Updated January 2023

Email: greg.achten@harker.org please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: he/him/his

Pref Shortcuts: 1: substantive arguments about the topic 2: mainstream K's, good T debates 3: Theory, Pomo K's 4: Phil 5-6: Tricks

Overview

I expect the debate to be conducted as though it were a classroom setting. As such inappropriate behavior, specifically cursing, will not be tolerated. If you choose to curse during the debate expect dramatically lower speaker points. Further, if the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to highly sexual or sexualized performances, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.

My background prior to coming to Harker in 2010 was almost entirely in college policy debate though I have been coaching LD since then and Public Forum since 2016. But it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates.

I do not judge very much anymore but enjoy judging when I am able to do so! Despite not judging a great deal I am very involved in our team's evidence production and preparation and judge lots of practice debates in class so my topic knowledge is fairly strong.

.

Argument Preferences:

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

Critiques: I am familiar with most mainstream critical arguments that are prevalent but anything outside of that is likely to require more explanation. I took a handful of continental philosophy classes in grad school but that was a long time ago and my knowledge of a lot of the underlying literature for lots of critical arguments, particularly high theory, is likely lacking. Having said that I think I am an ok judge for critical arguments, especially when executed technically. I often find the strongest elements of K's to be the link and the weakest to be the alternative, though of course this varies from argument to argument. I also think impact turning is an underutilized strategy though I get that can be hard to pull off at times in LD.

Critical Affs: I think the affirmative should have a meaningful relationship to the topic. Thus topical, soft left affs are often very strategic. I am very sympathetic to t/framework against affs with little or no relationship to the topic. In these debates I think the best aff strategy is to impact turn framework, depending on what that looks like in the context of the aff. But overall I am likely not the best judge for non-T affs.

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Although I do take a fairly strict view of the topic and am willing to enforce that view when teams do a good job of arguing topicality. I often find topicality arguments that are not based on expert/technical definitions of key terms of art in the resolution to be fairly hard for the negative to win. I am also more likely than most judges to vote on reasonability if well explained and this is true for most theory arguments as well.

In debates about counterplan theory, I probably err slightly neg. on most theory issues, though I have voted aff. on things like PIC’s bad, etc. so I am not terribly biased. The main exception is that I think that a lot of mainstream counterplans that compete on the function of the affirmative are not competitive (think consultation, delay). I am kind of a sucker for the argument that counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive though this is not something I will automatically check in on, especially if the negative has strong explanations for their defense of their counterplan.

I am generally in favor of conditionality but there are instances where the negative takes it too far especially in LD. For example, 5 multiplank counterplans where all of the planks are individually conditional is not ok. In general anything more than 3 conditional arguments is pushing it for me.

I am a solid no on judge kick. Make strategic choices.

Theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are non-starters. Don’t waste your time.

Theory arguments are generally too underdeveloped for my tastes so if that is a key part of your strategy invest some time.

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

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

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

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

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.

Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery (especially important in online debates), quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards lack of clarity. I will say clear once or maybe twice and if clarity does not improve afterwards I will flow the things I understand and the speaker's points will decline significantly. I will not vote on a card or argument I was incapable of flowing. I will under no circumstances flow from the speech doc.

Public Forum

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

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

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

Chattahoochee HS '21

University Of Kentucky '25

Add me to the chain: jaredaadam@gmail.com

Debate is a communication activity, I will flow what I hear, not what is in the doc.

Send card docs. I will vote for the team that does the better debating, and quality evidence properly leveraged and explained will be given greater weight. Though it's not a supplement to actually warranting out arguments, it's a crucial element in persuasion.

Theory:

I prefer to judge substantive debates over trivial theory arguments. Anything that isn't conditionality is unlikely to convince me to reject the team. I wouldn't say that I have a side bias for conditionality, I'll decide these debates technically, like any other, but begrudgingly so.

Counterplans:

Judge kick is my default unless told otherwise.

They should have a solvency advocate. Not a fan of the cardless 20 plank ADV CP and typically justifies new 1AR answers when the block finally explains why the planks solve, or read evidence.

The NEG should clearly articulate why the cp solves each of the aff's internal links, and the AFF needs to not just win a solvency deficit, but an impacted implication of why the solvency deficit matters.

K:

Everyone has their own reasons why they value the activity, the kritik for me is not one of them. If this is your style of debate, strike me. That being said, if you have me in the back of these debates, here's a couple of my thoughts that might help:

It will be tough to convince me that the AFF shouldn't be able to weigh the case if framework is evenly debated. That means you should read links to the plan, engage the case, and win the impact to the links outweigh the AFF. That shouldn't be an impossible standard, unless your averse to clash. I understand you've read up on an academic theory (congrats on being a theorist, not a debater), but you can't rehash what you learned in book club, throw away any attempt to answer the case and expect to win in front of me.

I would prefer you read & defend a topical plan. Impact turning framework is more persuasive to me than extending a counter interpretation. If you're going to be untopical, let's stop pretending you aren't.

Case:

Debating the case seems to be such an afterthought nowadays. Poorly constructed 1AC's that spam impact scenarios with weak internal links can be beaten by smart analytics. It's egregious to think that affs can recycle impacts from backfiles, throw in one solvency advocate and call it a day. NEG teams should exploit this by making smart analytical arguments, internal link defense, and ADV CP's which would be preferable to just reading impact defense.

Random:

Prefer you read the rehighlight instead of inserting evidence (unless established in cross ex)

Will not vote for anything that happened outside of the round.

Vagueness is cowardice

Spending the first minute of cross ex questioning what was and wasn't read.

Spending all of cross ex asking useless questions that serve zero strategic purpose.

Not a fan of the proliferation of wipeout, death cult, silly framework k's, death good, generic process, etc. I understand debate is a technical game, and the end goal is to win, but when rounds are dominated by these kinds of arguments, it undermines the value of the game.

Debate, for me, is valuable since it allows students to showcase their understanding of complex topics and engage in new research that is innovative and exciting. It is a privilege to explore expert level research for a year as a student, but that value disappears when debates are reduced to process CPs and recycled impact turns.

It's especially hypocritical that these same debaters who rely on shallow generics and maximalist technical debating vilify K teams for disavowing the resolution. Both sides exploit the competitive nature of the game to strategically avoid clash and topic specific research to win.

My opinion on this has become increasingly hardened the more that I coach. That said, I fully recognize that debate, at its core, is a game, and the primary focus is to win. So I will stick to evaluating debates through a strict technical lens as I'm not sure there's an alternative, given how the game is structured. I will, however, use speaker points to reward debaters who actually enjoy the act of debating, and penalize those who make these debates boring and anti-educational to judge.

Coach for six years. Competed in both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy Debate in high school and two years of College Policy Debate at Binghamton University.

Add me to the email chain: sira.ahuja@law.gwu.edu

TOC 2024 Paradigm.

Background: I have spent considerable time judging and researching the military presence topic so I'm confident I will understand most arguments related to the topic.

I'm a good clash judge and a great judge for K v K debates. You have better judge options for everything else, but I am somebody who will evaluate almost anything.

My subjective feelings and opinions.

I'm not opposed to voting on any particular argument, as long as you don't do anything illegal.

I will REALLY appreciate a well debated T debate, especially at the TOC. I think T vs policy AFFs can be an excellent strategy and I think creative 1AR's to topicality are an amazing demonstration of work and well thought out topic research.

New AFF's are good, especially at the TOC. I do not not think you have to disclose if you are breaking new. [THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD DROP ARGUMENTS]

In the past, I have been WAY TOO lenient with negative teams, and I'm doing my best to correct for that. I will not be giving any negative ballots to a 2NR filled with tagline extensions (unless the AFF is worse).

I think framework debates in Policy vs K rounds are usually very badly debated. Framework refers to any set of arguments that provide instructions about how to understand other arguments. At some level, ALL weighing arguments are framework arguments.

Enthymemes in debate are a big problem.

I think the AFF gets a permutation.

I do not default judge kick. I can be easily persuaded that judge kick is bad by the 2AR.

Consult counterplans should have a solvency advocate.

Pics are sometimes some of the best research and sometimes the worst.

29.5+ = deep elim contender. 29+ = You should make it to elims.

How to get my ballot.

1. Tell me what the ballot does. IDC what the round is about, judge instruction and ballot framing is ALWAYS important. The first question I ask myself is always, what does it mean to vote aff/neg?

2. Quality > Quantity. One good argument can beat out 10 bad ones.

3. Be better - this is a competition, don't lose.

Hey y’all. I’m David and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years on the state, regional, and national level.

College Debate: rundebate@gmail.com

High School Debate:asafuadjayedavid@gmail.com

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Aaron Timmons, Christian Quiroz, Carlos Astacio, Willie Johnson, Elijah Smith in addition to a few others.

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

-Rutgers

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Two primary beliefs:

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

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

FW

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

Kritiks

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

CPs

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

1. No judge kick

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

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

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

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

DA’s

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

Plans

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

Presumption.

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

LD Specific

Tricks

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

About Me

I identify as a lazy judge. If at the end of the debate I cannot resolve key questions on my flow, I am voting for the opposing team without hesitation. I don't like thinking too hard after debates. Write my ballots for me with your speeches.

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu; ridgenjdebate@gmail.com (add both)

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

NSDA 2024 PF UPDATE

If your cards are not properly tagged, cited and cut, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If an email chain is not set up, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If I get so much as a whiff of evidentiary dishonesty, I am dropping you, closing my laptop and leaving the round.

Otherwise, congrats on making it to NSDA. Have fun and do you, boo !

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

Add hbisevac0@gmail.com

Niles North 23, Kentucky 27

General

Technical execution and preventing judge intervention should be at the forefront of whatever approach you take. This means that concessions (with warrants) matter and there should be lots of judge instruction.

Topic research is good, backfile slop is not. Research is my favorite part of the activity and I will always appreciate and reward a well-researched and thoughtful strategy, whatever that be. (but, I am also not qualified to mediate interpersonal problems between debaters!)

Organization is extremely important. you should number arguments, sign post, and slow down at times. I flow straight down on an excel doc and may have the doc open out of curiosity about cards but I am not following along.

"Intervention is forced when competing claims cannot be resolved by reading my flow. The litmus test I normally use is whether I can explain an argument based solely on the words on my flow without looking at any evidence or adding explanation based on my own assumptions. I do my best to avoid content intervention by making sure that I can explain arguments I'm voting on after the debate is over without reading cards. If arguments are equally well-explained but nevertheless irreconcilable, only then will I begin to read evidence." -David Griffith

Thoughts

Topicality: Predictability matters a lot more to me than other things. Have cards that define the word, not just use it. Reasonability will forever seem super arbitrary to me but can sometimes be fine against suspect interpretations. Limits for the sake of limits is not persuasive and internal link debating is very important.

Counterplans: Solvency deficits need explainable impacts. competition debates are good. NEG flex and precision are usually very persuasive. Most AFF theory violations seem pretty silly to me and standalone theory ever being the A-strategy doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.

Kritiks: Teams should get to weigh the AFF but excluding Ks doesn’t make sense. Vagueness on the link explanation will favor the AFF. Backfile Ks with no relation to the topic are icky and the links will always sound unpersuasive. The less you disprove the 1AC, the less compelling you are.

Planless AFFs: The more you struggle to explain the advocacy (in a non-vague way), the more favorable I am toward the NEG. I'm more persuaded by arguments about skills and methods that result from the 1AC being good as opposed to debate/institutions being bad.

LD

Everything above applies. I do not like tricks, I do not like phil, and I do not like RVIs. (and whatever else elizabeth elliott thinks)

Random

-Please use email chains, not speech drop. Have proper subject lines with the tournament, round, and teams.

-Read re-highlightings.

-Avoid deadtime as much as possible.

-Don't be a jerk.

-Ask about anything. It often skips my mind to write down random thoughts I have about the debate as it is going on so I forget to mention it in the RFD but it will come back to me if you ask about it.

If you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about Kentucky, feel free to reach out!

College Prep (2015-2019), Wake Forest (2019-2023)

ADA 2023 Champion, CEDA 2023 Co-Champion, 2023 Copeland Panelist, NDT 2023 Quarterfinals, NDT 2022 Octafinalist, NDT 2021 Doubles

Coach at George Mason & Harker

anadebate07@gmail.com

for college policy debates: please also add masondebatedocs@gmail.com

TLDR:

My only actual hardline stances are that I believe line-by-line is good, we should care about how we impact other people, and impact calculus wins debates.

I make decisions based on complete arguments, which require claims, warrants, and impacts/implications.

My favorite debates to judge are the ones in which teams do what they do best. I appreciate in-depth preparation and high-quality clash more than anything.

I am most excited about judging case vs disad debates. Debates not about the effects of the plan are less persuasive, less educational, and less engaging to me in almost every way.

I prefer to judge debates in which the Affirmative is about the topic, and the Negative disagrees with the Affirmative's proposed change from the status quo.

I prefer not to judge a debate about an issue that would best be resolved outside the constraints of a competitive debate.

I try to flow every word said in speeches & cross-ex unless instructed otherwise.

I think about debates in terms of strategic moves and argument function --- explaining arguments on that meta level is the most compelling and understandable to me, especially in debates with complex legislative nuance and/or critical theories.

I do not flow RVI's - I only flow complete arguments.

I refuse to vote on disclosure or other norm based theory arguments unless a) it is entirely conceded b) i witnessed MISdisclosure with an intent to lie or cheat --- anything else is not worthwhile for anyone's time. New AFFs are good.

I try to be very predictable in my decision-making, given I believe debate takes a lot of work, dedication, and time, which judges ought to respect by evaluating debates technically by flowing and comparing each argument as presented. This means I also only evaluate arguments presented in speeches and remove my hands from my keyboard when the timer goes off. Cross-ex matters, but I can not vote on arguments not made in speeches.

Prep time includes flow check questions. Prep time ends when the doc is uploaded in the email.

Framework debates:

My least favorite debates, but I judge them the most

Impacts? Fairness is an impact, but you gotta do impact calc & can't skip out on warrants. I struggle to see how clash is an external impact but am open to hearing otherwise - for me, clash seems to be, at most, a sliding scale/question of maximization - but you provide a warrant otherwise and I'll write it down. Topic education is guided by predictable limits and/or explaining why the (specific) ground you gained/lost is good/bad.

TVA vs Switch Side? I think 2NR strategy is guided by AFF strategic vision, so my preference is probably based on technical concessions and/or context of the debate.

Models vs Violation? Your call, I've judged both and evaluated each on technical bases. The AFF probably has responses to each, so I don't find one approach more true/right than the other. I'm just line-by-line oriented.

Impact turn vs Counter-interp 2AR? Your call! I only think it's strategic that you pick one or the other and full send - typically starting on the Framework flow with your one major disad to the NEG's interp and impacting it out is the start of many winning 2ARs in front of me. If you go for the counter-interp, don't expect me to fill in blanks either way if it can or cannot solve the NEG's offense. If you're going for impact turns to the NEG's model/interp, then explain why that outweighs/turns NEG offense and probably best to have defense to their interp/model as well.

The NEG can win in front of me that case ought not outweigh Topicality, but you should say that. I do not auto-let kritikal AFFs leverage the case against Topicality if the NEG has presented reasons why I shouldn't evaluate that offense; I think the AFF should answer that argument. My burden for answering this argument is rather low, which is why I tend to be less persuaded by Framework interps about the NEG not being required to meet the burden of rejoinder. I like debates where teams disagree with one another, so this interpretation of what debate can and/or should be isn't something that I really find compelling. That doesn't mean the AFF doesn't have to respond, but I definitely think your offense is magnified by this interpretation of debate and explaining why that's true is compelling to me. However, if this is your approach on either side, you just have to win on the technical debating level, and you'll most likely get my ballot.

AFF v K on NEG? Overly specific AFF interps are less compelling than some version of weighing the effects/justifications against the K, and they tend to link far harder to NEG offense. I'm not a 'will always weigh the case' nor a 'loves the fiat k' truther - I just like impact calculus, comparison of warrants, and explanation of any solvency claim presented. You should still answer the links if going for framework or at least say why the case outweighs or solves the links.

General Debate Thoughts:

I auto-judge-kick.

Theory debates aren't fun to judge, but I understand the strategic utility on both sides. 1 reason condo is good & impact calc >> spending a certain amount of time.

I'm not great for competition debates; I don't like evaluating scripts read at each other with minimal impacts and direct engagement on the line by line.

If util and/or consequentialism are wrong, you have to say how I should evaluate impacts otherwise. I don't fill in the blanks for either side. Good impact calc tends to win debates in front of me.

Will vote AFF or NEG on presumption

T debates aren't my favorite to judge but Limits ---X--------------- AFF Ground

You must read the re-highlighting aloud if the other team did not read those exact words in the card. If not reading the rehighlighted words aloud, you can also read the line(s) in cross-ex or explain the implication and what the rehighlighting means for my ballot in the tag of the rehighlighting. I think debate is a communication activity, not one where I read cards on my own and independently decide. However, that doesn't mean low-quality ev constitutes a good argument.

I will let you know if I need a card doc - I probably won't. I strongly dislike judge intervention, so I aim to read every card during the debate as it is read to understand the context and completeness of every argument presented during each speech.

I am FAR more persuaded by negative criticisms that prove why the Affirmative as presented is bad, not just nonsolvent. I tend to struggle to see how the Negative does not have to respond to Affirmative defensive claims to the K -- framing out Affirmative offense still requires technical debating.

I stop flowing when the timer goes off.

I care about debate. I don't particularly appreciate when teams read cringe and questionably ethical backfile checks designed to mess with opponents.

I think disclosure is, in nearly every case, good. I have zero tolerance for misdisclosure, lying, and shady practices designed to evade clashing with your opponent.

If high-theory kritikal arguments are your bread and butter, just please lead with implications and claims that I can break down into impact-forward arguments. I just don't know how to spell or define some of the words you say very fast, but I will evaluate every debate as objectively as possible always / nevertheless.

I appreciate historical examples as explication for argumentation, almost as much as an explanation of their relevancy to your argument / comparison to your opponents' warrants.

Speaking:

Speed = arguments effectively communicated per minute.

Clarity >>

Speaker Points? I try to default to this table's scale

[30 = nearly impossible to get/seniors at last tournament

29.9-29.7 = fabulous & expect to be in deep elims

29.6-29.4 = excellent & elim worthy performance

29.3-29.1 = good & expect to break

29-28.7 = median

28.6-28.4 = room for improvement

28.3-28 = some hiccups & things to work on

27.9-27.6 = room to improve and there is some debate stuff to learn

27.5 -27 = there is a lot of room to grow

26.9 and below = something went pretty wrong]

LD:

Not great for LD nonsense unless you want to explain things to me with an emphasis on impact calc & judge instruction.

I do not flow nor know how to evaluate phil, skep, tricks, and the like. If you do not defend some form of consequentialism, I am most likely not your judge.

In LD, I do not believe the 1NC/AR has the burden to rejoin frivolous, ridiculous theory arguments placed in the 1AC/NC to avoid clash.

Counterplan theory is fine. Litmus test is if the argument is prevalent in the activity of policy debate, it's probably fine.

Except animal wipeout or using people's spiritual beliefs to justify extinction --- this is NOT educational, not productive for HIGH SCHOOLERS, and is something I will refuse to evaluate as an EDUCATOR. I will not flow Benatar or the like - you would be better off making any other argument possible.

I would certainly prefer to not a LD debate with arbitrary disclosure norms; i think these debates and theory shells are worse for novices and access issues.

The most TLDR:

If I cannot explain your argument to you ethically or technically, the odds are that I cannot vote for you.

RVI's, hypotesting & tricks are nonstarters.

shawnee mission south '23, university of southern california ‘27

toc 2025: if you are committed to usc, please conflict me… but please say hi !! i would love to talk all things usc and usc debate!

mcbradleydebate@gmail.com

general:

if you ask for a marked copy when less than 3 cards were marked and/ or have to clarify what ev was read without taking cx or prep, your speaks ceiling is a 27.

the round should start on time. the amount of stalling and general lack of timeliness has become egregious recently.

judge instruction wins debates. evidence quality matters. smart analytics can beat bad cards.

"if i win ontology i auto win a link" thats not how that works.

affs should respond to the resolution. what that looks like is up for debate, and i am truly impartial about whether or not it entails reading a plan text.

you will lose for clipping. the other team does not need to call it out. #communicationactivity.

RE: my flowing practices while judging -- it varies. sometimes i am only reading cards during 1ac/1nc, other times i am flowing and also reading 1ac/1nc (always checking for clipping). i flow what is said/ read, i do not flow “off the doc”. i have a pretty good ear but am a slow typer. if there is an argument that is so important that it must be in the decision, you will be better off slowing down so i can flow it.

RE: speaks -- won't disclose them.

brief rant:

Debate technically, flow, compare evidence, don’t engage in bad-faith practices (hiding arguments, being sketchy in CX), and know your cards. Often, the 1ar in LD would experience far greater payoff from indicting horrible neg ev/ argument quality than reading more cards. Many DA links are tagged to say something that is not substantiated by the article, counterplan texts are often written incorrectly, and most all internal net benefit evidence is bad, but these indicts must be made in the 1ar. Counterplan competition should be established early-on, and you must send perm texts. “Presumption = my side because it’s harder to be my side” is absolute nonsense.

finally:

Ks: Do not go for the fiat Kand a link to the plan in the same 2nr. Defending more is better than defending less. You should be prepared to answer the impact turn.

Note for teams going for settler colonialism: Reading Tuck and Yang and then not defending material decolonization is an injustice to the literature. Take that as you will.

Hi I'm Scott

I am a great judge for technical, mechanical line by line debate. Clarity and judge instructions are axiomatic.

Debate is for the debaters. I will vote on any argument that has a valid reason and an explanation as to why that argument wins you the debate. I do not have a preference for how you debate or any particular argument, form, content, or style when in the role of the judge. I will leave the role of the ballot and the role of the judge up to the debaters to decide in the round. I will try my best to evaluate the debate using the least amount of intervention possible. I am a very flexible critic and coach.

Peninsula, Cal State Fullerton

Cal State Fullerton BW

Bakersfield BB

Previously Coached by: Shanara Reid-Brinkley, LaToya Green, Travis Cochrain, Lee Thach, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, and Parker Coon

Other people who influence my debate thoughts: Vontrez White and Jonathan Meza

Emails

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com

College: debatecsuf@gmail.com jaredburkey99@gmail.com

2024-25 Update:

IPR: 18

Energy: 14

LD Total: 79

College: Going to be coaching Cal State Fullerton more so I expect to be judging college, have a depth of topic knowledge, and be doing more research for the team.

HS: Mostly will be in LD this year, I imagine I will be judgeing policy teams a few times this year and help out with the Pen policy kids from time to time.

Cliff Notes:

1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.

2. Who controls uniqueness - that comes 1st

3. on T most times default to reasonability

4. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - I think this is most of the debates I have judged and it's probably my favorite type of debates to be in both as a debater and as a judge. I would like to implore policy teams to invest in substantive strategies this is not to say that T is not an option in these debates, but most of these critical affs defend some things that I know there is a disad to and most times 2AC just is flat-footed on the disad. 2As fail to answer PICs most times. 2ACs overinvestment on T happens a bunch and the 2NR ends up being T when it should have been the disad or the PIC. All of this is to say that T as your first option in the 2NR is probably the right one, but capitalize on 2AC mistakes

5. No plan no perm is not an argument --- win a link pls

6. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.

7. Theory debates are boring --- conditionality good --- judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality

Specifics:

K --- The lack of link debating that has occurred for the K in recent years is concerning, the popularization of exclusive-based FW has diminished the value of the link debate. That being said I understand the strategic utility of the argument, but the argument less and less convinces me. I will not default to plan focus, weigh the aff, or assume weigh the aff when each team is going for exclusive fw. This is all to say that the link argument is the predominant argument and the K of fiat as a link argument is not convincing at all. Smart 2Ns that rehighlight 1AC cards and use their link arguments to internal link turn/impact turn the aff should win 9/10 in front of me. All to say that good K debating is good case debating.

FW--- Fairness its an impact but also is an internal link to just about everything --- role of the negative as a frame for impacts with a TVA is very convincing to me - only this debate matters is not a good argument, these debates should be a question about models of debate - carded TVAs are better than non-carded TVAs and are a sure fire way to win these debates for the negative --- I would describe myself as a clash truther most times, debate is net good maximizing clash preserves the value of debate --- 2As whose strategy is to impact turn everything with a CI is much more convincing to me than attempts to use the counterinterp as defense to T, although can be persuaded by the counterinterp being defense to T

DA--- Fast DAs are more convincing, turns case arguments good, any DA is fair game as long as its debated well

CP --- Must know what the CP does with an explanation --- good for functional competition only, not the biggest fan of text and function or textual only.

T --- Boring.

LD Specific:

1. Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

4. Phil - Been convinced more and more about Phil thanks to Danielle Dosch, I would still say I am not the best for Phil

5. Tricks

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

***TOC Note 1: No PDFs or cards in the body; Word docs only. Also, I will aggressively dock speaks for teams that don't have their timer go off and exceed their speech time.

***TOC Note 2: If you are a graduating senior and would not like to hear a decision and/or feedback, please feel free to tell me.

Coach at Bellaire High School (TX)
Conflicted with: Heights High School, Bellaire High School, Archbishop Mitty SM, Cypress Ranch KH, Woodlands SP

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me.

If I'm judging you in PF: bellairedocs.pf@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in LD: bellairedocs.ld@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in Policy: bellairedocs.policy@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, spent 10 years coaching LD, Policy, and WS at Heights High School, am currently a teacher at Bellaire High School, and coach a variety of speech and debate formats: my program competes through the Texas Forensic Association and the Houston Urban Debate League.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• There is no flow clarification time in debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them.Please don't send cards in the body of emails; Word docs only. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• I spent much of my career coaching policy debate, so I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters do not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or teams who are genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of clash debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Email:

traviswaynecochran@gmail.com

Affiliations - Present:

The Harker School

2025 Cal Update:

"Up-layering" means nothing to me as a phrase. Saying that you have up-layered something is not an argument. Please use different words to explain whatever concept it is that you're trying to convey.

2023-2024 Updates:

1. Everyone should slow down. Debate would be better. Does this mean you might have to read less in the 1NC? YES! Does this mean that 2As might have to make less/better answers? YES! Does this mean you need to slow down on prewritten extensions and analytics? YES! I want to fully grasp EVERYTHING in the debate and not just get the gist of things. If you do not want to adapt to this, then you have prefs and strikes. I suggest you use them accordingly ...
2. Debaters that flow and give speeches from their flows, as opposed to their prewritten speech docs, are the gold standard.
3. Great debaters use the full spectrum of human emotion to persuade judges. Anger, sadness, humor, fear, hope, love, and all the other things we feel, connect us to the arguments we're making. If your debates only have one emotion (or none), then it will probably be pretty boring.

Top Level Stuffs:

1. Speech docs: I want to be included on any email chains; however, I will be flowing based on what I hear from year speech and not following along with the speech doc. I will use my flow to determine the decision, which can be different from speech docs, especially if you aren't clear and give me enough pen time. Also, I never was the best flow as a debater and I still am not as a judge!

2. All of you are smarter than me. I'll work hard to be a good judge, but I won't promise I will get everything that is happening in the round. Your job will be to explain very complex concepts to a very simple mind.

3. I'm an only-parent of two young children. Always a chance that something happens where I have to take a few minutes of judge prep. I'll work hard to minimize these instances, but cannot promise they will not happen.

4. The "ideal" number of off-case positions in a round for me when I am in the back of the room is anywhere from 0-5. You can absolutely read more, but I get angrier as the number of counterplans in the 1NC rises. I think 1-2 counterplans in a 1NC is reasonable. I prefer 1NCs without throwaway positions but still have a lot of block/2NR optionality. Basically, I am a fan of clash and vertical spread.

If you still think it's good to have me in the back of the room after you know this, then continue reading and see if you still feel that way when you're done.

Argument Feelings:

Topicality: It is up to the debaters to determine how I evaluate topicality. I tend to default to reasonability. Slow down a tick on T or you will make me sad. I cannot keep up with you reading your 2NC/1NR blocks at full speed.

Counterplans: The more specific the better, but I’m game for whatever. Consult CPs are fine. Delay is fine. Conditioning is cool tooI. PICs are the bees knees. However, I am open to theory arguments that any of these should not be allowed. I do not like counterplans with a lot of planks that the negative can jettison at will. Such counterplans will leave me sympathetic to affirmative theory arguments.

Counterplan Theory: Sketchy counterplans should lose to theory. However, theory violations should be well developed and it is up to the affirmative to prove why I should reject the team and not the argument. It's no secret that I am not the quickest flow, so slow down for me on theory debates. I'm more favorable to limited forms of conditionality and/or no conditionality compared national trends.

Theory in General: I almost always think that education > fairness, but ... I think negatives are getting away with too much. People can run multiple contradictory counterplans/advocacies all they want in front of me and I will not automatically vote them down for it. However; I am sympathetic to well articulated theory arguments as to why it is a bad educational practice, as well as sympathetic to affirmatives that use negative shenanigans to justify affirmative shenanigans. Play dirty pool at your own risk in front of me…aff or neg. I do not like cheap shot theory. I try to not vote for cheap shot theory arguments, even if they are dropped. However, I will use cheap shot theory arguments as a way out of difficult rounds in which both teams were making my job painful. I try not to let cheap shots determine the outcome of rounds that are well debated on both sides. I reward good smart debate. No New AFFs is not a good arg in front of me. Pref Sheet Disclosure is not a good arg in front of me.

**** If you're reading this as an LD'er: I am a very bad judge for Tricks debate. Very bad ...

Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good uniqueness cards to 10 bad uniqueness cards. I prefer 1 or 2 good warrants to 10 bad uniqueness cards. Disads are great and are a fundamental part of policy and/or critical strategies. Yayy DAs!

Criticisms: The more specific the better. You probably know more about your specific criticism than I do. However, debate is not about who knows the most about a topic; it is about how much you can teach me within the time limits of the round. If I cannot explain your position back to you at the end of the debate, then I cannot vote for it. I believe that AFFs get perms, even critical AFFs. I believe that Ks can win based on winning 100% defense, so, yes ... you can kick the ALT and go for presumption in front of me. On framework, I default to a "middle of the road" approach where NEGs get ALTs & links to whatever, but AFF gets to weigh their 1AC as defenses of their ontology/epistemology/axiology. Only get "links to plan" or "ALT must be competitive policy option" is an uphill battle. Same goes for "you link, you lose" or "they can't weigh their AFF!" For me, those questions are best resolved on link level, alt level, and theory of power level.

Framework: Sure. You can go that route, but please slow down. I prefer substance to theory, meaning that I almost always believe education > fairness. I don't find the procedural fairness stuff that persuasive. Institutions good and training is a much better route with me in the back. TVAs are persuasive to me. So, will I vote on framework? If it is based on why you have a better educational model, then absolutely! If it is based on procedural fairness, then I might still vote on it, but it's an uphill battle. Most of the time I vote on procedural fairness it is a result of some AFF concessions, which is why it's important for me to have a good flow if this is your strategy. I almost always think the better approach is just to take them up on the case page or offer a counterplan.

Performance/Nontraditional/Critical AFFs: I’m cool with it. I don't find your argument persuasive that these AFFs shouldn't get perms. If I can't explain your AFF back to you then it will be really hard for me to vote for you. I have no problem voting NEG on presumption if I don't know what you do or if the NEG has a compelling argument that you do nothing. Honestly, I think that NEGs versus various critical approaches are in a better position with me in the back to go for case turns and solvency arguments. K v K is wonderful, too! This is just my heads up to the policy teams that want my ballot - case, DAs, & CPs are more strategic when I'm in the back than FW.

Case: I honestly think that a well developed case attack (offense and a heck of a lot of good defense) with a DA and/or critique are much more effective than a big off 1NC. Case debate is good and underrated. This is true for policy debaters and k debaters. This is true for policy AFFs and K AFFs.

I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic.

My Idiosyncrasies:

One thing that everyone should know is that I naturally give a lot of nonverbal (sometimes verbal) feedback, even in the middle of rounds. If I think your argument is really smart then you will probably see me smiling and nodding. If I think your argument is not smart or just wrong, my face will look contorted and I will be shaking it in a different direction. If this happens…do not freak out. Use it to your advantage that you know which arguments I like and do not like. Other times, I look unhappy because I am in pain or very hungry (my health ain't the best), so this might throw you off ... sorry! Debate tournaments are hard on all of us. I'm not going to pretend like I'm a machine for longer than two hours while I judge your round.

I will also intervene in cross x if I think that a team is being particularly evasive on a point that needs to be clarified to conduct a good clean debate. I do not believe that the gold standard for judging is to avoid intervention at all costs. I believe intervention is almost always inevitable ... I'm just one of the few people who are willing to say that out loud. Interventions, like the type above, are very rare. I am fully willing and happy to led debaters take the lead and let me render a decision based on the round that happened without me saying a word until the RFD.

Additionally, I usually make fairly quick decisions. I don't scour through evidence and meticulously line up my flows all the way until the decision deadline. Sometimes I will do that if it is warranted to decide the round. However, for me, it doesn't usually require that. I believe that debate is a communication activity and I judge rounds based on what is communicated to me. I use my flows to confirm or deny my suspicions of why I think someone is winning/losing at the conclusion of the debate. Typically, I am making my mind up about who is winning the round and in which ways they might lose it after every speech. This usually creates a checklist of what each team would need to do to win/lose. While listening to 2NRs/2ARs, I go through my checklist & flows to see which ones get marked off. Sometimes this is an easy process. Sometimes it takes me a lot longer to check those boxes ...

I KNOW that you all work VERY HARD for each and every round. I take that very seriously. But, me deciding rounds quickly is not dismissive of you or your work. Instead, my "thoughtful snapshots" of rounds are meant to give some sort of fidelity to the round I witnessed instead of recreating it post hoc. Some people go to concerts and record songs to remember the experience later. I don't. That's not out of disrespect to the artists or their art, rather, it's my own version of honoring their efforts by trying to honor the moment. Some of y'all think that is some BS justification for me to do "less work" after a round, and that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion, as well as where you place me on your strike sheets.

Finally, I am unabashedly human. I am open to the whims of fatigue, hunger, emotions and an overwhelming desire to do what I think is right, no matter how inconsistent and possibly misguided at the time. I try desperately to live my life in a way where I can look in a mirror and be okay with myself (not always successfully). I do the same thing when I am a judge (again, not always successfully). This is just a fair warning to any of you that will be inevitably upset if my decision seems to vary from this judging philosophy. I'm not a robot and sometimes my opinions about my role and this activity changes while judging a round. The truth is that y'all are good at what y'all do, and sometimes you make me change my mind about things. These are the facts of having me in the back of the room, and these facts, no matter how fact-y they might be, are facts that y'all have to deal with :-)

Debate is fun…at least it should be. If it's not, you're doing it wrong!

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/18/2025

*Note about email chains - I don't feel comfortable publicly posting my email address on my paradigm, so please just ask me for my email if you are doing an email chain

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

email chain:

backslash309@gmail.com

add breakdocs@googlegroups.com as well

top level:

Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.

In regards to Policy vs K debate, if I were biased either direction, it's probably in favor of policy, but I don't think this matters in a technical debate where your arguments have warrants. Do with that what you will.

Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses. If an argument is introduced in a speech where no such response is valid, it carries little weight, for example: I am not going to think fairness categorically outweighs education if fairness outweighs is introduced in the 2AR.

(9/11/24) Because of this, claims start from zero and are built up through warrants. I do not want to judge tricks debates. I will abide by the above paragraph with far more scrutiny than I have in the past. Theory and phil debates are still fine, but I'll be much more hesitant to vote on blippy shells, analytic skep triggers, and other less warranted args than I have in the past.

random thoughts:

Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

In the absence of paradigm issues, I'm going to evaluate theory contextually. This means I will only grant you the logical implication of the words you say, and will not automatically grant you assumptions like drop the debater. For example, if a 1AR tells me "PICs are a voter cuz they steal the aff", this logically means that PICs are a bad argument, but doesn't explain why the neg should lose for reading it. Functionally, this means I'd default drop the argument absent any explanation. This headache can be easily avoided through warranted, extended arguments.

K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate.

I default to judgekick.

Dartmouth '24

amadeazdatel@gmail.com for the email chain

I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year. I'm currently an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDes, and am the former Director of LD at VBI.

General thoughts

Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.

Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).

Case/DA

Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.

Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.

Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.

I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.

Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.

Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.

Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.

Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).

CP

Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.

Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.

Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.

I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).

T

I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.

Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.

Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.

Theory

I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.

I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.

I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.

K

I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.

While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.

Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.

Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.

K Affs

See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.

For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.

For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.

Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.

K v K debates are a big question mark for me.

LD Specific

Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.

I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.

1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.

There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.

Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.

Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.

Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.

Coppell DR

Texas DK

hetdesai10@gmail.com

"Tech over truth. I do not share the sensibilities of judges who proclaim to be technical and then carve out an exception for death good, wipeout, or planless affirmatives. The only situation in which I will not vote on an argument is when forced to by the Tabroom.

This applies to everything. You do not get a blank check because your opponents’ arguments are “trolls” or “science fiction.” Whether something could be “read identically on a previous topic” has no bearing on whether it rejoins the affirmative. It is my experience and firm belief that the vast majority of judges who describe arguments in such a fashion are dangerously incapable of answering them.

With that in mind, I will decide the debate based on the flow and nothing else."

Northwestern, Peninsula, GBN

Emails

High School: jordandi505@gmail.com

College: jordandi505@gmail.com;debatedocs@googlegroups.com

Evaluation

I will flow and decide according to that flow. Technical execution and judge instruction combined with that flow will override most preferences, mainly due to my lack of attachment to particular preferences. One exception to this is what I will describe as "frivolous" theoretical objections. The bar is higher for explanation, and justification of these arguments. I fear any attempt to impart objectivity over this category of argumentation could lead to egregious overcorrection.

I begin flowing during the 1NC on the case page. I will pay attention to 1AC and 1NC. I never have the doc open while flowing, but I will usually look at cards during cross-x and prep time.

Other than the fact that I will flow, everything is incredibly malleable. Judge instruction and framing should be utilized early and often to resolve central questions. Most things can and should be contested, ranging from impact calculus to the permissibility of “new” arguments to inserting a re-highlighting. If a team forwards a claim + warrant for how I should evaluate a particular issue, it is the burden of the other team to refute that. The only exception that comes to mind is if it’s “new” in the 2AR, where I will reasonably protect the Neg.

I tend to decide quickly. That rarely has anything to do with the quality of the debate. Rather, I have been able to follow the core questions of the debate, which allows me to evaluate it as the debate is ongoing.

I have zero desire to adjudicate anything not about the debate itself.

Potentially helpful statistics:

College (Clean Energy) - 35 debates. I voted Neg 24 times. 18 panels, sat 2 times.

High School (IP) - 40 debates. I voted Neg 30 times. 13 panels (excluding RRs), sat 3 times.

Planless Affs

Thus far, Aff teams that impact turn T have fared better in front of me than other approaches.

Debate is certainly a game, but it may be more.

T impacts about fairness / clash are more persuasive to me than others.

I think most 2ACs to even generic critiques, such as the Capitalism K, are poor and easily defeated.

The sole purpose of my ballot is to decide the winner / loser of a single debate.

K

The K should either be a DA to the plan or a framework argument that brackets the Aff out of the debate. I am worse for anything in the middle.

If both teams forward a framework argument, I will usually resolve that first. I will strictly to the interpretations forwarded by both teams. It's important for teams to clearly explain and compare the implications of their interpretations.

A note on “death good.” I won't vote for anything endorsing self-harm or violence against anyone in the debate. That differs from arguments like spark/wipeout, the "death k," or some revolutionary praxis. I think the line is generally between arguments about the people within the debate vs actual academic controversy.

CP

I must know what the CP does, and what it solves to vote for it. The combination of a vague CP text with a lack of explanation is not persuasive.

“Process” CPs are fair game. I have no strong disposition against these strategies. I think I am relatively more persuaded by substance, as opposed to competition or theory, against these arguments than the average person. However, that is not to say I think most 2As are prepared to execute such a strategy (in fact, it seems to be quite the opposite). All that being said, I would prefer it if the CP had topic-specific evidence.

I am good for a model of competition based on “functional only” and “text and function.” Winning a model of “textual only” is a hard sell but not impossible.

Theory

Conditionality and judge kick are good. A longer ramble with specifics is below under “Long Conditionality Ramble.” My line is probably fiating out a straight turn to offense the Neg introduced.

Judge kick is my default. It will be difficult to make me not consider the status quo with only a theoretical objection. This must start in the 1AR.

Nothing is a voting issue aside from conditionality.

Most theoretical objections can be expressed through competition, and I would prefer that. This is mainly because most theory interpretations are incredibly arbitrary. There may be some exceptions to that, including, but not limited to, “fiating multiple governments” bad, “CPs must be policies,” and “fiating federal and sub-federal actors” bad.

DA

Fiat is usually durable, good faith passage, and implementation of the plan.

Any "type" of DA is a free game, so long as you are prepared to defend it.

Recent and specific evidence is preferred but can be beaten by smart analytics and spin.

Fiating in offense is underutilized.

Turns case arguments (especially if carded) and “fast” DAs frequently swing debates for me.

T

Debatability is more important to me than predictability. This is not categorical, but when the difference in the predictability of both interpretations is minimal, I care more about the quality of debates.

Provide a clear vision of what the topic should encompass and directly contrast it with the opposing teams' interpretation.

Cards to support various parts of a T argument are underutilized.

Quibbles

None of these will decide a debate but may affect speaker points depending on my mood.

Here are some (I am sure the list will grow longer):

1. Please don’t refer to this paradigm. I have physically cringed every time this has happened, please stop. I might also prefer you refer to me as “judge” than randomly mentioning my name throughout a speech (though this is much more situation-dependent).

2. Poorly formatted speech documents. I follow along during CX and tend to read cards during prep and other dead time. Bad formatting makes this difficult and annoying. This is not to say you must format in a particular way, but relative uniformity of tags, headers, and the like would be nice. There should not be deleted headers, and tags, etc. This applies equally to card docs.

3. Too much dead time. Let’s pick up the pace, especially if you want to give me time to decide.

Others

Evidence ethics or anything else in a similar vein should typically be debated. That's what I prefer but if there is a clear violation consistent with tournament policy, the onus is on the debaters to direct me to stop the round and address it.

"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone uses gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

***Long Conditionality Ramble***

Here are my thoughts for the NEG. I don’t really have AFF thoughts other than maybe that these will be the most important things for you to grapple with. Things I am good for the NEG about:

1. I have yet to see a 1NC where I thought the 2A's job was so difficult that it would be impossible to substantively respond. For example, you don't NEED an 8 subpoint response with 5 cards to answer the Constitutional Convention CP. The flip side of this for the AFF is either establishing a clear and consistent violation from the 2AC onward or focusing on the "model" of debate to override my presumption that maybe this 1NC wasn't too bad.

2. NEG flex is great. Two sets of arguments are persuasive to me here. First, side bias. 2AR is certainly easier than the 2NR. I am unsure about "infinite prep," but I am persuaded that AFFs typically can answer most NEG arguments thematically. For example, having a good "certainty key" or "binding key" warrant addresses a whole swath of potential CPs. Second, the topic. Teams that appeal to the nature of the topic (honestly for either side) are persuasive to me. For example, the idea that appeals to "specificity" allows the AFF to murder core generics is one I find persuasive.

3. The diminishing utility of conditionality seems true to me. Appeals to "infinite condo" allowing the nth degree of advocacies is something I am presumptively skeptical about. There are only so many arguments in the NEG box that disagree with the 1AC in different ways. Take what I said about being able to answer arguments thematically to apply here. In addition, for the NEG to accomplish such a massive proliferation, arguments tend to be incomplete. Again, this was talked about above.

4. "Dispo" is a bit ridiculous. The 2AC must define it (the NEG needs to implicate this still). The only other thought I have other than the "plank + process spam" stuff (which I like) is that I can be persuaded "dispo" would mostly only ever allow one advocacy. It now seems intuitive to me that absent 1NC construction that made sure every DA was a net benefit to every CP, the 2A could force the NEG to have to extend everything but since one links to the net benefit, it would be impossible to vote NEG.

5. This is more of a random quibble that I think can be used to frame a defense of conditionality. It seems logical to me that the ability of the AFF to extend both conditionality and substance in the 1AR, forcing the 2NR to cover both in a manner to answer inevitable 2AR shenanigans (especially nowadays) is the same logic criticized by "condo bad" as the 2AR can pick and choose with no cost. It seems worse in this case given the NEG does not have a 3NR to refute the 2AR in this scenario. This is a firm view, but it seems much easier to me for the 2AC to answer the fourth mediocre CP in the 1NC (like uncooperative federalism lol) than for the 2NR to answer the 5-minute condo bad 2AR that stemmed from a 45-second 1AR.

Bennett Dombcik

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

My ballot will be determined by my flow. Technical concessions are taken as truth.

Some random things that may be helpful:

---you can insert re-highlightings, re-cuttings of things not present in the original card should be read.

---please locally record speeches/turn on your camera for online debates.

---line by line is helpful for the purposes of my flow but I will attempt to write down as much of your rant as possible.

---I am generally a fan of creative and interesting strategies.

---"I have a lower bar for a warrant than most. I am unlikely to reject an argument solely on the basis of ‘being a cheap shot’ or lacking ‘data.’ Unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross applications, or equally unwarranted arguments. If your opponent’s argument is missing academic support or sufficient explanation, then you should say that. I’m strict about new arguments and will protect earlier speeches judiciously. However, you have to actually identify and flag a new argument. The only exception to this is the 2AR, since it is impossible for the neg to do so." - Rafael Pierry

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School.

daviddosch@gmail.com

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Wake Forest University 2025

Debated In College and HS

Yes Email Chain: lcandersoncx@gmail.com -- please format the subject As “Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School [team code] vs Neg School [team code]. Example: “Berkeley -- Dubs -- AFF Archbishop Mitty DR vs NEG Interlake GQ”

Conflicts: Barstow, LC Anderson, Oakridge, Archbishop Mitty

--

* Updated for Shirley*

Although I largely debated more critically in college, I have coached and have a background across a swath of styles of debates.

At the end of the rebuttals -- I start by looking at what the teams have flagged as the most important pieces of offense. 2NRs and 2ARs rarely do enough judge instruction. The best type of RFD is where I don't have to do too much work and I can parrot back to you what the rebuttals said.

I want to see and will reward with increased speaks the following: argument innovation, specificity, quality ev, jokes/good vibes, good cx, examples, and judge instruction.

Call Tab is a silly argument in framework blocks

Note: Please send out all interp texts and perm texts in the email chain

Insert or Read: All portions of evidence that has already been introduced into the debate get to be inserted. This is a way to provide an incentive for in depth evidence comparison while also creating a strategic incentive to read good quality cards. Any portions of evidence that hasn’t already been introduced into debate should be read.

K Affs:Pretty agnostic here. My one pet peeve are affirmatives that define solvency mechanisms solely around not doing something ie. vote affirmative because we have refused the rez. The easiest way to lose reading a K aff in front of me is just saying buzzwords in the overview without unpacking what the aff does -- I am not scared to say I vote neg on presumption because I don’t know what the aff does.

I think that in debates vs FW both the counterinterp or pure impact turn strategy are viable. I think counterinterp debating is vastly undervalued and if done right can severely mitigate their internal links while providing uniqueness for aff offense on framework. Usually ev defining what the core controversy ought to be provides these strategies with more traction. My hesitancy with impact turn strategies is that it gives the full weight to their limits + predictability horror story. In my mind these strategies make the most sense when you have a good ballot proximity argument and against heavy debate doesn't shape subjectivity + fairness is axiomatically good debates. In debates where I end up voting neg in impact turn debates is when the 2AR does not package how the ballot resolves the impact turn.

Love good K V K debates!

FW vs K affs:Despite my reputation, I have found myself increasingly voting for framework while judging. I think that teams that deploy framework the must successfully are ones that engage the most with the affirmative teams offense explicitly rather than filling in blanks from generic blocks. I think its less valuable now to say is fairness an impact yes or no than how fairness is packaged. It is an impact that requires impact comparison with the affirmatives impact that they have gone for. When teams win on fairness in front of me it is usually coupled with a big push about why its the only thing my ballot can resolve and mitigatory defense to the affirmative's solvency claim for the scope of its impact. For clash debates the question of ballot solvency matters significantly less to me than about questions of models of debate. In these debates, internal link debating matters more about the specifics of their counter interp why is it unlimiting and unpredictable and why does a preclusion of that clash turn the ability for their model to access the benefits. I think on a climate topic, there is additional room for clash to be externalized to an impact about climate ethics and how organizers should navigate the climate debates they inevitably get into.

Topicality: I think a lot of teams do not put enough practice into debating T, making it one of the most strategic arguments for neg teams. I probably lean towards competing interps -- reasonability is a defensive argument for filtering how I evaluate interps. 2NR’s and 2AR’s shouldn’t go for every argument on the T page but collapse to one impact and do thorough weighing. I am a huge sucker for a precision 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans: Love em -- go for em. Cheaty Counterplans are cheaty only if you lose the theory debate. Having a solvency advocate or core of topic cards will go a long way to helping you win that debate. No strong predispositions on counterplan theory -- its up to the debaters.

Disads: Yes -- Do them. Teams don’t do enough of link turns case analysis.

Kritiks: My decisions tend to start from the framework debate and this guides how I evaluate the other parts of the flow. This determines the threshold needed for link UQ, whether the aff gets to be weighed, etc.. Always extend an alt -- it doesn't need to be always like "movements solve" or "fiated" but needs to frame both my ballot and how I should frame the debate.K teams should do more link turns case analysis. If not make sure you make persuasive framing arguments about why the case doesn’t outweigh. Aff teams benefit from spending less time on framework (unless they are one-tricking the fiat k) and more time engaging with the links + thesis of the K.

I am a PhD student in philosophy at MIT.

I debated from 2012-2016 and coached actively from 2016-2021.

Since the 2020-21 season, I have done very little meaningful coaching/judging. I have attended 1-2 tournaments per year and have not judged many debates at those tournaments. If I am judging you at Harvard, then I have not listened to spreading in almost a year and you should not expect me to know much (anything) about the topic, nor about recent trends in debate. I am quite confident that I can still follow most debates and render competent decisions about them, but it does fall to you to slow down some, explain key bits of jargon, etc.

Email: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

Here is an older and longer version of my paradigm. Everything on the longer version remains true.

Short version: If you are aff, you should read a well-researched affirmative that defends someone doing something. If you are neg, you should read something that meaningfully engages with the aff.

Here are some things that it will be useful to know if I am judging you.

[1] I don’t flow author names.

[2] Please slow down on analytics, probably more than you think you need to.

[3] I am best suited to judge well-researched debates about a clear point of contestation in which both sides are clear about what they’re defending. Policy-style, K, T, 'phil,' and many theory debates are all fine.

[4] I will not vote for exceptionally bad theory arguments. Exceptionally bad arguments include but are not limited to: so-called "role of the ballot spec," "neg may only make 2 arguments," "must spec CP status in speech," "must read an explicit standard text," "must contest the aff framework," and "must spec what you meant when you said 'competing interps.'" By contrast, arguments that are fair game are CP theory, plans good/bad, stuff like that.

If you’re unsure whether an argument counts as exceptionally bad, err on the side of caution. You should err on the side of caution on very specific / demanding disclosure theory arguments.

[5] Other theory predispositions:

I think it's good to keep topics fairly small, which makes me good for the neg in many T debates.

It's pretty hard to convince me that 1 condo is bad. 2 starts to push it, and I think 3+ is probably bad. I'm increasingly convinced PICs should have a solvency advocate. And I'm pretty in the middle with respect to whether process counterplans & the like are good.

[6] No tricks. I won't vote on them. If you think your argument might count as a trick, don't read it. If you do go for tricks, you will not win and your speaks will not exceed 26.

[7] I value explanation a lot. I vote aff in a lot of debates in which the neg goes for a ton of arguments, each of which could be a winning 2NR but end up getting very under-explained. I have also voted for a lot of debaters whose evidence is not amazing but who give very good explanations/spin for that evidence.

[8] I am unlikely to be convinced that something categorically outweighs something else (e.g. extinction outweighs regardless of probability, tiny unfairness outweighs all education no matter what, etc.). Weighing arguments should be contextual and comparative.

[9] No "inserting highlighting" or inserting a list of what the aff defends. You have to read it.

[10] Debaters should disclose, and the aff should tell the neg what aff they’re reading before the debate unless it is new. No one should lie when disclosing. It is very hard to convince me that disclosure isn’t good.

[11] Clipping and reading miscut evidence will result in an automatic loss, regardless of whether your opponent notices / mentions it. More on that here.

[12] I will not vote on: tricks (broadly construed), "paradox" tricks (e.g. Zeno's Paradox, the "Good Samaritan" Paradox), a prioris, oppression good (if you concede that your position entails that oppression is good, then your position is that oppression is good), skepticism ("both frameworks are wrong; therefore, 'permissibility'" is skep), trivialism, arguments that the other side cannot make arguments / that I should evaluate (any part of) the debate at the end of a speech other than the 2AR, or awful theory arguments. These arguments are bad for debate.

Isidore Newman '23 and Wake Forest '27

Debating for Wake + Coaching/Cutting Cards for Greenhill LD

send docs - greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com - make the email chain name descriptive ie. Tournament Name Round X Flt X - Team 1 [AFF] vs Team 2 [NEG]

TOC: Seniors who have committed to or are considering enrolling at Wake, please conflict me! If you have any questions, feel free to reach out.

---

Be a decent human being.

Tech >>> truth, but truth influences the amount of work it means to technically win something as well as your speaker points.

To vote on an argument, I must understand it and it must be on my flow. I flow and evaluate every speech. I flow straight down and do not flow author names. 80/20 on the question of paper vs laptop. I never flow from the doc. I will look at the doc at times to check for clipping (which if you do, you will loose without your opponent bringing it up).

I strive to make decisions without intervention, if I must intervene I will vote for the team that requires less.

You will like my decision more if you slow down.

You can insert rehighlightings of cards read in the debate and perm texts. However, inserting 10 rehighlightings will result in me missing things.

I am unpersuaded by a 30 speaks spike or eval. I will not disclose speaks.

I think zero risk is possible. I evaluate things probabilistically except for debates about models (ie. violations, framing, etc.) which are yes/no questions.

Evidence quality matters as much as debaters make it matter.

There is no flow clarification section in debate, take prep, or cx. Marked docs do not need to delete cards not read. Flow.

Arguments have a claim, warrant, and an impact. I will only vote on complete arguments. Topic research is good, slop is bad. Late-breaking debates are bad.

Post-rounding is good. Feel free to email me with questions (just make sure someone else (preferably a coach) is cc'ed for safety reasons).

Be nice to less experienced debaters or at the very least do not waste my time.

---

CP: No judge kick unless the negative says it. I am good for competition debates, worse for theory debates.

T/Theory: Bad for reasonability without a bright line, good for reasonability with a bright line. If I am using competing interps, you must have an interp which you meet.

Ks: Good for both sides. Framework is a yes/no question. Internal link comparison + explaining what offense matters under your model matters more to me than other judges.

Email: aerinengelstad@gmail.com

Eagan '23, Emory '27

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Prefs shortcut:

1. Policy v Policy

2. Policy v K

3. K v K

4. Phil v K, Phil v Util, Theory

5. Weird K's, Weird Phil, Weird Tricks

Top Level:

---Tech over truth. I will vote on tricks, if you win the flow.

---I try to not be dogmatic about arguments and to avoid judge intervention as much as absolutely possible.

---I think that arguments need a warrant BUT I think that if an argument is bad, then it should be very easy for the other side to answer it.

---I agree a lot withArchan Sen, look at his paradigm for more in-depth takes.

---I default condo and judge kick. I do not vote on presumption (ABSENT a technical error), I tend to believe that a risk of offense ALWAYS exists.

---I won't evaluate out of round arguments/adhoms.

---I don't mind if you are sassy. I am sassy as well.

---For postrounding, I just ask that you be respectful. I understand if you may have saw the round a different way, but I really try my absolute best to make the decision that is most consistent with the flow and the debate that occured. I try not to "hate" any particular argument when I am judging a debate (even if I may dislike them personally), and so I would appreciate if I was offered the same respect that I offer your arguments.

---You do not need to slow down/read bad arguments against novices. I believe that novices learn through hardship, and it is good for them to see how the best debaters debate. It is how I learned and how everyone learns, even if we don't like losing so hard in the moment.

Policy---I think I have the most knowledge about these argumetns. I read them in high school and I have always enjoyed policy debates more than others. Inserting rehighlightings is good and should be done more---it lowers the barrier to entry for ev comparison and deters bad evidence. Speech times in LD are actually horrific, and so the aff should do ALL it can to even the gap. I appreciate card docs that look nice and speeches that are organized and consistent with the doc. I'll reward it with high speaks. Additionally, I really appreciate 1AR's on impact turns/case arguments that are not a dump of cards, but are specific to the line by line and warrants. I see this a lot specifically with impact turns and I think 1ARs become redundant because sometimes the aff doesn't even seem to understand what their own cards say before they read them.

T---Love these debates. Slow down on analytics and judge instruction is very important in these debates. RVI's are easily beaten because they are generally poor arguments, but they need to be beaten. Nebel T is not my strongest suit because I am not well versed in the semantics so being clear/overexplanatory would be helpful, but I do not mind the argument. I do think it probably should just be beaten by pragmatics though.

Impact turns---I love them. No personal qualms with spark or wipeout. See the "1AR card dumps" in the policy section to see more about this.

Theory---I'll evaluate it, I don't even really care about this anymore. Bad arguments should just be beaten by good arguments. If you lose the flow, then you lose. Even eval after the 1NC, if conceded, then well... You should redo that speech with your coach to not have that happen again. Condo should be in almost every 1AR as an option.

K's--- I have been very persuaded by framework and extinction outweighs, BUT I really think that negatives can/should capitalize on aff mistakes on this and very much should utilize the links to deal with the case (i.e link turns case) which I think is very persuasive. I vote for K's all the time, but I will not vote for you just because you said "racism is bad". I am much more experienced with more common K's (capitalism, settler colonialism, afropess, etc) while not so experienced with high theory K's (deleuze, baudrillard, etc).

K-affs---I loved going for T-fwrk! But, I also have voted for many a K-aff because the affirmative just beat T-fwrk. You need to answer arguments and in my opinion, should always go for fairness. Additionally, I loved going for K's against K-affs and I think that they are very persuasive.

Phil---I have spent a lot more time thinking about this in the last 2 years and have spoken to a lot more phil people about how to understand it in debate. To be clear---Please do EXTENSIVE judge instruction about how to evaluate these arguments. I also really think that the best argument against most phil teams is actually to just respond to the framework and answer it although I find Util to be very compelling.

Coach for Break Debate and Berkeley Prep.
LD: Please add breakdocs@googlegroups.com to the chain.

I will vote on any argument as long as it is won technically.

Please do weighing. I find many debates to be irresolvable because teams just assert past each other without any comparative analysis.

I am most competent when judging debates involving the K.

I am fine for policy vs policy, however I never think about competition. I am familiar with the technical terms, but have a higher standard of explanation.

I’m the Executive Director of National Symposium for Debate, as well as the site director for NSD’s Flagship LD camp. I’m also an assistant LD coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I debated circuit LD for 4 years in high school, and I graduated in 2003. For what it’s worth, I cleared twice at TOC, and I was in finals my senior year. Since then, I have actively coached LD on the national circuit. For a period, I was a full time classroom teacher and debate coach. I have also coached individually and worked as an assistant coach for a number of circuit programs. I coach/judge at 8-10 TOC level tournaments per year.

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

TLDR rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 1
Policy - 2
Theory - 1
Tricks - 2
T vs K aff; K aff vs T - 1 (I’m happy on both sides of these debates, regularly vote both ways in these debates, and coach both ways in these debates)

Longer explanation of rankings:

Re my policy ranking - Feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them frequently. I’ll admit that I do the least amount of thinking and researching on the policy wing of topics. This probably makes me an OK, but not excellent, judge of policy vs policy rounds. In policy vs something else rounds, the 2 ranking doesn’t affect things much, except see paragraph below.

Re my tricks ranking - Again, feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them (and against them) frequently. I find well thought out tricks that are integrated with the substance of your phil framework or K interesting. I find a lot of other tricks fairly boring. Again, see paragraph below on adaptation.

Generally speaking, I won’t have any objection to what you read. You are usually better off reading your A strategy in front of me than substantially diverging from that strategy to adapt to me. When relevant, you should tweak your A strategy to recognize that I am also open to and comfortable with the standard maneuvers of debate styles other than yours. For example, if your preference is policy arguments and you are debating a K, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume you can cross-apply the aff or that extinction outweighs the K, when contested. Similarly, if you are a phil debater, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume that your phil framework precludes the util tricks (modesty, extinction first, etc.).

Whatever your style, if you have thought carefully about strategic interactions with opposing styles, and you are comfortable winning those debates in front of a judge who does not assume all of your priors, I will be a fine judge for you. If you need a judge who is strictly “in your lane” stylistically, then there will be matchups where I am not your ideal judge.

In terms of my familiarity with arguments: in phil lit, I am well read in analytic and continental philosophy (less so analytic philosophy, except in the area of ethics) and in the groups in between (Hegel and post-Hegelians, for example). In K lit, I’m well read in critical/Marxist theory and high theory, and I’m pretty comfortable (though slightly less well read) with the identity literature. I actively coach debaters on all of the above, as well as on theory, T vs K affs, K affs vs T, and (some) tricks. My debaters read some policy args, and there are scenarios where I encourage that, but I am less involved in coaching those arguments.

Miscellaneous

As a general policy, I don't disclose speaks.

Generally speaking, I'm not very receptive to arguments like "evaluate after the 1n" or "no neg analytics" (you know the genre). I'm fine with these arguments when they are scenario specific, and you can give an explanation why a type of argument needed to be made in a specific speech; obviously those arguments are sometimes true. Otherwise, I don't think these arguments are worth reading in front of me -- I never find myself comfortable making decisions based on sweeping claims that mean debaters generally can't respond to arguments.

For college debates, please add

caldebatechain@gmail.com

For HS, please add nathankarlfleming@gmail.com

Update for 2025 NDT

I’m coming back from my longest hiatus from debate ever. I’ve seen zero debates on the topic, and would appreciate a little extra explanation for the really technical stuff, acronyms, etc. My co-panelists will thank you for not making me spend time reading cards for comprehension.

This activity takes itself too seriously. Try not to be jerks to each other and don’t lose the plot.

Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. You should probably read a plan.

Misc Notes

-Arguments I won't vote for

-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate

-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea

-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate

-new affs bad

Lincoln Douglas

I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.

-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.

-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.

-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.

-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.

-I don’t flow RVIs.

Public Forum

Copy-Pasting Achten's.

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence.

This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Graduated from CK McClatchy High School in 2020. Graduated from UC Berkeley 2024. Currently DoD at Berkeley. Conflicts: CK McClatchy, West Campus, Harker, Cal, misc friends.

he/him

Of course i want to be on the email chain. nick.fleming39@gmail.com

Moreover, the 1AC needs to be sent out before the official start time for the debate, unless it is new. Speaker point deductions are in order for debaters that fail to do this.

I flow straight down on my laptop. I frequently flow CX in college policy debates. How/if I flow is non-negotiable.

I frequently take a while to decide college debates. Don't read into it too much.

Novices/Middle Schoolers

Please ignore basically everything in this paradigm. Do not worry about any of my idiosyncrasies and do not try to accommodate them. Just do your best!

College Specific Note

The debate must start on time. Tournaments are increasingly time-pressed and decision time gets shorter every year. As such, I expect college debaters to not only start on time, but minimize delays as much as possible during the debate. You are too old to still be confused about the email chain. The more decision time I have, the linearly better your decision will be. This applies less to JV/novice debates, obviously.

Important Stuff

Below are many feelings about debate. Precisely none of them overcome technical debating, with the exception of the couple clearly flagged. I have rendered numerous decisions for conditionality, against framework, and for the argument that capitalism is sustainable. If my feelings were determinative, I would never vote for these arguments. There is a great deal of wiggle room, but it is exclusively accessed through technical debating.

My two least favorite things on earth are self-importance and cowardess. Don't do either of them.

I think I care more than other judges about judge instruction. Telling me how to read/understand cards, how to frame warrants, etc. will be taken very seriously when the debate comes to an end. Smart, strategic judge instruction and framing will quickly earn speaker points.

Policy Debates

Most of my paradigm is about k debate because I have far less feelings about policy rounds. That is not to say I am not a good judge for them. My favorite debates to judge are big, in-depth policy rounds that are vertically oriented and evidence intensive. That being said, I have far less instruction to offer you because those rounds are more straight-forward to evaluate. Important thoughts:

I will reward smart turns case arguments and clever analytics above a wall of cards in these debates.

I frequently find that my decisions hinge on my ability to connect a very persuasive sounding 2ar to arguments made in the 1ar. I could be described as a “line holder” with regards to newness in the 2ar.

I have an increasing admiration for debaters willing to throw down on substantive issues regarding the topic. All else being equal, you will receive higher speaks for a great 2NR on the squo than a great 2NR on process.

I believe being affirmative is fundamentally easy. On those grounds, I err neg on basically all theory. This is significantly more true for policy than LD, but my instinct to resolve theory in favor of the neg will remain strong.

Planless affs ---

I generally think that debates are better, more interesting, and more educational when the aff defends a topical plan based on the resolution. On the other hand, I am also entirely unconvinced of the merit of this activity, full stop.

I have been in many of these debates, both answering and going for topicality. My time as a k debater raised my threshold for the aff a bit because I have first hand experience with how easy it can be to beat framework with args that suck. If you are going for an impact turn to T without a counter-interpretation, you should probably win offense against model v model debates.

I like impact turns a lot. I am a good judge for heg/cap good, and a bad judge for affs that don't want to defend anything. In my opinion, if you have taken a radically leftist position and forwarded a structural kritik but are unwilling to debate the most surface level right-wing propaganda, you are both bastardizing the literature and being cowards. I will not be convinced that your indictment of settler colonialism/some other superstructure is conveniently okay with whatever the neg has impact turned. Inversely, if you are a k team that is ready to throw down on these questions, I will consider you strong-willed, brave, and smart.

Skills/clash solve the case with a big external, a TVA, and a robust presumption push on case is the quickest way to my heart.

Similarly, presumption pushes against affs that are just built to impact turn T are very persuasive.

I am increasingly persuaded by the fairness paradox.

I am unpersuaded by the trend of affs being topic-adjacent and answering framework with "you could have read x DA."

I don't like offense that hinges on the subject position of your opponent or me as a judge. I also very strongly prefer not to be in charge of your mental health, livelihood, or identity. EDIT 11/21: have received questions about this and would like to clarify -- args about value to life, ressentiment, etc. are totally fine. I don't want be in charge of you as an individual -- meaning your role in the community, your mental health, or your sense of self.

Kritiks -

Neg - I consider myself fairly sufficient in most kritik literature and have researched extensively, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your theory. I don't think its fair of me to just fill in gaps for you (for example, deciding in my own head what it means if you "win the ontology debate.") The best way to win in front of me is to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without framework. If your argument is about you and contains no theory, I am a decidedly bad judge for you.

Aff - Impact turn things. Weigh the aff against the alt for more than just fairness -- see my framework thoughts for the neg above. If you are going soft left against the k that is also fine, but sounding nice and in the direction of whatever your opponents say doesn't tell me why the link doesn't turn the case.

Theory -

I am not very good at judging T debates against policy affs. I like reasonability and precision, and my record is pretty decisively aff, despite not having strong feelings about T. At least an outside chance this means I am simply not doing a very good job evaluating the debates.

I tend to be lenient with all neg shenanigans. Consult 2N PTSD rant above.

I largely think if cps compete, they are legit. I can sometimes be convinced otherwise, but if your theory argument is just "this counterplan is bad," I am going to be convinced by neg arbitrariness arguments,

That being said, I am pretty decisively aff for a lot of process competition. Teams would be well advised to reformulate their theory arguments as competition arguments in front of me. I am gettable on the intrinsic perm but it is an uphill battle.

Please do not go for condo in front of me. I have no idea why the neg thinking they can kick a counterplan or an alternative is a voting issue -- simply saying conditionality is bad is not sufficient for me to nuke the other team from the debate. I have never participated in or seen a debate between competent opponents in which even the most egregious abuses of conditionality effected the decision. If the neg drops it twice, I guess you have to go for it. I can think of very few circumstances where it is a good idea otherwise. Slightly more sympathetic for LD because of 1AR time pressures, but still will lean heavily neg and will cap speaks at 29 for the aff (assuming perfect debating otherwise --- if you go for condo, you should expect your points to be in the 28-28.5 range.)

Online Debate

If my camera is not on, please assume I am not ready for you to begin speaking.

I would very much appreciate if you could record your speeches in case there are internet issues while you are talking.

Even the clearest debaters tend to be tougher to flow in an online format. I understand that this comes with some strategic cost, but I will reward you with speaks if you go a little slower than usual and make sure to be extra clear.

LD:

I am fine with flex prep if you want to ask questions, but I am not going to pay attention like it is a CX. If you need to clarify things, that's fine, but treating flex prep like time to make arguments is clearly egregious.

Edit 2/11/23

If you do not ask for a marked document in your debate, I will add .1 to your speaker points. Unless your opponent legitimately marked cards, your speaker points will be capped at 29 if you ask for one. Flow better. Asking about what was and wasn't read is CX time. Every time you ask "did you read x" that's minus .1 speaker points.

EDIT 4/10/22: adding this after judging ~120 LD debates:

As my record indicates, I overwhelmingly vote neg in LD debates. Usually, this is because the 1AR runs out of time and drops something important, and I feel like my hands are tied on new 2AR args. That in mind -- 1ARs that set up big framing issues, start doing impact calc, and cut out superfluous arguments in favor of barebones substance will be rewarded with speaker points and usually the ballot. Aff teams, the entire activity seems to be stacked against you -- so debate accordingly, and don't waste time on useless stuff like condo.

I am gettable on Nebel/whole rez, but don't usually find it particularly persuasive. Seems counter-intuitive.

Please go easy on the theory -- I get that its a big part of the activity, but if your plan going into the debate is to go for a theory arg, you shouldn't pref me. I am usually going to vote neg.

I am not 100% familiar with all of the LD nomenclature so I may need a little explanation of things like "upward entailment test" and other LD-specific vocab

No RVI's ever under any circumstances

running list of arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

new affs bad

no neg fiat

plan focus allows you to say the n word in debates

my opponent did something outside the round that they should lose for

RVI's

Misc.

- Consider me dead inside -- moralizing and tugging on my heart strings will only earn you negative speaks - debate is not about individual feelings, and I will not consider yours when deciding who won.

- It is distracting and rude to talk to your partner at full volume while the other team is speaking.

- I strongly believe that you should be allowed to insert rehighlightings of evidence that has already been read in the debate if you think it goes the other way/want to add context to an argument. Please do not abuse this by inserting a million rehighlightings, but I will be hard to convince that it is not okay to do so in moderation (especially in the 1AR.)

- Please do not ask me for high speaks -- you lose half a point every time you bring it up

- I will only flow the person who's speech it is (edit: Feel less strongly about this during the 1AC/1NC)

- It is a damning indictment of our community that I even have to say this, but the debate will end immediately if it gets even remotely physical at any point. This includes touching other debaters' property. If this is any way surprising, confusing, or offensive to you, strike me.

- There is nothing more off-putting to me than debaters who take themselves too seriously. Please stop acting like this is anything other than a silly game we all want to win at.

• In that same vein, being rude does not make you cool, funny, or brave. Snarky CX comments, saying mean stuff in speeches, etc. will make me dislike you and actively hope that you lose the debate. If I think you are too rude, I will say something after the round and take pleasure in giving you bad speaks. If it gets to the point where I am saying something to you, you should assume I bombed your speaks. If you are a team cannot moderate your rudeness, or you cannot make your arguments without being mean, please strike me and save us both a headache.

Public Forum (copied from Greg Achten)

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

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

Ariel Gabay

I debate at the University of Kentucky, I debated at, and I now coach at Niles North High School.

Emails

arielgabay1710@gmail.com

devanemdebate@gmail.com

Procedure

I believe that technical execution overdetermines everything. I will try my absolute hardest to be non-interventionist and minimize it, in any regard, to as close to zero as I can. That said, in some debates, that's impossible, and if that is the case, I will let debaters know why I intervened, but will try to optimize that intervention towards what I believe is most fair.

I have absolutely zero preference for what argument you go for; I think that generally the more I debate, the less ideological I think I have become. Debaters work hard and are passionate about different things, you should let rip whatever you feel best increases the chances of you winning, nothing is off the table. As long as it results in more technical proficiency than your opponents, you will win.

This also means that if you cannot beat presumptively silly arguments, you deserve to lose.

Most paradigms feel like a lot of truisms, I am sure almost everyone agrees that technical debating matters. For me, what is most helpful is to understand how judges decide. I do not believe any judge is perfect. In response to the inevitable mistakes judges might make, I will try and be maximally transparent about both how I come to decisions and how I thought about arguments; you are more than welcome to post-round. With that caveat, here is my process:

I flow straight down on excel, I begin during the 1AC, no one has ever presented a persuasive argument not to do so.

I might peek at docs, but certainly not during speeches, and more so out of curiosity.

I start my decision where I am instructed to start and filter the rest of the arguments based on the resolution of that argument. The way to game this is that debaters must flag the arguments they want me to start on. If this is not done, I will be left to my own devices, where I will try and decide which issues I believe are most important, which, if you are comfortable with me doing that, great, but does inherently result in some judge intervention, which I detest. In response to having to intervene, I will always attempt to disclose where I started and why.

I will then type out as much as possible to figure out the implication of each argument based on the debater's articulation. This is because I believe that the decisions I respect the most, even if I disagree with them, are the ones that are thorough and well thought out. Given the amount of work that goes into debating, I will try and be thorough.

Everything should be contested. This includes, BUT is not limited to, whether cards can or cannot be inserted, or if an argument is 'new.' Absent instruction, I will default to the least intervention. For example, if a team inserts a card and the other team doesn't say that you cannot do that, I will assume that you can insert evidence.

Lastly, something I have noticed that I struggle with is voting on arguments that are not implicated if I do not understand them, even if it is a technical crush, an argument can be conceded, therefore true, but absent an explanation of it I sometimes struggle to understand what it means and the end-result might be a decision that you are not happy with! The really easy solution to this is just judge instruction, which also overcomes everything else I have said that might result in a decision you are not happy with.

The things that have always resulted in me providing the higher speaker points are debaters who know what they are talking about, are funny, and care about the activity.

Other

Please let me know if you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about Kentucky. Do not hesitate to reach out, I almost always have Kentucky debate stickers in my backpack.

Don't be jerks. I never thought it was affectively persuasive. I don't think anyone does, I don't think belittling your opponents has ever resulted in me voting for you.

Last big thing, I understand that at the TOC it might be people's last debates, and some simply do not want to hear full decisions. If that is the case, let me know, I won't take offense to it.

Director of the DebateDrills Club Team - here are various policies, incident reporting forms, and roster/ conflict info.

David Griffith

Last substantively updated on 2/25/25---added "methodology" section that tries to describe how I judge and decide debates.

Coach at the University of Kentucky and New Trier High School. I judge a lot of debates. I debated nationally for 8 years in high school (Oak Park-River Forest) and college (Kentucky).

Emails for Email Chains:

High School: griffithd2002@gmail.com, ntpolicydebate@gmail.com

College: griffithd2002@gmail.com, debatedocs@googlegroups.com, ukydebate@gmail.com

I. Non-Negotiable:

The neg gets conditionality---never voting on condo. It can be double-dropped for all I care. If you need an escape hatch, I will happily vote on no neg fiat (this is not a joke) or any other theory arguments, just not this one.

II. Judging Methodology:

a. Starting Points.

I try to minimize intervention where possible, but no judge is a blank slate. I can't fairly adjudicate condo debates, so I don't want to judge them. Relatedly, some of my biases matter more than others. This section tries to describe my biases' relationship the the outcome of a given debate. The other sections set those biases out in clearer terms.

I encourage debaters to ask as may questions as they want about the decision or anything else.

I try to write out my RFD in full and submit it on Tabroom because I have trouble organizing my thoughts otherwise. I spend the majority of decision time typing notes on how I resolved each important question before cohering those notes into a complete RFD.

I flow every speech on my laptop. The only time my flow will not take up my entire screen is when I paste the plan text and any counterplan texts from the speech doc into my Excel sheet as they are read. I prefer to line arguments up on my flow rather than going straight down, but this doesn't always work.

I am not a fan of "any risk" logic when taken to its logical endpoint. This means I often evaluate links to arguments more stringently than other judges and am more willing than many to zero arguments if there isn't one. I am particularly more willing than most to abandon offense/defense in debates that do not center on predicting the consequences of the plan. If I'm tasked with deciding whether reading a certain argument was violent, for example, I am more likely to simply conclude "yes" or "no" than to start with the impacts to either of those answers being true. The same is true to a lesser extent for permutations.

My default presumption is that the aff must meet each stock issue, and the neg only debates the desirability of the plan. This makes me better than average for inherency, solvency, and other case-based neg strategies, and worse than average for philosophically competitive Ks, any arguments about fiat, and most K affs.

Plan desirability is not assumed but must be demonstrated, because the aff has the burden of proof. This belief can make me seem a bit "truthier" than some in that I will not assign risk to something without knowing where that risk comes from. This belief is very strongly held because I do not understand the alternative.

b. Deciding the Debate & Judge Intervention.

I start deciding by looking at the issues flagged by the 2NR and 2AR as important. I usually have some feeling about which side is winning during and after every debate, so where I start depends on that feeling. That feeling is informed by whose argument is presented more persuasively, how much the 2NR/2AR jump up and down about a particular issue, dropped arguments, and a variety of other things that can't be explained any better than when a spectator walks out of a debate declaring that it was a crush.

I will never evaluate more than I have to. For example, if the aff convincingly wins a no impact argument at the top of the 2AR, so much so that the case outweighs the DA, evaluating subsequent no link/internal link defense arguments is a waste of time, and I will never get that far. I do not like creating extra work for myself if I don't have to. This means I am a slightly faster judge than average.

If either final rebuttal fails to set out the most important issues at some point, I will trust my intuition, which is guided by time allocation, verbiage, and subjective judgment of what argument I thought was best throughout the debate.

If I believe an argument to be new in the 2AR, I will strike it from my flow. If debaters question the legitimacy of arguments introduced in other rebuttals, I will usually favor striking the argument but not always. What counts as new is up for debate.

Intervention is forced when competing claims cannot be resolved by reading my flow. How I intervene tends to favor teams with the clearest, best presented argument, and that is when the rest of this paradigm becomes relevant. What counts as clear and well-presented is hard to capture in precise terms, but the litmus test I normally use is whether I can explain an argument based solely on the words on my flow without looking at any evidence or adding explanation based on my own assumptions.

I do my best avoid content intervention by making sure that I can explain arguments I'm voting on after the debate is over without reading cards. If arguments are equally well-explained but nevertheless irreconcilable, only then will I begin to read evidence. That being said, you should always make and send a card doc. I read evidence to verify claims being made about it, not to enhance my understanding of the arguments in the debate. Stronger evidence is only important if it is debated well. Weaker evidence hurts you more if your storytelling isn't good.

III. Style and Presentation:

They matter a lot---sounding like you're winning is the first step to actually winning. Being organized ensures I understand your argument in its best form. Therefore, debating according to the suggestions outlined here will maximize your chances of a high quality decision after the debate.

Number arguments, signpost, and slow down---I strongly prefer debaters number arguments. Forcing me to flow straight down is the number one way to make me grumpy. I don't flow the speech doc. If you talk in paragraphs or fly through every argument at the same speed, I will miss arguments and won't feel bad about it. I will vote for pretty much anything so long as I can flow it and explain it after the round.

Label everything---off-case positions, advantages, and even individual arguments if possible. I get grumpy when the 1NC reads a bunch of off and makes everyone have a conversation before the 2AC about what everything is called.

Tell me why you win---robust judge instruction is your only hope of avoiding catastrophic judge intervention. Final rebuttals should clearly explain the implication of winning your most important arguments relative to other arguments in the debate. Doing so will result in a faster, clearer decision and better speaker points. Failing to do so will result in me taking the easy way out if possible.

Explain why technical concessions matter---I don't like it when debaters spam arguments and expect me to understand what they all mean. I have to able to explain to the other team why they needed to answer your argument in order to win. If something is dropped and important enough to jump up and down about, don't leave the explanation why to me. Do it in your speech.

Complain about new arguments---I don't like latebreaking debates. The "R" in 1NR and 1AR stands for "rebuttal." If the block makes deliberate choices informed by 2AC errors/concessions and tells me this, I am highly likely to obey 2NR judge instruction to ignore whatever the 1AR cooked up. Similarly, if asked to, I'm likely to ignore new 1NR T interpretations, CP competition arguments, or anything that the aff should get to CX the neg about. You just have to bring it up.

Don't answer incomplete arguments---the 2AC doesn't have to make solvency deficits if the 1NC doesn't have solvency arguments. Often, I consistently see 2ACs that accurately assess that a 1NC position was incomplete and then spend an inordinate amount of time on that sheet. This will make me second-guess whether the 1NC applied because it tells me that you take the argument seriously. Stop doing that.

IV. K Affs, T-USFG, and K v. K

Pick a lane and stay in it---I find that I most often vote for the team with the best developed arguments, not the one with the most. I do not judge these debates by tallying up dropped arguments. Going for too many impacts or spreading yourself too thin in the 1AR/2NR/2AR is the easiest way to lose me.

Affs should clearly depart from the status quo---in general, I would prefer that affs to have an advocacy statement identifying the specific action it believes is desirable. That action must be different from the status quo and enacted by an agent of change outside of the debate. Asking me to "endorse" something already happening or suggesting that I vote for the aff because it was educational are both likely to lose to a basic presumption 2NR. Relying on tricks to avoid this outcome (call-outs, theory, impact turns to T, etc.) will not get you very far.

Have a role for both sides, not just one---the best way to avoid intervention in framework debates is to paint a broad picture of debates under your interpretation. I generally find arguments about switch-side debate extremely persuasive. I am equally unpersuaded by the neg team that only complains about fairness and the aff team that only talks about how educational their particular aff is. I'm much more concerned with what an entire season looks like because not every debate is going to mirror the one happening in front of me. This makes me a good judge for creative counter-interpretations from the aff paired with functional limits arguments and a bad judge for any aff that says the topic will always be bad.

Explanation matters more here than in any other debate---I need to understand the implications of what you're saying. I vote neg on framework most when the aff says the topic is bad and fails to explain why that should be allowed. I vote aff most often on creative counter-interps and/or critiques of voting on topicality.

Voting issues are not offense/defense---my overwhelming inclination is to evaluate the link to a voting issue (was the aff untopical/is T a microaggression/did the other team do something bad) prior to evaluating the theoretical impact. I am more willing to vote on zero link to those examples than others even if the terminal impact to them feels large.

Perms test the 1AC's advocacy---two implications of this: 1. If the 1AC does not present a clear advocacy statement, the 2AC shouldn't get a permutation since there is no basis for neg competition since the debate centers around the value of the 1AC rather than the desirability of a particular course of action; and 2. If the 1AC does present a clear advocacy statement, frame subtraction, the cap K that competes on historical analysis, and the "state good" CP are exceedingly likely to lose on a permutation since those things do not test the desirability of the advocacy.

V. Ks against Policy Affs

Tricks are annoying---I'm pretty bad for teams that rely on tricks in order to win, especially if those tricks are vague assertions of "serial policy failure" or "ontology" or "root cause" without tailored application to the aff. I'm a great judge for nuanced link debating, competing ethical frameworks, and in particular alternatives oriented towards changing the world in some capacity rather than simply analyzing it. Remember, I must be able to explain why arguments interact in order for me to weigh one in your favor, so if I can't explain why the link turns case, the link does not turn the case.

Tougher sell than most on strong ontology arguments---I struggle a lot with evaluating arguments that say the world must always be a certain way. It is very difficult to convince me that the world cannot get better or worse (especially that last one). This means I have a significantly higher threshold for evaluating ontology arguments than a lot of judges. To me, one ontology argument being true doesn't intuitively mean all others are off the table, and ontology is just a characterization of the world, not an indictment of political action.

"Perm do both" definitionally does not sever anything---by default, the aff can "sever" its representations because its representations being good was not the reason the 1AC said to vote aff. This makes me a hard sell on most neg framework interps.

VI. Counterplans

I will not kick the CP by default---I don't really get why people think conditionality applies to judge kick. Perm in the 2AR flips presumption aff. I'll still judge kick if I'm told to but won't if I'm not.

I don't like the other issues perm---the intrinsic perm is an unfortunate creation by Big 2A designed to avoid having to do research and understand why most process CPs are facially ridiculous. I am a much better judge for "perm do the plan and non-mutually exclusive parts of the CP" and similar perms that do part of the CP and all of the aff. I also think "perm do both" is underutilized against CPs that fiat their outcome, For example, if the courts CP fiats a ruling, the perm also fiats the ruling, so any perm argument that says the case gets tossed makes negative sense. If you insist on going for the other issues perm for some reason, it is important to identify the other side's arguments by name, clearly divide your offense and defense, and slow down when identifying what part of the debate you're on. Do not just read a 2NR block straight down and gesture towards the most common aff answers as if I will understand those as the same as the ones the 1AR made.

I need to understand CP solvency---I do not presume that a CP solves the case in the same way that I do not presume the 1AC reading a plan text automatically means it solves its advantages. This means vague CP texts, especially without cards attached to them, are not likely to persuade me, and the 2AC need not say much if the 1NC doesn't.

Aff leaning on certainty/immediacy/agent CPs---words often have multiple meanings, and the aff's definitions are usually better for debate.

Impacts matter---solvency deficits need connections to them. "Delay" and "certainty" only matter if connected to a particular 1AC internal link. Linking a CP to one of these concepts alone is unlikely to matter to me if the impact isn't clear.

VII. Topicality in Policy Debates

2ARs should always include reasonability---most T interps are stupid. The cards usually suck. T-Subsets should not be an argument. The topic is never as big as people say it is. Literature checks abuse the vast majority of the time. Stop letting the cult of limits consume us all.

Arbitrary limits are not limits---if your cards are significantly better, please go for predictability. If truth is on your side, that's a reason we should've written the resolution better. If you don't have the sauce, you probably shouldn't go for T unless the aff spots you competing interpretations.

Limits outweigh aff innovation, which is why you need to extend reasonability---being aff is so easy. You do not need to be untopical to beat the court clog DA or whatever. Reasonabliity is the only way to beat a neg limits impact in an evenly matched debate with two equally predictable inteprretations.

Plan in a vacuum is mostly unpersuasive---how do you interpret the plan in a vacuum? The 1AC read evidence that informs what the plan means. This is why the aff can go for solvency deficits against CPs and nuanced no link arguments against DAs. To me, it seems untenable to suggest that the evidence the 1AC used to define plan function should be ignored when deciding topicality. Now, if I can use the neg interpretation when interpreting the plan and still conclude the aff's characterization of the plan is feasible, plan in a vacuum makes sense.

VIII. The Status Quo, Disadvantages, and Impact Framing

Sequencing matters more than overall risk---in debates where everyone gets to the same terminal impact, by default, the faster impact wins. If the econ DA is faster than inevitable economic decline, I will vote to live another few days.

Fiat solves every rider and horsetrading DA---in general, rider and horsetrading DAs do not test plan desirability but feasibility. Bar technical concessions, I'm almost automatically aff if the 2AR goes for no link, so much so that the 2AC/1AR probably needn't say anything else.

Better than average for non-utilitarian impact frames---I'm persuaded by critiques of longtermist thinking. Avoiding extinction is one of many potential reasons for doing something, and I think debate would be better if everyone stopped pretending every possible action truly influences the risk of some world-ending catastrophe.

Wipeout/extinction good is fine, with a caveat---I have learned recently that I am very persuaded by even minimal impact defense to AI. I'm much better for animals/anti-natalism/other flavors of extinction good than that one.

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head of Debate at Lynbrook High School.

+0.2 speaks for starting early when possible

CIRCUIT LD PARADIGM

1. Am very good for 'Phil' – it's my favorite part of LD debate. In my view, LD debate is supposed to be, at least partially, about the criterion.

2. Be clear, slow down on tags, and pause between separate arguments. I don't flow off the speech doc.

3. Am bad for policy v policy. If this is the debate you want to have, you should make the following adjustments:

a. Dedicate a portion of your rebuttal speeches to explaining the story of your advantage/disadvantage in the simplest possible terms.

b. Policy debates most of the time look like assertion wars to me. One side asserts this thing will happen if we pass the resolution, the other side asserts that it won't. Please address this problem by focusing on the warrants of the arguments. It will also behoove you to go more slowly as you're doing this so that things are maximally clear to me.

c. Policy debaters seem to hide behind cards a lot. They read a piece of evidence in the rebuttal and think that this is a substitute for making an argument. If you read a bunch of cards against the case and don't do any analysis or explanation of why your cards provide better warranting than the arguments being answered, the debate looks an awfully lot like a tie to me. In general, the primary job in a debate is to break ties and to explain why I should defer to you.

My view is that right after reading a piece of evidence, a debater should provide some explanation as to why the evidence is particularly good/specific/uses better warrants than the other side's evidence. Then in the next speech, when they extend the evidence, it has more weight, especially if their opponent conceded the analysis. If the first time you do comparison is in the final speech, I might just disagree with what you're saying, plus it's hard as a judge to defer to one side's comparison over another without intervening.

TLDR: don't treat LD like a policy round that gets cut off after the 1AR. If you do that, the debate will inevitably look late-breaking. Read fewer arguments and spend more time in that initial speech doing analysis/comparison.

d. If it hasn't been clear yet from the above, in front of me you should definitely do more judge instruction than you think you have to. Seriously, I have very little background with policy arguments. It isn't instantly obvious to me how things work.

4. I don’t vote on disclosure theory. There wasn't disclosure when I competed, and I thought that was a much better system, for many reasons –

a. It required both sides to actively pay attention during the debate, to flow diligently, to use their brains during prep time to come up with responses

b. Due to a., speeches were generally more responsive. Debaters did more signposting, explained things a lot more clearly, and were better at judge instruction because a rigorous flow was the reference point and not a speech doc.

c. The debates nowadays are super focused on evidence. I'd rather people read less evidence and spend more time explaining their arguments and making responses about what links/steps/warrants are missing in their opponent's case.

d. I have no idea why the aff should have to commit itself to reading a particular case or version of a case 30 minutes before the debate has even started.

e. In a world without disclosure, tournament environments are generally more relaxed. People socialize more and aren't spending 30 minutes freaking out before their round.

5. 1AR theory: if you want to be able to go for it later, you have to invest time developing it and pre-empting the 2NR. I very rarely vote on 1AR theory, not because I'm opposed to it, but because the 2AR almost always sounds new.

6. I almost never read cards after the round. This means 'inserting rehighlightings' is unlikely to be effective in front of me. Instead you should be reading aloud specific lines from their evidence that disagree with their claim.

7. Speaks: I usually give between 28 and 29.

Pre-round paradigm

Hello! I am good with pretty much any argument as long as it is developed as an actual argument. I much much much prefer clash to avoiding argumentation. Something isnt an argument just because you say it is, it has to actually be an argument.

Prefs paradigm

Please put me on the email - Harvanko11@gmail.com - but I probably wont be reading ev during the debate I enjoy all types of debates as long as they are done well, I will try my best to be tab and adapt to whatever style of debate you are used to rather than having y'all poorly adapting to what i am used to. I am fine with most things as long as you take your opponent seriously. go at like 70% of top speed. I obviously do have opinions on things as everyone does so the rest of this will be trying to be transparent about what those are. None of this is set in stone and I will try my best to rid myself of any ideological bias during the round.

For quick prefs i hate you if u read tricks and will happily evaluate everything else

POLICY AFFS

I enjoy all of them from the most stock aff on a topic to an in-depth process aff as long as they are debated well and I am given a clear story of the advantages/what the aff does to solve them.

K AFFS

Go for it, I would much prefer if the aff had *some* relationship to the topic either being "in the direction" or telling me why I shouldn't like the topic (and more importantly why that means I should vote aff) and I do not really like an aff that is just something that can be entirely recycled every topic. With the framework debate I probably err towards a well thought out counter interp than just straight impact turning everything but both can be viable and winning strategies.

THE CRITICISM

This is what i have debated with, read, and coached the most so this is where I am most familiar (and subsequently hold harder lines for explanation). I enjoy innovations in critical literature quite a bit so long as it can be well explained.

For both, if you are not black, do not read afropessimism. I will not vote for you. I will generally have a strong predisposition against you if you read it in other rounds and change it in my round. I think that this is unique to afropessimism given how strongly the authors are have addressed the theory being uptaken by non-black scholars.

PHIL POSITIONS

I have at least some experience in most philosophies. I have a hard time believing that all the philosophies that y'all claim don't care about consequences actually don't care about them (kant is an obvious exception). With a policy against a phil debate, I would prefer having some spin as to why your offense is relevant under their framework than just going all in on their framework being wrong or yours being normatively true but either can be a winning strategy.

COUNTERPLANS

I really enjoy a good counterplan so long as I know both how it competes and what the net benefit is (competition from net benefits is competition enough but there can be more). I really really enjoy process counterplan debates as long as I understand its distinction from the aff.

Counterplan theory is pretty much the only theory that I am wholeheartedly for. I come from LD originally and have moved into policy so my thoughts on condo aren't really clear yet, for LD I can be easily convinced of either side.

DISADVANTAGES

I don't really have any strong opinions about disads. I would like a lot of impact and turns case analysis if the disad is the only thing in the 2nr. I don't think I would be comfortable voting on a disad if the aff has a comparable impact without some level of solvency push by the negative.

THEORY

I can get behind most theory debates as long is there is actual abuse. I know I know, reasonability is arbitrary but I think there are affs that clearly are not abusive. I think that fairness is a good internal link but not an impact in and of itself (and I imagine that that will be hard, but not impossible, to convince me of). I actually find myself hating judging theory debates nowadays because they are usually way to fast for me, so with that, I would prefer if you slowed down quite a bit if you're going to be making hella quick analytic args (this is generally true but especially true for theory debates). I really don't like disclosure in most cases unless the aff has been broken but isnt disclosed online and isnt disclosed in person before the round.

TOPICALITY

Go for it, I am predisposed to think that t isn't an RVI but can potentially be swayed otherwise. The more contextualized definitions are to the topic the more I like them. I think t can be incredibly persuasive against k affs as well (not as a framework position but actually going for t)

TRICKS

I've come around, maybe tricks aren't that bad, but only if everyone there is able to know what is going on. I do not like hidden arguments in the middle of a block of analytics and i probably won't vote on the resolved apriori but I think that a lot of phil arguments (e.g. skep, trivialism, etc.) get a bad rep and aren't evil and are sometimes interesting to ponder thru. This is a philosophical forum after all. This is all to say: please don't read rapper trix, you can go for kant is the only way to resolve skep and maybe that skep argument is a presumption/permissibility trigger.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS

- CX is binding but I probably wont write anything down unless you explicitly direct me to in the moment.

- Speaks start at around a 28.5 and I look to go up or down from there based on strategy, efficiency (not time efficiency but if you are too repetitive on an argument), and clarity.

- Please ask me questions before the round if you are unsure of anything!!!!!

- I welcome you all to post round me, we are all in debate for a reason and i love to argue

Debated for and currently coach at Strake Jesuit

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Tech > Truth

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Do not read eval or give me 30 speaks I will not evaluate either

Additionally do not swear in round or use profanities it will effect speaker points.

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them but these are my preferences.

Tricks - 1

Larp - 3

Phil - 1

K - 4

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms being a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might read and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feelings about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

Synthesis

1. Paragraph - you lose. This does not need to be an argument in the debate.
2. Read tags that is some like ….” Therefore.” I won’t flow it
3. Read a card that does not include a read warrant. This is meaningless in the debate.
4. Claiming a card says something that it clearing does not 25 spk loss. This does not need to be an argument in the debate. I will intervene period as you have no ethics for an activity that I care deeply about.
   
   

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally to your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

*I will never give higher speaks/a 30 based on a "give me 30 speaks" shell.

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

Do not use profanity in round. I will lower speaker points if you do.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Note for TOC: while I enjoy judging PF and I have judged 3 circuit tournaments this year, it is not my normal event. I am a Policy judge and coach most of the time. At the end of the day it's hard to turn that part of my brain off. So if you want a more traditional PF round, you should strike me.

Disclosure expectations for bid tournaments:I expect teams to disclose promptly after pairings come out. Don't show up to the room 1 minute before the round starts and then finally disclose the aff or past 2NRs (especially if it's not on the wiki). I consider this the same as not disclosing at all and thus am ok with your opponents running disclosure on you.

PGP: they/them

- I don't care what you call me as long as you don't call me broke (jk, I am a teacher so you can also call me that ig)

Email chain: Yes, I do want to be on the email chain (saves time): learnthenouns[at]the-google-owned-one.

Background/experience: Head coach at Lincoln East (11-ish years), 7 years of debating in high school (mostly LD with some Policy and Congress) and college (NFA-LD and NPDA/NPTE Parli)

Equity statement: I will not listen to you promote any kind of advocacy that says oppression good or structural violence denial (ie claiming anti-white racism is real). They are an auto-ballot against you regardless of whether your opponent points it out or not.

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

Overview for all events

• Debate is both educational and a game. I believe the education comes from ideas engaging with one another and students finding their voice. The "game" element functions as a test of your effectiveness in presenting and defending your personal beliefs and advocacies. Thus, I consider myself a games player as it is a necessary component of the educational experience.

• I flow internal warrants and tags more often than author names so don’t rely on me knowing what “extend Smith #3 in 2k12” means in the grand scheme of the debate and, similarly, don’t power tag or plan to mumble your way through cards because I’m listening and will call you on it. I am more interested in the content of your arguments than the names of the people that you are citing.

• On that note, I want the speech doc so that I can check your evidence and appreciate analytics being included when the debate is online.

Delivery: I'm a bit over 20 years in the game at this point so I've started to get more picky about delivery stuff, especially with speed.

• In-person: speed is fine in everything except congress. I watch NDT rounds for fun, so I can handle it. But I do expect clarity in all events. I will yell "clear" once or twice if you're mumbling, and, after that, I reduce speaks. Enunciation should be a baseline in debate, not a bonus.

• Slow down a tiny bit + vary your pitch for your analytics and tags darn it. I am not a machine, I cannot flow your back-to-back analytics when you're going 400wpm with no pauses and no clear markers of where arguments begin and end.

• Online: if you are extremely fast, slow it down a little bit (but not a ton) when online, especially if you have a bad mic. The unfortunate reality is most people's set ups can't handle top policy speeds. On that note, I strongly encourage you to include analytics in the doc when online in case audio cuts out or there are other tech issues!
  

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

PF

Note for TOC: while I enjoy judging PF, it is not my normal event. I am a Policy judge and coach most of the time. At the end of the day it's hard to turn that part of my brain off. So if you want a more traditional PF round, you might want to strike me.

Theory (since this will probably impact your strikes the most, I will start here)

In short, I think theory has an important role to play in PF as we develop clearer, nationwide norms for the event. When it's necessary and run well, I dig it. However,I do not like 'blippy' frivelous theory like tricks. In other words, it needs to be warranted and explained like any other argument.

• I have sat through enough painful evidence exchanges and caught enough teams misrepresenting their evidence that I would prefer teams to have "cut cards" cases and exchange them by the start of their speech (preferably earlier). If one side elects not to do this, I am willing to vote on theory regarding evidence ethics assuming it's argued and extended properly. Questions about this? Email me in advance (my email is up top).
• To clarify/elaborate on the above,I am specificallydown for: disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory. Irl I think both are true and good arguments. If you don't want to disclose or you refuse to run cut card cases rather than paraphrased cases, you should strike me or have some really good blocks ready.
• I am not quite as keen on other types of theory in PF (and especially hate friv theory)but given how quickly my attitude was changed on paraphrasing, I am very much open to having my mind changed.

Overview for PF

Generally speaking, I see PF as a more topic-centric policy round where the resolution acts as the plan text. This, of course, depends on the topic, but this view seems to generally provide for a consistent and fair means to evaluate the round.

Truth vs tech:

• I find that PF tends to demand a balance of tech and truth due to the fact that teams are rarely able to respond to every argument on the flow.
• "Truth" to me is determined by warranting and explanation (so still tied to an extent to tech). As such, better-warranted arguments will get more weight over blippy or poorly explained arguments.

Speed:

In short:

• speed for depth is good
• speed for breadth (ie more blippy arguments) is bad.
• I can handle pretty much any speed however, if you're going fast, your analysis better be more in-depth as a result.
• You also need to slow down just a touch for tags and analytics!
• A final word of caution on speed is that PFers often suck at proper speed reading in that they lack any semblance of clarity and do not explain arguments. So be clear and warrant things out if you go fast.

Other PF specifics:

• I tend to prefer the final focus to be more focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story; and less focused on line-by-line. Though again, given my experience in LD and Policy, I can definitely handle line-by-line, just don't forget to warrant things out and I'd prefer you to not go for everything.
• All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides and the judge. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense). I also reserve the right to start a team's prep time up if they are taking an excessively long time to share their stuff.
• On that note,I will call for evidence and I appreciate it when teams help me know what to call for. I know that paraphrasing is the norm at this point but I do not love it as it leads to a lot of teams that excessively spin or outright lie about evidence. Tell me to call for it if it's junk evidence and I'll do so. I will apply the NSDA guidelines regarding paraphrasing when it is justified, so make sure you are familiar with those rules so that you can avoid doing it and know to call your opponents out when they slip up.
• I hate bullying/aggressive rudeness in crossfire. I dock speaker points for people that act like jerks.
• The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own casein their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet. In fact, I prefer they don't as it decreases clash and takes the only advantage they have from speaking first.

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

Congress

Background (you can probably skip this tbh): I am usually East's primary congress coach meaning I am working with the dockets every week. I have experience coaching and judging at both the state and national levels. I have had 4 TOC qualifiers, 14 (?) NSDA national qualifiers, a state champion, and an NSDA Senate finalist as well as a House semifinalist.

Generally, I see Congress as being best judged on 3 factors: the strength of argumentation, speaking abilities, and round presence. I will briefly outline my expectations for each below. Feel free to ask if anything doesn't make sense.

Also, for Nebraska debaters reading this before quals, please do not treat this like other debate events. If you speed read your speech, try to do 'line-by-line,' run a kritik, or anything else that is clearly not intended for Congress you can expect that you will not be ranked and your speech scores will be exceptionally low.

Argumentation:

A good portion of this comes from the logic and evidence presented in your speech. Things I consider include factual accuracy, logical consistency, recency of evidence, and internal warranting. I also will listen to questioning to assess how well you are able to defend your arguments, so please take questioning seriously!

Speaking abilities:

While I mostly did LD and Congress in high school, I dabbled in speech (by that I mean I was a state finalist) and I now teach communication studies. I feel that Congress is unique among debate events in that it encourages students to utilize more persuasive elements during their speeches. Thus, you should not operate under the assumption that I'm going to treat this like a Policy or LD round. I will factor the quality of the speaker into my assessment. This also includes during questioning.

I look for things like: body language/gestures, paralinguistic elements of vocal delivery (ie tone, pace, volume, emphasis, etc), speech structure (including your intro/preview, and internal argument structure) and word choice/diction.

Round presence:

By this, I mean your role in advancing the debate, questioning speakers, and ensuring the chamber is efficient. I will be looking for refutation and extension of prior arguments that help keep the debate. On this note, I hate rehash as it either indicates a lack of awareness of what prior speakers have said, or an inability to adapt your speeches on the fly. I also am looking at how your questions contribute to the debate as well as how they demonstrate an understanding of the round and topic. Finally, I am expecting that you help ensure the chamber is efficient by recognizing when motions are necessary and appropriate. For example, if the debate has clearly reached its endpoint on a bill, I really appreciate a representative that will move the previous question so that we aren't beating a dead horse.

A note for POs:

I will rank POs. My team has had several students who made a habit of winning tournaments as POs in the past, so I very much respect the skill of a good PO. However, it is not automatic. Typically, for a PO to get ranked, they should run an efficient house. A great PO is notable not because they are constantly inserting themselves, but rather because they have such clear and effective procedures in place that I barely have to think about them until they are needed. That said, I do think that if the house is 'out of order' (ie they are doing things like going over time, not following procedures, having a one-sided debate, or, god forbid, being offensive) a good PO will step in to remind the house of the rules and decorum that are expected of them.

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

LD

LDers on the nat circuit: Sorry if you have to have me as a judge. I vastly prefer to stay in policy land because I am a judge that wants effective spreading and in-depth analysis rather than mumbled analytics/tags with no clear labeling and blippy arguments from people doing a cosplay of bad Policy. So in other words, I like everything that circuit LD seems to be allergic to right now. But my team needs their obligation covered so here I am. So read my paradigm and adapt or deal with my rant about how annoying circuit LD is.

Argument ratings

• K debate (pomo or ID tix): 10 out of 10

• Performance: 10 out of 10

• T/theory (when run correctly): 8.5 out of 10

• LARP/plan-focus: 8 out of 10

• Phil (aka trad): 6 out of 10

• T/theory (when blipped out and poorly argued): 4 out of 10

• Tricks: 0 out of 10 (boooo boooooo!!!)

These are just preferences though. I have and will vote for anything (even tricks, unfortunately, but my threshold is extremely high)

Speed (for context, conversational is like a 3 or 4 out of 10)

• Speed in person: 8.5/10

• Speed online: 6 or 7/10 (depends on mic quality)

In short, the order I resolved arguments**

ROB/ROJ/Pre-fiat Burdens > Procedurals (T/thoery) > Framing (value/crit) > Impacts

**Note: I am willing to rearrange the order I evaluate things in if you win that I should. See below ofr a detailed break down of this ordering.

The most important specifics:

• A lot of LDers I have seen don't seem to understand thatspeed should never come at the expense of clarity. I low key hate judging circuit LD due to this inability to spread well. I judge policy most weekends. I can handle speed. No one can understand your mumbling.

• That said, I generally feel that disclosure is good and spreading is fine (even an equalizer in some ways). However, there is a lot of debate to be had here (especially when topics like opacity and the surveillance of non-white debaters or ableism get raised), and I have voted for both sides of each issue multiple times.

• I consider myself a games player, so I primarily am looking to evaluate what 'wins out' in terms of argumentation in the debate.

• I love creativity and being intellectually engaged, so I’m a good person to run your Kritik/project/performance/non-topical aff/art case in front of. Of course, I still need you to make it an argument if you want me to vote for you (singing a song isn't an auto-win, especially if you sing it poorly), but otherwise, fire away.

• Strike me if you have to use tricks or similar bad strategies (i.e. blippy and arbitrary theory spikes/shells/tricks such as "aff only gets 2 contentions" or "aff auto wins for talking" or "neg doesn't get any arguments") to win rounds. They are not debating in any sense of the word, and I cannot think of any educational or competitive value that can be derived from promoting them. If you decide to ignore this, I will likely gut your speaks (ie a 26 or maybe lower).

• If you want to win any argument and especially theory debate, warrant your arguments in every speech. Really, it's true of all arguments, but it's most frequently a problem on theory. Don't just say "limits key to competitive equity, vote on fairness" and call it a day. I'm a T hack when it's run well, but most people don't like to take time to run it well.

• Beyond that, I like just about every style of LD (again, other than tricks). I have greatly enjoyed judging everything from hyper-traditional to fast and critical. I don't see any type as being inherently 'superior' to the others, so do what you do and I'll listen, just justify it well.

• For your reference in terms of what I am most familiar with arguments wise, I coach a team that has typically run more critical and identity lit (po-mo, anti-blackness, Anzaldua, D&G, cap, fem, neolib, Judith Butler etc) and often plays around with what some might call "nontraditional strategies." Though we often run more traditional philosophy (typically Levinas, Kant, util, or Rawls) and plan-text style cases as topics warrant.

• For a more detailed breakdown of how I judge certain arguments, please see "argument specifics" in my policy paradigm below. The only major difference is that I do think aff RVI's are semi-legit in LD because of time limits.

Not so short explanation of how I resolve debates if you do not tell me otherwise:

-First, the role of the ballot, the role of the judge, and the burdens of each side are up for debate in front of me (and I actually enjoy hearing these debates). I tend to believe that these are a priori considerations (though that is up for debate as well) and thus are my first consideration when evaluating the round.

- Next, I will resolve any procedurals (i.e. topicality, theory shells, etc) that have been raised. I will typically give greater weight to in-depth, comparative analysis and well-developed arguments rather than tagline extensions/shells. If you're going to run one of these, it needs to actually be an argument, not just a sentence or two thrown in at the end of your case (again, no "tricks").

-Absent a ROTB/ROJ or procedural debate I next look to the value/crit/standard, so you should either A) clearly delineate a bright-line and reason to prefer your framework over your opponent's (not just the obnoxious 'mine comes first' debate please) or B) clearly show how your case/impacts/advocacy achieves your opponent's framework better (or both if you want to make me really happy….)

-After framework (or in the absence of a clear way to evaluate the FW) I finally look to impacts. Clear impact analysis and weighing will always get preference over blippy extensions (you might be sensing a theme here).

Policy

In super-brief (or T/L as the cool kids call it):

See below for in-depth on different arguments

• Great for: Ks; T; K affs in the direction of the topic; unique and well-warranted plan affs; soft left affs; framework; performance args; most things that deal with critical lit (especially love Deleuze tbh)

• Ok for: blippy/big stick plan text affs; K affs with zero topic links; DAs with strong links; valid procedurals (ie vagueness, condo); basic CP debates; Baudrillard

• I would rather not judge (but have definitely still voted for): CP debates that get heavily into CP theory; generic DAs with minimal links, frivolous theory (ie inherency procedural, arbitrary spec shells, etc); most speed ks (unless they are grounded in something like ableism); orientalist China bashing

• Various things I especially appreciate: clash, debating and extending warrants, in-depth case debate, impacting T properly, an organized flow, prompt pre-round disclosure and open sourcing, creative arguments, sending analytics in the doc when debating online

• Various things I especially dislike: rudeness, not kicking things properly, mumbling when speed reading, disorganized flows, debaters who show up late to rounds and then ask us to wait while they pre-flow, extending author names or tags instead of warrants and impacts

Other basics:

• I am mostly down for whatever, but I prefer in-depth debate over blippy extensions. I am ultimately a games player though, so you do you.

• I want teams to engage with each other's arguments (including T, framework, and case). Debating off scripted blocks for the whole round isn't really debating and sort of makes me wonder if we even needed to have the round.

• I will evaluate things however they are framed in the round. That said, if there is no explicit framing, then I usually default to believing that real-world impacts are of more importance than imaginary impacts. Real-world impacts can come from policymaking cases and T as much as K debates. However, if you frame it otherwise and win that framing then I will evaluate the round accordingly.

• Weighing your impacts and warranting your solvency throughout the whole round (not just the rebuttals) is a quick way to win my ballot. Otherwise, I vote off the flow/what I’m told to vote for.

Argument specifics:

Kritiks/K Affs/performance/ID tix/whatever:

I’m a good person to run your critical case in front of. I love K’s/critical/performance/id tix/new debate/most things nontraditional.

• I'm familiar with a lot of the lit and ran a lot of these arguments myself.

• I do not believe that the aff needs to act through the USFG to be topical and, in fact, engaging with the res in other ways (personal advocacy, genealogy, micropolitics, deconstruction etc) can be reasonably topical and often can provide better education and personal empowerment.

• For clarity, as long as you are engaging with a general premise or an interpretation of the resolution then I believe the aff can claim reasonable topicality.

• That being said, to be an effective advocate for these things in the real world, you have to be able to justify your method and forum, so framework/T are good neg strats and an important test of the aff.

• I am increasingly persuaded by the argument that if you are going to be expressly nontopical on the aff (as in advocating for something with no relation to the topic and zero attempts to engage the resolution), then you need to be prepared with a reason for not discussing the res.

Trad/policy-maker/stock issues debate:

• Most of the circuits I debated in have leaned much more traditional so I am extremely familiar with both how to win with and how to beat a topical aff strat.

• My top varsity team the last few years have tended to run trad as much or maybe more than critical, but historically I've coached more K teams.

• I'm totally down to judge a topical debate but you shouldn't assume that I already know the nuances of how a specific DA or CP works without a little explanation as our local circuit is K-heavy and I only recently started coaching more trad teams.

Framework and theory:

• I love: debate about the forum, method, role of the judge/ballot, and impact calc. Making the other team justify their method is almost always a good thing.

• I strongly dislike: generic fw, arbitrary spec shells, K's are cheating args, and most debate theory arguments that ask me to outright dismiss your opponent for some silly reason.

• Real talk, almost none of us are going to be future policymakers (meaning alternative ways of engaging the topic are valuable), and wiki disclosure/pre-round prep checks most abuse.

• In short, I want you to engage with your opponent's case, not be lazy by reading a shell that hasn't been updated since 2010.

• Of course, as with most things though, I will vote for it if you justify it and win the flow (you might be sensing a theme here....).

Topicality:

I L-O-V-E a good T debate. Here are a few specifics to keep in mind:

• By "good" I mean that the neg needs to have a full shell with a clear interp, violation, reasons to prefer/standards and voters.

• Conversely, a good aff response to T would include a we meet, a counter definition, standards and reasons why not to vote on T.

• Since T shells are almost totally analytic, I would also suggest slowing down a bit when reading the shell, especially the violations or we meets.

• I usually consider T to be an a priori issue though I am open to the aff weighing real-world impacts against the voters (kritikal affs, in particular, are good for this though moral imperative arguments work well too).

• Reasonability vs competing interps: absent any debate on the issue I tend to default to reasonability in a K round and competing-interps in a policy round. However, this is a 51/49 issue for me so I would encourage engaging in this debate.

• There does not need to be demonstrated in-round abuse (unless you provide an argument as to why I should) for me to vote on T but it does help, especially if you're kicking arguments.

• Aff RVI's on T are almost always silly. K's of T are ok though the aff should be prepared to resolve the issue of whether there is a topical version of the aff and why rejecting the argument and not the team does not solve the k.

• One caveat: in a round where the aff openly admits to not trying to defend the resolution, I would urge a bit more caution with T, especially of USFG, as I find the turns the aff can generate off of that to be fairly persuasive. See the sections on K's and framework for what I consider to be a more strategic procedural in these situations.

• This is mentioned above but applies here as well, please remember that I do not think an aff must roleplay as the USFG to be topical. Advocating for the resolution can (and should) take many forms. Most of us will never have a direct role in policymaking, but hopefully, most of us will take the opportunity to advocate our beliefs in other types of forums such as activism, academia, and community organizing. Thus, I do not buy that the only real topic-specific education comes from a USFG plan aff.

Counterplans:

• I like the idea of the CP debate but I'm honestly not well versed in it (I probably closed on a CP twice in 7 years of debate). My kids have been running them a lot more recently though so I am getting more competent at assessing them ????

• Basically, I understand the fundamentals quite well but will admit to lacking some knowledge of the deeper theoretical and 'techy' aspects of the CP.

• So feel free to run them but if you are going to get into super tech-heavy CP debate then be warned that you will need to explain things well or risk losing me.

Speed and delivery:

As mentioned above, fine in-person. Mostly fine online unless you are super fast. Also, I really want clarity when speaking even more than I care about speed.

Slow down for analytics and tags. Especially analytics on things like T, theory of framework. These are the most important things for me to get down, so be aware of your pacing when you get to these parts if you want me to flow them.

Pet peeve: speed=/=clear. "Speed" is for how fast you are going. "Clear" is for mumbling. I can handle pretty fast speeds, I can't handle a lack of clarity. I will usually give you one warning, two if I am feeling generous (or if you request it), and then will start docking speaks. I am also good with you going slow. Though since I can handle very fast speeds, I would suggest you give some impacted out reasons for going slow so as to avoid being spread out of the round.

Bio (not sure anyone reads these but whatever): I have competed in or coached almost everything and I am currently the head coach at Lincoln East. I’ve spent over half my life in this activity (16 years coaching, 7 years competing). My goal is to be the best judge possible for every debater. As such, please read my feedback as me being invested in your success. Also, if you have any questions at all I would rather you ask them than be confused, so using post-round questions as a chance to clarify your confusion is encouraged (just don't be a jerk please).

Nebraska only: I expect you to share your evidence and cases with your opponents and me. It can be paper or digital, but all parties participating in the debate need to have access to the evidence read in rounds. This is because NSDA requires it, because it promotes good evidence ethics in debate, and because hoarding evidence makes debate even more unfair for small programs who have fewer debaters and coaches. Not sure why we're still having this discussion in 2023.

To be clear, if you don't provide both sides with copies of your evidence and cases, then I will be open to your opponent making that an independent voting issue. I might just vote you down immediately if I feel it's especially egregious.Oh and I'll gut speaks for not sharing cases.

Put me on the email chain: Lawsonhudson10@gmail.com;baylordb8@gmail.com (college)

Cabot '19

Baylor '24 - 3x NDT Qualifier

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free

TLDR: Do what you want and do it well. Paradigms can be more dissuasive than informative so let me know if you have any questions before the round. When debating I almost exclusively read K arguments so more judge framing in policy v policy rounds is very helpful. Depth over breadth, if your strat is 8+ off Im probably not the judge for you. I'll always read ev and be engaged in the round but it's your responsibility to tell me how to evaluate the round/impacts. Debate is fundamentally a communicative activity, if you want me to evaluate your args I need you to explain your warrants rather than just extending tags/card names. If there's disputes over what a piece of evidence says I'll read evidence but I shouldn't have to sift through a card doc to resolve a debate. If there's anything I can do to make debates more accessible for you, please let me know before round either via email or a pre-round conversation. Debate well and have fun!

I want to see and will reward with increased speaks the following: argument innovation, specificity, quality ev, jokes/good vibes, good cx, examples, and judge instruction. Please give me judge instruction. Write my ballot in the beginning of your final rebuttal and make sure to resolve the offense on the flow. I want to see clash, the more you clash with your opponents, the more likely you are to get my ballot. Regardless of my background, I really don't care what you read or how you debate; do what you do best and I'll do my best to evaluate the debate at hand.

K affs

Go for it. Affs that defend doing things in the direction of the topic tend to do better in fw debates but if your aff doesn't do that, just win why not doing that is good and you'll be fine. I'm honestly down for whatever. Whether your strategy is to have a connection to the topic and a method that results in topical action, or you read your aff to impact turn fw I've done it and will evaluate anything. I tend to thing presumption is a strategic strategy against k affs that at least forces teams to explain what they are defending. Tell me what my role in these debates is, what the ballot does, and what the benefit to debating the aff is. If you do these things, you're good.

T

Go for it. I think T is especially underutilized against certain policy affs. Contrary to some belief, I will vote for fw and will evaluate it like any argument. I usually evaluate fw debates through the lens of competing models of debate but can be convinced otherwise. For the neg, I find arguments about clash and advocacy centered on the topic generally more persuasive than arguments about procedural fairness. Especially on this topic, I think having offense as to why debating climate change is good would be beneficial for the neg. TVA's probably need to have at least texts, can be convinced they need solvency advocates too. I can be convinced affs make clash impossible, but if your only idea of clash is the politics da and the states cp I'll be less persuaded (I really like politics tho). In my opinion, the best way to go for fw is to win your interp creates a model of debate that is able to solve the affs offense (either through the tva or ssd). For the aff, its usually easier to win impact turns to fw but having a solid defense of your model/counter interp goes a long way in mitigating neg offense. I enjoy creative we meet args/counter-interps. New, innovative approaches to fw are always exciting as these debates can get very stale. I want to see ~clash~.

K's

These debates are where I have the most background and feel the most comfortable judging. The two biggest issues for the negative in K debates tend to be link application and alt explanation. Focusing on these areas along with round framing i.e. fw (for both the aff and the neg) will largely determine the direction of my ballot in these debates. Affs needs to explain how the permutation functions in the context of the alternative rather than simply extending a perm text as well as net benefits to the perm while the negative should equally spend sufficient time explaining why the aff and the alt are mutually exclusive. I don’t think the neg necessarily needs to go for an alt but if that's your thing you need to make sure you win the framework debate. Affs tend to do better when they engage with the actual content of the K and extend offense in addition to the case. If your aff obviously links to the K i.e. cap vs an innovation aff, you're probably in a better position impact turning the K than going for the no link/perm strategy in front of me. Aff teams would benefit from spending less time on framework/reading endless cards and more time engaging with the links/thesis of the K.

CPs/DA's

Make sure to explain how the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the aff and what the net benefit is. When going for the disad the negative needs to have a clear link, preferably reasons why the disad turns the case, and Impact Framing. Both the 2nr and the 2ar need to explain to me why your impacts outweigh theirs because I don't want to do that work for you.

LD:

While I've done LD, I have done exclusively progressive LD so I'm not familiar with some of the traditional LD norms. I'm fine with general theory arguments like conditionality and disclosure theory but if your strat relies on your opponent conceding a bunch of blippy, unwarranted statements that don't mean anything I'm probably not the judge for you. I'd much rather you see you win on the content of the debate than extending a blippy 1ar theory argument so you don't have to debate the substance of the case. Go as fast as you want as long as you are clear. I'm not likely to vote on tricks/spikes and long underviews in 1acs are annoying. If the 1ac involves reading 5 minutes of preempts with 1 minute of content I’m probably not the judge for you. I'm a policy debater at heart. I ultimately don't care what you do or say in round as long as it's not racist, sexist, ableist, or transphobic. Just make arguments - claim, warrant, impact - and tell me why you're winning the debate in the rebuttal speeches. I judge LD rounds slightly differently - I flow on my laptop. I first evaluate the fw debate which only ends up mattering when it does I guess? I then evaluate the 2nr/2ar to resolve key points of offense. I find LD debaters are often too defensive in their rebuttals and if that's you its not likely to work in your favor. Have offense. Be willing to impact turn your opponents position. I want to see ~clash~.

(I go by Sai + they/them)

Quarry Lane 19, NYU 22, UC Law SF 27

(skaravadi.2001@gmail.com) -- Pls use speechdrop, fileshare, or add me to the email chain! And feel free to ask me questions before round about my paradigm or judging, but pretty extensive notes here!

If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, pls don't hesitate to reach out!

I don't know how much this matters, but this is my 10th year in debate -- pls I'm so old. I debated for Quarry Lane in high school and then for NYU in college. I had 9 career TOC bids in high school LD, broke at the TOC, won a college policy tourney and reached late elims at others, and coached LD debaters who reached late elims at the TOC and other bid tourneys. I've also judged like 300 rounds of LD and policy at bid tournaments since 2019, including bid rounds and late elims. I care about my role as an adjudicator and educator, and also think extensively about my paradigm when making decisions, meaning I try to make sure nothing affects my decision that is not on here and I avoid intervention as much as possible to ensure the debate is in your hands, not mine. :))

UPDATE (for DSDS #3):

Read whatever you want. Was a K debater, but read, coached, and judged every style of debate.

Increasingly in love with LARP cause of law school -- love a plan aff vs. CP/DA or plan vs. alt debate. PIC's are cool -- defend it vs. theory -- but I think they're smart.

Won't vote on bad tricks like eval after 1AR, but substantive framework warrants, phil, etc., are fine -- you can ask me before round if you're unsure (I will not disclose any questions you asked to your opponent)!

TLDR:

Pls go 70-80% speed. Sucker for a good K, techy phil debate, smart impacting on a spec shell standard, well-researched small advantage plan aff, etc. -- framing and impact weighing (make it easy for me to resolve)!!!!! Kinda falling in love with policy/LARP arguments a lot more as a law student, so go for them but be creative!

Tech > truth -- I aim to be as tab as I can and have experience reading, coaching, and judging every style of debate in LD -- I'll vote on anything, within reason. My approach to rounds has always been who do I need to do the least work for. That means you’re always better off with more judge instruction, clear weighing, impact comparison, and strong line by line as well as overview analysis. That’s obviously a lot (and LD rounds are short), so prioritize issues and collapse in later speeches. I think I probably have a relatively high threshold for warrants, which means quality > quantity.

I have specific sections below for everything, but larp is cute but please comparatively weigh, phil is dope but please collapse, K's are fun but you need to be clear and warrant things, T is I love and I default T > case, and theory is cool but idk what the brightline for spreading is and yes on disclosure but meh on docs, new aff's, open source, etc. -- not discouraging general disclosure theory tho. I am willing to vote on impact turns, perf cons, independent voting issues, etc. — just make them clear, warrant them, and don’t leave me with a ton of questions at the end of the round. I don't like lay debate -- you can spread, but just still answer stuff. Also, misgendering, slurs, etc. -- those are voters.

Also check my rant at the bottom on speed and off's!

My only hardcore paradigmatic policies are that I will not enforce an argument about what a debater should wear because I feel uncomfortable doing that (shoes theory, clothing theory, etc. will earn you an auto-loss) or anything that is overtly violent, but you are also welcome to ask me or have your coaches ask me about my comfort evaluating certain strategies or arguments.

Defaults only matter if not debated, but:

Substantive: comparative worlds, tech > truth, epistemic confidence, presume neg unless neg reads a counter-advocacy or reads 3+ off

Procedural: competing interps, no RVI's, drop the debater

SIDE-NOTE: If you don't want someone in the room, feel free to ask them to leave (or email/contact me privately if you are uncomfortable with having to say it yourself and I will ask them to leave).

For prefs -- I like to think I'm a good judge for you regardless of what you read (except tricks -- im over it), as long as you warrant and explain how I should evaluate arguments. I read everything during my career and have actually mostly judged non-K rounds (despite having mostly read K's as a debater) -- I feel confident I'm a good judge for really any style of debate because I'll grant anything with a warrant -- the bigger the claim, the more established the warrant should be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . So yes, I will grant your non-T aff and be interested, I will grant your framework warrants and be interested, I will grant your interps and be interested, and I will ALWAYS grant a well-researched and updated DA story, but I will also easily grant answers to any of these -- read what you want, just be creative!

SPECIFIC SECTIONS/TYPES OF ARGS:

For Policy/CX Debate:

I'm cool with whatever you read and would prefer you do what you're best at! I'm chill and will follow anything -- I was a college policy debater at NYU and I went to RKS 2018 -- I've also judged and coached high school policy, read every style of debate, and I still currently actively cut both K lit and policy args -- I also read a ton of performative args from cardless aff's about throwing a party to queer bombs, tons of K's (queer theory, gender studies, critical race theory, indigenous studies, disability studies, and pomo), but also read a ton of straight up strats from a Bahrain aff to the classic politics DA + framework/T against almost every non-T aff -- I have been on both sides of most issues, but I don't really care about my opinions and I'm down with whatever you wanna read -- so you do you. Specific sections below might be useful (minus the tricks stuff for LD, etc. -- not gonna vote on tricks, frivolous theory, etc. in policy).

I don't care if you read an aff about great power competition and extinction or a K about settler homonationalism -- I feel comfortable and confident in my ability to render the right decision no matter what you read, but my favorite rounds are when a team reading a plan aff really knows their scenario and evidence super well or when a team reading a K provides really in-depth explanations and examples -- don't adapt your style itself to me, just focus on what you do best and win it. :))

My approach to rounds is typically to vote for the team that I need to do less work for to determine a ballot -- I need warrants for claims that you make and I think these warrants need to be defended in cross-ex, explained in later speeches, and developed with contextualization and examples -- meaning you need to make sure you warrant everything because I will feel uncomfortable voting for something I cannot adequately explain back to y'all without intervention. This kinda just means I wanna hear internal links and their warrants, and/or a strong overview defense of your impacts -- judge instruction, collapsing in later speeches, and framing are your best bets.

I especially think framing specifically is important -- this doesn't mean winning util or a role of the ballot necessarily, but rather please just do weighing, impact comparison, and draw me a ballot story by telling me what matters most in the round in later speeches.

Everything else is pretty straight forward -- tech > truth, judge instruction, and you do you (unless it's overtly discriminatory).

I do really like K's though and this is where most of my background in debate lies -- through debate and my undergrad coursework, I read a ton of Muñoz, Puar, Spivak, Said, Halberstam, Stanley, Ahmed, Lamble, Mbembe, Tinsley, Hartman, Warren, Wilderson, Weheliye, Wynter, Spillers, Gumbs, King, Edelman, Preciado, Bersani, Nash, Bey, Gilmore, Davis, Gillespie, Mignolo, Rodriguez, Morgensen, Eng, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Derrida, Deleuze, Freud, Lacan, and I'm sure I could keep going -- this is mainly to say that I will likely contextually understand what you read, regardless of my familiarity with the literature. I think I am a great judge for any critical arguments and feel super comfortable evaluating these, but also thoroughly enjoy the scholarship and the creativity that debaters employ when reading these arguments. Personally, I also read cardless aff's using original poetry as well as critical aff's that were very close to the topic/resolution -- I don't care how specific or generic your arguments are, I care about how well you go for and explain them!

For policy/plan aff's and teams -- I usually get bored in these debates ngl, but I think I'm a sucker for a really good link story on a DA, straight turns, and strategic advantage counterplans. I think condo is good in policy debate and feel like the condo bad debate is lost on me. Despite everything above, I enjoy the state good or heg good defense and think that I can easily be persuaded to vote on arguments about why we have to focus on policymaking/reform. Do good weighing, impact framing, internal link warranting, evidence comparison, and meta-weighing. I also love T-framework, T-defend the topic, and other topicality arguments -- I also like T or spec bad against non-topical/extra-topical plan aff's -- but I need these arguments to be well impacted out. I think fairness is just an internal link to education really, but I'll vote on either one and I just need the ballot story to be clear. You do need to answer impact turns, TVA's and switch side seem like game over you won T type issues, most T arguments are just about limits or prep and clash, and I am great for T.

Feel free to hit me up and ask me any questions if you have em on either FB or my email.

Policy/LARP (arguments):

I don’t think there’s much of an issue here since this is my initial foundation, I defended plan aff's and DA's throughout my career, I was a west coast debater, I read policy strategies in college with my partner, coached a couple policy and LD kids who read topical plan aff's, and I love policy debate. Debate as you do and I doubt there’s gonna be a problem for me.

However, these debates do end up getting quite messy, especially in LD. I am a sucker for strong link overviews with impact calc that's also comparative. I think collapsing, impact overviews, and framing analysis can help here.

I'm a sucker for weighing and warrant comparison -- when I say comparative, I basically mean that you should also make sure you answer/deal with weighing arguments made by the other debater -- these debates can sometimes become frustrating to resolve as a judge because there's a lot of impacts thrown out in later speeches with weighing implications attached to them, but I'm often left having to resolve them or figure out who did that tiny bit of comparison that I can vote on -- you can easily win my ballot by telling me how to evaluate this/compare between weighing args -- you can call it what you want, framing or comparative weighing or second level impact calc -- I find it super persuasive and a smart technical move that often wins my ballot.

Don't be afraid to defend a policy aff against k's or phil -- I don't mind voting aff on Zanotti 14, but I'd rather you have a coherent justification for the aff being a good idea and a developed link turn strategy. Compare between the aff and the alt. Do framework comparisons if there's an NC and don't pretend Bostrom is enough. Also, adding in an impact that applies to marginalized populations could really help in debates where you want to go for a DA against a K aff, which shouldn't be hard to find since shtuff like climate change, war, and poverty affect those groups the most and also first.

DA's and CP's are fine and I have no problem here. I really like specific links and very specific politics scenarios, from like specific bills in Congress to international relations. I think 2 condo PIC's might be starting to push it, but that just means you should be ready to defend that you get them because I don't care as long as you answer any potential theory args.

Phil:

I’m mostly familiar with Butler's work and Kant, but also have experience with Epistemic Humility, Civic Republicanism, Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Particularism, Agonism, Butler, Deleuze, Levinas, Hobbes, Rawls, Locke, Descartes, and skep (also of course, util of all forms). I've read into the literature of and/or defended all of these, but never studied them too in-depth academically and wouldn't call myself an expert -- I haven't had trouble judging them and actually enjoying hearing them, so just do your best and you should be fine. Also I love Kant LOL.

I default epistemic confidence, but am open to hearing epistemic modesty and/or other framing mechanisms for evaluating competing ethical theories -- but that's up to you to justify and win.

I think phil arguments are strategic due to the amount of credence I must grant them -- i.e., I don't think someone can ignore independent framework warrants like shying away from answering bindingness or regress -- but I would need you to slow down a tiny bit and collapse harder in later speeches. Again, you do you! I am happy to judge anything and love framework debate a lot.

I find Phil vs. K interactions really interesting, but both sides could benefit from specific warranting when it comes to this rather than just winning your own framework or theory of power, but I am just as willing to vote on Kant as I am to vote on a K.

I also really really like phil vs. phil debates -- these are some of the most interesting debates and I am impressed by both the technical proficiency and critical/logical thinking skills that debaters employ. I am likely to grant both debaters very high speaks in these debates if they are done well, but also really feel like I learn a lot in these rounds. This also includes like Kant vs. util, but I think something like ordo amoris vs. Deleuze would be so so interesting.

I am not very persuaded by author indicts of philosophers, but can be convinced if it is argued well -- BUT I have a higher threshold for this than a turn to the framework itself. For example, I won't auto-vote on Kant (as in the guy) is racist, unless someone proves that his theory itself also is and does the work of proving that thus the aff is as well, OR is able to prove to me why I should not evaluate any of the work that someone who is a racist philosopher/writer has done -- which is a valid argument to make, but again, it requires a LOT more work than simply saying it. Of course, this does not mean I won't vote someone down if they drop the argument and its implications, but you need to give me those implications.

To that end, you can't just end it at Kant or Hobbes (or X author) is racist -- explain to me why that's a voting issue/reason to drop the debater/argument because I'm so far not convinced by the super old and recycled cards everyone keeps reading against aff's that don't actually even cite primary source philosophers. And if you're defending a framework against these objections, stand your ground and defend your aff without being repugnant -- impact turning racism is NEVER ok, but you can definitely win that your framework guides against structural violence even if the original author sucks.

HOWEVER, this is a different story if they actually read cards/cite the author you are calling out -- i.e., if someone read a Kant card (like citing Immanuel himself lol) and you read Kant is racist, I don't see a real no link argument or a way to prove why their reading of Kant is uniquely necessary (i.e., they could just cite Korsgaard instead right?) -- at which point, the author is racist voter issue becomes very very persuasive to me (this is true regardless of whether it's a philosopher) -- however, this is pretty rare and it's 2024, so update your authors.

Theory:

Go for it. I read everything from solvency advocate theory to ROTB spec to body politics, so I as long as it’s not actively violent (I basically won't vote on clothing-related theory) and you're not being too frivolous -- it's fine with me, but the more frivolous it gets, the lower my threshold for responses gets ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Also have some notes on a couple specific shells near the bottom of this section.

My defaults: competing interps, drop the debater, no RVI’s — this is just how I will evaluate the theory debate if you don't give me paradigm issues, but please do and I'm more than willing to vote on reasonability or grant an RVI if it's won.

Reading paradigm issues in your second speech collapsing to a shell is a bit late and persuades me to grant the other side leeway on controlling them, but still debatable I guess (does not mean I will give leeway to brightlines on reasonability, just reasonability itself).

On IVI's -- impact turns are not RVI's, but rather independent voters/offense, and I still haven't heard a single persuasive or compelling reason I shouldn't vote on an impact turn -- feel free to read your no impact turns dump, but I recommend just cleaning up the flow by answering them instead -- a lot of impact turns to both T and theory are just cross-apps of case or huge conflations of arguments -- point that out, make it a link, put offense on that too or make args for why the shell is a prior issue in the case that you go for it -- however you deal with it, deal with it. I feel that the easiest strategy is just to explain why the DA/impact turn doesn't link, why the shell comes first, and/or why something else you're going for (state good, cap K, etc.) disproves the internal link to the impact turn/independent voter.

Random note on disclosure these days -- I'm not that persuaded by these shells that you should send full on docs before rounds or that you must open source in order for negs to prep, etc. -- not to be an old zealot, but the norm when I was in high school was mostly just to disclose cites, tags, and the first 3 + last 3 words of cards -- we were fine and had more in-depth clash than what I've seen people read these days, so I am not that convinced -- THAT BEING SAID, I will still vote on it, but don't expect me to be that excited bout it or give you the highest speaks + I will have a low threshold for answers. However, if someone is fully not disclosing past rounds or telling you what the aff is gonna be, that changes the matter ofc -- still fine for disclosure, just not convinced that people need to give you every single word that they're about to read

Also not sure how I feel about spreading theory -- feels arbitrary to delineate as a judge where I draw a line between what is too fast and what is not. I'll vote on it, but idk -- the argument that it is impossible to delineate what is too fast prolly makes reasonability super persuasive. That being said, if you're obviously going fast, then LOL it seems reasonable that I would consider that to be spreading and evaluate the debate based on the standards. Either way, going for this in the 2N isn't really the move for me and I hope it's not for you. I'll still vote on it, but ugh, you and I both don't want to bring the debate to this issue (pls). If you read spreading bad and spread, I will prolly tank your speaks. Should be self-explanatory why.

Side note -- if you impact spreading bad or other shells to ableism, maybe think about that -- debate is of course extremely ableist, but I find it paternalistic to generally claim that disabled debaters are unable to debate able-bodied debaters who spread or speak fast. That's not to say I won't vote on it or that I don't think there is some truth to the claim, but I do think you should watch how you phrase the argument at least -- i.e., "disabled debaters cannot debate unless you disclose early cause they have to think on their feet" -- this sounds problematic and like you're saying that disabled people can't critically think in the moment, but "it is better to not spread to encourage access for people with certain disabilities" -- this sounds more agreeable. Be very careful when you talk about ableism because I have heard very problematic collapses that I am not happy with.

Topicality:

I read topicality against most K aff’s that I hit my senior year and every time I hit one in college -- including both defend the topic and read a policy action -- and I read spec bad against like every larp aff my senior year too. I love T, despite reading a ton of method/performative K aff's, but I have no biases here and can be persuaded to vote either way.

I have no issues with you going for 1-off T-FW against K aff’s and I’m more than willing to vote on it, but I do think there are ways to win my ballot easier. Having a clear TVA is always persuasive, but what I mean by this is not just like a literal plan text that mentions the identity group the aff talks about — take it further and explicitly explain to me why that TVA is a much better model for debate than the version of the aff that was the 1AC.

I think either having offense on the case page or doing clear interactions between the aff offense and the T flow is persuasive, and also useful when I write my ballot. I’d prefer you tell me a story in the 2NR and really sell your model of debate to me rather than pretending T has nothing to do with the aff. In other words, it is not sufficient to win that debate is solely a competitive game for me, I want you to really explain the implications of that to me because that’s a pretty bold claim considering all that this activity has been for a ton of people. I'll vote on it either way if you win it on a technical level, but this also leaves room for the aff to grandstand on your model being exclusive.

When debating T — have a clear counter-interp and defend your model of debate. I am more than willing to vote on an impact turn and am down for all the drama of various T strategies. Regardless, have a strong and robust defense of whatever model you choose to defend. I have been on and love debating from both sides of the issue (to some extent -- some language y'all be using in both your topicality extensions and your topicality answers are very iffy), and I find these to be some of the best rounds. I am here for it.

Most of the arguments for why I shouldn't vote on independent voting issues are terrible and not persuasive, BUT I still need y'all to answer them. Collapsing to a single DA on T in the 2AR is a great strat for me and I've done this myself in the past, but you have to answer these args. That being said, I've also been on the other side (kicking T) and feel that the easiest strategy is just to explain why the DA doesn't link, why T is a prior question, and/or why something else you're going for (state good, cap K, etc.) disproves the internal link to the impact turns/independent voters ---- (also check my note on impact turns in the theory section since some of this is copied from there/similar).

Quick side note on Nebel -- I have not read much into Nebel, but it's not very persuasive to me cause it sounds like a colonial norm and I'm not American/English was not my first language -- this does not mean I will auto-vote on grammar/textuality is racist, but I can be very strongly persuaded to and I think negatives need to have a robust defense prepared against this -- as in, take it serious and engage the argument by explaining to me why the argument is not racist/answering the aff arguments, but don't assume I will vote on fairness outweighs or semantics first in a scenario where you are losing on English grammar is racist.

That being said, a simple spec bad shell with a limits standard gets the job done and is a very great strat in front of me.

Kritik’s:

Yes. This is what I’m most comfortable evaluating and what I've spent the most time debating, coaching, and also studying academically. However, I will hold you to really knowing your lit -- buzzwords need to make sense. That being said, I'm pretty familiar with almost every area of critical literature that I've heard of or know of in debate. I like seeing how people use K lit to formulate interesting advocacies or methods, I like seeing new K shells and scholarship (like 2023/24 lol), and I also simultaneously like when someone defends a classic K but does it really really well.

I’m most familiar and comfortable with identity based lit -- especially Critical Race Theory and Antiblackness, Queer Theory and Queer of Color Studies, South Asian/South Asian American Studies, Postcolonialism, and Performance Studies. I'm most familiar with antiblackness, postcolonialism, queer theory, biopolitics, and necropolitics -- some of my fav authors: José Esteban Muñoz, Sarah Ahmed, Tiffany Lethabo King, Alexander Weheliye, Jasbir Puar, Achilles Mbembe, Marquis Bey, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. I'm also comfy with Foucault, Baudrillard, Derrida, Freud, Lacan, Deleuze, etc. -- all the pomo shtuff is fair game. I don't really think there's a K you'd read that I'd be completely unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with, but I also don't care what K it is and am happy to listen -- get creative. :))

Leverage the K against other flows and put offense on different layers — if you’re winning a case turn, implicate it both through the thesis of the K and independently.

Engage the thesis claims and answer the links in the 1AR.

Perms should probably have a text, but I'm open to the 2AR having leeway to explain them. But if you just yell "perm -- do the aff and graffiti the alt" -- I'm not gonna be very inclined to vote aff if I have no explanation of why that does anything. Have a relatively clear warrant and explanation of the perm that you can develop in the 2AR if you collapse to it.

Kicking the alt is fine — win the links and warrant presumption. I’m also fine with all your K tricks, but I’m not gonna stake the round on the 2AR dropping that fiat is illusory ABSENT some clear warranting and judge instruction with it, as well as some comparison between your claim and a 1AR/2AR arg about the value of simulating policymaking or whatnot.

Also, please be aware of your own privilege -- have a strong and robust defense of why you should be able to read the K, what your relationship is to the literature, and how I should evaluate the round given all that. This doesn't mean you need to run from reading the K -- just be able to answer these questions and defend your position. This applies to black studies, indigenous studies, queer theory, etc. -- I can be persuaded to vote either way on these issues.

Update -- you know -- I am slowly getting the ick regarding how people are instrumentalizing literature of specific groups for ballots -- if you are not part of a community and decide to read the literature anyways, but you clearly have a surface level understanding of it, I will be unhappy -- I am tired of cishets using queer pessimism, able-bodied people reading disability pessimism, and white people reading afro-pessimism without any real engagement with the literature -- and I don't think non-indigenous people reading settler colonialism is somehow distinct, nor do I think that non-black people reading other structural criticisms about antiblackness is distinct enough for it to mean that you are somehow using images of suffering more ethically. I am vexed with the inauthentic way that y'all are reading this literature, so I am watching with a very close eye regarding CX answers, the way you structure the K, the authors you read, and the 2N explanations. I won't auto-drop you or anything, but I do reserve the right to drop you on the ick if it's obvious you are not taking the literature seriously. I have had conversations with other judges and coaches who feel similarly, so read things at your own risk from now on. I still think you can read them, but I need you to do it at a level where it is clear you care and know what you're talking about.

Along those lines, since this has become a serious area of discussion on the LD debate circuit -- non-black people reading antiblackness is ok BUT you should be prepared to discuss what your role as a non-black person is, both in reading the K and in relation to antiblackness, and pls do it well. I will vote on arguments for why non-black people shouldn't read antiblackness, but I am also open to voting the other way. I think y'all need to stop running from the challenge of answering the argument because the scholarship is great, BUT be prepared in case the argument is made.

I am also not happy that everyone has just decided to turn to reading (and commodifying) literature about Native American/indigenous peoples instead, especially when debaters actively say they don't pay attention to the authors or only read "X" argument so it's fine -- I am persuaded by arguments that this should not be allowed and find it more persuasive due to this occurrence that literature or images of suffering about a group being used to justify a ballot are instances of detached commodification. You don't need a card, but do need warrants. Bringing up the history of debate and also specific practices in LD is great. Pessimistic claims are somewhat problematic, but more so is using violence against a group as an image to claim you're radically decolonial and using an arbitrary method or alternative to claim you do care about them. I will watch these debates very closely due to the way that debaters are behaving.

On the issue of queer theory -- I am skeptical of whether someone should be able to speak from the closet to read ontological/epistemological, etc., claims about queer people, especially being a queer trans* person of color myself -- if you are reading queer theory, I think you should be prepared to defend whether a cishet person should be allowed to read it, since if you are unwilling to disclose your queerness then that would enable the practice of non-queer people reading queer pess. I don't think outing DA's are that persuasive to me (in these specific circumstances only) if someone asks you whether you are queer while reading this because it should matter whether or not you are and you can choose to say that you are unwilling to disclose that, BUT that still begs the question of whether or not one should be able to do that. That being said, I will vote on an outing DA if it's won, but this is an answer that debaters can make that I believe is a relevant discussion and legitimate answer. I am vexed by openly cisheterosexual people turning to queer theory because they think that they can win every round on an outing DA, so I have decided to add this here to pressure more authentic engagements with the literature base.

Kritikal/performative/planless aff’s:

Yes. These are my favorite aff’s and I find them super interesting. I read them for like 7 years, I've coached them for like 5 years, and I've debated/judged them for longer. I don’t care if you defend the topic or not, but be prepared to defend your aff and all the choices you made in it. I also did read topicality/framework against most non-T aff's I debated lol, so I am happy to vote either way, but I am definitely a good judge for these aff's.

From the moment that I realize the aff is performative and/or critical, I am watching very closely to see how you perform it, defend it, and frame it. I also physically am usually watching you and making eye contact because I know that part of your discussion is also about me and the fact that I am not a passive decision-maker. I know that can make some people uncomfy, so I apologize in advance and promise I'm not like staring at you with bug-eyes or anything, but just noticing the choices you make and the way the aff is presented. I appreciate the fact that you made a lot of intentional choices when writing and formulating the aff, so I am respecting your use of them, especially in CX as well.

Be creative. Have fun. Express yourself. The best kritikal and performative aff’s that I have seen are a result of how they are presented, written, and defended — I think these can be some of the best or some of the worst rounds, but the only thing I’ll hold you to is defending something clear, whether a method, advocacy statement, praxis, or whatnot. Just be clear and tell me how to evaluate the round, considering most of these aff’s ask for a shift in how to evaluate and view debate itself.

Do not read these in front of me just because it’s what I did. Also, feel free to ask me any questions — I’d be more than happy to help you figure out some aspects of how you wanna explore reading this and I know I definitely benefitted from judges who did that for me, so I got you. With that being said, here's some cool things I'd love to see.

Something I loved doing was impact turning presumption args — 1AR’s and 2AR’s that can effectively do this and collapse to it are dope and I’m here for it.

I think CX is a place to perform too -- I love performances that somehow extend beyond just the 1AC because they bring so much more of the drama of debate into question. However, I have also seen many people do this in ways that aren't very tasteful and end up either confusing me or triggering me. On the other hand, I've also found that these can be some of the most brutal and successful CX strategies when done well.

Regardless, don't feel shy about testing the waters in front of me, within reason. However, fire hazards are real and pls warn me about flashing lights (personal medical reason). In other words -- sure, go off, but don't get me (or yourself) in trouble or do anything hazardous/risky. Also, I don't think it's ok for you to infringe on someone else's literal ability to debate, in terms of doing anything to their flows or picking up their computer for whatever reason -- please don't. I won't be happy and coaches/schools won't be happy. Other than that, have fun! I like hearing creative arguments and fun stuff that makes me pay attention and wake up. :))

ANSWERING THESE -- Presumption is fine, but I’m probably not gonna be persuaded by the classic arg that the aff does not affect how I view the world, feel, etc. This is not to say that I will not vote on a ballot presumption argument if it is argued well and won, but don't expect me to bank the round on a 5 second shadow extension that lacks clear warrants or weighing. I prefer presumption arguments to be reasons for why the performance of the aff is inconsistent with the method or other parts of the 1AC somehow, lack of solvency, vagueness, etc., and make sure the turns are impacted out effectively and weighed against affirmative's.

State good is an underused and undervalued strategy, clashes with these aff's so enables you to avoid impact turns on T or other issues that rely on the aff winning internal links for why certain state-oriented procedures are bad, and is a great option (be wary of your language, but hasn't been an issue so far).

I do not like Rickert or other arguments that are like "oh subjectivity is not real in debate, but is elsewhere so please leave" type args -- I think these are actively racist. BUT I think there are certain specific issues you can push on.

What is the advocacy/method past the 1AC? What is the value or impact of the performance? Why is there a binding reason to vote aff? How does the aff resolve skep/induction issues? How does the aff relate to the other debater and/or the judge? Why is debate bad, but also shifted to being good through the aff/voting aff? etc. etc. -- all of these are relevant considerations and valid points of contestation -- i.e., whether or not the ways the aff responds to these questions are good or sufficient.

Also really like K links as case turns against these aff's, skep is fair but be wary of your language and type of skep ofc, counter-K's are fun, T is great, and phil is so interesting and I wish more people did Kant vs. K-aff's (or other frameworks) because these are some of the most interesting rounds I've had or heard.

For Policy/CX Debate:

I'm cool with whatever you read and would prefer you do what you're best at! I'm chill and will follow anything -- I was a college policy debater at NYU and I went to RKS 2018 -- I've also judged and coached high school policy, read every style of debate, and I still currently actively cut both K lit and policy args -- I also read a ton of performative args from cardless aff's about throwing a party to queer bombs, tons of K's (queer theory, gender studies, critical race theory, indigenous studies, disability studies, and pomo), but also read a ton of straight up strats from a Bahrain aff to the classic politics DA + framework/T against almost every non-T aff -- I have been on both sides of most issues, but I don't really care about my opinions and I'm down with whatever you wanna read -- so you do you. Specific sections below might be useful (minus the tricks stuff for LD, etc. -- not gonna vote on tricks, frivolous theory, etc. in policy).

I don't care if you read an aff about great power competition and extinction or a K about settler homonationalism -- I feel comfortable and confident in my ability to render the right decision no matter what you read, but my favorite rounds are when a team reading a plan aff really knows their scenario and evidence super well or when a team reading a K provides really in-depth explanations and examples -- don't adapt your style itself to me, just focus on what you do best and win it. :))

My approach to rounds is typically to vote for the team that I need to do less work for to determine a ballot -- I need warrants for claims that you make and I think these warrants need to be defended in cross-ex, explained in later speeches, and developed with contextualization and examples -- meaning you need to make sure you warrant everything because I will feel uncomfortable voting for something I cannot adequately explain back to y'all without intervention. This kinda just means I wanna hear internal links and their warrants, and/or a strong overview defense of your impacts -- judge instruction, collapsing in later speeches, and framing are your best bets.

I especially think framing specifically is important -- this doesn't mean winning util or a role of the ballot necessarily, but rather please just do weighing, impact comparison, and draw me a ballot story by telling me what matters most in the round in later speeches.

Everything else is pretty straight forward -- tech > truth, judge instruction, and you do you (unless it's overtly discriminatory).

I do really like K's though and this is where most of my background in debate lies -- through debate and my undergrad coursework, I read a ton of Muñoz, Puar, Spivak, Said, Halberstam, Stanley, Ahmed, Lamble, Mbembe, Tinsley, Hartman, Warren, Wilderson, Weheliye, Wynter, Spillers, Gumbs, King, Edelman, Preciado, Bersani, Nash, Bey, Gilmore, Davis, Gillespie, Mignolo, Rodriguez, Morgensen, Eng, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Derrida, Deleuze, Freud, Lacan, and I'm sure I could keep going -- this is mainly to say that I will likely contextually understand what you read, regardless of my familiarity with the literature. I think I am a great judge for any critical arguments and feel super comfortable evaluating these, but also thoroughly enjoy the scholarship and the creativity that debaters employ when reading these arguments. Personally, I also read cardless aff's using original poetry as well as critical aff's that were very close to the topic/resolution -- I don't care how specific or generic your arguments are, I care about how well you go for and explain them!

For policy/plan aff's and teams -- I'm a sucker for a really good link story on a DA, straight turns, and strategic advantage counterplans. I think condo is good in policy debate and feel like the condo bad debate is lost on me. Despite everything above, I enjoy the state good or heg good defense and think that I can easily be persuaded to vote on arguments about why we have to focus on policymaking/reform. Do good weighing, impact framing, internal link warranting, evidence comparison, and meta-weighing. I also love T-framework, T-defend the topic, and other topicality arguments -- I also like T or spec bad against non-topical/extra-topical plan aff's -- but I need these arguments to be well impacted out. I think fairness is just an internal link to education really, but I'll vote on either one and I just need the ballot story to be clear. You do need to answer impact turns, TVA's and switch side seem like game over you won T type issues, most T arguments are just about limits or prep and clash, and I am great for T.

Feel free to hit me up and ask me any questions if you have em on either FB or my email.

For PF (Berkeley 2025 -- NPF):

Tech > truth, enunciate, be polite, and watch your speech times. I am down to vote for anything -- just don't be racist/homophobic/misogynistic, etc.

Please just debate as you normally would -- I do not expect you to adapt much to me and will be following the flow. I will be voting based on tech/the flow, but will give out speaker points based on presentation. Do not be overly formal, but be respectful -- that just really means be polite/don't be condescending or rude, etc.

I am relatively quite experienced with debate, including PF. I coached, judged, and debated in PF. My high school mostly did PF when I started, I championed a novice PF tournament, and I've coached and judged PF debaters in elimination rounds.

ALSO -- I have trouble following card names sometimes cause y'all do be paraphrasing and moving past things real quick, so please reference arguments rather than X author name so I can follow you -- I don't expect this to be a big issue, but if you're ramping up the speed and gonna give me one-liners as you move between cards, either send me the doc so I can follow OR reference impacts over last names.

Speaks:

So you want a 30? -- I loved getting speaker awards, so just do you and I got you, but here's some incentives + random things LOL

1. Pls do NOT use my name unless we know each other LOL
2. + speaks for everyone if you have the email chain set up before I walk into the room
3. Clarity and enunciation > speed please
4. If you are able to give a solid speech at a good speed where I can write/type out every word and feel very part of the process, I will be VERY happy
5. Passion and ethos are dope — I don’t care what form this is in, but really sell whatever you read to me
6. I like tasteful references to things -- drag race, anime, Marvel or Disney, sitcoms, etc. -- don't really know much about sports so that might go over my head, but I like creative args that draw on other art forms, whether media/film or otherwise
7. I average a 29.5+ and give higher speaks when you slow down, are very clear, or when you collapse really well
8. If you go on your phone during someone else's speech, you are likely to get the lowest possible speaks I can give without having to talk to tab :))

I have become quite generous with speaks, but humor, creative args, or strong execution is the key! I'm more than willing to give out a 30 and have increasingly done so. Do you and make sure you signpost, warrant, and slow down on important things -- I appreciate passion, strong research and/or analysis, and well-crafted strategies! I also think a smart CX helps with ethos and also definitely will help bump your speaks -- many debates are also lost and won in CX ultimately.

If you slow down to an easily flowable speed and give a good speech, I will be far more likely to be persuaded to vote for you and give you a 30 (or 29.5+). I find that I am also most persuaded by debaters who close doors, slow down and impact things out, and avoid silly args. Go to the bottom for more qualms of mine!

Please give me trigger/content warnings -- go for it, just warn me -- important to me as both a judge and participant in the round — if you’re going to be talking about graphically sensitive topics, please give me (and everyone in the room) a heads up -- this does not mean you don't get to read it tho -- you don't need my permission, just let us all prepare emotionally/mentally

Speed and Off's Rant (LD specific): I am going to say clear a lot more to ask you to slow down andI think I will need you to go AT LEAST 70% of your top speed. I want to be able to hear every word, but I also think this is important to check for clipping. I think that we should preserve the value of debates through contestation, which I find is less possible when someone spreads through a ton of arguments waiting for something to be dropped, and I also just find myself exhausted listening to those debates because it feels like a waste of everyone's time. I also am just unable to flow some of this most of the time, which is not unique to just me and is a common shared experience of many judges. I believe that the ways that people are spreading through a ton of off case positions at incredibly high speeds is problematic because I find it rather difficult to follow and I should not need to rely on docs to flow you but I cannot hear these words, I find it hard to check if someone is clipping, I don't think I should encourage this practice, I don't think there is or has ever been a need to speak that fast, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I have found and experienced situations where debaters use speed to get away with performing/reading racist and violent arguments, which I think I have an ethical obligation to correct for by at least making a relevant note here.

SO with that in mind -- please do not spread through analytics -- there is absolutely no way I am going to get all of these down and if you spread through these, it makes me very sad because I do want to get every argument but I just will not be able to.

I also will not be flowing after the 4th off and will dock speaks. If there are more than 4 off's, I also feel comfortable with the 1AR getting up and telling me not to evaluate it since this is on my paradigm. I also think that more than 4 off's will lower my threshold for responses and 2AR spin.

Finally, I have also decided that more than 3 off means I should definitely presume aff under a role of the ballot where I am supposed to vote for the better debater. I think that more than 3 off makes the debate quite structurally difficult for the aff, so I believe the aff did the better debating.

That being said, if you read more than 4 off after seeing me on the pairing, I think we have bad blood from the beginning of the round. Choose your positions with care, defend them, and focus on relevant substantive discussions. If you think you need more than 4 off to beat an aff, you are reading 4 bad off's.

Some qualms of mine (these will affect speaks):

1. I will not give you a 30 if you ask for it.
2. Non-black folx who read anti-blackness specifically against black folx will prolly lose in front of me (I have not yet seen it happen), but I am likely to give you pretty low speaks either way -- however, non-black folx reading anti-blackness generally is fine.
3. I am happy to vote on non-black folx should not read afropess and/or antiblackness, but also to vote for the idea that it's ok -- this is a debatable issue for me -- and I also think that it's debatable whether a non-indigenous person should be reading certain strains of set col (i.e., people who are not Native American reading set col about Native Americans) -- I can be persuaded to vote either way and think this applies to every group-specific strain of literature
4. I will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable sorry and yes, that means I will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — I don't feel comfortable deciding what children should wear
5. If you are reading a card with more than one color highlighted in it, please remove the highlights of what you're not reading -- it really messes with me and I have issues processing that -- it's not a huge deal, but it will help me adjudicate better
6. Evidence ethics is quite important to me -- just cite stuff and use EasyBib if you are unsure how -- lack of citations is a big issue (the minimum is the author name, name of the book/article, where it was published, and when) and so are clipping, etc.
7. If you do an evidence challenge -- I will stop the round, use NSDA rules standards, and vote -- W 30 and L 0
8. Pronouns are important — misgendering is not cool w me, so try your best — I recommend defaulting to “they” anyways -- I will vote on misgendering
9. If you answer something someone didn't read and skipped, I will not be happy -- you can ask for marked docs tho! -- be prepared for CX and please flow
10. Please send a doc as soon as you stop prep -- putting together the doc is prep time imo (emailing is not, but I will be upset if you spend more than 30 secs before saying "sent")

Texas DK

arnavdebates+judging@gmail.com

LD Update

While I will remain technical, I am not sure how the affirmative wins debates. I expect to vote affirmative in ~25% of debates.

Emory 24

Email chain: gkessler222@gmail.com

Tech > truth, but arguments need warrants. I will avoid intervening in decisions with my personal opinions.

Being rude/condescending will earn you very low speaks.

I won't adjudicate issues that occurred outside of the debate.

Caddo Magnet ‘21

Kentucky '25

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

Conflicts

Caddo Magnet

Niles North

Top Level

The most important thing I have to say is that I will do my absolute best to judge every debate in the least interventionist way possible, besides a few non-negotiables I'll list below. I will vote on an argument that I profoundly disagree with if I think that it was won. However, evidence quality influences technical debating and I value good evidence highly, even though I don't usually read a ton of cards in high school debates because I don't feel like I need to.

I've found that even though I have a ton of opinions about what I think debate should look like, those preferences pretty much entirely go away when judging. I don't care much at all about what arguments debaters are making and really only care about how it's debated. I've been in a lot of debates and have seen many people go for many different arguments, so I should be able to understand yours. However, I will say that I have a fairly strong preference for organized, and technical debating, and not debating in this way will probably make it harder than you'd like for me to give a satisfying decision.

I'll do my best to default to as few things as possible and adapt to the debate at hand. If you want me to view the debate a certain way, tell me how I should so I don't have to substitute my preferences for your debating.

Inequality Topic

I judged a lot of debates on the topic as a lab leader in a Michigan Classic lab this summer, so I have a basic understanding of what the topic looks like, but I'm not super involved in researching the high school topic, so you may want to unpack some particularly technical topic concepts/acronyms.

General Thoughts

I think of debate as a game, which filters a lot of these thoughts, but you can easily win that debate is not a game or is more than just a game. (Almost) everything is debatable.

It's generally better to make bold choices and only go for a few pieces of offense in the final rebuttals to explain them well than to go for a lot of things and not explain them as thoroughly.

I default to evaluating arguments probabilistically. That goes away if questioned.

Line by line is good.

Judge instruction is good.

Justify new arguments. Just because another team says you don't get new arguments doesn't mean it's true, especially if they're reading cards on an argument you dropped.

If you're going for a K of reps, you probably need case defense unless it was grossly mishandled. I see going for reps links while not answering the case as a bit like a link turn with no UQ. If you disagree, explain why and you'll be all good.

It'll help you to start the debate on judge kick early.

Good for T arguments with good evidence. I generally prefer predictability over debatability, but that's not absolute and shouldn't affect how I evaluate debates.

Good for competition debates. Send perm texts if it's anything besides do both, do the CP, or some variation of the plan and certain planks.

Good for politics. Read a lot of cards.

Good for impact turns and theory. Not because I think the arguments are true, I just think of them like any other argument and a lot of teams are bad at answering them. I don't really see why going for theory if you're winning is more "cowardly" than going for other arguments that you're winning that are technical TKOs, but that doesn't mean it's always or even often the best strategy.

Good for Ks that are impact turns/solvency takeouts to the case. Good for Ks that have alts that solve the case and links that are DAs to the plan. Probably best for Ks that are just Framework and say the aff shouldn't get to weigh the plan.

Good for extinction outweighs vs. the K. Also fine for the perm and link turns.

Good for clash and fairness. Fine for other impacts to FW. Good for a counter-interp or impact turn strategy against FW, just make sure you pick one.

Generally don't love K affs that identify truisms and say that's a reason to vote for them. Pointing out bad things does nothing for you if you don't have a means of solving them. Of course, you can also get unique offense based on what the neg says, but you need to explain what voting aff does, whether it changes debate practices, rejects unethical ones in just this debate, forwards a desirable political strategy, etc.

Fairly bad for frivolous theory arguments when they aren't based on resolutional language. For example, if the 2AC drops ASPEC, the neg often didn't have enough of an argument to extend it in the 2NC without making new arguments, so the 1AR gets to justify new arguments too. That doesn't mean I won't vote on bad theory arguments (I have), or that new 1AR arguments are automatically justified, but it does mean that I have a pretty high bar for winning them.

Bad for analogizing T to actual violence (genocide, drone strikes, etc.). That's not to say that you can't problematize reading T, but arguments comparing it to literal violence are wildly unpersuasive.

I think role of the ballot arguments are usually pretty silly.

Not the biggest fan of many soft left affs. I think lots of aff framing arguments are kinda silly but so are lots of other arguments, so I don’t actually care too much. I obviously prefer aff-specific framing arguments but if generic, I prefer risk assessment (existential risks overestimated, probability outweighs, conjunctive fallacy, butterfly effect, etc.) type aff framing arguments instead of "X comes first," "extinction is non-unique," and asserting that a DA is low risk without actual defense, but that seems to be out of vogue.

If you're going to say that plan text in a vacuum, functional and/or textual competition, utilitarianism, probability first, etc. are bad, you need to provide an alternative to those things. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of reading offense against a T interp when you don't have a counter-interp to solve any offense. The fact that those things have problems doesn't necessarily mean that alternatives are better.

LD

I judge this a little bit and there's not much that I have to say about it specifically. All of the stuff above applies equally to LD. I've only ever debated in policy and usually only judge policy so I'm probably best for you if you just act like this is a one-person policy debate.

Never really had a debate where "value criterions" became important, but if you're gonna do that, just explain why offense in favor of yours outweighs offense in favor of theirs and you'll be fine.

Not a fan of frivolous theory arguments.

PF

I've only judged this a few times. It would probably also help you to act like this was a policy debate because of my lack of familiarity with PF specifically. Really, you just need to win that your offense outweighs your opponent's.

Please don't paraphrase articles when first reading them. That's bordering on an academic integrity violation. Just read what your cards actually say, then you can obviously explain and paraphrase them in later speeches.

Non-negotiables

Both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says/everyone in the round agrees to. I won't flow anything you say after the timer goes off.

CX is binding.

There is one winner and one loser.

I will flow both teams unless requested not to. If you request me not to flow and the other team would like me to, then I just won't flow you, which will almost certainly end up worse for you and make the debate harder for me to decide.

I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round/I didn't see (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it, and there's often no way to verify out-of-round claims. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab/whoever you'd feel most comfortable with so they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate upon, especially for high schoolers.

If a team initiates an ethics challenge, the debate stops and if it's found to be legitimate, the offending team will lose and will get the lowest speaks I can give. If it's not found to be legitimate, the team that initiated the challenge will lose.

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

Misc

I'm pretty expressive but I try not to be. I don't want to influence how the debate plays out but if I'm confused, think an argument is funny, or think an argument is bad, I might unintentionally show it.

I'll boost your speaks if you're reading a substantial number of cards that you cut if they're good. I've been seeing a lot of old, bad cards in docs that could very easily be replaced in an afternoon, so I'll reward people that I see putting in the work. I'll be ecstatic if most of your cards, especially in the 1AC and 1NC, are from 2021 or newer.

I've noticed lots of debaters being pretty quiet when they're speaking which has made it hard to understand and flow. It seems like a result of online debate, so I'll cut some slack, but it's generally better to be too loud than too quiet.

Call me Austin, not "judge."

I like when people are funny. Lighten up the debate and make some (good) jokes if that's your thing.

Feel free to post-round. You won't offend me.

Gordon Krauss

Add: gordondkrauss@gmail.com

I'll try to evaluate the debate as technically as possible, but everyone has preferences and biases that affect decisions and speaker points, so I will do my best to disclose them here.

1. Offense-defense. This applies to all substantive debates. Debate would be incoherent if every argument was evaluated yes-no. I evaluate debates probabilistically and will not assign zero or one-hundred percent risk to an argument, even if dropped, unless the full weight of an argument is explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic purposes. The exception to this is theory violations, which must be yes-no.

2. Reasonability is persuasive against and responsive to topicality and other theory arguments. I think that these are not like other arguments because they provide the neg with an escape hatch to avoid substance. This also applies to counterplan theory arguments, to some extent.

3. DAs: 'Turns case' isn't an automatic winner, I will not hack for the nearest existential risk, and the cumulative risk of the da/advantage is relevant.

4. CPs: The uniqueness cp in both directions thing is absurd, but most interpretations are borderline incoherent. International fiat, multiple agents / actors: bad.

Conditionality is fine, but the more it seems like the aff could not possibly generate offense, the more I'll be persuaded. If conditionality is bad, it's because straight turns are good.

5. Kritiks: I'd prefer that the neg debate the case, say util k, or fiat the alt (in that order) than defend an exclusive framework interpretation or argue that the debate is solely about in-round discourse. I find theory arguments like international or utopian fiat are better expressed as the perm double bind. When the neg has link to the plan and fiated alt that solves everything, I find it hard to envision a world in which the perm doesn't also solve everything.

T/L

Hi, I'm Chloe

Pronouns: she/her

Yes, put me on the email chain - cskaustin2@gmail.com

LASA '23

Penn '27 (I don't debate in college but coach ld for Harker and policy for LASA)

TLDR

- Tech > Truth, if they drop an argument it's true, but you have to explain what it is and why it matters

- Impact calc is your friend and wins debates

- Your 2AR/2NR writes my ballot at the top

- Flow and do line by line

- I get we're coming back from online debate but that's no excuse to steal prep, it's just obvious now

- Above all, have fun and be nice to each other! Smiles make me smile and speaker points go up.

T (what's that)

I love T. I actually think this topic is pretty neg biased, but I can be convinced otherwise. I default to competing interpretations. Let's not read blocks at each other and do some line by line!

CPs (the only thing relevant for policy teams this year)

Go for it! I err neg on process and agent counterplans, but the aff is probably right about no international and private actor fiat. I used to be a big fan of consult NATO, so if you can make it competitive, more power to you. Some big school is inevitably gonna break some tiny-ass aff that does nothing, in which case go for a process CP (Sam I'm looking at you).

DAs (if you can find them)

I love a good CP/DA debate. PTX DAs always become a question of evidence quality. I'm totally down to have a DA throw down. Specific DA links are important, especially when this topic is filled with generics.

Edit: I take it back. I don't care if your DA links are specific on this topic. If you can find a coherent da, you're doing great.

Ks (you'll just have to figure out my hot takes)

Clash is an impact. Fairness is an impact.

The aff prob gets their plan. Links don't have to be to the plan but you need to explain why you get the links that you do.

Cap, Tech-O, and Set Col are what I used to read. I’ll listen to any K, but I’m not the best with high theory. I swear to god if someone says the word "Baudrillard" I'm going to vomit.

No, death is not good. No, I will not vote for any offensive arguments. If you're asking yourself if there should be a trigger warning there probably should be so that everyone involved can have a comfortable experience.

I'm realizing I think framework really does make the game work, so a K aff is probably an uphill battle but not unwinnable.

Framing

I have a slight bias towards extinction outweighs separate from util. I'm also super sympathetic to a util turns structural violence argument if it's specific.

Theory

Go off, err neg on everything.

I generally believe that infinite condo is good, if you're a novice reading some varsity team member's condo blocks, I get it, I did it my novice year, but obviously better to have your own blocks that you're familiar with and understand. (+0.1 if you say Sam made you do it).

I will vote on ASPEC, my favorite argument in debate, BUT ONLY IF IT'S DROPPED AND YOU IMPACT IT OUT. "They dropped ASPEC" isn't enough.

30 SPEAKS IS DEAD AND YOU HAVE KILLED IT - search "30 speaks" in the rant doc for specifics

i have (not so) recently shortened this paradigm cuz it was getting really ranty - if you would like to see my thoughts on specific arguments, feel free to look at my rant doc

Intro

• I’m Eva (they/them) - i prefer to be called Eva over judge but say whatever you're used to/makes you comfortable. I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating - I currently coach at Hawken. I primarily coach traditional debate, but have qualed kids to the TOC and my kids are very all over the place with what they read, so I've coached basically every style

• Email: evathelamberson@gmail.com put me on the chain but speechdrop is better :) i think docs are a good practice even for lay debaters and i would prefer if you send analytics

• Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds

TL;DR FOR PREFS i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the rant doc if you're interested in my specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously

i believe debate is a game and it's not my job to tell you how to play it; i will be happiest when you are debating the way you enjoy the most and are best at

i consider myself a fairly flexible judge and try not to be biased toward any particular style - hacking is one of the worst things a judge can do, other than just not paying attention. i enjoy clash debates where each debater is going for their favorite or most comfortable strategy. i try to make the decision that operates the most logically under the paradigm/framing that has been most robustly defended throughout the round - if a round feels difficult to resolve I will lean towards arguments that I feel make the most sense, are the easiest to vote on, have the most instruction on them, etc. my strongest preference is against doing work for you - non-applied implications, explanations, etc. are things i will not do for you

IF YOUR ROUND HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR VBI AT ANY TOURNAMENT you can contact me with questions or concerns regardless of who recorded it - i can not upload it, change the visibility, etc.

accessibility:

• round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, i would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.

• DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND, i'm a germaphobe.if there are covid/illness precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.) i'll always have masks on me if you want

Add me to the chain. My email is roselarsondebate @ gmail . If I'm judging LD, please add lhpsdebate @ gmail as well.

Assistant Coach at Homestead 2020-2021

Head Coach at Homestead 2021-2022

Currently Assistant Coach at Lake Highland Prep

Debated College Policy for a year at the University of West Georgia

Currently College Policy at the University of Kansas, First Round At Large Bid recipient, NDT octofinalist.

TOC SILVER PF:

Most of what lies below is designed for LD and Policy. Five things you need to know for PF prefs:

a) I have judged a couple of PF debates and have basic familiarity with the format, but nothing much beyond that. I'm a college policy debater who did local LD and Policy in high school, and coach phil and K debate in high school LD. Whatever you wish to extrapolate from that, feel free, but I'll evaluate whatever argument you put in front of me and don't have strong argumentative preferences as it relates to content. Read whatever you would normally read.
b) If you want an argument to be evaluated, it has to be extended in each speech. i have no idea how to evaluate a debate otherwise.
c) I do not know or care about any of the norms of circuit PF. Anything related to the form of PF (arguments about speech times, PF-specific theory norms, PF specific rules, etc) needs to be overexplained, because I just have no clue what you're talking about. I am told you all do evidence challenges far more often - if that happens, I'll consult relevant rules and render a decision based on them.
d) I am best for well developed arguments with good evidence accompanied by efficient, technical line-by-line debating. I am worst for strategies that stake debates on arguments that are not sufficiently developed.
e) I really like high quality traditional debates with technical debating and high-level analysis. If that's the debate you want to have in front of me, I will likely enjoy it far more than I would a shallow theory debate. It is easy to see "college policy debater, LD coach" and think you should adapt by reading more "circuit" style arguments. This is not the case in front of me. Debate is best when every debater debates how they would like and the judge evaluates the debate technically and fairly.
If you have really specific argument questions, read below, but it shouldn't matter, because I will evaluate pretty much anything you put in front of me as best I can.

GENERAL:

I will flow on paper with my computer closed. If I do not have paper and cannot borrow it, I will flow on my computer and will not have the speech doc open. I will not attempt to reconstruct my flow from the speech doc. I will attempt to flow in a line-by-line format, but may flow pages top-down if the content of the debate warrants it (e.g. debates where one team or both do not do the majority of their debating on the line by line).

I've judged too many debates to care what you read. I've coached and judged every style, and feel comfortable evaluating anything read in any LD, Policy, or PF debate. Yes, this includes planless affs, yes this includes framework, yes, this includes tricks, yes, this includes death good. I do not care. DON'T OVERADAPT, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine. I will evaluate each debate exclusively based on the words on the flow, where dropped arguments are true and the qualifications for being an argument are claim, warrant, and implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. I will hold a strict line on claim-warrant-implication, and will flat out refuse to vote on words on the flow that do not reach this standard.

ARGUMENT THOUGHTS:

I do not treat arguments as "silly" or "not engaging with the aff" because they are not an aff-specific disadvantage. I don't share the attitudes of judges who treat process counterplans, skep/determinism, broad critiques with non-specific links, or impact turns like spark as second-tier arguments because they link to other affirmatives. The more generic an argument is, the easier it may be to beat on specificity, but I am not particularly sympathetic to "this is generic, ignore it." I will probably enjoy specific and nuanced debates more than the fiat k or signing statements. What I enjoy has no bearing on what arguments you should read.

No serious predisposition about framework debates. I've been in a lot of these debates, am very familiar with the nuances on both sides, and believe if debated evenly I would vote aff/neg about 50% of the time. I would say I'm equally good for impact turn as counterinterp strategies and don't have a strong fairness vs clash preference. I will default to evaluating the differences between the aff's model and the negative's model unless someone forwards an alternative framing mechanism. I am most persuaded by affirmative strategies that defend a large disad to the neg's interpretation or performance coupled with judge instruction and defense to the neg's impacts, and I am most persuaded by negative strategies that concretely deal with the aff's offense by either framing it out via impact calculus or accessing it via link turns. I am substantially better for impact explanations that justify the value of fairness or clash on their own terms instead of relying on "key to your offense" or fairness paradox-esque arguments. Those seem to me to be helpful impact comparison mechanisms rather than the primary basis of a terminal impact claim.

The only arguments I won't vote on are explicitly discriminatory positions, arguments based on the other debaters' appearance or dress, and arguments that ask me to not evaluate speeches.

You will lose .1 speaker point every time you ask a flow clarification question, unless I also could not flow what was said, and if that's the case, don't worry about it, because I won't be evaluating it. Status, net benefits, reasons to reject the team don't count - "did you read this card" does.

My strong preference is that if one debater is a traditional debater that their opponent make an effort to participate in a way that's accessible for that debater. I would much rather judge a full traditional debate than a circuit debater going for shells or kritiks against an opponent who isn't familiar with that style. If you do this, you will be rewarded with higher speaker points. If you don't, I will likely give low point wins to technical victories that exploit the unfamiliarity of traditional debaters to get easy wins.

Happy to answer other questions preround or by email.

She/Her

Debate's an L.

Email: Briajia.l@gmail.com

Bri (She/her)

Policy/LD rounds

Background- Debated policy for 6 years. LD/Policy judge over 6 years.

*update- I was a policy debater for years so traditional policy affs/rounds have always been my first love but over the years I’ve come to love K affs/performance/ social advocacy just as much as traditional Policy. So please run either as I don’t really prefer one over the other.

Speed

Spreading is fine, please be sure to slow down on the tagline and when quoting evidence so I can properly flow the arguments in the round. I also recommend that debaters share the files before each speech just in case I miss anything on flows during the speeches. I also do not recommend fully spreading in the rebuttal rounds. At the end of the day, just try to be as clear as you are able to.

Adjudicating rounds

I am very traditional when it comes to policy debate and my judging style is very straight forward. If you are Aff please convince me how the Aff solves for its impacts. Be very cautious to extend solvency and impacts throughout the round. I would also recommended an overview at the beginning of the second affirmative speech.

Neg team should be careful not to be abusive and run frivolous off case arguments only as a time advantage. When there is multiple off case arguments in a round, the neg needs to let me know what they want me to vote on. Make sure all off case arguments have the components needed to win, a dis ad needs a strong link and impact and a counter-plan needs to have a net benefit for me to vote on it.

Kritik Rounds

I am open to non traditional Affs but are very hesitant to vote on them if they are not ran properly or explained in a way that I am able to understand. I think it is very important for the team to explain to me why running non traditional Aff is a better move than policy. Other than that I am open to all arguments and case types, as long as I have something to vote on at the end of the round. I really enjoy fun and creative K affs. I am very big on solvency and even though an Aff may not be policy it still needs to solve in some way. Please run what you like, it just needs to be clear. I have heard K affs for the first time that have completely changed my perspective on judging/debate. If you feel confident in your K aff then please run it. I always keep an open mind.

Neg teams that run Ks need to do a good job at explaining the K, also if there is an alt , you must convince me how the world of the alt solves and there needs to be very clear explanation. In other words, the alt needs to make sense. I do not recommend running a K that you do not fully understand, it will likely cause you to lose the round.

Assigning Speaks

I assign speech based on the clarity of the debaters in the round and the overall quality of the speeches from each debater. Debaters who are more convincing and strategic are more likely to get higher speaker points.

I sometimes doc speaker points if debaters are rude to each other in cross ex, there is nothing wrong with being aggressive or strategic in cross x but it needs to have a purpose. Let's have fun and be respectful.

Kritiks I like to hear: Afropess/antiblackness, settler colonialism, Security, Cap K, Anarchy, Disability K, Black Fem

FYI-(Please do not send me emails outside or after a tournament, Judges are only allowed to have contact with debaters during a round/tournament.) it’s fine to ask questions after a round on clarification or how to improve but please don’t post round me, especially coaches! Please be respectful. Decisions are final and I’ve already submitted the ballot before giving feedback per tournament rules.

Nick Loew - GMU'24 - 4x NDT qualifier, 1x NDT Doubles

nickloew14@gmail.com

masondebatedocs@gmail.com [College ONLY Please]

You should read whatever arguments you are most comfortable with and want to go for. None of my opinions about debate are so significant that they overdetermine deciding who won based on the individual debate in front of me.

Tech > Truth. Complete arguments require warrants to substantiate them.

T vs Plans- I enjoy well-researched and substantive topicality debates. On the other hand I dislike contrived and unpredictable interpretations that are arbitrary in nature. (T LPR on the HS immigration topic > T substantially limit on the college alliances topic).

T vs K Affs - I almost always was on the neg going for T in these debates. In front of me the aff is best set up for victory by presenting a counterinterpretation that seeks to solve the negs offense alongside impact turns to the negs model, although of course you can also win with impact turns alone. For me I will say the latter is more difficult as I struggle to vote aff when there is no counterinterp extended in the 2AR to solve some amount of limits/ground.

CPs - I enjoy specific CP strategies that include topic/aff specific evidence. In competition debates I likely lean affirmative when there is relatively equal debating and the neg has presented a CP that generically competes off of certainty or immediacy.

Ks - I like Ks with links to the plan and alternatives that attempt to solve the links impact compared to Ks that rely entirely on framework strategies. That being said, I have still voted for positions that were solely critiques of plan-focus or fiat for example. Overall, I think I’m alright for most critical positions on the neg.

Theory - Often I find myself deciding that conditionality is good.

If you have any specific questions feel free to email me.

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

Lincoln Douglas:

I strongly believe in affirmative disclosure.

Theory: I am mostly unfavorable towards/dislike one sentence theory arguments that seem and are arbitrary in nature. Furthermore, I am unlikely to believe that most theory arguments aside from condo are reasons to reject the debater (ex: solvency advocate theory/states theory/agent CPs etc… is not a reason to reject the team).

Please attempt to be clear. I have found this to be a problem more often in LD likely because of the short speech times.

FAQ: (Copied from Jasmine Stidham's paradigm)

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you. Theory thoughts above.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments however I do not judge many phil debates. You may need to do some policy translation/over-explanation however so I understand exactly what you're saying.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: Avoid reading evidence from debate blogs. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. T whole-rez generally is fine.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'aspec' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. I am annoyed by strategies that rely on your opponent dropping analytics that weren't sent in the document.

Q: RVIs? No 1AR theory?

A: Nope.

Lexington '22. Qualified for the TOC twice.

Email: breakdocs@googlegroups.com

Policy: I am more comfortable with this style of debate than some may assume. I err towards more impact calculus and judge instruction. I enjoy election and PTX debates. I'm fine with T and process CP debates since it forces better AFF writing. For a DA to turn the case, it must turn the affirmative's internal links. I am generally persuaded that the link controls uniqueness, but for less probabilistic uniqueness claims (elections, politics, etc.), I can be convinced by the inverse. I am a fan of smart UQ CP's that artificially create DA's and/or side step impact turns. Default to judge kick.

Phil: Please read framework hijacks. Don’t shoehorn in bad offense just to read the philosophy you want—you’ll likely lose. I prefer carded philosophy over analytical justifications, but either is fine. Frameworks are an offense filter but if you’re reading epistemic modesty, be sure to explain how I should correctly resolve the round under that framework. "Extinction outweighs" is a contention level argument that needs to be paired with a warrant for consequentialism. Skep vs K Affs is legit.

Theory: There’s no such thing as "frivolous" theory but I am great for reasonability and drop the argument. Weighing and judge instruction are critical because theory debates can easily turn into a wash. I enjoy creative combo shells and unorthodox interpretations.

Tricks: This is a broad category. I like philosophical tricks and skepticism but dislike underdeveloped spikes and paradoxes. Stick to a few tricks and be ready to defend them when answered. Arguments start from 0 to 100, so ensure they include a clear claim, warrant, and impact.

Kritik: I’m persuaded by plan focus and extinction outweighs. I favor fairness arguments when going for T-Framework, though I am willing to vote on clash as well. I am quite terrible for K v. K debates.

Jan 18 2025

I will not base my decision on the flow of the debate if the debaters dont flow.

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

put me on the email chain laurenmcblain28@gmail.com

Lincoln Park (CDL) 16-20

Kentucky 20-25

Accessibility

speak clearly and keep the speed reasonable.

ideally, you send analytics.

i'll call clear 3 times and then i stop flowing.

Policy

No experience on the current topic so don't over rely on acronyms or buzz words

Read whatever you want to read - i'll do my best to evaluate all arguments without bias. I have done all kinds of debate.

Tech > truth (mostly) - I have a lower threshold for silly arguments and think a smart analytic can beat a bad card.

T is good, theory is good, disads are good, counterplans are good, abusive counterplans are good, saying abusive counterplans are bad is good, Ks are good, K affs are good, framework is good. Everything that is not racist/sexist/ableist/and/or homophobic is probably good

Mandatory caveat is that my nightmare is convoluted counterplan competition debates. This is not to say that I will not vote for the CP in these debates, this is just a warning that you will have to slow down and explain why the counterplan competes in no uncertain terms.

my voting record on framework is split 50/50.

i am most persuaded by switch side & think that affs that have thought about why they cannot read their aff on the neg are more likely to win in front of me. Fairness is an impact but needs an internal link (ie clash)

K v K debates are cool and you should probably still make a framework argument about how to evaluate the round. i do not care if perms exist or not in a methods debate.

LD

I AM A VERY BAD JUDGE FOR TRICKS --- READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Everything else from policy probably applies.

PF

get your opponents emails and send your case to them before your speech. if you do not do this, i will make you take prep time for anything that exceeds cross time to send evidence back and forth to each other.

Novice

do line by line, respond to all arguments, and extend all parts of your arguments, split the block on the neg, and narrow down what you go for in the final speeches and you will be golden.

Evidence

I am not a 'cards' person. I think great evidence can make a debate great but I don't think every great debate must read tons of evidence. I prefer explanation over defaulting to read more cards. If you read a great piece of evidence but cannot explain the warrants and how they apply to the debate, and your opponent reads a mediocre piece of evidence and can, I'm more likely to side with your opponent.

Hi! I'm Sam. Harvard Westlake '21, Vanderbilt '25. Email chain or speech drop please: samantha.mcloughlin@harker.org but I'd prefer speech drop. LD TOC qual 4x + 20 bids + won some tournaments (Valley, Yale, Stanford, etc) in high school - reading policy args, some basic T/theory, and some Ks/topical K affs (settler colonialism, fem IR, etc). I also coached for the past three years (more or less all over the argumentative spectrum) and currently coach for Harker, so I have some topic familiarity.

Everything in this paradigm (minus the hard and fast rules) is just a preference - my strongest belief about debate is that it should be a forum for ideological flexibility, creative thinking, and argumentative experimentation. I realized this paradigm was way too long so I tried to bold stuff for pre-round skimming.

Hard and Fast Rules--

I will not flow off the doc and I am not calling clear just for fun. I'm so for real, it will not just affect your speaks, you will lose the round because I don't have your arguments down. In the 1AC/off case in the 1NC, I'll follow the doc if I'm worried about clipping, and flow by ear (without the doc) if I think that you may be unflowable. Every rebuttal, the doc is closed. If I can't tell if you are reading all the words in your cards, I will assume you're not.

There's no flow clarification slot in a debate - take CX or prep if you need to ask what was read (exception is marked cards).

Won't vote on any arg that makes debate unsafe. This includes any arg that denies the badness of racism/sexism/etc, or says death good (args like spark/wipeout = ok, cuz it doesn't deny the value of life, it's just fancy util maths that says extinction better preserves the value of life). If your opponent wins your argument is repugnant (absent any larger framing or judge instruction), I'll drop the argument, unless you presented your argument with the agreement that it was repugnant (ie, if you admit your position is racist, but attempt to say that doesn't matter), in which case I will consider your repugnance purposeful and drop you.

Ev ethics - stake the round on it (ie W30 to the person who is right and an L with the lowest possible speaks to the other) if evidence is misrepresented (an omitted section contradicts or meaningfully alters the meaning of the card). I think a good litmus test for misrepresentation is: does the article agree with the claims presented in the card? If it's missing a sentence or two at the beginning/end of a paragraph but it doesn't change the meaning of the card, you're better off reading it as theory. To make everyone's life easier, just cut ev well (this means full citations, full paragraphs, in alignment with the author's intent).

Clipping = an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Speaks are my choice, not yours (put away 30 speaks theory). Also, won't disclose speaks.

For online debate, I expect that you record all your speeches in case you, your opponent, or I drops out.

Argument TLDRs--

Defaults: reasonability on theory, competing interps on t, drop the debater on t/theory, no RVIs, T>theory>everything else, comparative worlds, fairness + education are voters, policy presumption, epistemic confidence

^All those can be easily changed with a sentence.

K debate - Line by line >> long overviews. Winning overarching claims about the world is helpful, but you need to apply those claims to the specifics of your opponents arguments or else I will not do those interactions for you. Framework is important (honestly most of the times in policy v K debates, the person who wins fw wins the round). Links to the plan are preferred, but not necessary - the less specific your links, the more fw matters, and the more persuasive the permutation is. I also tend to think debate should be about arguments, not people, which means I'll likely be unpersuaded by personal attacks or "vote for me" arguments. I'm more persuaded by skills impacts on T Framework than fairness, and more persuaded by non topical affs that impact turn things than try to find a middle ground.

Policy - Yay! Zero risk not a thing but arguments still must be complete to be evaluated. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. Read your best evidence in the 1NC - I'll be persuaded by arguments that the 2NR doesn't get new evidence unless it's directly responsive to the 1AR. Big fan of creative and topic specific counterplans <3(consult __ is usually not creative).

Theory - PICs and condo are probably good. Other CPs (international fiat, agent, process etc) are a bit more suspicious. All of this is up for debate. Descriptions of side bias are not standards. The more frivolous the shell = the truer reasonability and DTA are, and the lower the bar for answers. On that note, reasonability and DTA are under-utilized.

Philosophy - [GBX edit -- realized I've spent too long in debate and am now solidly fine with phil/actually think about it a good bit. Will enjoy a substantive philosophy round.] Not the area i'm the most comfortable in, but I'll try my best. I'd love to see a well explained phil debate, but I will not enjoy a blippy phil round that borders closer to tricks debate. I'd rather you leverage your syllogism to exclude consequences rather than relying on calc indicts. Debaters should take advantage of nonsensical contention args.

Tricks - I don't think a model of debate predicated on the avoidance of clash (ie relying on concessions) is an educational model. My test for whether an argument falls under this model of debate is: ask yourself if you would be willing to go for an argument if it was responded to competently. The same idea also extends to the formatting of your argument (ie you should delineate + thoroughly explain all your arguments with clear implications). I won't purposefully insert my personal beliefs about the value of tricks debates into the round, but it does mean that I'll probably be more receptive to arguments that indict tricks debate as a model. Some arguments are truer than others, and it's easier to win true arguments in front of me than false ones. I also default comparative worlds, and have given more than one RFD that boils down to "X trick was won but there's no truth testing ROB under which it matters." Up-layering tricky affs with Ks or strategic theory is smart, and when leveraged correctly make claims of new 2NR responses more persuasive.

Lay - I have respect for good lay debaters since I know I could never be one. That said, I will definitely evaluate the debate on a technical level regardless of the style. Good lay debaters can beat circuit debaters by strategically isolating key arguments. Circuit debaters vs lay debaters don't need to modify their style of debate, but should do everything they can to be accessible (explain stuff in CX, send docs, etc) (same applies to debates where there is a large skill gap).

Misc - My threshold for independent voters is high. Emphasizing this after a couple rounds where it's been relevant.

Rant Section--

Tech > truth, but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.

I'll deal with irresolvability using the "needs test" - the burden of proof falls on the side that "needs" to win the argument (ie the burden of proof is on the neg in the perm debate because the neg needs to beat the perm, but the aff doesn't need to win the perm).

I won't vote on arguments telling me to "evaluate the entire debate after X speech" that are introduced in X speech - it generates a contradiction. Also, the 2AR is after all the speeches before it - interpret this as you choose.

Likes/Dislikes--

Likes: plans bad 2NR on semantics if you understand the grammar behind it and are not reading someone else's blocks, creative and non-offensive policy impact turns, creative process CPs (no this is not the ICJ CP or consult the WTO), plan affs (yes I realize this contradicts with my first like), multiple shells bad, Ks with links to the plan, presumption/case presses vs non T affs, topical K affs, reasonability/DTA on frivolous theory, collapsing, flashing analytics

Dislikes: the grammar DA, RVIs, plans bad 2NR on semantics when you don't understand the grammar behind it, plans bad 2NR that's just reading off someone else's doc with no topic specific analysis, standard spec, buffet 2NRs, hidden args, non T affs that are an FYI not an advocacy, combo shells that don't solve their offense, "strat skew", "this argument is bad" [then doesn't explain why the argument is bad], "that's an independent voting issue" [doesn't explain why it's a voting issue past just the label] (this also applies to 1AR arguments not labelled as voting issues that magically become voting issues in the 2AR), "what's a floating PIK" "what's an a priori", being rude or interrupting your opponent (especially if you're more experienced or in a position of power) (at best it adds nothing at worse it's unkind)

Add me to the email chain: Speechdrop@gmail.com
Affiliations: Harvard Westlake (2022-)

TLDR: the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want. Don’t call me judge Jonathan and/or Meza is fine.
Shout out: CSUF Debate, CSULB Debate, LAMDL

specific thoughts:

FW: Clash > Fairness, but you can go for any impact you want. I appreciate carded TVAs. (K v FW) should center competing models, aff teams should have a counter interp and role of the negative as defense to T even if going for the impact turns. More convinced by impact turns than we meet. K affs should be in the direction of the topic but can be persuaded otherwise.

DAs: Should be fast and turn case. Strategic straight turns in response to disads are appreciated

Counter plans: I appreciate good competition debates. Functional > textual competition. Counterplans probably should have a solvency advocate but it is what it is. Good advantage counterplans are good.

K: Please have a link. Framework heavy strategies have value but I am more convinced by a bigger link debate than framework no plan. That being said I don’t default to weighing the aff, or plan focus. Both sides should be able to win on either framework. Good K debating is good case debating when going for the kritik make sure to include how your links turn the case. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

T: Aff probably needs a counter interpretation. Standards should be impacted out

Theory: I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance. Splitting isn't horrible but extend warrants and the story of abuse. Up layer arguments must be clearly warranted out.

LD Specific:
Phil: it is a valuable aspect of LD, that being said over explanation and Judge instruction is very important for me in these debates. I lean towards epistemic confidence. phil innovation is cool.

Trix: be clear on warrants in order to beat the inevitable gut check. When answering trix calling out the silliness is fine but shouldn't be the only answer.

Speaks: I give them fr.

Shreeram Modi (he/him)

Lynbrook, NYU, Break Debate, Poly Prep.

debate@smodi.net, breakdocs@googlegroups.com

You can find my full judging record here. This speaks to my judging proclivities better than a paradigm would.

Tech over truth. What is 'true' for the purposes of the debate is entirely based off what the debaters have said. The nature of the argument, its delivery, or how it relates to real world truth have no bearing on my evaluation of it. The degree to which a claim is warranted is the degree to which a response must rise.

Flowing. I flow straight down on excel, I will not flow based off the speech doc nor attempt to reconstruct my flow based off it. I may refer to evidence after the round to resolve questions my flow is insufficient to answer.

My strongest conviction is that debaters should try their utmost to win, the rest is all malleable. Go for the most strategic arguments, not necessarily the ones that maximize clash or display bravery. I will reward strategies that improve your chances of winning, and not punish you for taking the easy way out.

COUNTERPLANS

---Will judge kick unless told otherwise.

---Equally good for "functional" and "functional and textual"

---Most theoretical objections to specific 'types' of counterplans would be better expressed as competition.

KRITIKS

---Offense needs uniqueness, the 2NR going for the kritik either needs framework to generate uniqueness from the AFF's performance, an alt that functions as a uniqueness counterplan, or needs to go for unique links as DAs to the plan.

---Planless AFFs vs Topicality need DAs to something the NEG's model mandates or offense generated from their performance.

---Not sure how to 'weigh case' vs an in-round microaggression. The 2AR going for this will almost certainly lose.

MISC

Debaters should be flowing. You don't need to flash analytics. Similarly, there is no flow clarification slot in debate; cards should be marked orally but you do not need to specify which cards/arguments you did or did not read.

Speaker Points. They are mine, not yours; I will not evaluate speaker point theory. The logical conclusion of evaluating this genre of arguments is that everyone reads and agrees to speaks theory at which point they serve no purpose.

---Higher speaks: Making good strategical decisions, knowing a lot about debate/the topic/the world, being engaging to watch, being clear will lead to higher speaks.

---Lower speaks: Not having your tech in order, excessive dead time, answering arguments that were in the doc but were not read, making bad strategic decisions, wasting CX, being mean/tactless, and having cards and documents not formatted properly using verbatim styles will lead to worse speaks.

Insult my brother. While I won't award higher speaks for this, I'll probably find it funny. However, if the insult shows an obvious lack of knowledge or is just corny, I may treat you disfavorably.

My email is alex.mork@harker.org. Please add me to the chain

General:

1. An argument is a claim, warrant, and impact. I will not vote on anything that does not meet this threshold and I will vote on basically anything that does. The fact you say the word "because" after your claim does not mean what follows is a warrant.

2. I won’t vote on any argument that I cannot explain back to your opponent after the round. I need to be able to explain it back based off your explanation, not my prior knowledge of the argument.

3. Assuming they meet the threshold set in #1 and #2, I’m willing to vote on “bad” arguments. However, the less intuitive/worse that I consider an argument to be, the lower the threshold I have for the response.

4. If something is conceded, I grant it the full weight of truth. If I did not realize that an argument was being made, then I will not consider it to be conceded.

5. I will attempt to err on the side of least intervention. I think it’s the job of whoever presents an argument to prove the argument is true. So, for example, if the NEG team says “X card is a link to our K because it’s gendered” and then the AFF team says “no link, X card is actually criticizing gender norms, not perpetuating them,” I would consider both these explanations to be lackluster and have no way of resolving the question, but instead of reading the card and coming to my own conclusion, I would err AFF and assume there’s no link because it is the job of the NEG to prove a link to the K, not the job of the AFF to disprove it.

6. **********Debaters have an obligation to flow. You should send a marked version of the doc indicating where cards were cut immediately after the speech, but you should not delete the cards that weren't read. If your opponent wants to know what was/wasn't read, they must take prep or CX time. I will deduct speaks for debaters who don't adhere to this.

7. **********Slow down on analytics. This is especially true now that I don't judge very often! I rarely miss entire arguments but I have recently judged several debates in which I didn't flow a 1ar warrant for an argument that the 2ar collapsed to. I am sympathetic to the difficulty of the 1ar as a speech, but I think the way to navigate this challenge is by making less arguments that are more robustly explained, not vice versa

8. Theory defaults: drop the team for T (or other arguments about the plan), condo, disclosure; drop the argument for everything else; no RVIs; competing interps. These are admittedly very arbitrary and I only created them so that I would have a consistent way of evaluating rounds in which neither side establishes paradigm issues - these defaults can and will change as soon as one team makes an argument to justify their paradigm issues. In fact, I would almost always suggest making a reasonability argument (especially against 1ar theory if you have specific warrants!)

9. I think good evidence is important in so far as it allows debaters to make arguments about author qualifications, recency, the methodology of their studies, quality of warrants, etc... but the onus is on you to make these arguments. I don't decide rounds based on my own readings of evidence unless there is a specific dispute about what a card says.

10. I don’t flow author names

Ethics:

I will end rounds in which I witness clipping because to the best of my current knowledge not clipping cards is an NDCA “rule,” and doc speaks when I see miscut evidence because to the best of my current knowledge, properly cut evidence is a “norm” (although reading theory about miscut evidence or ending the round for an evidence ethics challenge are still fair-game).

My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com

Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

LD Paradigm

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Hi! I'm Shruti and I debated for Ridge for 4 years. In LD, I debated on both the nat circuit and the NCFL NSDA circuit, so feel free to debate however you want in front of me. I semid at NCFLS my junior year, qualled to LD toc my senior year, and placed top 14 at NSDA my junior year. In Parli, I did both West and East Coast style debate and semid at the TOC my junior year. I was also a lab leader @ NSD summer of 23 and 24, and now am an assistant coach for Harrison High School.

add me to the email chain: shrutisnbhatla@gmail.com AND harrison.debate.team@gmail.com (pls email it to both)

TLDR; I will evaluate any argument you run as long as it’s not an "ism" and is properly warranted but here's a list of what I'm most comfortable judging. Don't feel like you need to adapt your strat for me, I'd much rather you do you.

K/ performance Aff- 1

Larp/policy- 1

Theory-1

Trix- 3/4 for substantive tricks (probably a 5 if its tricks v tricks)

Phil 4/5

I'll flow at whatever speed you read and will clear if I can't understand you. ll clear you like 3 times and then I will stop flowing. Blitz through constructive speeches but I definitely appreciate some pen time for back half speeches, so slow down on things like 1AR/2NR analytics.

Minimize dead time. Send out the 1AC before start time. Don't steal prep or clip cards. Don't take forever to send docs.

Presumption and permissibility negate unless I'm told otherwise

Yes, debate is a game, but don’t be mean

Speaks are based on strategy, cx, and whether you are funny. I'll disclose speaks if you ask me to

Specifics:

Policy- I like it, it's pretty straightforward. Err on the side of over-explanation for case presses because I might not be familiar with the topic.

--Cps are great, read whatever you want and however many you want. CPs should probably have a net benefit. If you are kicking planks, tell me, I won't judge kick for you.

Theory: I’m super down to judge a good theory debate. Read whatever you want, I’ll vote on friv theory if you properly extend it. Please weigh between standards, it makes the debate much easier to resolve. Slow down on theory analytics.

T: Have case lists and definitions. If you read grammar-based arguments, please understand them(ie you should be able to explain what the upward entailment test is if you are running it)

K affs- I LOVE well-written, topic-specific, and innovative K affs. PLEASE clearly delineate the impacts of voting aff and have a clear narrative. If you cant answer the question "what does voting aff do", I almost certainly won't be voting aff.

Ks- I'm familiar with the most common LD Ks- Cap, Afropess, Psychoanalysis, Fem, Puar, Set col, security and most POMO/high theory(D&G, Berardi, Baudy, Lacan, and Derrida). Ks NEED an overview in the 2NR to crystalize the round and to tell me where to vote. Overviews are NOT a substitute for real LBL- I will not do the work of crossiplying implicit clash from the 4 min 2NR overview onto the K page!! K tricks are cool just flag them.

Phil: I'm honestly not the best judge for dense Phil debates, but I will evaluate the round to the best of my ability if you tell me where to vote and signpost. I'm familiar with Kant, libertarianism, and virtue ethics but definitely errr on the side of over-explanation.

Tricks: I’ll evaluate these rounds but an argument is a claim warrant and impact. If you wanna read tricks, I’ll hold you to that same standard. I dislike "eval after x speech", stupid aprioris or condo logic but I will evaluate them. More substantial “tricky” args like skep, determinism and trivialism are much more persuasive to me than an AC that’s just spikes. Answer CX questions- we all know you know what an apriori is let’s be FR.

Parli Specific Stuff:

I ran a lot of progressive arguments on NPDL so I can and will enjoy evaluating circuit arguments. With that being said, I also did NYPDL and East Coast Parli, and am comfortable judging any style
• All offense must be extended in lor, pmr, or mo
• Defense is sticky
• arguments need to have warrants for me to evaluate them but it’s not my job to point out how good those warrants are — i’ll fully evaluate the arg if dropped
• just because a ballot is dropped doesn’t mean you auto-win, i need good weighing to convince me to vote on an off-clash ballot
• be specific and comparative in impacts, sweeping generalizations usually mean I have to intervene
• I can track spreading go as fast as you want-if someone runs spreading consent theory I have no idea what the bright line is and neither do u
• I like a good theory debate, pls prove that the punishments are proportional to the violations, theory arguments should have good warrants too

• I will protect the flow but pls still call the POO

jessodebato@gmail.com

They/She

Speech drop or Email

Experience: I participated in policy, LD, and NFA-LD (college LD), mainly reading phil and the k.

Judging Philosophy: Tech over Truth. I come into debate as a judge, educator, and learner — please feel free to perform as you would like to. Any argument with a warrant is an argument, regardless if I agree with it. Don't be sexist, racist, ableist (etc.) in round.

Speed is fine,I try to flow off the speech rather than the doc. Please don't zoom through analytics.

1 = pref me; 5 = strike me

K = 1

I love a K debate that is explained well, don't word salad. LBL>Long overview

cool w/ any lit base, but won't fill in explanations

I evaluate the K through whatever framing is given. Then I look to how the K interacts with the aff (turn, serial policy failure, etc).

cool w/ reps k's

Going for the alt isn't necessary. you can kick a cp and go for the da; you can kick the alt and go for links and fw.

If you go for the alt, it has to either: a) resolve the links or/and b) solve the aff.

K Affs= 1

I love K-affs,but I've equally voted for negative strategies that interacted with or explained the aff's theory of power better. It's not about what argument you've made, but rather how it interacts with your opponents.

K affs aren't different from "normal" debate: give me an impact that I can vote on, whether you are doing performance or reading heavy POMO.

TFW: I'm 50/50, not biased towards either: Tell me why fairness isn't an impact or tell me why fairness outweighs the k-aff's pedagogical benefits

LARP = 1

impact calc is important to my decision in these debates

Plan affs are fine

Counterplans are cool. The CP is just an opportunity cost da; tell me either how it solves some of case and produces a net benefit elsewhere or how it avoids some DA that outweighs the case.

- will judge kick the cp

- if you are using the CP to solve some of case, do the work of explaining how

Phil = 1

single standards are fine, don't think any meaningful clash happens in value-value debates

open to variety of non-consequentialist theories, but explain the implications of you winning framing

warrant explanations are especially important here, don't dump tag re-reads.

Theory = 2

don't be blippy

if you go for theory, collapse. I find that a 1 min abuse story in the last rebuttal is often unsubstantiated

eval theory through offense/defense

competing interp>reasonability

norms>actual abuse

friv theory is fine, but i'd prefer theory rooted in some substantive portion of debate, rather than germane norms like clothing. good = cp theory, topicality, plan-bad, alt theory, disclosure, x arg is violent for debate, 3-tier, etc

not preferred = chess, shoe, mask theory

Trix = 5

Trix = one line blips that auto-affirm/negate. They are not warranted and developed. I think this is distinct from skep or determinism which are more philosophically justified and warranted.

I don't buy 30 speaks theory

Just win a debate normally; strike me

PF Debate -

As an educator my role is to make sure the debate space is inclusive. I will take actions to ensure racist, sexist, anti-LGBT, and ableist arguments be not condoned within the round.

Framework - If you don't provide any, I'll assume cost-benefit analysis.

Extensions - Make sure your extensions are crystal clear and not blippy. If you want me to evaluate an argument it should be sufficiently explained.

Final focus and summary - Arguments that are presented in the summary should be consistent throughout the whole round. Make sure the arguments that you are going for in the summary exists in your final focus too.

Impact crystalization - Make sure you clearly crystalize the impacts of the round and weigh it against your opponents.

Yes email chain. No SpeechDrop. greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

Label email chains. Preferred naming convention -- "Newark Invitational R5 F2: Newark Science TO [AFF] v RU-N TO [NEG]"

-----

My job is to listen, flow, and adjudicate. Your job is to win, take notes, and leave. Both of our jobs should be done as efficiently as possible. I didn't come here to suffer.

-----

Notes based on various articles to set community norms:

• Many of you don't even deserve the speaks you ask for. I will not grant speaker points based on asks/in-round arguments.
• I will not disclose speaker points.
• I flow by ear, not by doc (ever, unless I'm excruciatingly tired and I will warn everyone). I was trained to flow as a HS freshman by listening to college policy so I think I'm uhhhh pretty good.

Actual content:

• Do what you prepared to do. I want to see the best version of you. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask whenever; I love a good "I'm going to see you again, how do you feel about X?". My "hard no" is tricks and I know you know what that means.
• "It's not tech over truth. It's tech and truth." - some wise old Black man. Win the flow and don't have bad vibes.
• I think strategic/critical thinking is good, we're in an academic activity. I want to leave the room thinking "woah, everyone should debate like that kid."

Temitope as a person things:

• Be good people. I hate being in awkward situations.
• Do not appeal to me as a person. I'm but a soulless being. YOU should act like you want to be here though. If not, my ears are going to close as a function of evolutionary defenses built up against being bored to death and your speaker points will suffer.

CONTENT WARNING: GRUMPY. FRUSTRATED

PREP TIME ENDS WHEN THE DOC IS SENT. NOVICES GET GRACE. VARSITY DOES NOT. WORK ON SENDING DOC SKILLS IN PRACTICE. I WILL START YOUR SPEECH TIME IF YOU'RE OUT OF PREP.

IF ROUNDS START LATE BECAUSE OF YOU I WILL DEDUCT 1.5 SPEAKER POINTS 3 SPEAKER POINTS IF ITS A FLIGHT 2 DEBATE.

DON'T STEAL PREP. IF A TIMER IS NOT RUNNING (speech, cx, prep time) YOU SHOULD NOT BE PREPPING (looking at docs, typing, writing)

HONESTLY I LIKE GOOD DEBATES NOW. GOOD POLICY, KRITIK, TOPICALITY DEBATES. PHIL DEBATES THAT ISN'T 100 SHORT UNWARRANTED ANALYTICS WITH 50 HIDDEN TRICKS IN SIDE READ AT 600 WORDS PER MINUTE. I AM TIRED.

Email: okunlolanelson@gmail.com [Add me to the chain]

About me: I debated in Texas mostly in LD and did a little Policy. Had a short stint for Northwestern debate (GO CATS). If you're reading quickly before a round, read the bold.

General/Short version:

- No you cannot "Insert re-highlighting." This is an awful practice. Don't do it.

- Tech > Truth

- Line by line > Overviews but the best debaters will combine both.I'm not a good judge for debaters that don't engage in the line by line.

- Asking for a marked doc comes from your prep if it wasn't egregious, but their prep if it was (i.e they marked 15 cards without saying what words they marked it at). Please get better at flowing. Free game: You should be flowing by ear and not off the doc and the doc should be used for reference and evidence validation.

- Judge instruction GOOD. REALLY GOOD.

- I will evaluate the debate objective but assume I know very little about ANYTHING. It is your obligation to extend and explain your position. Not my job to read it and explain it for you.

- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to *AND JUSTIFY* why I should.

- If its a Policy throwdown, please slow down a bit in those final speeches. Remember I know little about ANYTHING. This is mostly for LD since shorter speeches/rounds means less time to explain those [internal] links.

- I'm not flowing of the doc. I only even glance at the document in 2/100 debate. Doc flowing has destroyed this activity incentivizing ATROCIOUS clarity and rhetorical practices and bad flowing skills for debaters. It is YOUR job to extend and explain your evidence, not my job to read it Clarity is axiomatic.

- PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SLOW DOWN on analytics, tags, interpretations, plan/cp text, theory. You can go as fast as you want on the card body. You folks are UNFLOWABLE (see above)

- Debate whatever and however you want. Go all out and do your thing, just DO NOT be violent or make the space unsafe.

- Frame your impacts and weigh your impacts. No one wins their framework anymore. Its a shame. It would make debates atleast 37% easier to decide.

- Errr on the side of explanation and slow down a bit for dense [analytic] philosophical debates. I do not have a PhD in philosophy.

- I don't care to see a bad theory debate. I do not want to invest mental or physical energy deciphering an incoherent bad theory debate. i.e "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" be forreal. You still have to respond to bad theory arguments though (shouldn't be terribly hard)

- You will auto-lose if you clip cards or falsely accuse. You will auto-lose for evidence ethics violations

- A good speech consists of judge instruction, overview, line by line, and crystallization (and obviously strategy). Good speeches = good speaks. Rhetoric and Persuasion is important.

- I don't care how far away or close to the topic you are but you must justify your practice. Skills, fairness, impact turns, all that is cool.

- For "non-T" affs vs T, I need you to account for/interact with your opponents impact. If I am simply left with a fairness/skills impact vs the impact turns and no interaction between the 2 and no Top Level framing issues, I will be forced to intervene. (This is bad for affirmatives because fairness is *probably* *somewhat* good)

- I zone out alot in CX. Please grab my attention for an important concession.

- For Policy debate, just don't assume I know some jargon, norm, or innovative strategy and err on the side of explanation.

- Don't get too **graphic** on descriptions of antiblack violence (or any violence for that matter). Trigger warnings are welcomed and encouraged.

- Referencing college teams or other teams doesn't really get you anywhere, "our models allows for Michigan vs Berkeley debates" I simply do not know or care about these teams

- If you need to know something specifically ask before the round.

• Good luck, do your thing, and have fun!

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 1/11/25

For PF - I am sick of seeing people read nonsense to win rounds. Please read educational arguments. I don't care if your opponent is wearing shoes and IVIs are getting really overused. There are obvious instances where you need theory, but I am sick of people using it to avoid learning anything about the topic.

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

0. General:

chain for policy/general questions

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

chain for ld (pls add both)

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Coaching: Isidore Newman, Coppell, IVA High

Conflicts: a few LAMDL teams.

Debate Shoutouts: Deven Cooper, Dayvon Love, Diego "Jay-Z" Flores, Erika Linares, Geo Liriano, Jaysyn Green, Daniel Medina, Destiny Popoca, Lauren Willard, Cameron Ward, Isai Ortega, Andres Marquez, Elvis Pineda, J-Beatz, Dorian Gurrola, Aless Escobar, Jean Kim, and all of #LAMDLGANG.

"IR topics are cool bc we learn abt the world and stuff" - E.C. Powers, Wyoming Debate 5/22/23.

1. Pref Guide:

General: Currently entering my junior year and currently debate for CSULB (2 years of NDT-CEDA debate, 3 1/2 of LAMDL Debate) and have about 2 years of circuit judging experience. I care a lot about debate. Whether or not I should can be changed by persuasive argumentation.

Judging Style: I judge based what's on the flow, and the flow only. Judge intervention is silly and I try not to do it unless I absolutely need to fill in the gaps. Offense/Defense paradigm is how I evaluate debates, and will vote for the team that did the better debating unless told otherwise. Dropped args are true args, but need to be impacted out. No judge kick, make your own decisions and for the love of god start the round on time. Speaks will reflect all of these instances.

There are little predispositions that I have about debate that cannot be changed by good debating. Any endorsement of violence/racism/homophobia/transphobia is an auto-L + nuked speaker points. Ev-ethics includes shifty citational practices/ev misconstruction or clipping. All ethics challenges stop the debate with no room for continuation. In most scenarios I'm not looking at the doc, which means you should probably have a recording of the speech as proof.

I care about evidence quality far less than most judges. In most instances, substantive debating overrides bad debating with assertion of (X) piece of evidence or (X) author, however I prefer both a good combination of both. I care more about line by line, 3rd/4th level testing, and in-depth clash as opposed to just "how good evidence is". If I wanted to read evidence, I would read a book. I judge debates to see debaters debate out arguments, and reading evidence as a starting point for an RFD when not contested seems paradoxical to the activity.

I do not yell clear during C.I.A. level ear-torturing tactics. Clarity is important, and if you are unclear, the decision and speaks will reflect such. If you ask me about an argument that you "made" that didn't have the effect on a decision you thought it did, it's because you either a. did not explain it well enough to make it that way or b. it was absolutely incoherent and I did not hear or understand it.

LD Specific: Do what you want, everything else applies from above applies.

2. Random/Misc:

Good Speaks Guide: Please do not delay the round/lallygag around, be excessively rude to your opponents, or endorses/argue for any isms. If you start the round on time, set up the email chain before I get into the room, and be generally funny/charismatic, you will get good speaks.

Song Challenge: I usually start speaks at 28.5 and move up/down depending on performance. On a softer note, I usually will listen to music while I write my RFD. Most times, I already have decided a winner after the 2AR has ended, but I always go over my flow/notes one last time before I write or submit my ballot. I love listening to new music, and I listen to every genre imaginable. That being said, I love to hear the tunes y'all have been jamming to recently. To encourage such behavior, debaters have an opportunity to garner extra speaks based on their music suggestions. Each team is allowed to give me one song to listen to while I write my RFD. It cannot be a song I've heard before. If I like the song, you will receive a +.1 to your speaker points. If I don't like it, you won't receive any extra, but I also won't redact any from your original score.

Advice/Help: If you are from LAMDL, debate for a UDL or public school without coaching, I'm willing to help with advice or questions y'all may have.

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I did 4 years of policy at Emory. I also did 4 years of LD at Durham and have coached at Durham since I graduated. I mostly judge LD but occasionally find myself in a PF or Policy pool, so most of this paradigm is targeted at LDers. Regardless of the event I am judging though, I will do my best to adapt to you and evaluate the round solely off the flow. TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. If you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate you will do well. I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity.

Specifics

Policy – Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. The 2nr in LD is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or sandbagging cards that should've been in the 1nc, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr should just be in the 1nc.

T – Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be very sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. You need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than some other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find most TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Cap and other kritiks can also be good. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love phil debates. I think these debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell. if your opponent indicates you are going too fast for them, you should adjust. i am comfortable with debaters "slow"ing their opponents speech in good faith to increase the value of the debate. i prefer a negative strategy constructed of fewer, robustly developed positions to one with many under-developed ones.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

8 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• take seriously my role as a classroom teacher - will be comfortable giving decisions like "i was uncomfortable voting for ___ even though it was technically won" - the blank could be filled with skepticism, death good, etc. - i find it difficult to imagine that i would ever vote for a model of debate that said kritiks should wholesale be rejected

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

The following practices will significantly lower your speaker points in front of me:

• any argument that i should evaluate the debate prior to the end of the 2ar

• flow clarification questions

• spreading or otherwise engaging in circuit norms that exclude less-experienced debaters from meaningfully participating in the debate round
• reading through theory/topicality blocks at high speeds
• mis-citing a piece of evidence by only reading one name on a piece with two authors, shortening a last name, etc.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR/econ heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (i will not vote for shells where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

jiyooon.park@gmail.com

Washburn Rural ‘22

Michigan ’26

Coach for TAS, OCSA, and Washburn Rural

Judging

I will decide debates purely on my flow and the words I hear you speak. Prioritizing dropped arguments will be the best and quickest way for me to vote for you, and I will be more likely to decide on small technical errors, especially if you point them out or make them relevant.

If my flow is not sufficient to decide an argument I will look at evidence, whether it is because:

1. The flow is too close, i.e., no dropped arguments, lack of impact calculus, the debate is two ships passing by, etc.

2. The line-by-line is a dispute over evidence, whether quality or applicability.

If you predict debates coming down to this, provide a metric for how I should evaluate and elevate certain types of evidence and name specific authors or cards for my decision. This metric can include recency, expertise, causality, citations, etc. If a metric is never set, I will favor better-highlighted evidence, complete warrants, and conclusiveness.

I will try my hardest to flow, judge, and make the best decision possible, but I am imperfect. My biggest flaws that you can quickly adapt to are:

1. Typing. I attempt to flow cross-ex and transcribe every speech, but the combination of debaters blitzing through blocks at 300 WPM, typos, and debaters talking over each other means I miss 5-10% of text per debate. I do not think I have ever missed an argument in its entirety, but it would behoove you to be clear and flowable. Even when I miss things, I will remember the context and the surrounding words, but that is not as reliable as the words on my flow.

*A lot of debates I've judged, especially clash and competition debates, have vital moments and/or round deciding moments in cross-ex where specific phraseologies are used or concessions are made. Making cross-ex's matter and making cross-ex flowable (not talking over each other, shouting, etc.) is best.

2. Knowledge Gaps. I try to stay in tune with wikis, argumentative trends, the news, and core topic themes, but there is a lot I do not know about. Things I have learned about in my time judging without much prior knowledge or personal debate experience include interest rates, Erdogan’s political trouble, the racism paradox, the many ways humans could survive nuclear war, laches, textual topicality, and the barebones of random philosophies. While most debates do not require an in-depth knowledge of individual issues, the best debates and debaters do, and I will try to match that. If it turns out that I am a moron, over-explaining different arguments could benefit you, i.e., speeding through moral philosophy and hypotheticals at max speed is a way to win, but probably not the way to win.

Both can be easily overcome with clear, precise, technical debating and having a more explanatory narrative than the other team. While I appreciate and reward technically proficient debaters, making my decision come down to the second half of subpoint D of subpoint 11 at 300 WPM is not ideal.

Here is my decision-making process proper if this helps you structure final rebuttals:

1. I will almost always start deciding debates where the debaters tell me to start, i.e., in framework debates, most debaters say to start on fairness as an impact or ballot solvency, or if the 2NR is a DA and impact defense, I will start assessing the risk of impacts first. This also means picking and choosing arguments is better than shot-gunning arguments.

2. If neither rebuttal tells me where to start deciding, I will start where I think is the most logical point of contestation. Given the lack of (1), this is where I start most of my decisions.

3. I will highlight cells on my flow for what is dropped and/or relevant to deciding first-order issues and so forth until every cell with words in my cell is highlighted (if this includes reading cards, I will put relevant card authors/warrants next to those cells). This process also includes striking new cells that could not be traced back to the 2AR.

4. I try to decide based on the exact words said by debaters to avoid intervening.

Observations

The above should obviate everything below because none of my ideologies, thoughts about the debate, or biases will affect my decision, but here are my impressions that could matter to you:

1. Ideology. The critique has been less than 5% of my 2NRs since I joined the activity, but about half of the debates I judge are clash debates. Critical teams that impact turn framework have had the most success in front of me, especially because most 2ACs do not counter-define the resolution. Framework 2NRs with a robust defense of fairness combined with lots of no link + the AFF links more to their offense has had the most success. Both sides are better suited to specify and apply their blocks to the debate or 1AC at hand. Critiques on the NEG usually succeed when they moot the plan; every other version seems more fallible.

2. Side bias. I have been a 2N my whole career and think being NEG is hard on most topics. My default is infinite conditionality, but I have been persuaded otherwise in a handful of debates. 2Ns should make their condo blocks topic-specific and go for flexibility or arbitrariness. 2As should ensure their 1ARs say enough words so the 2AR is not new and needs a robust defense of dispositionality. My default is to judge kick. Most 2ACs and 1ARs commit egregious amounts of under-coverage on the case, and 2Ns should quickly point this out. I will quickly strike ‘new’ parts of the 2AR to protect the 2NR. Lastly, I find myself voting NEG frequently on turns case where I think most AFFs do not have a great answer to.

3. Argument quality. All arguments are fair game. Degradation in quality should be quickly dispatched with high-quality evidence or low-hanging responses. I do not feel distaste for impact turns like spark or ‘generic’ CPs like process. I think the AFF is favored in both debates, but the NEG normally has tricks that help them. Your speaks most likely will not suffer from deploying strategies like above. However, if your A-strat is hiding ASPEC in the middle of the 2NC, you may get the ballot, but your speaks will definitely suffer. Lastly, I think most debate impacts and internal links are non-intrinsic or rely on a reality distortion, so I am more amenable than most to smart analytical advantage CPs.

I am a parent judge and not a fan of spreading and fast speaking. If I can't understand, then it is not going on the flow. This is a verbal activity and therefore I will only flow things that are verbally communicated.

I am traditional judge, and don't have experience with progressive arguments, so I am not a fan of Kritiks, Theory Shells, or ROBs. I am looking for debaters who can presents a strong case with great logic, evidence and effective refutation of their opponent's case. In order for me to weigh your case effectively, you need to show me which framework is best and how you win under that framework. I like to have crystallization and voters in the 2AR and 2NR - this is especially important. The clearer you make to me why your argument is better and outweighs, the easier it will be for me to vote for you.

hpatel8780@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Max, I'm a third year out who did LD for 3 years. Won the TOC and a couple of other tournaments, read predominately policy arguments but dabbled a bit in critical international relations theory, settler colonialism, and ethical philosophy.

I coach withDebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Paradigm:

Add me to the chain, maxvperin@icloud.com

-- Debate is a game (not sure why this is a controversial take in an activity with rules where we compete to win and have fun) – it’s a really fun game that can teach us lots of cool things, but don’t take it too seriously/please be nice in round/have basic human decency

Big fan of strategies that:

-- Spend most of the NC on impact turns

-- Use advantage counterplans and smart case presses to punish bad affs

-- Use long, good evidence

-- Don’t rely on the other debater dropping/mishandling arguments

Strongly dislike strategies that:

-- Are designed to avoid clash

-- Allow you to read off a script during a rebuttal

-- Try to explain all society/history/IR/etc. with a theory from the depths of god knows where in academia

-- Ask for 30 speaks (you will receive a 25)

Might vote you down for/won’t vote for strategies that:

-- Ad hom other debaters/force me to evaluate out of round events (exception is disclosure)

-- Say racism/sexism/other isms good (will def vote you down for this one)

Other things to know:

-- I find clash and especially fairness standards in T Framework to be extremely compelling, and if debated equally I lean heavily negative in clash debates. On a truth level, fairness is clearly an impact, though it's often a bit tricky to explain why in a manner that's not tautological, so I'll be impressed by 2nrs that give that explanation persuasively

-- That said, while I'd recommend reading a topical plan, you certainly don't have to read a big stick policy aff - I think that well constructed topical K affs that materially solve for some instance of a structural impact through a plan and leverage a critical theory of power to do impact calculus and attack the internal links of disads and counterplans are extremely cool.

-- When reading a kritik against a policy aff, case defense and predictions Ks are your friend. It's extremely difficult to win a framework argument that excludes the advantage or a reason a high probability extinction impact doesn't outweigh, and "reee ontology and the ROTB means the aff disappears" certainly won't cut it on either of those fronts. Instead, you should attack the parts of the aff that are most vulnerable, i.e. the shitty internal links.

-- Behind nuclear strategy and IR theory, I think formal logic is one of the coolest areas of study/literature that can be used in debate. However, I also hate bastardization of it. Tricks debaters, do with that information as you will.

-- I think that a lot of popular theory and non-topic specific topicality arguments (condo, nebel, etc.) are fairly obviously bad arguments, and gain strategic value almost exclusively from the fact that they exploit the time structure in LD very effectively. Because of that, I'll be very sympathetic towards the debater answering theory in most of these situations.

- On the topic of silly arguments, psychological theories that have been rejected by 99% of psychologists and readings of history that have been rejected by 99% of historians are probably silly – there’s a reason they exist in debate, English departments, and nowhere else

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

1. 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".
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
6. 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
7. 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...

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

If I clear you, be clear.

Assistant Coach for Immaculate Heart

Speech Drop > email chain but if you must: passionfruit11905@gmail.com

Policy

CP competition cards need to be in the 1nc

Zero risk is not a thing

Ks
Not very familiar with most K literature so don’t assume I know anything

Fairness is important and I am often persuaded by a case outweighs 2ar

Link walls and framework interpretations need to be in the 1nc— links should also be very specific to the affirmative

The words "post" and "pre" fiat are meaningless to me

Phil

I find it hard it vote for aprioris, paradoxes, etc. unless you have won truth testing, but truthfully I find it hard to vote for those arguments at all. Unsure as to why I find myself judging tricks debates and would prefer not to judge them

I have a strong distaste for analytically justified frameworks — I will hear out your phil AC/NC (I do enjoy philosophy debate), just please read cards

Theory

The more frivolous the shell, the lower the threshold for response

I'm not a fan of Nebel T, impacts that have to do with "novice inclusion" and nit-picky disclosure arguments. I do not feel confident in my ability to evaluate frivolous theory debates and would prefer not to judge them

K Affs & T FW

Neg leaning in these debates, fairness is the best impact

I am unfamiliar with k v k debate

Random

Read offensive re-highlightings, insert defensive ones. Link walls should never be inserted

I flow cx, it's binding

Flow clarification happens during prep/cx

If you are reading an ev ethics violation/clipping stake the round on it and have proof/a recording. Don't read this as a theory argument.

I do not like judging policy debate

I'm not a good flow

Put me on the email chain :) jrimpson123@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is a must. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .1 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Will have a high threshold for voting for out-of-round violences, but if provided with receipts it's not impossible.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing”you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

My email is taj@unitingthecrowns.com

2023 NDT Champion

2023 CEDA Champion

I used to read plans and afropess. I used to do LD in high school.

The Black Chorus Sings

Email: jessiesatovskydebate(at)gmail(dot)com

Note for 2025 topic: I have 0 topic knowledge and very little experience judging on this topic, so keep that in mind when debating in front of me and make sure to explain topic acronyms, etc.

I have 6 years' debating experience from high school and 2 years at Emory.

I prefer policy arguments since I have a better understanding of them, but I have a pretty good grasp of just about any argument. Bottom line: read what you want, explain it well, and be respectful to your opponents!

----Policy:

K arguments:

I have a bias against random K arguments so unless you can explain them to me well, probably don't go for it (ie: ontology-esque, Baudrillard/Post-modernist critiques, and things that don't seem to be an opportunity cost to the aff, etc.).

Framework almost always decides this debate. Middle-ground frameworks are confusing---the affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? "Hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik are much clearer.

I will decide the framework debate in favor of one side's interpretation. I will not resolve some arbitrary middle road that neither side presented.

If the k is causal to the plan, a well-executing affirmative should almost always win my ballot. The permutation double-bind, uniqueness presses on the link and impact, and a solvency deficit to the alternative will be more than sufficient for the affirmative. The neg will have to win significant turns case arguments, an external impact, and amazing case debating if framework is lost. At this point, you are better served going for a proper counterplan and disadvantage.

Topicality

T-USFG --

I'm pretty neg-leaning here, and generally believe that topical plans are the best route to fair and predictable engagementToto win as a K-aff on framework, you will need to either impact turn framework or provide a counter-model and a good description as to why your model best solves your framework and makes sense in a space like debate, which relies upon rules and predictability for both teams to be adequately prepared to debate one another. Doing impact calculus with your offense and explaining why the debates under your model are good and why debates under their model are net worse is important and helpful for me when resolving your debate.

Other T -- make sure to do good impact calculus and contrast models (see above for T-USFG).

Policy arguments

Disadvantages -- you need to be thorough in your explanation and point out why the aff specifically triggers the link, otherwise it's low-risk and I'll probably defer aff.

Counterplans -- point out why it solves the aff specifically, and affs should focus on quantifying the solvency deficit, otherwise a risk of the net benefit probably outweighs.

Dropped arguments

Make sure to point out they're dropped, and in the rebuttals explain why that's important so I know how to evaluate it. Please don't excessively say arguments are dropped if they're not, it's redundant and wastes your speech time.

Lay Debate

Generally, please go slower, I'll judge like a lay round unless specifically instructed that y'all want it to be a circuit round. You don't have to go as slow as you would with a parent but slow the debate down and spend more time explaining your arguments than spreading through cards.

----LD:

I've never competed in the activity so I'm not familiar with the specific theory/tricks and will view the debate similarly to how I'd view a policy debate. Explicit judge instruction and impact calc will go a long way for me, especially in the final rebuttals.

Things that will lower your speaks: stopping prep time before you start creating your speech doc, egregiously asking your opponent what was marked/not read, and going for an RVI.

Misc

- Online debate = it's harder to hear, so please try to be extra clear, and slow down so that you can be even clearer if needed.

- Time yourself, and please don't steal prep. It makes you look bad and I'll dock your points.

- Please keep your camera on if possible; looks less shady and lets me connect with y'all.

- *Make sure to check that I (in addition to everyone else in the round) am ready before you start, or I'll probably miss something.

Most of all, do your best and have fun!

I coach at American Heritage and have been coaching privately for 6 years now. My email for speech docs is: Stevescopa23@gmail.com.

General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.

- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such.

Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced.

T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. Otherwise should be fine.

T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times.

Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and warren. The more specific the links the better.

Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.

Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.

Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:

1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well

6) Successfully going for an RVI

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time - win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

Strake Jesuit '23

Harvard '27

Finaled TOC and Won Dukes and Bailey

Add me to the email chain:kashah0615@gmail.com

LD debate should stay like LD debate! The 2NR is not a 2NC. Spamming 15 cards in the 2N to overpower the 2AR or just reading off a doc for 6 minutes straight will lose you rounds. I want the 2NR to be reactive not pre-scripted. If you can't answer a simple cross question about the 1NC and then suddenly can beat back every argument in the 2NR - I am innately disappointed and suspicious. I also want clash - that’s all I’m asking for in a debate regardless of the content.

I'll vote on literally anything that isn't explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. That being said, all I ask of you is to be clear when you extend stuff and extend a warrant. For real though - 90% of the circuit is unflowable, makes blippy arguments, and have one word "warrants". I will be completely comfortable not voting for someone because I don't know what they said. I'm not going to flow off the doc completely.

As a debater I read policy or kant affirming, and everything from psychoanalysis to log con negating. I think I can adjudicate every argument, but I am predispositioned against some more than others.

I'm probably on the harsher side of speaks for the LD circuit but I just dislike inflation. If you give a great speech don't worry your speaks will be quite good. Bad arguments, bad strategy, lack of clarity, no pen time, no differentiation between tags and cards and pre-written analytics, all will lower speaks!

Policy:

• Do whatever you want. I want good weighing and good evidence.
• Slow down on analytics in the 1AR and 2NR.
• Impact turns are cool but don't just soley read huge amounts of evidence and call it day - there needs to be quite good 2NR explanation of complex things, like economic concepts in a cap good/bad debate.
• Case debate should probably always make it into the 2NR, and a good aff that can beat it back will be rewarded.
• DA + Case 2NRs are my favorite

Theory:

• Slow down when you're docbotting theory analytics, if I can't flow it I won't evaluate it
• I don't like judging frivolous theory that is ridiculous (something like shoes or sleds), but other theory arguments that policy judges might find "frivolous" I would be receptive to (Unified solvency advocate, spec, PICs bad) for 1AR theory
• Please weigh some in the 1AR, 2AR weighing is very new most times and not that persuasive

T:

• Nebel T is perfectly fine, case lists on both sides are very persuasive.
• More policy T shells about words in the resolution are also great, and I need good 2nr vs 2ar judge instruction and evidence comparison.

K:

• I'm more familiar with these kritiks as read in debate (in no particular order): Afro Pessimism, Psychoanalysis,, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism.
• I really don't understand super high theory Ks and probably will not make a great decision on them.
• You still need to warrant and explain your arguments very well. I will not use prior knowledge to fill in gaps for you.
• Impact turning/Straight turning Ks are super cool as well (Humanism, Heg Good, Cap Good etc)
• Flag K tricks
• No biases but K debaters should be very technical, and 2ARs should collapse effectively and need defense to the TOP no matter the 2AR
• Please have specific links or do very specific link analysis to the aff with generic links

K Affs:

• Lean neg on TFW but can be persuaded by good case extrapolations and persuasive defense
• 2NRs need to do interaction with case whether it be explicit or work on the shell itself

Phil:

• Read Kant a lot as a debater, didn't care enough for the lit
• Contention level debates get muddled very easy, and as straight refs become the norm I need a lot of judge instruction
• Err on the side of explanation for non Kant Util debates

Tricks:

• Going to stop voting on one line tricks like eval and condo logic
• Answer CX questions
• Collapses need good weighing and interactions with the rest of the flow - otherwise bad speaks
• I won't do work for you
• Be organized
• If I couldn't catch it, so couldn't your opponent
• Like less tricky strats like Log Con
• I really don't want to judge these debates

Evidence ethics:

• I really dislike debaters who stake rounds on really tiny violations- I think staking should be middle in the paragraph, clipping, strawpersonning, and more egregious offenses.
• If you do stake it though, no takebacks, and the loser gets a L20.
• Challenges being presented in a shell format will be adjudicated as such.

debatesheff@gmail.com

If policy ALSO add lcandersoncx@gmail.com

If LD ALSO add breakdocs@googlegroups.com

Policy debater at the University of Houston '26

Coach for Seven Lakes HS, LC Anderson WS, and Break Debate

Basics

1. I flow top down on an excel template and do not have the document opened during speeches. I will read evidence while making my decision, but my decision lay solely in the words the debaters use on my flow. I will email debaters a copy of my flow if requested.

2. I am deaf in my left ear which makes clarity very important. If I cannot hear every work in the card text, then I will say clear. If I say clear twice and nothing changes, I will stop flowing.

3. I do not like wasting time in debates. 1AC should be sent before start time. You must use either prep or cross if you seek to ask flow clarification questions.

4. Don’t misgender people.

5. Tech over truth, but dropped arguments are only as good as the dropped argument itself. I have a higher threshold for a warrant than most i.e. If someone makes the argument “Severance is a voting issue pink fuzzy monster”, I will not vote on the argument because there is not a warrant attached to the claim that makes logical sense.

6. The people who receive the highest speaks from me are the people who do good judge instruction, clean line by line, smart strategic decisions, and are generally pleasant in round. My speaks start at 28.5. If you want an easy 27.5, answer a position that was not read in the 1NC.

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

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

9. I have been most influenced in the way I think about debate by the following people: Michael Wimsatt, Patrick Fox, Sripad Yadagiri, and Brett Cryan.

Details:

The burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder

Most of my expirence debating is in policy and I have equally gone for planless affirmatives and framework Ks as I have plan affs and process counterplans. This means for LD that I am not great for a lot of detailed phil debates outside of Kant v. Util, in depth theory debating, or moral skepticism.

Evidence-

Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

I normally read the important pieces of evidence that the 2NR/2AR tell me to read while making my decisions. I really enjoy quality evidence that looks good and makes the argument you tell me it does. However, as stated above, this does not make up for evidence comparison.

Counterplans-

I default judge kick unless argued otherwise. I am firmly neg on condo and thus have an extremely low bar for answering it. If the negative somehow messes up condo it can still be a 2AR.

I lean neg on most questions of counterplan theory outside of I-fiat, private actor fiat, and multi actor fiat. However, I feel like all these arguments are better made as competition arguments rather than theory arguments.

Equally fine for text and function vs just function. Textual alone doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

I love quality advantage counterplan writing. Most affs do not have a plan-key warrant in 90% of their scenarios, and negative debaters should exploit this fact far more than they are currently doing.

Disadvantages-

Please stop putting together slop and calling it a DA. I think 1NCs can sacrifice their throwaway DA that they will never go for in favor of more cards on their good DAs.

2NRs need more big turns case pushes on both the impact and link level. 2NRs also need more time on the comparative level of internal link and impact scenarios. Simply saying the DA is faster than the aff does not mean anything absent judge instruction tied to why that matters.

Kritiks-

I am unsure of what the words role of the judge/role of the ballot means outside of framework justifications. I am best for delete the plan and plan focus.

I am not great for performance teams. I am good for more “techy” teams that read good evidence.

Policy Aff v. K

Aff: Talk about the aff more, read less generic cards, No you probably didn’t do a microagression, Go for what the aff is built to defend, the more defensively you debate the more likely the negative will get a link.

Neg: Talk about the aff more, read less generic cards, no the aff probably didn’t do a microagression, Apply the theory of power more, det rid of the overview and do line by line.

K v. K

I go for Maoism 99% of the time when I negate K teams. I think K teams are bad at responding to the Cap K and people should be far more comfortable going for it.

Aff: Apply the theory of power to explain the links, make framework arguments, read better cards, explain the net benefit to the permutation

Neg: Do the theory of power debating on the link debate and delete your overview, pull more lines from the aff, explain how the alt solve the links, explain why the links are DAs to the permuations.

Planless affirmative v. topicality

Aff: Biggest problem aff teams have is lack of picking a strategy and instead just trying to throw everything at the wall and hope it sticks. You should delete the fluff from the 1AR and over develop the strategy you want to go for in the 2AR.

Neg: Fairness is good, do the explanation of why fairness matters/outweighs, better for carded skills than whatever clash means. I think of T as a DA to not reading a plan, explain it that way.

shepparddebate@gmail.com

Hello, my name is Paxton (He/ Him) and I love debate! If you are disclosing I would prefer you use file share or speech drop. Depending on the event you are in you can jump around my paradigm.

For Mountain River Nat Quals

To be frank, I will be judging with a primary focus on the decision so my comments may be less future improvement based and more matter of fact analysis. I will also not grant you work you don’t do. Extend, weigh, do the flow work. Any argument type, speed, lingo, etc. is entirely ok (if you spread I want a doc). Your main focus should be doing the technical things right and justify the ballot for your side.
Be Confident and do your thing!!

Circuit Debate(This section is up to date for TOC 2024)

Substance im tech over truth. Theory im truth over tech.

BE NICE! One thing that i feel happens alot more in circuit debate than locals are people being rude or down right abusive to their opponents. Please be nice. Debate is a game at the end of the day, and aggression will not make you better at it. Have passion but not anger.

There are some things to keep in mind. 1) I come from a traditional background. I am ok with you going fast and running whatever you want, but i may evaluate the round slightly different than someone who comes from a prog background. I really want you to tell me why you win. I dont need super slow voters, but i want you to either weigh really well or tell me why an arg is a round winner. At the UK opener my number 1 comment was not getting enough round analysis on why the debater won the round. Flow is great, but i need a clear reason to vote if you want to better your chances.

Im ok with speed, that doesnt mean im not a mortal. If it is unclear or not well organized then i will not have a perfect flow. I can only evaluate the round based on what gets on my flow, so dont think "ok with speed" means lose organization and clarity.

ROTB or explicit k framing is a must. I will not do the work for you on this. Also im skeptical of alts, if they arent explained in the NR i wont just give them to you. I also dont like "reject the aff alts", more creative/ more specific is better.

I dont like PICs. They have to be really good for me to vote on them.

I typically dont like theory or t. If there is legit abuse then run it and i will evaluate it, but if its a time suck or a speech filler than dont run it please. Theory is a tool not a weapon, please treat it as such. I am usually more willing to listen to theory from the aff (condo or speed bad) than from the neg. It takes a lot for me to vote on T.

I like pre speech disclosure, but im not a fan of pre round disclosure in LD. I dont think the neg needs extra prep time in LD like they do in Policy. I wont vote on disclosure theory unless you dont get the doc before the speech at all, didnt ask for it, and your opponent is spreading. If it doesnt meet those three criteria i wont vote on it.

My History

I have done well in LD, BQ, Worlds, BP, Policy, and PF. I am very familiar in any event I am judging. Policy and LD were my main events in high school. I was a state finalist in policy and a state champ in LD. I also finished 3rd at NSDA nats in LD. I am now currently coaching high school debate.

I now coach LD debaters across the country. Trad is my specialty but I have worked with progressive style debaters as well.

Overall (Updated for NSDA 2024)

I am a tabula rasa judge (in traditional rounds). I prefer a clean flow with solid evidence and warrant extensions. I will vote off the framework, so tell me what that is! If I get no framework I default to util impact calc. I WILL LISTEN TO ANY ARG. If you are running something ultra complex then do the extra work so I can understand the advocacy, but theory and k’s are great.(If you run a theory or k please give me role of the ballot analysis and do the proper extensions.) I am good with speed.

[Note: I listen to cx but i use that time to type out comments about the previous speech so if it looks like I'm just typing on my computer i am listening. I just dont put a ton of weight on cx and i dont flow any of it so i see it better to use the time to write the ballot.]

1. Don’t yell at or attack your opponents for who they are, please be civil. There is no excuse. I do understand that debate can get intense, and that is ok.
2. Roadmap and SignPost
3. Have fun and try your hardest! If you have any questions ask me after the round.

LD (Last Update 2023)

I love this event. Give me good impact calc through the criterion. Cover the flow. When making extensions I need the card name, the arg, and why you are extending it or why it matters, basic stuff (comment for locals).

PF (Last Update 2022)

QOL is not a framework (comment for locals). If you are going to read a framework please make sure it is unique and not just weigh impacts. Read one if you are actually framing the round in a unique way. I love evidence and warrant extensions. Sometimes slimming the case and dropping points is ok if done strategically. I will vote off of impact calc.

Policy (Last Update 2022)

You do you. I’ll vote on anything, just make sure to tell me why. I err aff on T. Only run it if there is a clear violation. If you run it, give me good analysis on the impact of the violation. Solvency is very important, aff please extend it, neg please attack it. I am cool with CP’s, k’s, and theory. All I ask is that you do the work to fully develop them if you are going to try and win on it. I want role of the ballot analysis if you run a k or theory.If you run a ton in the 1nc I will be happy and excited for the round. If you run 1 or 2 very deep complex advocacies I will also be pleased. I err prog in policy but I also think all policy can be good policy (comment for locals, "prog" in a local not national context).

TOC Conflicts 2024: Anika Ganesh, Yesh Rao, Tanya Wei, David Xu, Mason Cheng, Spencer Swickle, Derek Han, Riley Ro

New Updates:

• Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about studying computer science or philosophy in college or if you're interested in computer science research, especially in artificial intelligence or natural language processing!

• Debate is an educational activity, and I feel completely comfortable ignoring arguments that add no value (or negative value) to the activity. Here is my brightline: if you would not feel comfortable extending an argument unless it were completely conceded, you should not read it.Arguments like evaluate the debate after X speech, Zeno's paradox, Meno's Paradox, etc. (at least the way they're read as one-liners) all fall into this category. You have been warned. On the other hand, I would certainly vote on other types of 'tricks' that are interesting and have good warrants (if your argument is carded from a philosophical journal, for instance, it is probably legitimate). If you can execute this kind of a strategy well, I will likely be impressed and reward your speaks.

• I strongly prefer the type of rounds where debaters extemp smart, intuitive arguments, and make high-level strategy decisions about what to do. On the other hand, if your strategy relies on reading mainly off the doc without any original thinking, I am not the judge for you and your speaks will almost certainly be capped. Essentially, your speaks are a function of how strategic your decisions were and how much original thinking you put into the round.

• Check out the Circuit Debater Library wiki for explanations on all of the most common LD arguments!

---

Hey, I'm Zach, and I debated for Scarsdale High School '21 in LD, where I broke at the TOC twice. I now coach LD at Scarsdale and attend Princeton '25, pursuing a major in computer science and minors in philosophy and mathematics.

Email: zachary@siegel.com

I have the most experience judging theory and philosophical framework debates. I have less experience judging policy and K debates, although I will do my best to evaluate all rounds in a non-interventionist manner. I feel fine judging clash debates (e.g. policy v K) but you DO NOT want me in the back of the room if the round comes down to a technical policy debate.

Some musings:

• Arguments must have a claim, warrant, and impact. If I do not understand the warrant of an argument or do not believe it to justify the claim, I will not vote on it. I won't vote on extended arguments if I don't catch them in previous speeches.

• I will attempt to default to the assumptions made by debaters in the round. However, if this seems unclear, on theory, I will default to fairness, education, competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater, and on substance, truth testing with presumption and permissibility negating.

• I will not vote on out of round violations that, if contested, provide no clear way to resolve who is correct. That means I will not check the wiki or any other source external to the debate round, and in many cases, I will drop the violation in question if I feel there is no objective way to determine who is correct.

• I will follow the NSDA guide when evaluating evidence ethics concerns. If you want to stake the round on an issue, you may, but know that A. I strongly prefer you debate the concern in round, and B. If you stake the round, win, but I feel the violation is frivolous (e.g. ellipses, brackets that don't change the meaning of the card, etc.), your speaks will be capped.

• I will not vote on argument extensions that logically prevent the opponent from responding by being reliant upon the truth value of the original argument (e.g. extending no neg arguments by saying the neg's responses don't apply because they are neg arguments) because the original argument could only be true if the original argument could take out responses to itself, which is circular.

• Try to have some fun! Debate can become monotonous, and I'm sure everyone would benefit from having a more entertaining round (including your speaks).

Email: misimha4[at]gmail[dot]com. She/her. Asst. coach at Peninsula. I did LD at Mitty and graduated in '22.

I will always vote in the way that I think is the least interventionist. However, follow this rule of thumb: “don’t be preposterous.”

Here are my biases:

1. Fairness is intrinsically good and a terminal impact.
2. Risk is cumulative. Good for philosophy and soft left.
3. Ballots have no operational value and voting as if they did seems highly problematic.
4. Other than ‘we meet’ and ‘do CP’, nothing is 100 or 0 percent risk. Offense-defense, always.
5. Substantive debate is to be maximized but gettable on reasonable theory arguments such as ifiat or process bad.
6. Topicality is about the mandate of the plan. That is solely discernable from the meaning of the words in the plan.
7. Interps must be predictable. Debatability concerns merely follow.
8. Kritiks should disagree with the implementation of the plan. If it requires a framework argument, that is a procedural, not a criticism of the plan. I am not good for procedurals. I am good for criticisms of the plan even if the alt is not a policy; disagreeing with the assumptions of the plan should justify an alternate approach to policymaking.
9. Functional competition is likely the best. However, the aff rarely needs to argue that claim to beat process.
10. Untopical affs should lose for being unfair. In policy debates, the judge votes aff if it has proven the resolution to be true, not because 'the plan is a good idea'. Likely to vote neg on presumption if the neg points this out.

Discrimination is not allowed. I will not vote on ad hominems or premeditated ethics challenges. Evidence ethics challenges require you to stop the round. Else, they won’t be considered. These are generally better expressed through rehighlightings, which you may insert along with verbal explanation.

Look up once in a while. I'll be making expressions or nodding when I hear arguments that I feel particularly strong about. Frankly, there are many times in debates where I have just wanted to yell "skip" to the debaters (e.g. wiki disclosure, role of the ballot, theory is a reason to reject the team not argument, 'try-or-die', 2AC case overview, etc.) but have chosen not to so far.

Back ground on me Perry 23' Uk 27' I have judged / competed in almost every debate category. I mostly debated in Policy and I currently debate for Kentucky.

For judging:

Email: Add me to the email chain Resl227@g.uky.edu Please Name the email chain and use a formate similar to this: Tournament Name-Round # AFF Team v NEG Team.

Arguments:

CP Theory: I am not the judge for a big Counter Plan Competition round or high theory debates. I can judge these rounds I just don't enjoy it. Aside from that you can read whatever you want.

CP General: I also think that CP's need to be explained--tell me what the CP solves and how it is different from the aff etc. Please have some kind of net benefit with the CP. When aff explain the function of the perm and how it avoids the links don't just assert Perm Do Both and move on.

DA's: Love a good DA -- a strong link story is important. Comparative Impact calc is also important.

K's: I think most K arguments are interesting so long as they are explained (don't just expect me to have read all the same literature that you have etc.).

T: This is a hit or miss with me. I am not super familiar with the HS topics that could work in the favor of the Neg. Just like everything else I need you to explain to me why this matters what the violations is etc.

Round Etiquette: Tag cross is fine. Overall just be respectful of me and your opponents and we should be good.

Cliff Notes: Debate is supposed to be fun and educational. I am here not to insert my own opinions but to judge what is in front of me, and I will do that to the best of my abilities.

Feel free to ask me any clarification questions about my paradigm before the debate starts.

Hi, I'm Allyson Spurlock (people also call me Bunny)

She/Her

allysonspurlock22@gmail.com

I did policy debate for 4 years at CK McClatchy High School in Sacramento, CA where I qualified to the TOC three times and was a Quarterfinalist. I currently coach LD for Harker.

I will diligently flow the debate, read the relevant evidence flagged by the final rebuttals, and assign relative weight to arguments (which originate completely/clearly from the constructives) in accordance with depth of explanation, explicit response to refutations, and instruction in how I should evaluate them.

I have few non-obvious preferences or opinions (obviously, be a respectful and kind person, read qualified/well-cut + highlighted evidence, make smart strategic choices, etc).

I have thought a lot about both critical and policy arguments and honestly do not think you should pref me a certain way because of the kinds of arguments you make (HOW you make them is pretty much all I care about). Judge instruction is paramount; tell me how to read evidence, frame warrants, compare impacts, etc.

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, but your speeches need to do the work of extending/applying specific warrants. Condo is probably good, but many CPs I think can be won are theoretically illegitimate/easily go away with smart perms. Debating the risks of internal links of Advs and DAs is much more useful than reading generic impact defense.

Framework debates:

Different approaches (on both sides) are all fine, as long as you answer the important questions. Does debate change our subjectivity? What is the role of negation and rejoinder? What does the ballot do? Fairness can be an impact but the 2NR still needs to do good impact calculus/comparison.

Policy Aff v K:

FW debates are often frustratingly unresolved; the final rebuttal should synthesize arguments and explain their implications. Because of this, it is often a cleaner ballot for the 2NR to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without winning framework. 2ACs should spend more time on the alt; most are bad and it is very important to decisively win that the Neg cannot access your offense.

Misc:

+0.2 speaker points if you don't ask for a marked doc after the speech

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

Pronouns: she/her

Yes, put me on the chain: jasminestidham@gmail.com

Please let me know if there are any accessibility requirements before the round so I can do my part.

JKS

I coach full-time at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. Previously, I coached at Dartmouth for five years from 2018-2023. I debated at the University of Central Oklahoma for four years and graduated in 2018. I also used to coach at Harvard-Westlake, Kinkaid, and Heritage Hall.

LD skip down to the bottom.

High school policy debate 2024-25

I am not actively coaching a high school policy team this year. This means you can truly treat me as a blank slate when it comes to IPR. I have zero predispositions or biases. I don't know your acronyms or the community consensus on certain issues. I did coach at Dartmouth on the college antitrust topic, so I am somewhat familiar with that topic area.

January 2024 Update -- College

The state of wikis for most college teams is atrocious this year. The amount of wikis that have nothing or very little posted is bonkers. I don't know who needs to hear this, but please go update your wiki. If you benefit from other teams posting their docs/cites (you know you do), then return the favor by doing the same. It's not hard. This grumpiness does not apply to novice and JV teams.

At the CSULB tournament, I will reward teams with an extra .1 speaker point boost if you tell me to look at your wiki after the round and it looks mostly complete. I will not penalize any team for having a bad wiki (you do you), but will modestly reward teams who take the time to do their part for a communal good.

Tldr; Flexibility

No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. I have coached strictly policy teams, strictly K teams, and everything in between because I love all aspects of the game. I would be profoundly bored if I only judged certain teams or arguments. At most tournaments I find myself judging a little bit of everything: a round where the 1NC is 10 off and the letter 'K' is never mentioned, a round where the affirmative does not read a plan and the neg suggests they should, a round where the neg impact turns everything under the sun, a round where the affirmative offers a robust defense of hegemony vs a critique, etc. I enjoy judging a variety of teams with different approaches to the topic.

Debate should be fun and you should debate in the way that makes it valuable for you, not me.

My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application.

If I had to choose another judge I mostly closely identify with, it would be John Cameron Turner but without the legal pads.

I don't mind being post-rounded or answering a lot of questions. I did plenty of post-rounding as a debater and I recognize it doesn't always stem from anger or disrespect. That being said, don't be a butthead. I appreciate passionate debaters who care about their arguments and I am always willing to meet you halfway in the RFD.

I am excited to judge your debate. Even if I look tired or grumpy, I promise I care a lot and will always work hard to evaluate your arguments fairly and help you improve.

What really matters to me

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, probably more than other judges. Stop reading cards that don't have a complete sentence and get off my lawn. I can't emphasize enough how much I care about evidence comparison. This includes author quals, context, recency, (re)highlighting, data/statistics, concrete examples, empirics, etc. You are better off taking a 'less is more' approach when debating in front of me. For example, I much rather see you read five, high quality uniqueness cards that have actual warrants highlighted than ten 'just okay' cards that sound like word salad.

This also applies to your overall strategies. For example, I am growing increasingly annoyed at teams who try to proliferate as many incomplete arguments as possible in the 1NC. If your strategy is to read 5 disads in the 1NC that are missing uniqueness or internal links, I will give the aff almost infinite leeway in the 1AR to answer your inevitable sandbagging. I would much rather see well-highlighted, complete positions than the poor excuse of neg arguments that I'm seeing lately. To be clear, I am totally down with 'big 1NCs' -- but I get a little annoyed when teams proliferate incomplete positions.

Case debate matters oh so much to me. Please, please debate the case, like a lot. It does not matter what kind of round it is -- I want to see detailed, in-depth case debate. A 2NC that is just case? Be still, my heart. Your speaker points will get a significant boost if you dedicate significant time to debating the case in the neg block. By "debating the case" I do not mean just reading a wall of cards and calling it a day -- that's not case debate, it's just reading.

I expect you to treat your partner and opponents with basic respect. This is non-negotiable. Some of y'all genuinely need to chill out. You can generate ethos without treating your opponents like your mortal enemy. Pettiness, sarcasm, and humor are all appreciated, but recognize there is a line and you shouldn't cross it. Punching down is cringe behavior. You should never, ever make any jokes about someone else's appearance or how they sound.

Impact framing and judge instruction will get you far. In nearly every RFD I give, I heavily emphasize judge instruction and often vote for the team who does superior judge instruction because I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible.

Cowardice is annoying. Stop running away from debate. Don't shy away from controversy just because you don't like linking to things. This also applies to shady disclosure practices. If you don't like defending your arguments, or explaining what your argument actually means, please consider joining the marching band. Be clear and direct.

Plan texts matter. Most plan texts nowadays are written in a way that avoids clash and specificity. Affirmative teams should know that I am not going to give you much leeway when it comes to recharacterizing what the plan text actually means. If the plan says virtually nothing because you're scared of linking to negative arguments, just know that I will hold you to the words in the plan and won't automatically grant the most generous interpretation. You do not get infinite spin here. Ideally, the affirmative will read a plan text that accurately reflects a specific solvency advocate.

I am not a fan of extreme or reductionist characterizations of different approaches to debate. For example, it will be difficult to persuade me that all policy arguments are evil, worthless, or violent. Critical teams should not go for 'policy debate=Karl Rove' because this is simply a bad, reductionist argument. On the flip side, it would be unpersuasive to argue that all critiques are stupid or meaningless.

I appreciate and reward teams who make an effort to adapt.Unlike many judges, I am always open to being persuaded and am willing to change my mind. I am rigid about certain things, but am movable on many issues. This usually just requires meeting me in the middle; if you adapt to me in some way, I will make a reciprocal effort.

Online debate

Camera policy: I strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but there are valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Tech glitches: it is your responsibility to record your speeches as a failsafe. I encourage you to record your speeches on your phone/laptop in the event of a tech glitch. If a glitch happens, we will try to resolve it as quickly as possible, and I will follow the tournament's guidelines.

Slow down a bit in the era of e-sports debate. I'll reward you for it with points. No, you don't have to speak at a turtle's pace, but maybe we don't need to read 10-off?

Miscellaneous specifics

I care more about solvency advocates than most judges. This does not mean I automatically vote against a counterplan without a solvency advocate. Rather, this is a 'heads up' for neg teams so they're aware that I am generally persuaded by affirmative arguments in this area. It would behoove neg teams to read a solvency advocate of some kind, even if it's just a recutting of affirmative evidence.

I will only judge kick if told to do so, assuming the aff hasn't made any theoretical objections.

I am not interested in judging or evaluating call-outs, or adjacent arguments of this variety. I care deeply about safety and inclusion in this activity and I will do everything I can to support you. But, I do not believe that a round should be staked on these issues and I am not comfortable giving any judge that kind of power.

Please do not waste your breath asking for a 30. I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen.

Generally speaking, profanity should be avoided. In most cases, it does not make your arguments or performance more persuasive. Excessive profanity is extremely annoying and may result in lower speaks. If you are in high school, I absolutely do not want to hear you swear in your speeches. I am an adult, and you are a teenager -- I know it feels like you're having a big ethos moment when you drop an F-bomb in the 2NC but I promise it is just awkward/cringe.

Evidence ethics

If you clip, you will lose the round and receive 0 speaker points. I will vote against you for clipping EVEN IF the other team does not call you on it. I know what clipping is and feel 100% comfortable calling it. Mark your cards and have a marked copy available.

If you cite or cut a card improperly, I evaluate these issues on a sliding scale. For example, a novice accidentally reading a card that doesn't have a complete citation is obviously different from a senior varsity debater cutting a card in the middle of a sentence or paragraph. Unethical evidence practices can be reasons to reject the team and/or a reason to reject the evidence itself, depending on the unique situation.

At the college level, I expect ya'll to handle these issues like adults. If you make an evidence ethics accusation, I am going to ask if you want to stop the round to proceed with the challenge.

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

LD Specific

Updated November 2024 before GBX to reflect a few changes.

Conflicts: Harvard-Westlake (assistant director of debate 2018-2022), and Strake Jesuit (current affiliation).

My background is in policy debate, but I am fluent in LD. I co-direct NSD Flagship and follow LD topics as they evolve. I am a hired gun for Strake Jesuit.

If you are asking questions about what was read or skipped in the speechdoc, that counts as CX time. If you are simply asking where a specific card was marked, that is okay and does not count as CX time. If you want your opponent to send out a speechdoc that includes only the things they read, that counts as your CX time or prep time -- it is your responsibility to flow.

You need to be on time. I cannot stress this enough. LDers consistently run late and it drives me bonkers. Your speaks will be impacted if you are excessively late without a reasonable excuse.

I realize my LD paradigm sounds a little grumpy. I am only grumpy about certain arguments/styles, such as frivolous theory. I do my best to not come off as a policy elitist because I do genuinely enjoy LD and am excited to judge your debate.

FAQ:

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments like I am with tricks. I do not judge many phil debates because most of the time tricks are involved, but I don't have anything against philosophical positions. I would be happy to judge a good phil debate. You may need to do some policy translation so I understand exactly what you're saying. I've gotten a lot more fluent in phil recently and truly don't have anything against it.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: No, you shouldn't. He's a very nice and smart guy, but cutting evidence from debate blogs is such a meme. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles and you'll be fine. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. To be clear, you can read T:whole rez in front of me, just not Nebel blog cards.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'new affs bad,' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. Can you throw them in the 1NC/1AR? Sure, that's fine. Will I be persuaded by new affs bad? No.

Q: Will you ever vote for an RVI?

A: Nope. Never. I don't flow them.

Q: Will you vote for any theory arguments?

A: Of course. I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

Q: Will you vote for Ks?

A: Of course. Love em.


Any other questions can be asked before the round or email me.

kentucky '25

annastockstill11@gmail.com

please format the email chain subject line correctly -- tournament name -- round # -- name (aff) vs name (neg)

"better team usually wins |---x---------------------| the rest of this" - dave arnett

POLICY

- do what you want, i genuinely don't care what you run and will listen to every argument within reason

- make my ballot for me -- don't make me have to debate the round for you because i won't -- tell me why i'm voting aff/neg and what i'm voting on

- cx is binding and i will flow it

- i enjoy watching methods debates but am probably a better judge for clash rounds

- the case debate is under-utilized in most debates

- condo is probably good - i can be persuaded otherwise but if it's less than 5 it will be an uphill battle

- i LOVE a good T debate

- have fun and if you have any questions, just ask!

PF

coach for ivy bridge academy

- explain your arguments well -- i will never vote on an argument that i don't get a full explanation of

- final focus should be writing my ballot for me -- tell me why i should vote pro/con and what arguments i'm voting for

LD

- i have limited experience judging/coaching LD and will judge it like its a short policy round

- i'm probably better for k or larp rounds

- i'm not sure why teams think that perm double bind is sufficient enough to win a round on

I am a parent judge but a former debater. I prioritize clear warranting of your arguments and want to hear a cohesive summary of why you should win the round in rebuttals. I am willing to adjudicate most arguments as long as they are well-reasoned and backed up by analysis and/or evidence. I always attempt to enter rounds without having defined preconceptions for or against any arguments, but the less grounded an argument is in truth, the lower my tolerance is for an argument.

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

Affiliation: Marlborough (CA), Apple Valley (MN)

Past: Peninsula (CA), Lexington (MA)

Email: ctheis09@gmail.com — but I prefer to use speechdrop.net

Big Picture

I like substantive and engaging debates focused on the topic's core controversies. While I greatly appreciate creative strategy, I prefer deeply warranted arguments backed by solid evidence to absurd arguments made for purely tactical reasons.

I find the tech or truth construction to be reductive — both matter. I will try to evaluate claims through a more-or-less Bayesian lens. This means my knowledge of the world establishes a baseline for the plausibility of claims, and those priors are updated by the arguments made in a debate. This doesn’t mean I’ll intervene based on my preexisting beliefs; instead, it will take much more to win that 2+2=5 than to prove that grass is green.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" — Carl Sagan

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" — Christopher Hitchens

Default Paradigm

I default to viewing resolutions as normative statements that divide ground, but I’m open to arguments in favor of alternative paradigms. In general, I believe the affirmative should defend a topical policy action that's a shift from the status quo. The negative burden is generally to defend the desirability of the status quo or competitive advocacy.

Affirmatives should advocate a clearly delineated plan or advocacy, which can be the resolution itself. The aff's advocacy text is the basis for negative competition and links, and as such, it must contain any information the aff feels is relevant to those discussions. Affs cannot refuse to specify or answer questions regarding elements of their advocacy and then later make permutations or no-link arguments that depend on those elements. "Normal means" claims can be an exception but require evidence that the feature in question is assumed. Proof that some possible version of the aff could include such a feature is insufficient. Refusal to answer direct questions about a particular element of the advocacy will likely take "normal means" claims off the table.

I prefer policy/stock arguments, but I’m certainly open to critical or philosophical positions and vote for them often.

If you refer to your arguments as “tricks,” it’s a good sign that I’m not the best judge for you. Debaters should, whenever possible, advance the best arguments at their disposal. Calling your argument a "trick" implies its value lies in surprise or deception, not quality.

Note: an odd topic construction could alter these priors, but I'll do my best to make that known here if that's the case.

Topicality

Generally, affirmatives should be topical. I have and will vote for non-topical positions, but the burden is on the aff to justify why the topicality constraint shouldn't apply to them.

Topicality is a question of whether the features of the plan/advocacy itself being a good idea proves the resolution. This means I will look unfavorably on a position that is effects topical, extra-topical, or related to the topic but doesn't in and of itself prove the resolution.

In topicality debates, both semantics and pragmatic justifications are essential. However, interpretations must be "semantically eligible" before I evaluate pragmatic advantages. Pragmatic advantages are relevant in deciding between plausible interpretations of the words in the resolution; pragmatics can't make those words mean something they don't. I will err aff if topicality is a close call.

Theory Defaults

Disclosure is good.

Conditionality is good.

Default to judge kick.

No inserting evidence. Re-highlights should be read aloud.

Kritiks

I am open to Ks and vote on them frequently. That said, I’m not intimately familiar with every critical literature base. So, clear explanation, framing, and argument interaction are essential. Likewise, the more material your impacts and alternative are, the better. Again, the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof. It will take more to convince me of the strongest claims of psychoanalysis than that capitalism results in exploitation.

Establishing clear links that generate offense is necessary. Too often, Ks try to turn fundamentally defensive claims into offense via jargon and obfuscation. A claim that the aff can’t or doesn't solve some impact is not necessarily a claim the aff is a bad idea.

It's essential that I understand the alternative and how it resolves the harms of the Kritik. I won't vote for an advocacy that I can't confidently articulate.

Arguments I will not vote for

An argument that has no normative implications, except in situations where the debater develops and wins an argument that changes my default assumptions.

Skep.

A strategy that purposely attempts to wash the debate to trigger permissibility/presumption.

A contingent framework/advocacy that is "triggered" in a later speech.

Any argument that asks me to evaluate the debate after a speech that isn't the 2AR.

Arguments/Practices I will immediately drop you for

Mis-disclosing/disclosure games. I believe a few emerging practices cross the line into mis-disclosure and intentional deception, they will result in a loss:

• Hiding/adding theory arguments or tricks in the constructive without including them in the doc that's disclosed pre-round and/or the doc sent out in the debate. This is intentional deception.
• Disclosing AC cards that you don't intend to read. It's intentional deception that sucks up prep time and skews NC strategy. It's understandable if it's a card or two, but I routinely see debaters disclosing 10+ cards they don't read.

Clipping. (There is an emerging practice of including long descriptive tags in the docs sent out during debates but only reading truncated versions. I consider this clipping adjacent. By sending analytics, you're representing that they were read in the round.)

Any argument that concludes that every action is permissible.

Any argument that creates a hostile environment for either myself, the other debater, or anyone watching the debate.

Any argument that explicitly argues that something we all agree is awful (genocide, rape, etc.) is a good thing. This must be an argument THAT THE DEBATER AGREES implies horrible things are ok. If the other debater wins an argument that your framework justifies something terrible, but it is contested, then it may count as a reason not to accept your framework, but it will not be a reason to drop you on its own.

Public Forum

I only judge PF a few times a year, mostly at camp. Arguments are arguments regardless of the format, so most of my typical paradigm applies. The big caveat is that I strongly prefer teams read actual cards instead of paraphrasing evidence. I understand that there are differences of opinion, so I won't discount paraphrasing entirely, but I'll have a lower bar for indicts. Also, I'm not reading ten full articles at the end of the debate, so I'd appreciate it if you could prepare the paraphrased portions in advance.

UPDATED: 4/6/2025

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest. I have a particularly difficult time hearing and flowing fast analytics, particularly when they are blippy, so deploy this strategy at your own risk.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence and Speech Document Sharing

Barring extenuating circumstances (e.g. a tech meltdown), speech documents should be shared with your opponent and me electronically. I will not evaluate arguments shared with me but not your opponent.

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red-flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. Reading 30-speaker-points theory will result in a severe reduction in your speaker points.

I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. A false accusation of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

Lowell '22

Cal '26

Email Chain

Policy: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail [dot] com

LD: tsantaylor [at] gmail [dot] com

Policy

Lay Debate: I'll evaluate the debate as a slow round unless both teams agree to go fast. Adapt to the rest of the panel before me.

Topicality: It's the negative's burden to prove a violation. I will vote for either, obviously depending on technical debating, but I am more persuaded by precision/predictability than debatability offense.

Counterplans: Tell me whether or not I should judge kick. Advantage CP planks should have rehighlightings or solvency advocates to be legitimate. Deficits should be clearly impacted out from the 2AC to the 2AR for me to vote on them.

Disads: Turns case arguments, aff-specific link explanations, and ev comparison matter most for me. Logical, smart analytics do just as much damage as ev.

Ks: Most familiar with cap/setcol/security/IR Ks. I evaluate framework first to frame the rest of my flow. Contextualization to the aff, turns case analysis, and pulling lines from the 1AC are really important for the link debate.

K-Affs/KvK: I have the least experience judging these debates. "As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote aff." - Debnil Sur

Theory: Condo is good.

LD

I primarily judge LD but I've never competed in the activity and don't coach the specific tricks/phil arguments, so I am not a good judge for them. I am really unlikely to vote on the activity-specific theory arguments, like RVIs.

Explicit judge instruction and good impact calc/comparison go a long way for determining how I vote. This is especially true when you're aff, given the speech times.

Your speaks will be lowered for stopping prep and THEN putting together your speech/card doc, or for egregiously asking what was or wasn't read after your opponent's speech.

Misc.

I usually don't read evidence at the end of the debate unless debaters explicitly tell me to and send a compiled card doc.

Read whatever you want - if an argument is truly so bad that it shouldn't be debated, you should be able to beat it with zero cards and three sentences. However, if you read an argument that your opponent specifically told you not to/said not to on their wiki or become actively violent in the round, auto-L.

+0.1 speaks if you make fun of a Cal debater, Cal coach, Debnil Sur, or Jessie Satovsky and I laugh

Updated for NSDA Nationals 2024:

My name is Teja Vepa, please feel free to add me to the chain - Tejavepa {at} g mail

Current / Prior Roles and Affiliations:

Director of Speech and Debate - Collegiate School, NY (2022 to present)

Program Manager - Debate - Success Academy Charter Schools, NY (2019-2022)

Associate Director - Policy Debate - Polytechnic School, CA (2013-2019)

Debate Coach - Claremont HS, CA (2009-2013)

2023-24 Topic Specific:

I have not judged many rounds on this particular topic. I may need some common acronyms specified. If you make it clear early, that would be helpful.

Paradigm for NSDA:

As of this year, I have approximately 20 years of experience with policy debate. I think Nationals is a unique tournament and debaters are tasked with adapting to a varied audience. You do not have to debate specifically for me. I am capable of and enjoy evaluating rounds that range from stock issues, policymaking, plan v K, K v K, and K v Framework.

I will vote for planless affs. I have coached at programs that are significantly more K friendly (Polytechnic) and at programs that typically prefer Plan debates (Claremont). I think both of these models have value.

Specific Argument Types:

DA: The more specific, the better. I tend to disprefer generic DAs unless the link is highly specific. I tend to beleive that the uniqueness controls the direction of the offense.

CP: I do like counterplans and these are some of my favorite debates. Ideally your CP has an internal net benefit. Process counterplans are fine. Conditionality is probably good.

K: Go ahead, I am familiar with a series of K literature bases, and specifically more familiar/well-read with these literature bases: Cap/Neoliberalism, Settler-Colonialism, Lacan/Psychoanalysis, Foucault/Biopower, Threat Construction/ Heg, Agamben/Biopolitics, Zizek. Though I am less well-read on identity arguments than postmodern high theory Ks, I do have experience with the sections of the literature base that are used in policy debate.

K Aff: I think these are legitimate. Please have a stable advocacy and be sure to win your aff if you are using it to outwiegh T/Framework.

T: I am willing to vote on it--T is about technical execution. I tend to prefer limits over other standards, so please explain your impacts if they are based in ground etc.

Framework: I tend to value education over procedural fairness.

Questions:

Happy to answer them before the round, or feel free to email me.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

She/Her

alice.debatedocs@gmail.com

Affiliations: Heights '23, Coaching Harker LD

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

TL;DR

My two goals when I judge are to (1) ensure that the space is safe for everyone and (2) evaluate the debate in front of me as neutrally as possible so long as it is not one of the 7 things below.

I strongly dislike intervention, but also think that, to some degree, it is inevitable regardless of the judge. I have tried to structure this paradigm to explain how to predict when/what intervention may occur + how to prevent it/overcome my natural intuitions.

I believe that debate is a research AND communication acitivity. This means I want to understand your arguments as you are reading them, I want you to tell me how I should be evaluating parts of the debate and evidence, and I do not want to (and will not) read documents to help me understand what is going on in the round.

Debate should be fun!!! :)

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

PF Update (Bellaire):

Please do not paraphrase evidence. Additionally, please make sure to have the full information available when citing a source in a speech (see below for evidence ethics).

Send each other evidence at the beginning of speeches, NOT between speeches during an untimed period.

I have not judged PF before and my background is only in LD and Policy, therefore I will not understand many structural things.

Kritiks, CPs, and theory do not make much sense to me in PF unless they are reasons the resolution are true/false.

If you want me to evaluate something it MUST be in a final speech. Additionally, you must answer arguments following the speech they are originally made. The only exception is the first two constructive speeches since I believe the norm in these speeches is you can introduce new arguments and are not required to contest arguments directly in the speech before. If your opponent does not extend offense in the speech following your defense against it, you do not have to extend the defense because I will stop evaluating the offense.

In PF, I understand the affirmative burden to prove the resolution true and the negative to prove the resolution false. The "burden of rejoinder" for the negative does not make sense because sometimes the negative goes first and I am not sure how you predict the aff plan and then rejoin it if you do not know what it is?

Non topical affirmatives for the reason above are a non-starter in PF.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Will not evaluate:

(1) ad homs/ arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you talk to a coach)

(2) any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, etc.) The round will end.

(3) eval after [x] speech

(4) give me/my opponent [x] speaks

(5) no aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument.

(6) arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

(7) anything I did not flow and understand the implication of in the original speech. This means if you HIDE arguments you run a HIGH risk of them not being evaluated. Even if I do catch them, speaks will be lowered because I will be annoyed by your unwillingness to fully read and defend your arguments.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

General Thoughts:

(1) When I make decisions I first think about the following things in the following order to determine what piece of offense I am voting on: (a) the highest layer based on arguments in the round, (b) the winning framework, and (c) the winning offense under that framework.

(2) If you talk to me like I know nothing/very little you will be happier with my rfd. Not only does this increase the likeliness that I understand each of your arguments, but it also increases the likeliness that the round breaks down/is evaluated in a similiar way to how you thought about it.

(3) I will vote for any argument with a claim, warrant, and impact/implication (so long as it is not something on the list above). Obviously true arguments have a lower threshold to win than obviously false arguments simply because the burden to warrant the argument is much lower if it is already something I believe. To clarify: when I say "obviously true" arguments I do not mean arguments I personally believe, but arguments that a majority of people generally agree on as fact, such as "the sky is blue".

Here is a list of arguments that if evenly debated will be hard to convince me of. I understand it is kind of unclear what "even debating" is, but you can minimize the risk that I think something is evenly debated by doing judge instruction or explicit evidence comparison, which I will use even if it goes against my intuitions:

- the aff cannot weigh case
- extinction does not matter at all (especially vs phil positions that seem to care about preventing bad consequences to some degree)
- the affirmative cannot read plans
- the best model of debate is not one where the aff is at least tangentially related to the resolution
- 2nr/2ar theory is legit

(4) It greatly annoys me when debaters read arguments they misrepresent. For example: (see the explanation of what indexicals actually are)This does not mean that I will vote against arguments that you misrepresent, but know that you are responsible for warranting every part of the argument and cannot just rely on name-dropping the argument, literature base, or author in place of a warrant. Additionally, I reward well researched and properly represented arguments with better speaks.

(5) I WON'T flow off the doc and will only pull it up in constructives to check randomly and make sure you aren't clipping. I have gotten very comfortable recently "clearing" people and that is because debaters have gotten particularly unclear during long analyic blocks and the bodies of cards. I understand going faster during the text of cards BUT you should not become mumbly/unflowable. I am not reading off the document and want to understand the warrants of your arguments/evidence as you read them.

(6) I will only go back to read evidence once the entire debate is over if (a) I need to because there is a lack of comparison or (b) you tell me to (which you should do if your evidence is very good or your opponents is worse!). If I have to read evidence because of (a) I will likely be upset because I will feel like I had to intervene somewhere to determine what the better arguement was. Additionally, if you are telling me to read evidence, it is in your best interest to tell me what part of the evidence is really good or why the evidence is better to increase the likelihood I view the evidence in the same way you do.

(7) Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as I can understand the specific implication of the rehighlighting from listening to your speech. For example: "[x card] concludes [explanation of different conclusion from original argument], INSERT REHIGHLIGHTING" is okay, "they are wrong, INSERT REHIGHLIGHTING" is not.

(8) The following is a list of "defaults" I have about debate. I think that every default on this list can change as a result of the debate and there should not be an instance when I need to use a "default" because you should be warranting these arguments in the round if they are relevant.
- presumtion negates unless the negative reads a cp, in which case it affirms

- permissibility negates

- comparative worlds

- I will NOT judge kick unless I am told to. Preferably you would do more than say the words "judge kick" and also justify why it is good.

- competing interps, dta, no rvi on theory

^ Note: I still think terminal defense is possible vs an interp... ie even if you win competing interps, theres no counter-interp, but the other side wins an "i-meet" I will not vote for the shell because an "i-meet" is terminal defense since the shell no longer has a violation.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Disclosure

The disclosure norms in debate are out of hand. I think disclosure is good. That does not mean you have to disclose if I am judging you but know if you are shifty, lie, or avoid questions I have no problem (a) tanking your speaks (<27) or (b) if you lied, automatically voting against you. Lying is unethical in a similar way to evidence ethics are and I have no problem voting against you if you lie. If you are shifty/avoid questions I will vote on the flow but know your speaks will be ruined and I will be sympathetic to the shell.

- I have judged 5+ debates in the past month where someone makes the argument “screenshots are unverifiable.” If someone says this the answer should not take more than 5 seconds and should just be “they are verifiable in the same way evidence is”. Along these lines – I have added a screenshots section to evidence ethics.

- You should be disclosing over some form of messages. If someone insists on disclosing in person/refuses to over messages, you should still ask over messages and screenshot them not answering. I don’t care if you then went and disclosed in person, send it over messages or you are not getting the I-meet.

- If you don’t want to disclose you should just say you aren’t disclosing and be willing to defend that model of debate. Don’t do things like say the aff is new when it isn’t, say you will disclose and then not, lie about which aff is being read, be unclear what is changing in the aff, etc.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Evidence Ethics

- I think that evidence ethics are a stop round issue, though if you want to just read it as a shell that's fine too and I’ll evaluate it on the flow. If you want it to be a stop round issue say something along the lines of “I want to make an evidence ethics claim, here is what happened” If you are correct W, if you are wrong L with lowest speaks

- Screenshots should not be fabricated. If a screenshot is fabricated, you should treat it as evidence ethics, and it is a stop round issue. I will verify screenshots the same way evidence is verified—by going to the source. This can be one of two things depending on the fabrication a) checking the laptops of the email or b) checking the wiki website

- The following are things I will vote on as a stop-round issue

* clipping (this includes verbally cutting your cards in a different place than your updated doc indicates… I will flow where you say “cut”)

* Citations that are missing or incorrect in one or more of the following parts (given that the information is available): Author name, year, article/book title, URL

* deleting text from the middle of the card/article (this includes replacing it with ellipsis)

* not including full paragraphs/ only having cards with partial paragraphs

* brackets that change the meaning of the text

* including/adding text into the card not from the original article

- If I catch one of these things but no one else does, I won't vote against you, I'll just lower your speaks.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Speaker Points

- I'll start at a 28.5 and work up/down from there. 28.5 is average.

- I find myself bumping speaks for: being particularly nice in round/to your opponent, reading an argument/a strategy I haven't seen in a while/ever, creative 2nr/2ars, giving a winning 2nr/2ar I did not think of during prep, rehighlighting evidence, efficiency.

- You will lose speaks for: being overly rude/aggressive, splitting 2nr/2ars unnecessarily, going for the incorrect 2nr/2ar, misexplaining arguments, an unstrategic cx, reading bad arguments (1 line tricks!), poor time allocation, if I feel like I have to intervene because of lack of evidence comparison/weighing.

- I try to base speaks primarily on strategy & execution.

he/him/they/them

wvontrez@gmail.com

For college debate, use this email: debatecsuf@gmail.com

CSUF 22

Coach @ Harvard Westlake and CSUF

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

For College: My debate paradigm is tailored to LD (I judge that the most). Most of the stuff below applies, with the caveat of having philosophy at a "1/2" and trix at "2/3". I think the time structure and topic wording of LD make it more viable/interesting for that format, but in college policy, I'd probably be more inclined to vote on a utilitarian framing than a deontological one. I'll read the evidence after the round and would appreciate judge instruction. No ideological leaning for K or policy. Dropped arguments = true arguments. Explain acronyms. I'd like to intervene as little as possible and don't wanna evaluate out of round stuff

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

Pref shortcut:

Policy - 1/2

K - 1

K Aff/ Performance - 2

Philosophy - 1/2

Trix - 2/3

T - 3/4

Theory - 3/4

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

I did policy debate for 4 years at Downtown Magnets (shout out LAMDL) and 4 years at Cal State Fullerton. I debated mostly truthy performance debates and one-off K strats in high school and debated the K in a very technical way in college. Currently coach flex teams in LD.

I would say my debate influences are Jared Burke, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Jonathan Meza, Anthony Joseph, Travis Cochran, Toya Green, and Scotty P.

TLDR: I will vote for anything, as long as it's impacted out. The list of preferences is based on my comfort with the argument. Fine with speech drop or email chain.

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

General

I think debate is a game that can have heavy implications on life and influence a lot of things

Tech > Truth, unless the Tech is violent (racism good, sexism good, etc.)

Good for all speeds, but clarity is a must

Judging a trad debate would be pretty funny

My favorite neg strategies are "NC, AC", the 1 off critique, a good da/cp debate

Like creative affs (policy, phil, and k)

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

Theory

Disclosure is good unless proven otherwise

Yes competing interps, lean no RVIs (not hard rule), DTD

Shells need an interp, violation, standards, voter

Need a good abuse story/how does my ballot set norms? Why does my ballot matter? How does this implicate future debates?

I think condo is good

1AR restarts are risky but I'd be pleasantly surprised if executed well

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

Policy

Absurd internal link chains should be questioned

Default util

No zero-risk

Uniqueness controls the link

Impact turns are good

Perms are tests of competition, not new advocacies

Yes judge kick

Will read evidence if told to do so

Quality ev > Card dump of bad ev

Usually default reasonability on T

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

K

I have a reading background in several critical literature bases. I am most read in anti-capitalist theory, afro pessimism, fugitive black studies, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. For the sake of the debate, assume I know nothing and explain your K

Winning theory of power important

Perm solves the link of omission

Specific link > state bad link

Affs should weigh the aff vs. the K, negs should tell me why this isn't possible OR deal with affs impacts

Extinction outweighs debate probably good here

Soft left affs with a good link turn are persuasive for me

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

K Affs

I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic. Affs that don't defend any portion of the resolution need a heavy defense of doing so otherwise T is pretty persuasive (imapct turn it)

I try not to have a leaning into T-FW debates, but I find myself often voting negative. Similar to Theory/T, I would love to hear about the affirmative's model of debate compared to the negative's. Impact turns to their model are awesome but there is a higher bar if I don't know what your model is.

Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

Fairness is an impact. Clash is important. Education matters

KvK debates are super interesting, but I hate when they become the Oppression Olympics. Perms are encouraged. Links of omission are not. Contextualize links to the affirmative and clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

Lean yes on perms in KvK/method debates

Performances should be used offensively. I will flow your poems/videos/whatever, just have a defense of it and utilize it to win

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

Phil

I find these debates fun to judge, but debaters should still err on the side of over explanation (especially if its dense)

Epistemic confidence

I don't care what phil you read, but I would probably enjoy seeing something I've never judged before

Weighing matters here still, especially between competing frameworks and meta-ethics

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

Trix

Sure, all I ask is that the trick has a warrant (even if it's hidden). If executed poorly, I will probably nuke speaks. If I miss the warrant for your trix and it's not in the doc, unlucky

I will evaluate the debate after the end of the 2AR (non-negotiable)

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

Speaker Points

Pretty much summed up here

If you make a joke about Jared Burke, +.1 speaker point

Hi Everyone! I'm Elmer, I debated in Policy in High School, coached Debate through College (first 2 in Policy, last 2 in LD), graduated from college and continued to coach (just in LD) for 2.5 years while working as a FinTech business analyst, before leaving to going to Taiwan to work (although to pursue cultural connection and learn Mandarin - if you have any interest in doing something similar or have questions, feel free to ask! I'd love to talk about it). I mostly work with novices and JV debaters but I occasionally help out an LDer or two and coach policy at the ADL in Taiwan. I'm basically good for anything stylistically, I like offense, I like weighing, and I like judge instruction. Do any of that and we'll be good.

Email - elmeryang00@gmail.com

Policy - judged policy for the first time in 3 years at Marist, familiar w/ basically all stylistic forms of policy debate still. Maybe slightly better than theory than most, more familiar w/ LD shenanigans like Kant/Skepticism/etc (but still ended up on the side of policy when I judged these debates mostly). Probably slightly worse than average for advanced CP competition (textual vs functional). When things about competition get RLLY meta is when I get most confused, I'd prefer if you made theoretical reasons to reject them but simplified explanation can get the job done.

[Some old-timey thoughts]

This paradigm has been changed to reflect the most important aspects of my judging. When I was a younger judge/coach in the community, I used to have pretty heavy predispositions and annoyances. Now, I care most about you performing your best regardless of style. Everyone has spent so much time on this activity and it would be a disservice to not see you at your best due to my dispositions. The only true thing that annoys me when judging is avoidance of clash. If you chose to introduce an argument for me to listen to, I expect that you know it and are prepared to rigorously defend it through an attack from multiple angles. If you introduce an argument that is so obviously put with no thought and meant to just be hidden and dropped (yes this is most but not all of modern day Tricks debate, but also reflective of incomplete DA's, T shells w/o cards or offense, and 3 second Condo Shells), I will be sad and annoyed that you did not care enough to produce your best. Whether you are reading a K-Aff about Clowns, the Arrow's Paradox, or the Politics DA, I just want to see that you care and you've put thought into your craft. Debate is so much easier to judge if you as debaters look and feel like you're enjoying it and I will enjoy judging you.

That said, I do have argument styles I'm more familiar with. I work mostly with K v K, Policy v Policy, Topicality, and K v Policy debates. I occasionally work with light Phil (mostly just Kant and Pragmatism) and almost entirely in Phil v K debates. I very rarely work with or encounter Theory and Tricks debate. I have no predispositions towards arguments, but the less experience I have with them, walk me through your claim, warrant, and ballot or else I will mostly likely evaluate the debate in a way that you would not expect or like like.

Things that increase likelihood of high speaks (and also winning):

1] Clarity - I've judged both fast, clear debaters and slow, clear debaters. I have no issue with speed but I do have issue if you're going faster than I can flow or process.

2] Strategy - showcase that you've come prepared OR make tactical moves on the fly in the middle of the round.

3] Innovation - I've been judging for a while so a lot of debates tend to be reduxes of debates I've judged in the past. Introducing new args or making new spin on args I've heard before often impresses me.

4] Vision - demonstrate that you are able to see the round from a multi-layer and dimension perspective. If you can connect the dots between args on different flows and comparatively weigh them, that will go a long way for speaks and the ballot.

5] Packaging - 90% of the time, the thing that distinguishes a winning arg from a good arg is how you frame and phrase it. Explaining complex args simply is an art and being able to explain why it matters is extremely important in any round.

Lastly:

1] Absent a Perm or Theory, my RFD in a Process CP or CP/DA debate will be "does the risk of a solvency deficit outweigh the risk of a net benefit" - resolve that question.

2] Do Impact COMPARISON not Impact Weighing. I can intuitively understand why your Impact is bad, why is it worse than your opponents. In a debate style with so little time, you need to invest a significant chunk of it on resolving arguments.

3] Topicality arguments need cards to compose of real arguments. I would prefer if they defined the words in the resolution but if you give me a master class on grammar principles, I will be impressed.

4] K debates now are super Framework heavy and there's only been once that I've decided the Neg has won Framework but lost the debate. However, I wish they were heavier on the Link. Ontology is a thing but it usually is not a thing that can be resolved by the Alt or worsened by the Aff. The worse your link, the higher burden it puts on the Alt (and the inverse of that is true). Good link debating is the most important part of any K v Policy or K v K debate.

hi! my name is leah and i used to be a debater at garland high school. i semifinaled the TOC, accumulated 6 bids, and won TFA state. im a captain for harvard's policy team (contact me if ur interested on applying/joining the team!). first-round and octofinalist at the NDT as a freshman, took a break, and now im debating again (go harvard GY!)

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN - leahyeshitila03@gmail.com

*updated notei was asked in an email if im cool with nonblack people reading pess -- the answer is always no and i will have a very low threshold for the independent voter. read at your own risk!

my experiences

i am most comfortable with LARP/K/T/Theory positions. the kritiks i know best are afropess, warren, spillers/hartman of course, however positions like deleuze, baudrillard, grove, psychoanalysis, honestly pretty much any k lit base are positions i have learned enough to evaluate these debates well enough, just be sure to explain everything well. ive gone for t/theory alot to so do your thing : )

theory/t debates writ large are fine! i dont like friv theory. genuinely, the more frivolous, the lower your speaks will be and the lower my threshold gets to responding to it.

non t affs (esp from black debaters) are super dope and i love to hear them! dont forget about your aff and/or performance!!! when going for these affs in front of me, a good collapse in response to framework/the 2nrs best case argument in the 2ar will be rewarded with high speaks!

please dont make me evaluate tricks or the tricky phil vs phil debates LDers do

disclosure is probably good, but i definitely err on the side of black debaters not needing to disclose their positions.

write my ballot for me in the 2nr/2ar!

happy debating!

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing.

I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech when it comes to policy debate. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.

About Me

(he/him)

10 years in debate

Background in political science (democratic legitimacy/decline, religion and politics, antisemitism) and philosophy (Rawls, Kant, virtue ethics)

Conflicts:

- Varsity LD Coach, James Logan High School

- former Director, The Delores Taylor Arthur School

- Mavericks RS, University AN

Email Chain: bzdebatedocs@gmail.com(Subject: TOURNAMENT---ROUND---AFF vs NEG)

Disclaimer

Before anything else, I’m an educator and mandatory reporter. Debate is an extension of the classroom. I view my ballot as an endorsement of whatever strategy I vote for. If I find your strategy morally repugnant, problematic, or not conducive to educational debate, I’ll vote it down without hesitation. In addition to bigotry, this includes arguments in the 5/S category below. Additionally, if I find or am told that any behavior threatens someone’s physical or mental safety, I’ll end the round and report it appropriately.

Email chain/pre-round stuff should be done before the start time. The 1AC should begin at the start time.

Spreading is fine, but please start slow and build up. I’ll say “clear” twice before I stop trying to flow.

I'm flowing off my laptop but am not flowing off the doc.

Pref Shortcuts

1 - Ks, K-affs/topicality, trad

2 - policy args, soft left affs

3 - phil* (read below), theory

5/S - tricks, friv theory, wipeout/spark, death good

General Thoughts on Debate

The aff’s burden is to resolve some harm through a change in the status quo that matters under some framing mechanism. The neg’s burden is to meaningfully engage the aff and show that it’s a bad idea. Run whatever you’re comfortable with and please don’t overadapt. I genuinely enjoy judging debates where the competitors are meaningfully engaging on an important issue, regardless of the content. I don't think it's productive when the round is treated as a "joke," arguments are not produced with the intention of educational clash, or the debate devolves into high school drama. I like good arguments and below are what I consider to be qualities of good arguments.

Every argument should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact. The larger the impact, the higher the threshold for the evidence. I think it’s a missed opportunity when debaters don’t address their opponents on the warrant or structural levels. Please weigh.

I tend to evaluate K rounds in terms of an ethical binary. If the K's theory of power is true, the round is a question of whether the aff links to the K's structural analysis. As such, you should make the link debate as clear and specific as possible (rehighlights, specific behavior, etc.). Generic links likely require overexplanation and you should give a strong reason why some larger structure being true is a problem for the aff. The alt doesn't necessarily have to solve, but the perm may take out the flow.

*Phil debate is good, but mainstream approaches to it are disappointing. There's significant misrepresentation/misinterpretation of the literature that indicates debaters aren't reading their source material. That frustrates me and is why I put phil at a 3. If you haven't read your literature or can't explain the theory without buzzwords, this applies to you. If you think this doesn't apply to you, I'm likely a 1 or 2 for you. I also find phil debaters generally run phil to confuse their opponents or as a joke, which I discourage. My philosophy background is thinking seriously about how we teach philosophy and its influence on subjectivity, so something like skepticism isn't persuasive to me as an educator with morals.

Theory is only for legitimate abuse. I won't evaluate blippy shells and will only consider interpretations that are in the file or email chain. These debates honestly get confusing for me, so please be clear and slow down on judge instruction. I find this is especially true when a bunch of standards get extended or answered, but I'm not told how they interact with each other.

I think stock T positions are good. I don't find T-FWK as a viable route to test a non-topical aff unless it's an "option of last resort" (Smith, 2021). If this is your strategy, you need a robust defense as to why you're not engaging the aff. With that said, if you're running a non-topical aff, you should have a clear explanation as to why wemust reject the topic (e.g., no TVA), what the ballot does to resolve your harm, and how offense gets weighed under your framework.

Don’t run tricks - auto loss and 20 speaks. In general, I consider tricks to be blippy arguments intentionally tailored to deceive your opponent and avoid engagement to generate independent offense.

Disclosure is good. New affs don't need to be disclosed.

I don't see how the neg can substantively engage the aff with more than 4 off.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

debate is a performance

tech > truth within reason

brief off-time roadmaps please

>30 seconds to send the dock = running prep + docking speaks

flex prep = dock speaks

going over time = dock speaks (finish your thought, but don’t push it)

judge kick = dock speaks

People who’ve significantly influenced my views on debate: Byron Arthur (especially), Aaron Timmons (especially), Jonathan Alston (especially), Bennett Eckert, Colton Gilbert, Chetan Hertzig, Anna Myers, Temitope Ogundare, Chris Randall, Elijah Smith, Hannah Stafford, Chris Vincent, Ed Williams

Speaker Points

30: Flawless argumentation, solid delivery, and I learned something from the debater

29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery

29-29.4: Same as above but needs work on delivery

28.5-28.9: Good debate skills and decent delivery; shows promise

27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills

<27: You did something morally repugnant or concerning.

Stop Entering Unqualified Judges

I'm increasingly frustrated by the lack of quality judging that some programs provide to cover their obligation. Debaters work hard for high-level competition and that effort becomes futile when the judge pool lacks quality judging. If you're a progressive debater or your team regularly competes on the national circuit, but your judges are not of that level, expect me to give less in terms of my investment in judging you. Yes, some programs cannot provide these judges for a variety of legitimate reasons, but the lack of training or preparing the judges you do provide irks me. If you are providing judges for a national tournament that have little experience in debate, especially circuit debate, and it is clear they are not properly trained, this note applies to you. I will invest in judging you as much as you invested providing quality judging for the tournament. If you have a problem with this, please strike me.

A non-comprehensive list of judges like this include (from Colton Gilbert):

- parent judges

- lay judges

- judges who refuse to listen to certain arguments because they don’t like them (excluding tricks)

- judges who would prefer high school kids capitulate to what THEY want and not what the kids want to discuss

I am NOT against parent/lay judges in progressive debates, IF they are trained to adjudicate that type of argumentation. If you want to talk about it, I'm happy to have a civil discussion about it AFTER the RFD.