of this being said – I will evaluate the arguments made in the round even if they are contrary to my beliefs, this is a guide of what I think and how I will default with a lack of argumentation. I do like being on the email chain of documents but will NEVER be reading the speech doc during the speech – you need to be clear. I’m only going to flow what the person who should be speaking says, if your partner yells out an argument during your speech, you have not made it.

Lincoln-Douglas debate: If possible, I’d basically prefer your LD debate to be policy-esque, I can obviously follow whatever but still have no idea what a criterion is. For some reason when I say this, people seem to think theory args are a good idea....most LD theory args seem to be asinine standards that the other team needs to follow…I will not vote on this, and will probably lower your speaker points. Also, if you intend to win due to a theory argument, you need a reason to reject the team – otherwise the obvious remedy is rejecting the argument.

Eric Short Walter Payton College Prep 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 11, 2019 at 10:35 AM CDT

ericjohnshort@gmail.com please add me to an email chain.

previous coaching: Niles West (2016-present), Walter Payton (2014-2016), Wayzata (2009-2013), Moorhead (2007-2009), University of Minnesota (2011-2015, plus various tournaments since), Concordia College (2006-2009).

I generally judge 75+ debates on the high school topic.

updated September 2019

I'm updating my philosophy not because of a meaningful change in how I evaluate debates, but because I think the process of how I decide debates is more important than how I feel about individual arguments.

I judge debates in the way they are presented to me. This means you control the substance of the debate, not me. As such, the team that will win is the team that is best able to explain why their arguments are better than their opponent's arguments.

I start deciding a debate by determining if I need to read evidence. I often read very few cards at the end of a debate. In many debates, the quality of evidence, its qualifications and even warrants or conclusions go uncontested. I'm not the judge to reconstruct the debate for you. Then, I assign "risk" to the positions forwarded in the last rebuttals. The type of "risk" is determined by the debate--anywhere from "does the DA outweigh the aff" to "do the representations lead to a unique impact" to "does the performance actively resist forms of oppression". Link and impact analysis is therefore extremely important. You probably won’t like the decision if I decide what is most important.

Most of my topic research revolves around critiques. I have also worked at a summer institute almost every year since 2005. Chances are I am familiar with your literature base, no matter which side of the library it's housed in. However, you still need to explain your arguments for me to consider voting for them.

If you want me to consider the status quo as an option, you should tell me in the 2NR: I will not default for you. Outside of conditionality, I default to rejecting the argument, not the team unless instructed otherwise.

Note on decision times: the longer it takes to finish the debate, the less time I have to adjudicate, so it is in your best interest to be efficient.

Speaker points are influenced by a variety of factors. While I do not have a specific formula for integrating all the variables, your points are reflected by (in no particular order): argument choice, clarity, execution, participation in the debate, respect for others, strategy, and time management. I tend to reward debaters for specific strategies, humor, personality and speeches free of disposable arguments.

Scott Siebert Homewood-Flossmoor High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 11, 2014 at 1:20 PM CDT

I debated policy at Illinois State University for 4 years, and coached at ISU for 2 more. I am now an assistant coach at Homewood Flossmoor.

I am pretty open to most arguments. I don't have a super strong preference for policy or critical arguments. I really prefer you do what you are best at. Debate should be about the debaters, and I don't think you should have to signifcantly change your strategy to make me happy. A few things to keep in mind:

-make the debate as simple as possible in your last rebutal. Give me a clear explanation why you win the debate and your opponents lose. If you give me a clear explanation and your opponents do not, it is very likely that I will vote for you

-I can be convinced the aff doesn't have to defend a plan. This doesn't mean I won't vote on framework, but I probably am not the best judge for it. I do think the aff needs to relate to the resolution in some way.

-I will vote on theory, but you need to give me time to write down your arguments. Going through a 10 point block at full speed is probably a waste of time in front of me.

-I don't have the best flow. If you are super fast or super unclear, I might not be the best judge for you. I will ask for your speech docs. I do this partly to follow along when cards are discussed in cross-x but also as a check against clipping. I actually don't read a ton of evidence after the debate. Unless you specifcally flag a card in the 2nr/2ar I will focus on the arguments you make in the debate

-I like the K and vote on it regularly, but I'm frustrating when debaters don't explain/simplify the argument. Overreliance on jargon/confusing your opponent is a bad idea in front of me.

-running prep for jumping is dumb, but it shouldn't take 10 minutes to put a file on jum drive. Just try and do it as quick as possible and you won't have a problem with me.

-I'm furstrated when arguments about percieved in-round racism/sexism are deployed for strategic reasons. I'm happy to vote on gendered language, but reading a 30 second argument in the 1nr to further spreadout the 1ar is pointless and devalues the efforts of those who truly try to change hamful practices in debate. I'm not entirely sure how this alters the way I judge debate, butI think it is worth saying

-please be respectful to your opponents. Insulting your opponents will really hurt your speaker points, and in particularly bad cases could result in a loss. Debate is awesome, and behavior that discourages people from participating is unacceptable

Elijah Smith Hire 7 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 11:46 PM EDT

elijahjdsmith AT gmail.com

My General Thoughts on Debate

Debate is what you make it. I have an extensive history in circuit policy/ld and college policy debate. I care about education more than fairness, good cards over the quantity of positions, and quality arguments over the number of arguments in a debate.

An argument has a claim, warrant, and impact in a single speech.

The role of the affirmative is to affirm and the role of the negative is to negate the affirmative in an intellectually rigorous manner. However, I would personally like to hear the affirmative say we should do something. I would prefer to hear about an actor outside of the folks reading the 1AC (Nonprofits, governments, the debate community as a whole, etc) do something but that is not a requirement. Most of it sounds good to me.

Please don’t say racist, sexist, ableist things or things that otherwise participate in -isms . Sometimes these are learning moments. Sometimes these are losing moments.

If there was an accessibility, disclosure, or other request made before the debate that you plan to bring up in the debate please inform me before the debate. I would like to evaluate the debate with this information ahead of time. More personal issues/things that someone did last year are difficult for me to understand as relevant to my ballot.

I decide debates by figuring out 1. framing issue 2. offense 3. good defense 4. if the evidence is as good as you say it is 5. deciding which world /side would result in a better outcome (whatever that means for the debate in front of me)

These thoughts are fairly general yet firmly how I think about debate.

My RFDs have been less "little c, little d mattered to my ballot" and "let's talk about the conceptual, big-picture things that both sides missed that will help you win the next debate". If you want the small line-by-line issues to matter as much you have to give them weight in your final speech. That requires time, investment in explanation, and comparative claims.

LD***

Tricks, silly arguments, etc. Please skip. I haven't read your ethics phil but I've voted on it when it makes sense. 4+ off is grounds for a condo debate. K links require longer than 15 seconds to explain.

Public Forum****

If you already know what evidence you are going to read in the debate/speech you have to send a document via email chain or provide the evidence on a google document that is shared with your opponents before the debate. Those cards have to be provided before the speech begins.

You don’t get unlimited prep time to ask for cards before prep time is used. A PF debate can’t take as long as a policy debate. You have 30 seconds to request and there are then 30 seconds to provide the evidence. If you can’t provide it within 30 seconds your prep will run until you do.

The Final Focus should actually be focused. You have to implicate your argument against every other argument in the debate. You can’t do that if you go for 3 or 4 different arguments.

Amanda Soczynski Blaine High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:57 AM CDT

Amanda Soczynski’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself; I have been involved with forensics for 19 years as a student, judge, and coach. I am currently in my 8th year as the congressional debate coach at Edina High School. My background was originally in speech where I competed and coached. In High School, I learned policy debate as a class rather than competition on a local level, so I competed but not in a typical local circuit. I have been judging debate for the last 13 years, in all categories. I judged CX for the first 5 years and the last 7 years in LD, PF and mostly Congress. I graduated with a Mass Communications degree from University of Minnesota School of Journalism and a J.D. graduate from William Mitchell College of law in 2014. I work at Thomson Reuters on legal software & research, as a content expert. I really love congress, watching, coaching. I always try to strive to do my best! If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. My goal is always to be an educator and help you succeed!

If for some reason my parli notes don't end up in your results packet, email me at amandasoc@gmail.com or amanda.soczynski@edinaschools.org. I will send you my google doc. I parli a lot and I always take lots and lots of notes and try to give RFD's when I can. If you don't get the link. Please ask, I put a lot of work into them. ????

I have a congress paradigm and CX,LD,PF one included in here.

Evidence / Citations / Warrants for all categories: *note - Statista is not a source, it's like Wikipedia, it's a congregation website not actually doing any of the studies that are on there. If you copy and paste the title of the stat you're looking at it will likely take you to the original source. Also the little (i) icon often will tell you where it can from. DON'T USE STATISTA as a source with me. I am a professional researcher by trade, so I care about citations! They matter and if they are from a source I don't know or if they're suspicious to me, I will google them.

Congress Paradigm:

General:

One thing to remember - judging congress is hard! It's just as exhausting for us as it is for you. We're trying really hard to compare a lot of people who have vastly different styles! I try to write as much as I can, but I spend a lot of time listening, so sometimes my comments can be lite at times. I'm working on that, the three mins go so fast. I'm hoping this will help shed some light on how I evaluate debaters.

When it comes to national level tournaments, at this point, almost everyone is a proficient speaker, so I really focus on the quality of arguments and ability to be flexible in round. Being a well rounded debater is important for me, especially as a Parli. I want to see a variety of type of speeches, and ability to switch sides, and flex to what the round demands. Make sure you are listening and not rehashing, if you're doing a rebuttal make sure you are extending or further attacking an argument.

I REALLY APPRECIATE A GOOD AUTHORSHIP OR SPONSORSHIP. Nothing is worse than judging or watching a semi-final round where there is no first aff, and having to take an in house recess immediately. Come prepared, have one. Spend the rest of your time doing great questions and defending your position there. I feel like people don't like to do this because they feel like they will be dropped. Rebuttals and Crystals are great, but there's a lot of them. If you can do this well, we'll know. It comes with the most amount of questioning time that if you know a lot about the topic you can show boat.

Linking: This is a debate skill you should have, you should able to link your impacts with others, link arguments together for rebuttal. Most national level congress debaters are great at linking within their own argument, but make sure you link and contextualize to the round. I want to see that they go together rather be a stand alone. That being said, contextualizing by: "I want to separate myself from the other AFF or NEG arguments", that's okay because you are still contextualizing within the round. Do not operate as an island in the debate, it's a good way to be dropped by me. Also remember, you can have great speeches, but if you don't ask questions, you're going to find your way to the middle of my ballot. It's a crucial part of debate.

Impacting:

THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. Again, at the national level, most people can impact to lives or economy etc. But what I find people aren't as good, is contextualizing the impact. Example: You tell me that thousands of lives are being lost in Yemen, take it one step further tell me what percentage of that population is being killed, or how that compares to another genocide for context. Make it hit home for all of us. Just giving generic #'s, sure it's the impact, but it doesn't show me the impact. Make sense? Remember I come from a policy background where pretty much everything leads to nuclear war.

Questioning:

Direct questioning is great, but make sure you're not too long winded or too brief, there's a nice sweet spot, where you have maybe a sentence or two question and answer. I've seen people basically run out the time by doing a really long answer, and I've also seen debaters ask such long questions that there's no way the opponent can answer. You only have 30 seconds, make it count.

Participation in Round:

Leadership is important. Remember, I'm comparing a lot of kids, participation with motioning and making sure that all students get to talk is important. This can help make up for bad presidency etc.

PO:

I almost always rank P.O.s in the top 5. It's a hard job, and as a parli, we appreciate good POs. A good way to get to the top 1/2 of my ballot as a PO. The round runs so smoothly I barely know you're there. You are able to solve issues of people not being prepared / docket issues. (This happens so often, time restrictions make things complicated. Especially since lots of tournaments have their own rules).

Mistakes happen, one mistake is not going to tank you. Continuous mistakes, or failing to help chamber resolve issues. This makes it harder. Fairness is also important, I notice when you pick your teammates repeatedly or if you always start in the middle of the room.

Inclusiveness - especially on the local circuit. I don't like parliamentary procedure used to limit people talking. It is also important to encourage those who haven't talked to go. Do your best to make sure the chamber is inclusive.

DON'T ALWAYS PICK YOUR FRIENDS FIRST. I know this happens. And it's easier to pick up than you think it is. Presidency means a lot in congress. Make it fair.

There's a reason I love coaching congress, it's a fun event!

CX/LD/PF Paradigm

General: As I’ve previously mentioned I come from a legal background. I am a “big picture” judge. I do appreciate the attention to detail, however, I don't like when it devolves into a debate that’s myopically focused on one thing. Make sure you take the time, especially in rebuttals to do a “birds eye view” of the debate. Remember, the rebuttal is the last time I hear from you before I make a decision, make it count. I appreciate good crossfire, and cross ex, specifically using information obtained in these for an argument.

Topicality: I like topicality, especially in varsity level debate. I think it makes a for a boring debate to have a non-topical aff. So it’s a pretty garden variety argument for the neg to make.

Critical Arguments: As I wasn’t a debater in high school, I don’t have the technical experience dealing with these arguments, however, I don’t mind critical affs on-face. Since I don’t have the technical experience, I appreciate all critical arguments to be understandable and explained properly. I catch on to arguments quickly, however I loathe having to have to fill in the gaps of an argument because its poorly argued. Make it logical, make it understandable. I generally dislike affs that are anti-topical or affs that critique the topic. I’m not saying I’ll never vote for a critical aff, whiteness aff, performance aff’s, etc, but its the one area where an affirmative is asking the most out of me as a judge. Again, I have less experience with these types of aff’s so extra explanation of sources and philosophies. For kritiks from the negative, I prefer ones that are topic-specific rather than K’s that are broad or philosophical. I’m pretty familiar at this point with cap k, neolib, fem, eco-k, anything outside of these again you’ll have to communicate more effectively as it is a bigger burden for me to decipher.

Theory: I don’t have the background in this, so this won’t be very successful with me as a judge. I overall prefer substantive arguments over theoretical or procedural arguments. My training in law, and my work, deals almost exclusively with substantive arguments, so I tend to prefer and understand those better. If you do decide to go this route, it must be very well done. My flow can’t be muddy, and the explanation must be very logical and understandable.

Speed: I have no problem with speed. I do ask two things. 1. Slow down enough on the tags so that I can understand them 2. Make your tags count. I dislike deciphering poor tags that do not tell me anything about the evidence. Keep tags like 5-8 words, long tags suck.

Post Round Discussion: Please be respectful, I don’t appreciate a “shake down” when I’m explaining my decision. I don’t do speaker points till after the round is over and all the debaters have left the room and I take decorum into account. I am a bit of a non-traditional judge and I do make a concerted effort to bring up constructive criticism and positive comments. Please take these comments as an opportunity to learn!

Hannah Stafford Hire 7 rounds

Mike Steffan Washburn High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2018 at 2:59 AM CDT

This is my 11th year coaching debate. I coach(ed) for Minneapolis Washburn High School and the University of Minnesota.

I have judged 0 rounds on the 2017-18 HS topic. (Blake 2017 Update: I don't know the nuances of the controversies of this topic - keep this in mind)

I have judged 14 rounds on the 2017-18 Single-Payer Good/Bad topic.

tl;dr for my judging:

.1) I am terrible at remembering to time prep and other things, therefore I don't.

.25) yes put me on the email chain pls: mikepsteffan @ gmail.com

.5) I really enjoy debate.

.75) Although I debated in high school (2002-5) and in college (2007-10), the majority of my relevant experience has come from coaching high school debate. The two things that keep me coming back to this activity are the joy of teaching and the endless amount of learning opportunities that it has thrown at me.

1) I have an information processing disorder. Slower speakers tend to be more(read: are always more) successful in front of me. Debaters who are able to effectively slow down give me the time and conditions to understand the arguments in the round. This also means that framework (and other theory heavy flows) debates can be a nightmare for me to judge unless the debaters slow down and efficiently "chunk" the flow into its relevant components.

2) I used to prefer judging critical debates, but my knowledge of the relevant critical literature base is much smaller than it used to be, and therefore am just happy to judge whatever a given debate presents to me. My strongest preference remains that debates be sufficiently slow and clear enough for me to understand perfectly what's going on (read #1). So if you're all about dropping the 6+ off / cramming in some sweet 2AC addons, go ahead and do it, just know that those debates aren't the best for me and I am likely not a good judge for you.

3) Resolving the larger themes of the debate is generally the best way to persuade me. Questions of impact access/priority are extremely persuasive for me. (Or at least have been, looking back on my past rounds.) AKA card-for-card throwdowns aren't my thing.

4) Literally just tell me what to do. :)

Jordana Sternberg Westminster Schools 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 6, 2024 at 6:59 PM EDT

Director of Debate at Westminster 2013-2021, lawyer, college and high school debater before that -- but slow it down some if you want your arguments to make it to my flow, which is usually on paper.

It is unlikely that I can flow the tiny details of your pre-written blocks.

I definitely do not know the details of your politics DA or answers, or topicality arguments that were devloped from some obscure 1879 state court ruling - please understand that I am evaluating your argument based on what you say in the round, although I will look at cards if you give me reason to.

Don't assume, and explain well.

Quick thoughts:

1) Make your speeches flowable. I will not be able to flow (and likely will not catch) all the details if you are reading pre-written blocks at top speed with no breaks or changes in inflection. If you're going to read blocks, try to at least pretend you're not reading blocks by having breaks between arguments, emphasizing tags, slowing it down a little on analytics, etc. You are also a lot more likely to hold my attention to details and help me not miss stuff that way. I will reward your speaker points if you do a good job of this.

You would be shocked at how many "good" judges think the same thing about block-reading and the above advice, and how little some judges are flowing, or even catching, of what you think you said.

2) I disagree with approaches that make the personal identity of the debaters in the round relevant to the decision in the debate, especially for high-school-aged students, and I am also not a good judge for these debates because I often do not understand what the judge is being asked to vote for. This does not mean you can't read K arguments or arguments about race or identity, in fact there are many K arguments that I think are true and make a lot of sense, I just don't think a teacher should in the position of ratifying or rejecting the personal identity or experiences of a teenager.

3) "Death good" is a reason to reject the team, and I may auto-vote that way even if the opponent doesn't make the argument.

4) There needs to be a fair stasis point in order to have good debates. Debate is good.

5) Theory: You are really taking your chances if you rely on a sketchy CP that requires winning a lot of theory, because I do not spend a lot of time outside of debate rounds thinking about theory. I can't tell you which way I will come down on a particular theory issue because it usually depends on what is said -- and what I flow -- in that particular round. This applies to T debates and other theory debates too.

6) If it is pretty close between the CP and the aff (or even if it isn't close), you need to give some really clear comparative explanations about why I should choose one over the other -- which you should do for any judge but make sure you do it when I'm judging.

7) I really dislike high theory and post-modernism in debate.

8) Reading cards to decide the debate: For many years I tried to judge without looking at the speech documents during the speeches, but I have recently concluded that is unrealistic because there is an entire additional level of the debate that is happening between the debaters in the speech documents. I don't think it should be that way, but I understand why it is happening. However, if the claims made about a card or set of cards are uncontested by the opponent, I am likely to assume when deciding the debate that the cards say what their reader claimed they say rather than reading both sides' cards or any of the cards.

9) I am not at all deep in the files and evidence especially for most neg arguments, so I am really judging the debate based on what you say and what your cards say as you present them in the round.

9) Links and impact calculus are really, really important, especially in the last rebuttals. However, I think lengthy pre-written overviews are not as good as 2NR/2AR (and prior) explanations based on what actually happened in the particular debate.

Chris Stone Notre Dame High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 10, 2018 at 6:37 PM UTC

Re: LD for Yale: I did policy debate at Kansas as an undergraduate and coached there during graduate school. Although the thoughts below are more applicable to policy debate than LD, the notes in the "General Thoughts" section likely still apply heavily. I have some experience both coaching and judging LD. Historically, the debates I've judged have often been decided by one overarching question, often times either the value or the criterion. If you're able to identify what matters and win that argument, you'll probably win.

All things in this philosophy are open to debate. In most instances, I have merely attempted to describe how I have made past decisions, resulting in "preferences."

General Thoughts -

- Debate should be characterized by hard work, well-researched arguments, and clash. An incredibly high percentage of debates are won with hard work outside of the debate. As such, I will strive to work hard as a judge.

- Debate is a communication activity. Speaker points and arguments will be affected by communication. Arguments lacking a claim, warrant, and an impact as well as arguments communicated in an incoherent manner will be evaluated appropriately and likely won't be persuasive.

- Evidence/arguments: Smart arguments and high quality evidence are the surest ways to win debates. Analytic arguments can rise to this threshold. Evidence that is over-highlighted might not. High evidence quality doesn't substitute for good debating.

- Risk: "No risk" is silly, but there may be "negligible risk" that shouldn't be considered. I have found probability framing type arguments to merely beg the question of how much risk. You need to dispute the risk of the DA to win it shouldn't be considered.

- Dropped/conceded arguments: As a judge, I vote for an argument. If the affirmative drops a disad, I'm not voting for the affirmative dropped the disad. I am voting for the disad. If a team drops an argument, it is not sufficient to inform me that they have conceded an argument. That should be coupled with a minimal explanation of the argument and how it should influence my decision. I have, at times, found conceded arguments to be not applicable to the affirmative. If you win a gambling disad against a weed aff, it is not likely to win you the debate.

- I'm willing to vote on presumption. It goes to less change. Burden of proof is on the team introducing the argument.

- Demeanor issues: Be respectful of your partner, opponent, and judge. Don't clip cards, don't cut cards out of context, etc. Violations of disclosure norms are also bad. Don't say "new aff" if you've read the same affirmative, but have a "different theme" to your advantage. We rely on universities to lend us classroom space - don't steal or vandalize the space.

Argument-Specific Thoughts -

- Topicality: Topicality debates can be some of the best debates because they showcase the analytic thinking of debaters. You must answer "interpretations" and counter-define words or you will have a hard time winning. It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. "Reasonability" is almost always an argument that there isn't an impact to the limits DA. Aff's do well to win reasons why aff flex is good and the neg has too many weapons in their arsenal. In-round abuse is an unnecessary standard. Your untopical affirmative isn't topical because you've read it all year or because it's important to talk about the issues mentioned in the 1ac.

- Counterplans: Permutations should be impacted in the 2AC to explain why it makes the counterplan not competitive or why they otherwise matter ("perm do the cp" is not a complete argument; "perm do the cp, it's a way the plan could be implemented" is). The idea that the affirmative gets to "define the plan" is silly to me if challenged by evidence about how the plan would be implemented. However, if asked in c-x, the affirmative should probably define the plan with a, "we think the plan means..." It can be challenged in subsequent negative speeches. I am most likely to find a questionably competitive counterplan competes if the negative team is reading evidence and/or citing claims made in the 1ac or c-x.

- Theory: Interpretations matter here, too. If you don't meet your own, you will probably lose. That being said, I could probably not tell you the difference between 2 and 3 conditional advocacies. Just defend conditionality. Specific leanings are below:

Conditionality: Good.
PICs: Good, but better if they're out of something explicitly in the plan. The negative can challenge the effects of the plan with evidence, however.
Consult/condition: Often determined by the debate and evidence. Competition challenges are a solid option, but can be answered by various evidentiary arguments from the negative.
Delay: Probably affirmative leaning, but again context specific.
Word PICs: Aff leaning.
Alternate/non-USFG actors: Context specific. I lean towards the idea that a counterplan can disprove the need for the affirmative rather than being an affirmation of the counterplan. For example, the United States chose not to respond to the Rwandan genocide, in part, because the US government believed the UN could/should act.

- Disadvantages: Turns the case arguments are important, but are often actually just solvency take-outs without uniqueness. That means the affs try or die framing often wins out. Negatives should explain how they interact with the case - do they take out solvency or do they solve the case (affects evaluations of "try or die" arguments). If you're affirmative, does the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent the case turn? Does the case turn the DA? The 1AR needs to answer these questions. Politics disads represent an opportunity cost of doing the plan.

- Critiques:

Non-topical affirmatives: My predisposition favors affirmatives with an advocacy/plan that in some way defends the topic. What that means is debateable. This predisposition is also debateable, but the further you stray from the topic, the harder it will likely be for you to win simply because I believe there is a value in the topic as a point of stasis for preparation given the value that I put on pre-tournament work. Previous interations of this philsophy made it sound like those positions are not open for debate. That is not true - arguments are arguments. The purpose of this philosophy is merely to identify my tendencies and which arguments I have found more persuasive to date.

Critique affirmatives will be evaluated against the impacts the negative advance in the debate. If your plan is good for x reason it will be evaluated against the y reasons its bad. Winners of these type of debates often control the framing of impacts - are utilitarian approaches better than critical approaches, etc.

Ks on the negative: Critiques on the negative are often won if the affirmative forgets something in the checklist, the alternative functions as a CP, the negative won fairly specific or specifically applied epistemology arguments, or the negative was able to redefine the role of the ballot in some manner. I have often been persuaded to allow the affirmative to leverage their affirmative against the critique. This presumption can be overcome by impact framing arguments like methodology, ontology, etc. first. The "framework" argument that the negative should not get a critique is not particularly persuasive to me. Affirmatives will typically beat the critique on a permutation or on the arguments that the affirmative is true, the alternative doesn't solve, and the affirmative outweighs the critique. Negative's who have been most persuasive on this argument explain their specific critique in the context of the affirmative.

Michael Suo Glenbrook South High School 4 rounds

Jon Sussman University of Chicago Lab Schools 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 29, 2016 at 1:48 PM EDT

Jon Sussman

New Trier '13

University of Chicago '17

TOC Debater my senior year, around 4 or 5 bids if I remember correctly. During my first year in college I was one of the two head coaches of the UCLab Academy debate team.

Overall note: asymptotically approaching tabula rasa is a goal, but as some of my peers have pointed out, I have notable preferences:

Affirmatives: Don't need a plan, but even if you are critical I'd like to see an advocacy or central thesis of some sort. I ran non-plan affirmatives in my debate career but always found it easier to tow the line on the framework debate. That being said, framework is a question of topicality, and I much prefer that interpretation to debates about consequentialism and what not. I don't believe a plan is necessary to be topical, although in a lot of cases is sufficient.

Critiques: Read them and make your link and turns case arguments specific. Sure, there are three stock arguments to make against the permutation, but without specific links I am sympathetic to a well explained permutation. Affirmatives shouldn't drop tricks because, as it is my first (now second) year, I am predisposed to vote on technical concessions that I can trace through the debate (even more so now that I am less involved).

Counter-plan: I detest 50 state fiat, but if you must, go for it. Anything else is up for debate, although I have a very high threshold (hopefully this answers ever GBN novices question about theory) for plan inclusive CPs. This includes mandate PICs unless you get a cross ex concession. That being said, I also have a relatively high threshold for conditionality. If you draw a line in the sand and have good impact calculus, you should be good, but make sure it doesn't look like you got cornered into going for it.

Disadvantages: my favorite part of debate past a good case turn.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations, and you are normally better off if you are on the side of truth but that doesn't have to be the case. My partner was a T hack so I am semi-up-to-date on the technicalities of certain standards debates. Not my favorite debates to watch but if done well are some of the most rewarding.

Do a lot of case debate, turn the affirmative on different levels and do specific warrant comparison. You will be rewarded, I promise.

My email is jondsussman@gmail.com and I am willing to respond to emails about debates in which I have judged you.

A lot of the older jokes on this page seemed irrelevant so I deleted them. If you have any specific questions let me know, and I will answer to the best of my ability.

Wayne Tang Maine East 7 rounds

Put me on the email chain (WayneTang@aol.com). (my debaters made me do this, I generally don't read evidence in round)

General Background:
Former HS debater in the stone ages (1980s) HS coach for over many years at Maine East (1992-2016) and now at Northside College Prep (2016 to present). I coach on the north shore of Chicago. I typically attend and judge around 15-18 tournaments a season and generally see a decent percentage of high level debates. However, I am not a professional teacher/debate coach, I am a patent attorney in my real (non-debate) life and thus do not learn anything about the topic (other than institutes are overpriced) over the summer. I like to think I make up for that by being a quick study and through coaching and judging past topics, knowing many recycled arguments.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
Intelligent story telling with good evidence and analysis is something I like to hear. I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). It is a hard road, but I think it is possible to reduce risk to zero or close enough to it based on defensive arguments.

TOPICALITY
I vote on T relatively frequently over the years. I believe it is the negative burden to establish the plan is not topical. Case lists and arguments on what various interpretations would allow/not allow are very important. I have found that the limits/predictability/ground debate has been more persuasive to me, although I will consider other standards debates. Obviously, it is also important how such standards operate once a team convinces me of their standard. I will also look at why T should be voting issue. I will not automatically vote negative if there is no counter-interpretation extended, although usually this is a pretty deep hole for the aff. to dig out of. For example, if the aff. has no counter-interpretation but the neg interpretation is proven to be unworkable i.e. no cases are topical then I would probably vote aff. As with most issues, in depth analysis and explanation on a few arguments will outweigh many 3 word tag lines.

COUNTERPLANS
Case specific CPs are preferable that integrate well (i.e., do not flatly contradict) with other negative positions. Clever wording of CPs to solve the Aff and use Aff solvency sources are also something I give the neg. credit for. It is an uphill battle for the Aff on theory unless the CP/strategy centered around the CP does something really abusive. The aff has the burden of telling me how a permutation proves the CP non-competitive.

KRITIKS
Not a fan, but I have voted on them numerous times (despite what many in the high school community may believe). I will never be better than mediocre at evaluating these arguments because unlike law, politics, history and trashy novels, I don’t read philosophy for entertainment nor have any interest in it. Further (sorry to my past assistants who have chosen this as their academic career), I consider most of the writers in this field to be sorely needing a dose of the real world (I was an engineer in undergrad, I guess I have been brainwashed in techno-strategic discourse/liking solutions that actually accomplish something). In order to win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other affirmative impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique Disad in the policy realm. As such it will probably receive very little weight if challenged by the aff. You must be able to distill long boring philosophical cards read at hyperspeed to an explanation that I can comprehend. I have no fear of saying I don’t understand what the heck you are saying and I will absolutely not vote for issues I don’t understand. (I don’t have to impress anyone with my intelligence or lack thereof and in any case am probably incapable of it) If you make me read said cards with no explanation, I will almost guarantee that I will not understand the five syllable (often foreign) philosophical words in the card and you will go down in flames. I do appreciate, if not require specific analysis on the link and impact to either the aff. plan, rhetoric, evidence or assumptions depending on what floats your boat. In other words, if you can make specific applications (in contrast to they use the state vote negative), or better yet, read specific critical evidence to the substance of the affirmative, I will be much more likely to vote for you.

PERFORMANCE BASED ARGUMENTS
Also not a fan, but I have voted on these arguments in the past. I am generally not highly preferred by teams that run such arguments, so I don't see enough of these types of debates to be an expert. However, for whatever reason, I get to judge some high level performance teams each year and have some background in such arguments from these rounds. I will try to evaluate the arguments in such rounds and will not hesitate to vote against framework if the team advocating non-traditional debate wins sufficient warrants why I should reject the policy/topic framework. However, if a team engages the non-traditional positions, the team advocating such positions need to answer any such arguments in order to win. In other words, I will evaluate these debates like I try to evaluate any other issues, I will see what arguments clash and evaluate that clash, rewarding a team that can frame issues, compare and explain impacts. I have spent 20 plus years coaching a relatively resource deprived school trying to compete against very well resourced debate schools, so I am not unsympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debates. On the other hand I have also spent 20 plus years involved in non-debate activities and am not entirely convinced that the strategies urged by non-traditional debates work. Take both points for whatever you think they are worth in such debates.

POINTS

In varsity debate, I believe you have to minimally be able to clash with the other teams arguments, if you can’t do this, you won’t get over a 27.5. Anything between 28.8 and 29.2 means you are probably among the top 5% of debaters I have seen. I will check my points periodically against tournament averages and have adjusted upward in the past to stay within community norms. I think that if you are in the middle my points are pretty consistent. Unfortunately for those who are consistently in the top 5% of many tournaments, I have judged a lot of the best high school debaters over the years and it is difficult to impress me (e.g., above a 29). Michael Klinger, Stephen Weil, Ellis Allen, Matt Fisher and Stephanie Spies didn’t get 30s from me (and they were among my favorites of all time), so don’t feel bad if you don’t either.

OTHER STUFF
I dislike evaluating theory debates but if you make me I will do it and complain a lot about it later. No real predispositions on theory other than I would prefer to avoid dealing with it.

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex.

I do not count general tech screw ups as prep time and quite frankly am not really a fascist about this kind of thing as some other judges, just don’t abuse my leniency on this.

Speed is fine (this is of course a danger sign because no one would admit that they can’t handle speed). If you are going too fast or are unclear, I will let you know. Ignore such warnings at your own peril, like with Kritiks, I am singularly unafraid to admit I didn’t get an answer and therefore will not vote on it.

I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I probably won’t call for it and assume it says X. However, in the unfortunate (but fairly frequent) occurrence where both teams just read cards, I will call for cards and use my arbitrary and capricious analytical skills to piece together what I, in my paranoid delusional (and probably medicated) state, perceive is going on.

I generally will vote on anything that is set forth on the round. Don’t be deterred from going for an argument because I am laughing at it, reading the newspaper, checking espn.com on my laptop, throwing something at you etc. Debate is a game and judges must often vote for arguments they find ludicrous, however, I can and will still make fun of the argument. I will, and have, voted on many arguments I think are squarely in the realm of lunacy i.e. [INSERT LETTER] spec, rights malthus, Sun-Ra, the quotations and acronyms counterplan (OK I didn’t vote on either, even I have my limits), scaler collapse (twice), world government etc. (the likelihood of winning such arguments, however, is a separate matter). I will not hesitate to vote against teams for socially unacceptable behavior i.e. evidence fabrication, racist or sexist slurs etc., thankfully I have had to do that less than double digits time in my 35+ years of judging.

Oskar Tauring-Traxler South 7 rounds

Christopher Thomas WDM Valley 7 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 30, 2019 at 7:43 AM EDT

Debated China, Courts, Middle East @ University of Kansas
Debated Agriculture, Nukes @ University of Texas at San Antonio

Coached @ UTSA (2010-2011)
Coached @ Wake Forest University (2011-2013)

Coached @ Gonzaga (2013-2015)

Coached @ Valley High School in Des Moines (2013-2016)

And I’ve been working at a handful of high school debate camps in between over the years

Presently, I am an Assistant Profess in the Department of Communication at The College at Brockport, SUNY.

Meta-Level

§ I’m coming back to judging college debate. My knowledge of some of the evolutions within debate are sparse and my knowledge of the topic is even more limited. That said, I’ve kept up with debate in some way or another over the years.

§ For the most part, I don’t care what you do. There are arguments I enjoy more than others, but that should not influence your argumentative decisions at the end of the day. I debated weird stuff, but I’ve coached and taught across a wide range of argument styles.

§ I appreciate argument congruence (that may mean less arguments) more than throwing the (digital) tub against the wall and seeing what sticks.

§ I flow on paper. I think it lets me actively engage the debate. This also means I need pen time, especially on case and/or theory arguments.

§ I don’t really read evidence, unless critical for my decision.

§ CX is a lost art. It would do you well to be strategic, not argumentative. Listen, too. It helps.

Micro-Level

§ Case Debate: Affirmatives get too much leeway in how they debate case. Block nuances are often overlooked by the 1AR. I enjoy the strategic use of case arguments in the 2NR strategy, too.

§ Topicality: Woof. I’ll be honest, sometimes debaters are far more concerned about these debates than I am. These debates need to be organized well by the neg and not done at top speed either. Reasonability makes sense.

§ Disads: Negs need more impact calculus. I have no problem voting on low risk of DA and high risk of aff. Politics debates often rely on quantity of evidence, I get that. Refer to my comments above about flowing on paper.

§ Counterplans: I generally think negs get to be conditional, welcome to persuade me otherwise. Other counterplan theory, I’m open to arguments. Mechanism-based counterplans need some extra explanation, I’m new to the topic and don’t like voting on things I don’t understand.

§ Critical arguments: My debate and coaching backgrounds are pretty expansive in this area. However, don’t confuse my enjoyment for an easy ballot. Do what you wish, but have a purpose. Also, don’t be alarmed when people tell you that you’re wrong, mistaken, or should lose the debate. A debate about methods is insanely boring and, often, lacks competitiveness. There should be more to a debate than method, at the very least. The ballot is a vote for who does the better debating, tell me if it should be for something else.

Ironic, given the kind of debater I was. But, if you could try and not be jerks to each other (unless rightly justified) or me. I'll try my best to listen and judge and you try your best to debate and understand my constructive feedback.

Arjun Vellayappan Glenbrook South High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 11:34 AM CDT

Arjun Vellayappan
Lexington 2011
Northwestern 2015

You should go for what you are good at despite any of the preferences I may list below. At the end of the day, I will vote for the team that did the better debating on any issue although you may get better speaker points if you continue reading.

Important point to note: I know very little about the topic and it's development so please take time to avoid topic jargon and try to avoid using abbreviations until you explain their original meaning. This also implicates T mostly because I won't really know specific trends in the community so try to spend extra time painting that picture if you think it's important to winning your argument.

Evidence comparison, whether it is using qualifications or warrants, is extremely important for resolving important questions in debates and for preventing judge intervention when calling for cards. I’m pretty new to judging so I imagine I’ll be reading a decent amount of evidence, but comparison will be important for framing how I read your cards.

Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. Don’t cheat in any fashion, clip cards, cut cards out of context, etc.

Argument Issues

Topicality – It is a voting issue. I don’t think there needs to be demonstrated “in-round abuse” as long as the negative is providing a strong limits argument that frames how the topic would be different. I think affirmatives currently under-utilize reasonability and that it should be in almost every T 2AR. I was not a big fan of T debates in high school but that was mostly because they lacked comparative impact calculus of which standards matter more (eg. What matters more: education or limits?). If you can do that, I’m a fine judge for T.

Theory – I usually think theory arguments are reasons to reject the practice, not the team but can definitely be persuaded otherwise if the arguments are presented well. I also tend to default to conditionality meaning that the status quo is always an option for the negative unless this issue is contested in the round.

CPs – I lean slightly aff on most CP theory questions (mandates/outcomes, consult, etc) but can be persuaded otherwise. I'm more OK with conditionality than I am with "cheating" CPs but obviously it depends on the specific situation.

Kritiks – I’m fine with most K debates but I’m probably not the best judge for you if you generally roll with super-generic K’s and don’t interact with the aff very well. That being said, I understand the literature for the most part and am fine voting quickly on a dropped framework or floating PIK argument. I find that most K debates are won by specific and more detailed negative analysis combined with some "K tricks", so if you’re aff make sure you have a robust defense of what you're saying and you answer things like “method comes first” or “turns case” if you want to win my ballot.

Performance – I think you need to defend a topical plan or at least relate to the topic and be ready to defeat framework because that type of argument is persuasive to me against aff’s that blatantly avoid the topic. I probably have somewhat of a bias against these types of arguments because I generally think topic-centric debate is awesome and educational but obviously will decide based on the arguments put in front of me rather than my predispositions.

Jon Voss Glenbrook South High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 20, 2024 at 4:14 AM CDT

Jon Voss

Northside College Prep

I coached high school policy debate full-time for 12 years, National Service through Legal Immigration. I've been around debate, first as a debater and then as a coach, since 02. I sat out Legal Immigration and Arms Sales, but I judged and researched some for the Criminal Justice Reform, the Water Resources, and NATO topics. Debate is not my full-time job – I work in higher education as a program/product manager – so I don't cut a ton of cards, I'm not really up on what teams are reading, I don't know what topicality norms were established over the summer, etc. I can still flow just as well as I used to, which is to say "deficiently."

Yes email chain: jvoss1223 AT gmail DOT com. I don't read along during the debate, I just like it so that I can ensure nobody's clipping cards and also so that I can begin my decision-making process immediately after the debate ends. This is important for how you debate -- using the speech doc instead of your flow as a guide is to your detriment.

-- fiscal redistribution topic - I heard a few debates on it before the season started but (as of the early season tournaments) you should consider my topic knowledge extremely limited, especially as it relates to topicality norms and complex explanations of fringe economic theories. I do have a basic understanding of the academic concepts that undergird the topic, however, and I will be somewhat involved in argument production this year.

-- Almost every debate I've seen so far this year has collapsed into a very-hard-to-resolve "growth good"/"degrowth good" debate. These have been late-breaking and I spent the bulk of my decision time wading through ev that didn't get me any closer to an answer I found satisfactory. In each instance, I was unhappy with amount of intervention and lack of depth involved in my decision. In that regard:

*if there's a winning final rebuttal that does not require you to wade into these waters, give that speech instead. I am willing (and maybe even eager) to grab onto something external and use that as a cudgel to decide that the growth debate was difficult to resolve and vote on <other thing>. I think I would be receptive, too, to arguments about how I should react in a debate that you think might be difficult to resolve, but this is just a hunch.

*you would almost certainly be better-served debating evidence that's already been read instead of reading more cards. This is especially true if the 1ac/1nc/both included a bunch of evidence on this issue...your fourth, "yes mindset shift" card is unlikely to win you the debate (or even the specific argument in question) but debating the issue in greater detail than the other team might.

*debated equally, I'm meaningfully better for the standard defenses of growth, especially as it relates to successfully achieving the changes that would be necessary to create a sustainable model of degrowth.

-- a note on plan texts: say what you mean, mean what you say, and have an advocate that supports it. If the AFF's plan is resolutional word salad, will be unapologetically rooting for NEG exploitation in the way of cplan competition, DA links, and/or presumption-style takeouts. I guess the flip side of this is that I have never heard a persuasive explanation of a way to evaluate topicality arguments outside of the words in the plan text, so as long as the AFF goes for some sort of "we meet" argument, I'm basically unwilling to vote NEG. "The plan text says most or all of the resolution (and another word or three) but their solvency evidence describes something very different," is an extremely persuasive negative line of argument, but I think it's a solvency argument.

-- Rehighlighting - you've gotta read itand explain what you believe to be the implication of whatever portion of their evidence you read. I'm somewhat sympathetic to allowing insertion as a check against (aggressively) declining evidence quality in debate, but debate is first and foremost a communicative activity.

-- I don't need nor want a card doc at the end of the debate. I have everything in my inbox already. I know what cards you did/didn't read because I was flowing. I'm honestly a little skeptical of debaters providing judges a lens through which to evaluate different controversies after the 2AR has ended. And to be frank, most of these debates aren't so close that judgement calls on ev are necessary to determine who won.

-- In favor of fewer, better-developed 1NC arguments. I don't have a specific number that I think is best: I've seen 1NC's that include three totally unwinnable offcase arguments and 1NC's that include six or seven viable ones. But generally I think the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Burden of proof is a precondition of the requirement that the affirmative answer the argument, and less ev/fewer highlighted words in the name of more offcase positions seems to make it less likely that the neg will fulfill the aforementioned burden of proof.

-- Highlighting, or lack thereof, has completely jumped the shark. Read more words.

-- Clarity, or lack thereof, has been bad for awhile, but online debate really exacerbates the problem. I won't use the speech doc to bail you out. Just speak more slowly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you.

-- I am generally bad for broad-strokes “framing” arguments that ask the judge to presume that the risk of <> is especially low. Indicts of mini-max risk assessment make sense in the abstract, but it is the affirmative’s responsibility to apply these broad theories to whatever objections the negative has advanced. “The aff said each link exponentially reduces the probability of the DA, and the DA has links, so you lose” is a weak ballot and one that I am unexcited to write.

-- I am generally better for a narrow solution that tackles an instance of oppression than an undefined/murky solution that aims to move the needle further than the pragmatic alternative. Some of this new stuff about philosophical competition and associated negative framework arguments that block the AFF from leveraging the 1ac as offense is wild.

-- I am often way less interested in "impact defense" than "link defense." This is equally true of my thoughts toward negative disadvantages and affirmative advantages. For example, if the aff wins with certainty that they stop a US-China war, I'm highly unlikely to vote neg and place my faith in our ability to the big red telephone at the White House to dampen the conflict. Similarly, if the neg wins that your plan absolutely crashes the economy by disrupting the market or causing some agenda item to fail, I will mostly be unconcerned that there are some other historical explanations for great power wars than "resource scarcity." The higher up the link "chain" you can indict your opponent's argument, the better.

-- Sort of a related point, but I thought it might be good to separate this out. I have found myself mentally exhausted at the end of almost every Zoom debate I've judged. There is something about flicking your eyes across three screens while transcribing an entire debate that's occurring in my headphones that is so much more draining than what debate looked like back in the day. I think this impacts how I judge. I certainly don't have any inclination to spend the decision time reading a bunch of evidence if I can avoid it. I don't think that's laziness (but maybe...) -- I'm just tired of staring at a screen. Anything the 2NR / 2AR can do to help craft a simple path to victory that allows me to minimize the number of "decision tree" questions I need to resolve is highly recommended.

-- Don't clip cards. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction. If you advance any sort of ethics challenge, the debate ends and is decided on the grounds of that ethics challenge alone.

-- Yes judge kick unless one team explicitly makes an argument that convinces me to conceive differently of presumption. Speaking of, presumption is "least amount of change" no matter what. This could mean that presumption *still* lies with the neg even if the aff wins the status quo is no longer something the judge can endorse (but only if the CP is less change than the plan).

-- Fairly liberal with the appropriate scope of negative fiat as it relates to counterplans. Fairly aff-leaning regarding counterplan competition, at least in theory -- but evidence matters more than general pleas to protect affirmative competitive equity. I could be convinced otherwise, but my default has always been that the neg advocate must be as good as whatever the aff is working with. This could mean that an “advocate-less” counterplan that presses an internal link is fair game if the aff is unable to prove that they…uh…have an internal link.

-- T-USFG: Debate is no longer my full-time job, so I think I have a little less skin in the game on this issue. I also suspect the Trump presidency and the associated exposure of explicit racism within the United States may have made me a better judge for affirmatives that do not instrumentally defend the topic/federal government action. I'm not sure how much better, though, and I'm probably at best a risky bet for affirmatives hoping to beat a solid 2NR on T-USFG. If you do have me in this type of debate:

**Won't vote on any sort of argument that amounts to, "debate is bad, so we will concede their argument that we destroy debate/make people quit/exclude X population of student, that's good."

**Affirmatives would be well served to prioritize the link between defending a particular state action and broader observations about the flaws of the state.

**Procedural fairness is most important. The ballot can rectify fairness violations much more effectively than it can change anything else, and I am interested in endorsing a vision of debate that is procedurally fair. This is both the single strongest internal link to every other thing debate can do for a studeny and a standalone impact. I am worse for the “portable skills” impacts about information processing, decision-making, etc.

Patrick Waldinger Ransom Everglades 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 9:27 AM EDT

Patrick Waldinger

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Miami

Assistant Debate Coach at the Pine Crest School

10+ years judging

Yes, please put me on the speech doc: dinger AT gmail

Updated 9.2.14

Here are the two things you care about when you are looking to do the prefs so I’ll get right to them:

1. Conditionality: I think rampant conditionality is destroying the educational aspects of debate slowly but surely. You should not run more than one conditional argument in front of me.

Reading a K without an alternative and claiming it is a “gateway” issue doesn’t count. First, it likely contradicts with your CP, which is a reason that conditionality is both not educational and unfair. Second, there are no arbitrary “gateway” issues – there are the stock issues but methodology, for example, is not one of them the last time I read Steinberg’s book.

I also think there is a big difference between saying the CP is “conditional” versus “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. Conditional implies you can kick it at any time, however, if you choose not to kick it in the 2NR then that was your choice. You are stuck with that world. If the “status quo is always an option” for me, then the negative is saying that I, as the judge, have the option to kick the CP for them. You may think this is a mere semantic difference. That’s fine – but I DON’T. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The notion that I (or any judge) can just kick the CP for the negative team seems absurd in the vein of extreme judge intervention. Can I make permutation arguments for the aff too? That being said, if the affirmative lets the negative have their cake and eat it too, then I’ll kick CPs left and right. However, it seems extremely silly to let the negative argue that the judge has the ability to kick the CP. In addition, if the negative never explicitly states that I can kick the CP in the 2NR then don’t be surprised when I do not kick it post-round (3NR?).

Finally, I want to note the sad irony when I read judge philosophies of some young coaches. Phrases similar to “conditionality is probably getting out of hand”, while true, show the sad state of affairs where the same people who benefited from the terrible practice of rampant conditionality are the same ones who realize how bad it is when they are on the other side.

2. Kritiks: In many respects going for a kritik is an uphill battle with me as the judge. I don’t read the literature and I’m not well versed in it. I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics. That being said, I think it is silly to dismiss entirely philosophical underpinnings of any policy.

Sometimes I really enjoy topic specific kritiks, for example, on the immigration topic I found the idea about whether or not the US should have any limits on migration a fascinating debate. However, kritiks that are not specific to the topic I will view with much more skepticism. In particular, kritiks that have no relation to pragmatic policymaking will have slim chance when I am judging (think Baudrillard).

If you are going for a K, you need to explain why the PLAN is bad. It’s good that you talk about the impact of your kritik but you need to explain why the plan’s assumptions justify that impact. Framing the debate is important and the frame that I am evaluating is surrounding the plan.

I am not a fan of kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan, however, if you run them please don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will almost be impossible for you to win. If the 1AC is a speech act then the 1NC is one too.

I believe that the affirmative should defend a plan that is an example of the current high school or CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States or United States federal government were to actually enact your proposal.

The remainder:

“Truth over tech”? I mull this over a lot. This issue is probably the area that most judges grapple with, even if they seem confident on which side they take. I err of the side of "truth over tech" but that being said, debate is a game and how you perform matter for the outcome. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, that doesn’t mean there doesn’t have to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with. That being said, I will be sensitive to new 2AR arguments as I think the argument, if logical, should have been in the debate earlier.

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability on topicality. It makes no sense to me that I should vote for the best interpretation, when the affirmative’s burden is only to be good. The affirmative would never lose if the negative said there is better solvency evidence the affirmative should have read. That being said, I understand that what “good’ means differs for people but that’s also true for what “better” is: both are subjective. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate (usually because the affirmative doesn’t defend reasonability).

The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important.

People think “topical version of the aff” is the be all end all of topicality, however, it begs the question: is the aff topical? If the aff is topical then just saying “topical version of the aff” means nothing – you have presented A topical version of the aff in which the affirmative plan is also one.

Basically I look at the debate from the perspective of a policy debate coach from a medium sized school: is this something my team should be prepared to debate?

As a side note – often times the shell for topicality is read so quickly that it is very unclear exactly what your interpretation of the topic is. Given that, there are many times going into the block (and sometimes afterwards) that I don’t understand what argument you are making as to why the affirmative is not topical. It will be hard for me to embrace your argument if I don’t know what it is.

Counterplans: It is a lot easier to win that your counterplan is theoretically legitimate if you have a piece of evidence that is specific to the plan. And I mean SPECIFIC to the plan, not “NATO likes to talk about energy stuff” or the “50 states did this thing about energy one time”. Counterplans that include all of the plan are the most theoretically dubious. If your counterplan competes based on fiat, such as certainty or timeframe, that is also theoretically dubious. Agent counterplans and PICS (yes, I believe they are distinct) are in a grey area. The bottom line: the counterplan should not be treated as some throw away argument – if you are going to read one then you should defend it.

Theory: I already talked a lot about it above but I wanted to mention that the only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading:

Aspec: If you don’t ask then cross-examination then I’ll assume that it wasn’t critical to your strategy. I understand “pre-round prep” and all but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote the affirmative down. If the affirmative fails to specify in cross-examination then you may have an argument. I'm not a huge fan of Agent CPs so if this is your reasong to vote against the aff, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree.

**Addendum to ASPEC for "United States"**: I do think it is important for the aff to specify in cross-ex what "United States" means on the college topic. The nature of disads and solvency arguments (and potentially topicality) depend on what the aff means by "United States". I understand these are similiar arguments made by teams reading ASPEC on USFG but I feel that "United States" is so unique and can mean so many different things that a negative team should be able to know what the affirmative is advocating for.

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making.

Paperless: I only ask that you don’t take too much time and have integrity with the process, e.g., don’t steal prep, don’t give the other team egregious amounts of evidence you don’t intend to read, maintain your computers and jump drives so they are easy to use and don’t have viruses, etc.

Integrity: Read good arguments, make honest arguments, be nice and don’t cheat. Win because you are better and not because you resort to cheap tricks.

Civility: Be nice. Debate is supposed to be fun. You should be someone that people enjoy debating with and against – win or lose. Bad language is not necessary to convey an argument.

Ryan Wash Hire 7 rounds

Andre Washington Rowland Hall St Marks 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 3, 2018 at 4:06 AM MDT

Assume I want to be added to your email chain: andre.d.washington@gmail.com

Andre Washington
Rowland Hall St. Marks
Assistant Coach

IMPORTANT CHANGES: After 5 years of judging a wide range of debate styles, I think I've come to the conclusion that I just can't connect with or enjoy the current iteration of HS high theory debate. Being able to act as an educator is an important reason for why I judge, and I don't think I can offer that in your Baudrilliard debates anymore.

This will be my sixth year with the program at Rowland Hall, and 10th year of debate overall.

I love debate and want students to love it as well.

Do what you want, and do it well. ---

Kritiks: Despite the revision above, you absolutely should still be reading the K in front of me. I am fine with the K. I like the K as it functions in a greater neg strategy (ie, I'd rather judge a 5 off round that includes a K than a 1 off K round). However, I went 1-off fem K in highschool for many rounds, so I am genuinely pretty accepting on this issue. Given that I don't spend a great deal of my time working through K literature, I think it's important that you explain these to me, but that's basically what a good K debater should expect to do anyway.

Disads: I cut politics every week. I love both sides of the politics debate and can benefit you as a judge on how to execute these debates well.

Counterplans: Counterplans of all shapes and sizes are a critical place to form a strategy and I enjoy these debates. Theory is to be argued and I can't think of any predisposition.

Topicality: I think that debaters who can execute "technical" args well are enjoyable enough to watch and judge, and I think I can probably benefit as a judge to any technical debater. I think that any violation, on face, has validity and there are no affs that are so "obviously" topical that they cannot be beaten on T.

Kritikal affs: I am not ideologically opposed to K affs at all and even enjoy these debates, although I primarily work on and with policy affs so I would say explanation is still key.

Framework: I find that good framework debaters know how to make the flow accessible to the judge. I think that there are a number of compelling claims and debates to be had on framework, and they can be just as strongly argued as anything else (including your kritik or kritikal aff).

Dave Weisberger Brooklyn Independent Debate 7 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 14, 2014 at 12:19 PM EDT

I debated for 8 years culminating in successive quarterfinal losses at the NDT when I was debating for Northwestern. After a long hiatus from the debate community, I returned to coaching and judging debate last year. While the bulk of my experience was in traditional policy debate, I have been actively coaching critical debating for over a year. My philosophy is essentially that everything is up for debate in a round. (except for speaking times) That said, there are some arguments that I find more persuasive than others, particularly with respect to framework and stock issues.
Framework -- While I will evaluate any framework arguments presented, my bias is in favor of frameworks that create clash. I do believe that the principal goal of debate is to develop critical thinking skills as opposed to performance skills, thus a framework debate which asks me to evaluate one versus the other is going to resolve in favor of critical thinking. That said, rote recitations of standards based on education and research burdens are not particularly persuasive. The key to framework debate is to keep the arguments clear and on point. I have seen many examples of debaters confusing framework with decision rules. For the sake of clarity, I believe that framework arguments define the METHODOLOGY that a judge should use to evaluate a round (as a judge/legislator/executive/citizen/teacher/etc), whereas a decision rule is typically an argument in favor of a particular ethical construct (utilitarianism / moral relativism / etc) As for stock issues, here are my thoughts:
Topicality -- I believe that topicality should be about relevance and jurisdiction for the judge. Arguments based on technical definitions are not particularly persuasive. As a general rule, if the AFF is clearly focused on the geography, subject area and actor that are represented by the resolution it will be difficult to get me to vote neg on topicality. That said, I have voted many times for critical AFFs that eschew some or all of those relevant topic areas based on their framework arguments. Moreover, in order to get me to vote for topicality usually requires a fair amount of dedication to the argument in the debate. Unless the AFF drops all topicality arguments, I will give a lot of latitude in answering multiple technical violations in rebuttals.
Advantages / Disadvantages -- Policy debates that feature straight up negative strategies which argue that the disadvantages of a plan outweigh the advantages are becoming increasingly rare. That said, I will admit to enjoying those debates and, in particular, good analysis on probabilities and terminal impacts.
Critiques -- I believe that negative critiques which challenge the fundamental philosophical assumptions of the resolution of a particular AFF are excellent strategic choices. That said, I have several concerns with many negative critiques, the most important is that many teams do not understand their own arguments. In my opinion, there are two types of critiques: Arguments that the AFF rhetoric or philosophy create or could create an impact and Arguments that the AFF is fundamentally inconsistent with an ALTERNATIVE whose adoption will result in a more significant net benefit than the AFF. The first type of critique is essentially a disadvantage, except that the "link" is based on rhetoric or philosophy rather than a specific causality from the plan itself. That link depends upon the notion that the words used in the debate are important and need to be considered directly by the judge. The second type of critique is more prevalent, however. The standard which I will use to evaluate those criticisms is to directly evaluate the claim of competition. If the Neg can prove that their alternative is indeed fundamentally inconsistent with the AFF, then i will weigh the critique. If, however, there is no inconsistency, then Perm arguments are often successful. If you rely on this type of argument consistently, consider striking me if you are not very good at explaining why your criticism applies to the AFF more than the status quo...
Conditionality -- I firmly believe that AFF conditionality would destroy debate, but that Negative conditionality is generally OK. That said, if a negative runs a disadvantage to an AFF advantage and a link turn to the same advantage, conditionality may not apply. Put simply, teams can not drop arguments that have offense on them. (a clear example is a negative that runs a turn to an AFF that claims economic growth based on government incompetance AND a De-Development disadvantage that claims to outweigh everything. In that case the AFF can simply agree to both and capture the impact of De-Dev...)
Abuse arguments -- I have never voted on an abuse argument other than taking evidence out of context. I doubt seriously that I ever will. If a team brings up new arguments in rebuttals, I will ignore them, but not vote against that team. 2NC is a constructive speech, so I will often allow new arguments. That said, I will give 2AR more lattitude to read new evidence against those arguments. If a team is mean spirited, abusive and generally offensive, it will seriously hurt their speaker points, however. I have no opinion about disclosure pre debate -- that is up to individual teams and coaches to decide.
Last, I would also like to point out that I have a very strong opinion that judges should NOT do debaters work for them. If an argument is dropped, I will not extend it for a team and if an impact is claimed and not disputed, it will be as claimed. Too many judges tend to impose their own value systems upon debates these days and I try very hard not to.

Brittany Williams Bronx Science 7 rounds

Kendall Witaszek Bronx Science 7 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 21, 2016 at 11:11 PM CDT

Former debater at the University of Minnesota (NDT '14), New Trier High School
Coach at Minneapolis South
Email kendallwitaszek@gmail.comif you have questions

Re: China-- I led a lab at Northwestern over the summer, so I probably know the basics of what you are talking about, but I may not know all the abbreviations/acronyms out there.

Super short version: Read what you want in front of me, my argument styles have been on both sides of the spectrum (policy in high school and kritikal in college). That being said, things like patriarchy/racism good will not be voted on if I am in the back of the room. I have read both plan-based policy affirmatives and kritikal, non-plan-based affirmatives, as well as a large selection of arguments on the neg. I am open to listening to and voting on a wide range of arguments. You do you.

Relatively short version:
Kritiks: I love a good K debate and strayed toward these arguments during the latter part of my debate career, but that does not mean I am automatically going to vote neg on the K, or that you should read a K just because I am judging; I have voted both ways in these debates. If you want to go for a K, make sure that I know what the alternative is and how it is able to resolve the links (if you plan to go for the alt; that being said, the alt isn't always necessary to win the round.) Like any argument, you should have a strong understanding of your K if you want to go for it (this is especially true in novice debate) so that you can rely on substance. The team that does a better job talking about the K in the context of the aff tends to be in a preferable position at the end of the debate. Neg, contextualize links to the aff, explain why the alt solves them, and discuss how your strategy implicates the case -- people tend to take these things for granted. Aff, make sure to answer specific links, put ink on the alt, and have a good defense of your epistemology/methodology/etc if possible. If the neg authors or concepts are in tension with one another, point that out and explain how that is the case and why it is important.

Non-traditional affirmatives: You do you. Yes, I will vote for these; in fact, they tend to be my favorite affs to judge and I believe that many of them are super important for debate. However, I will vote neg if the neg wins the flow (granted that it is not on an incredibly offensive impact turn, as previously noted). So, if framework is your thing against these affs, you do you. If the Cap K is your thing against these affs, you do you. If Puar is your thing against these affs, you do you. Etcetera. I automatically assume the ROB is to vote for who does the best debating (other ROB claims tend to seem very arbitrary to me, and rarely have an impact extended to them), but if you have one, explain what the ROB means (it is functionally impact framing, so explain why yours is preferable). That being said, if going for "they dropped our ROB and that's important because X" is your thing, then do that; I can be persuaded.

Theory: Slow down on your theory shells if you want the potential to be able to win on them, and focus more on contextualizing and impacting out a few key arguments rather than having a shallow, ten-subpoint list why something is awful or great. I tend to think that conditionality is good, but can be convinced otherwise. Aff, point out if there was clear in-round abuse or if you have a specific articulation of potential abuse in context of what the negative did (i.e. did they read a Cap K and a privatization CP that they can cross-apply your offense from? Why is that bad?). Win the internal links to get to your impacts.

CP’s: I lean aff on many process CP’s, but can be persuaded otherwise. Aff, please point out that the CP links to the net benefit when it does—this is often neglected. Neg, let me know how to frame the CP vs. the aff. A smart 2A will often sit hard on the permutation (there are obviously many exceptions), and a smart 2N will be able to predict this and have several DA's to doing so.

Disads: There can be a very small risk of a DA, but there can also be a very small risk of case. Turns case analysis (not just of impacts, but also of internal link scenarios), especially on the novice level, is often neglected—make it, and you’ll be rewarded. You need specific links to the affirmative. These debates often come down to weighing case impacts versus the DA's impact. I don’t really buy politics theory, but if it's dropped then that can be problematic for the neg.

Topicality: Reasonability means that your counter-interpretation is reasonably topical, not your aff. Make clear impact/standard claims, and do not neglect to provide a caselist and topical version of the affirmative if that jives with your argument. Offense, offense, offense. Win the impact level, not just the internal link level.

Impact turns: I love a good de-dev debate.

Do:
-Make jokes/have fun (but don't be mean!)
-Flow - that includes speeches after your last one!
-Make smart cross-applications and concessions

Don't:
-misidentify people. I will vote on "microaggressions bad."
-be rude to myself, your opponents, or your partner. As I said above, I will vote on "microaggressions bad."
-steal prep - seriously, I know that it is happening.

Nathan Wodarz Rosemount 7 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:16 PM CDT

Rosemount High School (MN)

Debate Experience: 4 years HS policy (Rosemount HS, 1987-1991), 2 years CEDA (Truman State - formerly NE Missouri St 1991-1993)
Coaching/Judging Experience: 32 years judging, 18 of these actively coaching
Rosemount 2013-present
Farmington 2018-2020
St. Thomas Academy 1993-2001

Last update: 2022-11-19

New 2022-11-19 / Clarified 2023-12-2

Building on evidence highlighting argued below. If the highlighted portion of your evidence is word salad and/or changes the author's intent when read in isolation, I will stop the round and immediately vote on an ethical violation. This means a loss and minimum allowable points to the offending team. National circuit evidence standards are atrocious and need to be changed. This may be quixotic, but so be it.

The note about stopping the round will be only when evidence is taken out of context. In other circumstances, particularly (but not limited to) where cards are formed by taking one to four words from each of ten or more sentences, I will treat the argument as an analytic with no evidence support.

Yes, email chain.

I have changed the email address I use for email chains. The old one will still work, but please use wodarz.debate@gmail.com going forward

New 2021-10-02: Your evidence highlighting should read in grammatically correct sentences when read in isolation. I will consider exceptions on a case-by-case basis (generally, there should be a legitimate argumentative purpose for doing otherwise).

None of the older profile information below is out-of-date, feel free to refer to it for additional information.

I'm definitely an older coach but I like a lot of what K debate has brought to the community. I'm unique among the Rosemount coaching staff in that respect.

I most enjoy judging rounds where the aff and the neg have an underlying agreement on how the round should look. I prefer to judge either policy v policy debates or K v K debates.

Some details:

* I prefer that the negative engage with the affirmative. The better the specificity of link arguments, the more likely the negative is to win their chosen arguments.

* I roughly think of my judging philosophy as "least intervention". My hope is to try to not do any work for debaters, but this is the ideal and rarely occurs in practice. So I generally look at what I would need to do to vote for either team and choose the outcome that requires the least work on my part. I do my best to not interject personal beliefs into the debate, but realize this isn't always possible.

* I don't like most process or actor CPs, but often vote for them. When neg CP lit says a topic should be left to the states, that lit never means "all 50 states act in concert" but instead usually means "states should be free to not do anything". Affs could do a lot with this, but never do.

* I despise politics DAs, but again find myself voting for them. In 30+ years of debating and judging these, I think I've heard one scenario that had any semblance of truth to it. I think negative over-simplification of the political process and the horse-race mentality engendered by these DAs has been bad for debate and bad for society as a whole. But again, I rarely see Affs making the arguments necessary to win these sort of claims.

* I have a debate-level knowledge of most Kritiks. My knowledge of the literature is about 20 years old at this point and I rarely cut cards for my teams. What this means if you're running a K (either aff or neg): assume that I'm a judge who is willing to listen to (and often vote for) what you say, but don't assume any specific knowledge. This is particularly important at the impact level. If I have a warranted and detailed explanation as to why your model of debate is essential,

* In debates between similarly skilled teams, Framework debates usually come down to "is the aff in the direction of the resolution?". If so, I usually vote aff. Otherwise, neg. If you're a policy team, you're probably better off going for even a Cap K in front of me than for Framework.

* Even in person, you're not as clear as you think you are. This is doubly so in online debates. Slow down a little and you'll likely be happier with my decision.

* It's come to my attention that some teams have shied away from going for theory because of what I've written below. If you believe your violation is true, go ahead and go for it. My preference is to decide debates on the issues, but if I can get good clash on a theory or T flow, that's OK too.

* Disclosure theory is exempt from the preceding bullet. If you can win the debate on disclosure theory, there are better arguments you can make that you can also win on.

* If you're a big school on the circuit where I'm judging you, running a "small schools DA" will likely see speaker points reduced.

* I don't like a 6+ off neg strategy. If you're obviously far more skilled than your opponents and still do this, speaker points will suffer. Regardless, I'm probably more likely to vote on condo bad or perf con than most judges (but see everything else I've written on theory)

* I love good topicality debates. I also love creative (but defensible) affirmative interpretations of the topic. I default to "good is good enough"/reasonability for the aff on topicality, but can be persuaded to vote for the competing interps model. Just saying "reasonability invites judge intervention" isn't enough though. Believe it or not, so does competing interps.

==============

Older Profile:

I actively coached from 1993 until 2001 before largely leaving the activity for a dozen years. I got back into coaching in 2013 and have been in the activity since then. My time away from the activity proved to profoundly affect the way I view debates.

I view debate as an educational activity and my primary responsibility as a judge as facilitating that education. It is important to note what this means and what it does not mean. What it does not mean is that I like arguments that impact in "voting issue for reasons of education." Leaving aside the irony of the lack of educational value in those sorts of arguments, I am not saying that I will vote for the "more educational" team, whatever that means. What I do mean is that the round can be a very educational environment and my position is to assist that as best as I can. Argumentatively, I am looking for well-reasoned logical arguments, preferentially with strong evidential support. Counterplans which are contingent on successful consultation of any sort are almost always lacking here. Almost all politics DAs that I've ever heard have this problem as well. You're going to have a much easier time if you run a DA, CP, or a K with a solid literature-based link story.

Theory and Analytics: In-round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse. I have a large presumption against voting on theory, although I have voted on it. To win on theory, you'll probably need to spend substantial time in the last rebuttal and offer a persuasive story. SLOW DOWN when arguing theory. Give me a tag that I can get on my flow and then explain it. Five consecutive four word responses will likely get the first one or two responses flowed, and the rest missed. If it's not on my flow, I can't vote on it. The explanation is the most important part of the argument.

Topicality: Topicality stems from plan action. Placing the resolution in plan text or looking to solvency do not prove topicality. My default view is that if the affirmative interpretation provides an equitable division of ground and plan meets their interpretation, they will win the argument. Generally speaking, if the negative wins topicality, they win the debate. I have been persuaded to vote contrary to my default views in the past. The negative need not win that their interpretation is best for debate, but it helps.

Non-traditional Affirmatives: I don't insist that the affirmative run a plan but any planless aff better be prepared to explain how they engage the resolution. I'm much more willing to accept a non-traditional interpretation of the terms of the resolution than I am to accept an aff that completely ignores the resolution or runs counter to the direction of the resolution.

Evidence sharing/email chains: As of 2017, I have updated my philosophy on these. I would now like to get all speech docs that are shared. Please add me to any email chain using wodarz.debate@gmail.com. Please note that I will not use the speech doc to help flow your speech.

One notable change for the worse over the last decade is the terrible practices that paperless debating has fostered. I approve of paperless debating in the abstract and in a good deal of its implementation, but teams have taken to receiving a speech doc before the speech as a crutch and flowing and line by line debate have suffered as a result. I'm not happy with the blatant prep time theft that pervades the activity, but I recognize that any gesture that I make will be futile. I will take action in particularly egregious cases by deducting from prep time (or speech time, if no prep remains).

Please ask before rounds for clarification.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy:

I judge far more policy than LD, but I'm not a stranger to judging or coaching LD. I have no predispositions toward any particular style, so largely you should feel free to do what you're most comfortable with. I will not vote for a policy argument just because I'm predominantly a policy judge, although I will listen to them. Be sure to offer full explanations. LD time formats can be challenging, prioritize explanations over evidence. Anything above that isn't specific to policy will apply in LD as well. Your explanations are the most important part of the debate.

Updated 1/9/2019 to add LD

Vince Woolums Iowa City High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 12, 2020 at 8:52 AM CDT

Add me to the email chain:
vwoolums@gmail.com

Background:
I debated for Iowa City High 1989-1993 on the prisons, space, and homelessness topics then graduated early. I won lots of rounds and speaker awards. I didn't debate in college because life happened otherwise. I hold BA degrees in English and Political Science with a lot of incomplete Master's level work. I work a full time project management job in the aerospace industry, enjoy bicycling and spending time with my seven year old son. Since 2009 I've been the Director of Debate at Iowa City High and enjoy coaching both casual and highly competitive teams. I am very familiar with the criminal justice topic.

New:
Not using the President's* given name in any form will slightly increase your speaks.

Tl;dr

Policymaker by default. I vote on well constructed, true arguments presented in a technically proficient manner. I'm not the best judge for you if you're an advocacy, narrative, performance, or project team.

Before the Round - VCX:
I'm primarily a policymaker, but I also think stock issues are important. It's my deeply held belief that policy debate requires a plan text and that Affirmative teams should employ the USFG through its subsidiary agencies as actors, as directed by the resolution. My preferences are case debate, counterplan/disad debate, solvency mechanism debate, core K debates.

There is a place for every argument and story, but I'm not convinced that the following belong in policy debate: narratives, performance, personal advocacy, and/or projects. I'm open minded, and don't disinclude the aforementioned out of hand, but if it helps assist in your selection of judge strikes then I don't think I'm very well qualified to judge these debates.

I'm fine with core kritiks, including but not limited to cap/neolib, colonialism, gender, and security, but stray into the margins of philosophy, psychology, semiotics, sociology, etc in front of me at your peril.

I demand in-round decorum. Rudeness and ad hominem fallacy will NOT be tolerated. Debaters who militarize their identity to the point of excluding others will not do well in front of me.

I suppose I'm at odds with the community in that I favor of 'truth over tech', as you will need to win the technical side of debates with truthful arguments to gain my ballot. I can't in good faith hang a ballot on evidence that may be several years old and is no longer a factual representation of the status quo, which is particularly important on this years topic.

You should ask me for clarifications of this entire judge philosophy AND ask any other questions before the round. Absent your questions, I will assume that you have read and understood this philosophy. For example, if you have to ask me "do you take prep for flashing speeches" anytime after the start of the 1AC, well, just don't do that. If you ask me during 1AC CX "hey do you allow tag team CX" then expect your points to suffer. Always ask questions before the round begins. Always. This includes specific questions about my voting threshold etc for any particular arguments you wish to deploy that aren't discussed below.

CX:
I prefer you ask and answer your own questions. I require politeness during cross ex. Cross-ex isn't Crossfire. I flow CX and consider your answers to be binding in all forms. CX is the most important and underrated speech in policy debate.

K's and Framework:
We are participants in policy debate; hence, policy debate briefs -- similar to those that are written to assist theoretical policymakers in making critical policy decisions for the United States federal government -- provide the stasis point for our arguments, which requires scenario analyses geared toward solving real world problems and not simply rejecting or refusing to engage the topic.

That said, I'm fine with kritik debates as long as you articulate the finer points of your argument -- like alternative solvency -- in a way that makes sense without relying on debate jargon. For example, if you stand up in a 1NC and read an IR Fem shell but can't answer any questions about it in cross-ex, then I will not be impressed. If you are taking a theoretical or philosophical/critical approach to the topic, then I find it more engaging when you explain your position in clear, non-debate terms. It demonstrates a level of understanding about the criticism that extends well beyond the debate space, and I support that as an educational endeavor.

Similarly, with framework debates, highlight the advantages or disadvantages to competing methodologies in a clear concise way (no cloud/overview clash, use actual line-by-line) and it becomes a lot easier to vote on framework and/or separately evaluate aff and neg impacts. I'm better with discourse, ethical scholar, reps, and that kind of framework and less okay with meta, ontological, or psych frameworks, the latter mostly outside my studies.

Regurgitating debate jargon on complex academic topics that are (sometimes merely at best) tangential to substantive policy debates does not demonstrate to me that you grasp the underlying issues; instead, it tells me you primarily want to win debates and have selected an esoteric critical and/or theoretical position that other debaters aren't as familiar with in order to do so.

Topicality/Framework:
I've seen some fantastic, well organized T debates, and ones that make my head hurt. Go for T, I will vote on it, but keep the refutation and line-by-line clean. I don't have a clear default to competing interpretations or reasonability, so be persuasive. Explain why you meet, or why you're losing ground and exploding limits. I am not persuaded by arguments that disqualify T as a voter or attempt to impact turn T. It's a STOCK ISSUE and always a voter.

Counterplans:
Yes please!, but be invested in them. They need solvency advocates that compete with and test the Aff's solvency mechanism. Perms, likewise, test the competitive structures of the counterplan and are therefore legitimate. I'm not persuaded by severance theory because the Aff doesn't garner offense from the perm. Instead of reading severance, spend time actually addressing the competition between the plan and counterplan. Finally, I don't default to any theoretical objections either aff or neg on counterplans, but cheaty counterplans do exist. For example, is your process counterplan part of normal means? If so, then perm probably solves. Is States counterplan bad? Probably not, because devolution of powers is a thing. Have country x do the plan? Tricky ... there are a lot of countries and likely an unfair burden to the Aff to prepare for all of them. Etc, see below.

Theory:
On the one hand, I prefer not voting on theory; however, if the abuse is egregious, or the claim particularly compelling, then I will vote on it. I have a high threshold for "abusiveness" claims. On the other hand, I can easily be persuaded that Condo is bad if, for example, a 1NC reads six+ off, of which three are conditional counterplans/kritiks, and then the 2N has the audacity to whine about a 'blippy 2AC'. I have, in fact, voted Aff on Condo! Otherwise, no memorable RFD's on theory. While the Aff carries the burden of winning their case, the Neg has a similar burden to shape the discussion. It's my opinion we learn more by digging deeper into a smaller set of arguments rather than learning very little about many.

Speech and Prep time:
Set up an email chain before the round.

I run a speech and prep timer.

Cross-ex starts when the speech stops, unless either team asks for prep before CX. Prep starts immediately following CX ends unless the next speaker indicates they're ready and a speech has been sent. Otherwise, I stop prep when you have sent the speech.

I'm going to get on a soapbox here. If you use Gmail, then be sure the "Undo Send" feature is off. Then, during the time we're all waiting for the speech to arrive - unless you are the speaker setting up a stand for your laptop, taking a drink of water, etc - everyone in the room should be DOING NOTHING. No looking at your flows/backflowing, no typing on the computer. No separating out your 'card doc' from speech doc. There is a terrible amount of mental prep time stolen between starting CX after getting flows together and waiting for emails, etc.

Further, I support tournaments moving forward with "decision time" because these small minutes of delay really drag a tournament. At any tournament with decision time, I will begin the round promptly at the start time regardless of whether a team is present or not.

Speed:
Generally, I'm fine with speed. I flow on a laptop and type ~80wpm. I'm okay with most things speech-related provided I can audibly differentiate your tags, cards, cites, and analytic arguments. This is particularly true of overviews and 2NR/2AR (see below), but also of any complex argument like Theory or T. The speech act, for all our outside the round research and preparations, is the purpose of debate. Organizing your speech is vitally important to its persuasiveness.

As other paradigms I've recently read point out: 'cloud clash is not a thing' and 50% or more of your speech spent on an overview is just clumsy and unrefined. Do your work on the line-by-line answering the other team's arguments.

Furthermore, I come from a time in debate when people used numbering systems and "line by line" meant answering all the opponents arguments in order. If you use numbering systems, such as on 1NC case "1. No impact: ...", and the 2AC says "off 1NC 1", then I will be mightily impressed and your speaks will increase dramatically. It's so much easier to flow because the Synergy template auto numbers, which is a beautiful thing.

If I need you to speak more clearly, enunciate, slow down, or emphasize your tags, I will call out for it verbally in-round. You get one call out and after that your partner needs to be watching me to make sure I'm capturing what you want me to capture. It's up to you to crystallize your arguments in a meaningful, rhetorical way.

Lastly, judges aren't AI bots, so don't get mad at us when we don't flow every single word of your gale-force word salad overview. Yeah, I type fast, but if your Rate of Delivery is 300 and I'm at ~80wpm, do the math. Especially true if you aren't slowing down your tags and cites.

The RFD:
Now that you've read this far, in-round experiences account for more than my preconceived notions of debate as stated above, including K's, debate theory, framework, and the topic in general provided you make your case or arguments compelling and don't make me do any of the work on the flow for you.

All things considered, I will render a decision on any well-developed argument.

If you have questions about the RFD, please ask them politely.

29+ speaks:
you should definitely break and probably blew my mind somehow;
you did NOT exaggerate, powertag, under-highlight your evidence, including its warrants;
you made cogent link, internal link, and impact calculus arguments;
you properly refuted the nexus question(s) in the round;
you were really easy to flow, with great intonation, inflection, and cadence;
you focused on speaking coherently instead of technically;
you told a compelling story using well-honed rhetorical devices and true arguments, presented persuasively;
you were polite yet assertive in CX and during your speeches and answered/asked your own questions.

27.5-28.9 speaks:
you did a pretty good job answering all the arguments, but you may have dropped some stuff;
you were too fast or too unintelligible, and didn't adapt to me flowing you;
you didn't do as good a job analyzing arguments as you could have;
you exaggerated your evidence beyond what the author intended, or beyond the warrants you read;
you didn't persuade me, you were snarky or needed your partner's help in CX, etc.

25-27.5 speaks:
you did a poor job refuting arguments, or you dropped whole arguments;
you were unintelligible;
you didn't analyze the arguments or perform a cogent impact calculus;
you used ad hominem arguments or were aggressive either in your speech or CX;
you needed a lot of help answering/asking CX questions.

0-25 speaks
you did something I found egregiously offensive (racism, sexism, other bigotries);
you used fraudulent evidence;
you clipped cards;
you forfeit, or left the debate for any of your own personal reasons.

Pet peeves:
I really don't like when a team interferes with their opponents speech or prep by requesting evidence and/or asking for your flash drive back, or by whispering to your teammate so loudly I can't hear the speaker, or by throwing backpacks, laptop cords around, etc. If these are a problem, then your speaker points will assuredly suffer.

Good luck to all!

Helen Xu Edgemont 6 rounds None

Kai Yan West 4 rounds None

Ryan Zelmer South 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue December 16, 2014 at 6:59 AM CDT

If you are looking at this right before the round, the content section is below, but I think the background is also very helpful. Also, I'm always open to asking questions so feel free to ask me anything.

BACKGROUND

I believe that debate background can be one of the most helpful ways to understand some of the processes that go into my evaluation of a debate round. I was first exposed to the activity in South Dakota, where I debated for 3 years at Sioux Falls Lincoln High School under the coaching of Kim Maas. While debating in high school, I was exposed to a circuit where case debating, theroetical inherency questions, prima facia burdens, minor repairs, and justifications were all arguments that could win rounds. I was judged by debate coaches, college students who had done debate, and just some busdrivers and parents who had to fill out the pool as lay judges. This did not entirely define my high school debate career, however, as I was still exposed to at least the idea of debate theory, criticisms, and even the notion of what then was referred to as performance debate. I traveled outside the state to seek competition in Minnesota, as well as earned the right to travel to the NFL (now NSDA) national tournament both my second and third (final) year of debating. While in high school, my partner and I engaged in every type of debate we could, including running conditional arguments that caused our coach to lose hope for us and altogether stop giving us advice or feedback on our debating. All that to say I grew up in a very conservative circuit of debate that has some remanants of influence on the way I view a debate, but very little.

After high school, I quickly came back to high school debate to help out my alma matter with as much coaching as I could and began judging rounds immediately. Shortly thereafter, I moved out of South Dakota and found my way to Minnesota, where I took another small break (about a semester) before I once again got back into the judging pool and started judging tournaments here and there. By the time I was in my third year at the University of Minnesota, the opportunity to debate in college arose. On the budding gophers squad, I debated for one semester before realizing that balancing a biomedical engineering degree and debate and a social life is truly impossible. So I had about a semester of exposure to college debate, where I was mildly successful and went 4-4 at some majors like Kentucky and Wake and broke at both of the Texas Swing tournaments (UNT - made it to octos and UTD).

In my final year of college (2008-2009), I finally entered the scene of coaching debate where I have happily been ever since. I've been coaching at Minneapolis South since the following season (2009-2010). I love coaching so much more than judging (I don't really like judging at all, you debaters take the competition in this activity way too seriously and it makes me uncomfortable to vote against any team because I'm worried about how much value you place in that loss), and have had a blast coaching my teams on every kind of argument that exists from structural inherency questions (never really made that argument much, though) to saying absolutely nothing in debate rounds as a performance to absolute nonsense in the form of Dada. Recently, it's been my pride to coach teams who don't rely on reading tons of evidence and instead rely on smart analysis and thinking on their feet to contextualize arguments in the round. If you debate that way, you're probably right up my alley.

Currently, I work as a judicial law clerk to a district court judge in St. Paul, MN. I intend to eventually find my way into a public defender's office and hopefully do something about our entirely fucked system of criminal justice. I'm not entirely sure how this is relevant, but I figured I'd mention it for as much background as possible. They say that a trial is won in jury selection, and I think there are analogs to debate there in so far as tournaments can be made substantially easier or harder based upon your pref sheet, and so I'm trying to give you all the info that you'd want. You should hear some of the questions attorneys will ask in voir dire (where do you get your news?, etc).

This year (2014-15) I have observed or judged rounds at the Niles tournament, Valley, Dowling, and several local Minnesota tournaments. I'd say in total I've judged about 20+ rounds. I don't really like judging debates involving plans, but I seem to do it often, and certainly have voted for them.

CONTENT

I attempt to not police content in debate, but it's going to be really difficult to win arguments that are just not very palatable in front of me. Those are arguments that you would find neocons making like Heg good, China war now is better than later, etc. On the other hand, I don't think it's much of an uphill battle to win extinction good turns and I've voted on them plenty of times. All in all, I'm more down to vote for arguments that have fewer, stronger internal links than the opposite.

Another note on content policing - I am pretty unlikely to vote on the Fuck K, not that you can't make it, I'm just sympathetic to the argument that anyone can fuck, and that the contextualizing of the word is important. In fact, I'm probably going to use some profane language in the round. Hopefully, I will ask you before I drop any of that profane langauge if it is ok, but I apologize in advance for offending anyone with it. Any hateful language is ENTIRELY not cool, and I'll vote on gendered language or other arguments about oppressive language in a heartbeat, but for some reason I don't believe profane language to fall under those categories. If you aren't cool with profane language, please let me know, and I will do my best to refrain.

Honestly, if you read a plan in the traditional sense, I probably wouldn't pref me. It's not that I dont vote for them, it's just that I honestly don't like judging those debates and you ought to know that. I don't mess with speaker points as a result, but I'm just so much more on the side of the K (I guess that's what I'll call it), that any team who can do solid analysis throughout the K debate will win against a team that does equally solid analysis in favor of the plan, it's just where the believability lies for me. I really don't think I'm a hack, and you're probably disagreeing with me as you read this, but instead of writing here that I'm totally neutral (because that would be a lie, I'm human, not a robot, and anyone who says they are totally neutral is just refusing to acknowledge their bias), I just want to be upfront about that. I really do strive to be a neutral judge, but I'm human.

You should also slow down. I particularly hate calling cards at the end of the round because I feel like that is the job of the debaters to ARGUE about the quality of the evidence presented by both teams. If there is a dispute about the quality of evidence, obviously I will call it to make sure one team is not blatantly misrepresenting evidence. However, I think that interpretations of evidence are very fluid and thus feel there is a need to advance several arguments to guide how I should read the evidence for me to not intervene when I call the card and read that card. In order to effectively judge this way, it's important that you not blaze through arguments. Otherwise, we are going to have a postround where you hear me say "sorry, that didn't come across the way you wanted it to in your 2nr/2ar because it was delivered too quickly and emphasis not placed on it." I'm not about to just call all of your cards and do the work for you. I know you only have 5 minutes and that sucks a lot, but just do your best to explain the important parts of arguments.

With respect to that, at the end of the round, I'm comparing the 2NR/2AR. That isn't to say the rest of the debate isn't monumentally important with respect to shaping how I will view the 2NR/2AR, but moreso to say if it isn't there in the 2NR/2AR, then I'm sure not going to vote on it. I love cross-x, it's the best part of the debate by far. But, if you're mean during cross-x, you're going to ruin my favorite part of debate and that's going to effect the way I perceive the rest of the debate. Please don't be agressive, don't just go off talking about irrelevant stuff when you're asked a question, and try to make cross-x important.

My advice would be to do whatever your best at, and explain why doing what your best at is a reason to circle the ballot for whatever side you happen to be debating on. I tend to think that every argument needs an evaluative framework or appreciate when one is given. I particularly like teams that can not be too serious about the round and crack a few jokes here and there while still debating well. I enjoy a good debate where teams aren't lost in blocks, but making eye contact with me (I will make it back) and explaining why they are winning the debate. Write my ballot for me with your 2NR/2AR, please?

Login to Tabroom

John Edie Holiday Tournament at Blake

2014 — MN/US

Policy Paradigm List

Random Thoughts

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Actual Philosophy

Judges