Tabroom.com

52nd Annual Tournament of Champions

2024 — Lexington, KY/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Nihar Abhyankar Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2 rounds

Jared Adam Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 1, 2024 at 11:26 AM EDT

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.

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.

Kenji Aoki West High School SLC 4 rounds

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

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

Note for NDT 2025

While I have helped coached this year through file prep/topic brainstorming/etc.,I have taken a step back from judging and attending tournaments due to grad school. The NDT will be the first tournament that I'll be attending for this season. From a competitor perspective this means I'd appreciate a tad more emphasis on clarity over speed and more explanation + judge instruction of an argument/card/detail that is more topic-specific (but I also understand that you'll be debating for 2+ other judges per round). Additionally, in an effort to decide a round as best as I can, I will most likely take more time to decide a round than what I've potentially taken in the past.

Background + Top Level

West High School SLC '18

Harvard '22

Currently an assistant debate coach at Harvard

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

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

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

Quality > Quantity of arguments particularly in rebuttals.

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

Topicality

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

Impact + caselist comparisons are essential.

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

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

Counterplans + Counterplan Theory

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

Will presume judge kick

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

DAs

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

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

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

This is where most of my debate experience is in

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

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

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

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

K Affs/Framework

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

K Affs probably get a perm, but

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

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

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

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

Misc (but still important) things

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

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

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

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

Buck Arney Head-Royce High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 19, 2024 at 2:25 PM PDT

Buck Arney (He/Him)

buckarney@gmail.com

Northwestern 27'

Head-Royce 23'

Last Update: 2/11/25

Top Level Thoughts:

Tech > Truth

I love this activity, it had a profound impact on my life and still does, and I hope it does for y'all as well. Please treat others with respect and have fun in this activity as for many this activity is a place people call home.

In college I go for nearly exclusively policy arguments and in high school I went for nearly exclusively critical arguments.

Generic neg strats with very little clash with the aff have to be one of my biggest problems with debate, conversely highly strategic and thought out neg strats are my favorite part of the activity.

I am very disinterested in debate rep. I love seeing upsets and hate that the community for some reason prevents them from happening due to rep. If you are really the best you should beat everyone.

Flowing Practices:

I flow on my computer using excel as I cannot handwrite proficiently enough to flow. I flow straight down.

I will have the 1AC and 1NC docs open, after that I WILL NOT open any docs until after the round if reading evidence is necessary.

Argument Specifics:

Counterplans: Great for these and love a good pic. I am good for evaluating a process debate but lean aff on competition (For the IP topic I am probably more neg biased because they seem uniquely nuked). However, neg teams are almost always better at process competition because of prep bias which means you should not be deterred if you are confident in your competition debating.

Disads: Good for these, go for what you want here.

T: I love T debates. Well thought out T debates are some of the best debates to watch. If you believe the aff in the round is not topical please go for T.

K:The K is a great argument when it is accompanied with well-thought-out contextual link and impact debating. Without that I am pretty uninterested. I am well versed in kritiks that pull from ableism, security, asian, and black studies. I am just not good for the microaggresions K like at all, obviously will evaluate it technically but I think not only is it in the opposite direction of the literature that it is paired with but it also can be very trivializing.

K-Affs: Went for a K-AFF for most of highschool and I am down the middle when it comes to T v these affs. This is not an ideological pre-disposition rather it is an issue with teams either being terrible at going for a K-Aff or terrible at going for T. K-Affs need to have an answer to SSD and TVA that is CONTEXTUAL to their aff, if they do not have this it is a very uphill battle. Teams going for T have to answer the specificity of T-USFG disads, disads are not just policing, and if you answer the DA like this you will probably lose. I also recommend going for things outside T-USFG, teams generally have horrible answers to Cap, T-Tactics, T-Parametrics etc.

If your Kritikal aff is not adjacent to the topic the bar for a negative ballot is at the floor.

Theory: Solid for theory and don't really have any ideological predispositions except that I think condo is conclusively good and have not really been convinced otherwise, obviously if it is dropped I will probably vote for it.

Extra:

I am not a huge fan of speaker point inflation, but I am also not going to fight it because I am not an old-head "debate was better when we spoke off tubs and I had to carry a printer cross-country" type of person.

I love innovation, if you are actively innovating arguments in debate please pref me and I will probably give you good speaks and advice

+.1 for good sports references or just being funny overall

Thomas Babcock Wichita East 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 7:28 AM CDT

Istealprep@gmail.com

Top level

Debate is meant to be fun. I demand that you have it. If you can not find enjoyment in this activity do not ruin other peoples love for this activity.

***NDT/TOC Update: I have noticed a disturbing trend of more and more teams having evidence ethics issues. This includes but is not limited to: putting the wrong citation for their evidence, leaving out paragraphs in the middle of evidence, and getting information in the citation wrong (date and/or author). The community seems to have different standards for these types of arguments so I want to be explicit about mine. If you make an evidence ethics violation you must end the round and stake the round on the claim. I will then issue my decision based on if I believe there has been an evidence ethics violation. My decision will only be based on if there is in fact an evidence ethics violation. "we didn't mean to", "it wasn't done maliciously", and "we stole this evidence" are all irrelevant to me. You are responsible for the evidence you choose to enter into a debate.

Do not say anything obviously problematic or violent to the other team. I will end the round immediately and assign the lowest possible speaker points the tournament will allow.

Tech over truth. This applies to all arguments. If the other teams arguments are not backed by rigorous research then defeating them should be simple and easy. If you cannot defeat them without me intervening and asserting what I "know" to be true than by all definition you have lost the debate.

I will only consider arguments that happened in the debate about the debate. I am fundamentally uninterested in resolving any interpersonal beef you may have with another team.

If you do not feel safe engaging in a debate for any reason please communicate that to me, tab, and/or your coaching staff, and the necessary actions will be taken.

Planless affirmatives

Generally fine for these debates. I would prefer the 1AC actually defend a method and be related to the topic if possible instead of being a walking impact turn to framework but I digress. As long as you win your arguments and are ahead on the flow I will vote for you.

"vote aff cause it was good" means nothing to me. Explanations of why you resolve the impacts of the aff and why the ballot is key should come early and be contextualized well.

"Why vote aff" followed by "why not" is not compelling for the same reason. 1AC's have the burden of proof. I will struggle to burden the negative with rejoinder if I don't think the 1AC has met the burden of proof after 1AC CX.

Framework/T-USFG

Framework 2NR's tend to be too defense oriented to win most debates. Negatives should be impact turning or link turning aff DA's to framework more often. If not that then there needs to be a large explanation of why clash accesses aff offense and/or why they don't get an aff because of fairness.

Everything is and is not an impact. Fun, Clash, Fairness, Burnout, etc... You should explain why those things matter and why I should care.

KvK

Method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. You should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text.

Figuring out what the aff will defend and pinning them to that seems important, especially when the opportunities to disagree with the 1AC are already limited.

K's on the neg

If the aff is going for a framework that says "No K's" and the neg is going for a framework that says "No aff" then I will pick one at the end of the debate. I will not intervene and concoct a "perm" where the aff gets the aff and the neg gets their links. Of course you are free to advocate the perm/middle ground.

Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality as offense/defense just like every other argument in debate. Affirmative reasonability arguments are much better framed as reasons why limits are bad/an impact to overlimiting or precision.

Aff's should be more offensive when answering neg limits and grounds arguments. Most of the time the actual weight of these arguments seems stringent as best and made up completely at worst.

Evidence that describes topic mechanisms and lit direction are important. The same is equally if not more true for the interpretation debate.

Counterplans

Everything is legit until somebody says it isn't in which case then it becomes a debate. I think most affirmative theory arguments are much better deployed as competition arguments. I am unlikely to ever be persuaded by "solvency advocate theory", "process CPs bad", or the like, unless the neg completely whiffs. This doesn't apply when the neg CP doesn't pass the sniff test. I.e. international fiat, private actor fiat, etc...

I generally lean towards infinite condo being good. Obviously this is a debate that can take place and I will evaluate as offense/defense like normal, I just think the negative arguments in regards to this are much more compelling.

I default to judge kick but just please say it in the block.

0 Idea how anyone evaluates CP's besides sufficiency framing and I have yet to hear a alternative way to evaluate them. Grandstanding about sufficiency framing in the 2nr is about as useful as saying that they have conceded the neg gets fiat.

2NC CP's out of add-ons are fine. 2NC CP's out of straight turns are not fine. If it goes in the 1NC be prepared to hold the line.

Disadvantages

Fine for every politics DA you want to throw from your box. What fiat means can be debated like any other argument.

Link and Internal link turns case arguments are extremely important. Our nuclear war impact turns your nuclear war impact arguments are extremely not important.

Case

Try or die is important to me. If the negs only answer to case is solvency pushes but concedes the squo causes extinction and doesn't have a CP to remedy that then even a small risk the aff solves will almost certainly win them the debate. The opposite is true if aff drops an internal net benefit to a process CP, as the neg now controls try or die.

0% risk is definitely possible on both sides.

Misc

I will not read or consider rehighlightings you did not read yourself. Text must be actually read for it to matter, debate is a communicative activity and you must communicate. If you read it in cross-x and then insert it that is fine.

Cross-x can only make modifications to speeches if both sides consent. If the other team asks you about a card you do not get to scratch it in the middle of cross-x unless they agree. The same is also true for reading evidence obviously.

Cross-x is binding and I will be flowing it.

Speaker points are my decision and I will not listen to arguments about them. You can ask for a 30 if you want, but you will be wasting speech time.

Jameson Balda The Altamont School 4 rounds

Aasiyah Bhaiji Glenbrook South High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 8:09 PM CDT

Update for 2025

Aasiyah (ah-see-yuh) Bhaiji (by-jee)

she/they

Conflicts: GBS, The Avery Coonley School and if you have been to my house.

Add me to the chain

a.bhaijidebate@gmail.com

SHORT VERSION

"Do your thing, so long as you enjoy the thing you do. My favorite debates to watch are between debaters who demonstrate a nuanced understanding of their literature bases and seem to enjoy the scholarship they choose to engage in...I think judging is a privilege."-Maddie Pieropan.

I flow as much as my fingers will allow me. Slow down on the important parts and always remember clarity should be prioritized over speed. I flow straight down, so no you telling me to put things at the top or bottom does not impact me.

For online debates: If my camera is off, assume I am not ready for the debate, I will always give either a visual or vocal confirmation that I am ready to start your speech.

LONG VERSION--Policy

Debate as an activity loses all value when debaters do not consider that there has to be a reason why a team deserves the ballot. I try my hardest to stick to my flow and rely heavily on judge instruction as to how I will write my ballot. YOU DO NOT WANT ME TO CONNECT THE DOTS FOR YOU.

I appreciate debaters who are passionate, excited, and well-prepared. The best debaters I’ve witnessed throughout the years have been the ones who show kindness and respect towards their partners and opponents. I am not a fan of teams that openly mock, belittle, and disrespect the people they are debating.

I'd prefer you talk about the topic and that your affirmative be in the direction of the topic. I could not possibly care less if that is via policy debate or K debate.

Planless Affirmatives

I like planless affirmatives, but you absolutely need to defend the choices and explanations you give in early cross-exes. I need to know what your version of debate looks like, and I am finding that most teams aren’t willing to defend a solid interpretation, which makes it hard for me to vote for them.

Please stick to an interpretation once you’ve read it. Clash debates with affs that are centered around the resolution are fun, and I find myself in the back of those debates most of the time.

I am not comfortable judging rounds with affs that rely on "survival strategies" or rounds that force debaters to out themselves/explain their identity for an argument.

I have less thoughts on policy rounds, not because I don't enjoy them, but because they are a lot more clear cut for me.

CPs

I do not default to judge kick; you have to give me instructions.

I miss advantage counterplans, and I am a less-than-ideal judge for Process CPs (I'm not saying I won’t vote for them, it might do you well to spend a couple more seconds on process cps good in the block).

DAs

DAs as case turns will inevitably end up on the same flow, so please just tell me where to flow things earlier on in the debate.

Please don't read any terror disads/impacts in front of me, I will not be a happy camper. If you have to read them, fine. But I do hope that you have an in-depth explanation of your impact scenarios and understand the nuances of WHY terrorism occurs.

“Kritiks that rely entirely on winning through framework tricks are miserable. If I am not skeptical of the aff's ability to solve their internal links or the alt's ability to solve them, then I am unlikely to vote negative.”-AJ Byrne

If you cannot explain your alternative using a vocabulary a 7th grader can understand, you are likely using language and debate jargon that I find counterintuitive and, quite frankly, boring.

Most teams are very bad at sticking to their framework, unfortunately for you all, I DO care about framework and will hold you accountable.

Why are we putting this as the first off? I will most likely miss the interpretation if you are speeding through it.

I am not familiar with indepth topic discussions and have been out of the loop for a while when it comes to the literature, so I don't think I am a great judge for most topicality arguments.

Also, can we please explain our impacts earlier on in the debate? I also don't know when this became normalized, but we need to be putting standards in full text in the 1NC speech doc. Thank you in advance :)

I am not good for “our interpretation is better for small schools"

Defend your interpretation early on and throughout the debate. I need to be able to know how to evaluate the debate by the time I start writing my ballot.

Also I do think that "roll of the judge" and "roll of the ballot" are different (roj is the mindset in which I should evaluate the debate and rob is what my ballot signifies). Define one, define both, but please try to do at least one of those things.

Other things:

If I could implement the no more than 5 off rule, I would. Obviously, against new affirmatives, the circumstances are different, but I firmly believe that everything in the 1NC should be a viable option for the 2NR.
DISCLOSURE IS GOOD!I will try my hardest to be in the room for when it happens and I am not afraid to check teams wikis to see their disclosure practices. If you post round docs and show before I give you my decision, you will be rewarded.
I am super expressive, and you will be able to tell if I am vibing with whatever you are saying. I do have a very prominent RBF. Don’t take it personally; it means I am trying to get everything down.
Fine with tag-team but have found myself becoming frustrated when one debater from a team dominates all of cx. I do think that all debaters should speak at some point during cross-ex.
CX as prep is only justified when there is a new aff or if you are maverick.
The 1AC should be sent out at the scheduled round start time, the only exception is if the tournament is behind schedule and Tab has alerted everyone of the timing change.

More things I have thought about in regards to debate but aren’t wholly necessary to pre-round prep.

There is a difference between speaking up and yelling, I do not do well with debaters talking over their partners.
Please give me time to get settled before you start your speech.
I LOVE good case debating, and I get sad when the block treats it as an afterthought.
I had no idea teams gained the ability to remember every single thing their opponent said. FLOW! PLEASE!
Why are we reading the tier 3 argument against planless affirmatives.... let's start using our critical thinking skills
Rehighlighting evidence is a lost art. Bring it back for 2025
Clipping is bad, don't do it. I will clear you twice, and after that, I will stop flowing. If there is a recording of you clipping, it's an auto loss and a talk with your coach
I flow straight down (primarily because of sloppy line-by-line); the more organized your speeches are, the happier I am.
DRINK WATER
I do not care if you put a single card in the body of the email chain.
I apologize for any typos or run on sentences in my published RFDs (I recommend taking notes from verbal feedback that I give after the round, it is way more detailed and I can answer any questions in real time as opposed to you trying to decipher my initial two-lined decision).
Let's treat the rooms we debate in with respect and care, it takes a lot for a school to host a tournament and it isn't fair that people leave garbage behind after round.
Have fun and let the games begin :)

Congress--

Not entirely sure if you all read these because I am supposed to explain my ethos rules at the beginning of the session. You all should be clear, concise and kind in your speeches. Have fun and good luck!

Hana Bisevac Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 11:51 AM CDT

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.

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!

Jack Booth The Bronx High School Of Science 5 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-great for impact turns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Version:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

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

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian Box Blue Valley North 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 7:42 AM CDT

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4@gmail.com

As of November 2024, I am actively working to increase my speaker points to match inflation. I will reward better points to well-researched teams who demonstrate command of topic literature in CX and their speeches. If a tournament gives 10 minutes of prep, I will increase your points for taking less prep.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I have found that most high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

At some level, this is just another old guy "be clear and flow!" paradigm, but I really mean it! Here are a few important things to consider when debating in front of me.

Use your flow to answer the other team's arguments. Don't read into your computer screen from start to finish.

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Highlighting is important. Definitely willing to lower the prioritization of an argument or ignore it entirely if it's highlighted nonsensically. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful indicits evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Establishing a clear interpretation is important. "Process bad" doesn't mean much to me.

The link comes first.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

Alex Brown Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

eliza Buckner Little Rock Central 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 10, 2024 at 1:18 PM EDT

Updated April 2025

Prefs Guide:

1 - K v. K, Policy v. K, K v. Policy

2 - Plan v. Plan

3 - Phil

1,082,576 - "Tricks"

Quick Overview:

(1) Please make an e-mail chain, add elizabuckner17@gmail.com to it, and title the subject "[Tournament]: [Team] (Aff) vs. [Team] (Neg)"

(2) Play to your strengths - don't over-adapt based on what you think I want to see.

(3) I reward bold and strategic decision-making - go for the straight turn, capitalize on double-turns, make strategic pivots etc. I have judged too many rounds lately where I feel like debaters are reluctant to "go all-in" on an argument because they deem it too risky.

(4) I read the doc to compare what your evidence says to your explanation of it - discrepancies are only relevant to my decision insofar as your opponent tells me so.

(5) Keep your own prep time - I will not track it for you.

(6) Cross-ex is a speech, show me you're prepared for it.

(7) Speak Clearly - I used to think almost everyone in debate had better hearing than me, but I've realized it's actually just that unclear speaking is so normalized that only its inversion is remarkable, e.g. "wow they are such a clear speaker!" Do your best to ensure that I can hear every word and it will be reflected in your speaks.

K AFF vs. Framework:

-Aff: fine for impact turn and/or counter-interp strategies but you need to commit to one or the other--typically the earlier the better. I don't think it's super strategic to read a counter-model without definitions - offense against predictability seems more intuitive than defense in that scenario. Many neg teams are sidestepping models based offense by paring down to just-this-round - make sure your offense assumes this.

-Neg: I want to see more defenses of instrumental topic education - decisively winning that question straight turns most aff offense, which may outweigh its vulnerability to some of the defensive arguments that fairness avoids. Make sure you're extending defense that actually answers the aff's offense. "Go to tab" doesn't solve impact turns to your research model and the fairness paradox isn't guaranteed to uplayer every aff argument. Showing you understand how your arguments actually interact with theirs will go a long way.

Policy AFF vs. K:

-One side wins framework. I will not arbitrarily bridge the interps and establish a middle ground. However, one team may lose framework but win the debate should they properly layer their arguments, e.g. "consequentialism is a justification for our reps so we win under the neg's interp."

-Aff: I wish more teams went for contingency + a rigorous defense of their scholarship as an impact turn to the links - too often teams get sidetracked into sweeping impact turns about heg, capitalism, and crackdown when I would be more persuaded by "we are right about x and it's important to think about the problem/solution this way."

-Neg: just moot the plan. It's more strategic, simpler to explain, and likely more aligned with the scholarship you're reading. Very few K's function via traditional cost-benefit analysis and "don't weigh case" is the simplest way to communicate that in debates. I'm open to the more CP/DA approach as well but I find that works with the Cap K and little else. When you're debating soft left affs, you can often find ways to solve the aff - otherwise outweighing/mooting it is best.

K vs. K:

-Teams that are ahead on the purpose of debate/competition and the role of the judge will likely win. Presumption can flip either way - debate it out.

-Aff: I think the value of perms in KvK debates is often over-stated; realistically, they only get you past bad link arguments. I appreciate when affs generate offense vs. the K rather than try to agree with as much as they can.

-Neg: win a link to their performance (meaning, any critique of something they said or did in the debate) and you'll probably win. don't win a link to their performance and you'll probably lose. pretty unconvinced by the modern renditions of the "ballot k" - it seems non-falsifiable at best and projection at worst.

Policy vs. Policy:

I haven't judged a ton of these debates so I don't have many hard opinions, but I am increasingly interested in doing so. +.2 speaks if you pref me for these. Don't assume I have topic knowledge.

Jeff Buntin Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 3:54 AM CDT

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

for email chains: buntinjp [at] gmail.com

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------------------------X----Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-------x--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is an impact-X------------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2017 speaker points---------------------X--------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive----------X---------------D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

New affs bad-----------------------------------------X-Old affs bad

Aff on process competition--X-------------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X- Real arguments

'Judge kick'----------------------------------X---Absolutely no 'judge kick'

Nukes topic--X-----------------------------------------Any other topic ever

Daryl Burch McDonogh 7 rounds

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

Daryl Burch

currently the director of high school debate for McDonogh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

db

Azja Butler Shawnee Mission South High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 4:58 PM CDT

Paradigm Last Updated – Winter2025

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

Put me on the email chain :) azjabutler@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge Instruction....DO IT! In other words, tell me what you want me to do with the arguments you're winning and why! Judge instruction will often look different depending on your style of debate. While I do take this into consideration, I expect each team to synthesize their arguments and their relationship (offense/defense) to other moving parts of the 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.

Please for the love of all that is pure and kind, FLOW! I hate "flow-check" questions and feel they reflect poorly on your ability to organize the debate. To be completely real with y'all I also think they are indicative of lazy debating. Don't get caught up.

General:

I consider myself a reflexive and flexible judge. Meaning, I make a frequent effort to judge a wide variety of debates. Debaters should be allowed to read arguments they feel confident and passionate about. However, I debated more critically--this being the case means I primarily judge "k v k" and "clash" debates. I enjoy these debates best and feel my feedback is the most fruitful for the students here. Regardless, I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and try to provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

If you consider yourself a team who debates primarily in the "traditional policy" camp, I would be cautious preffing me. While I can hang in these debates, and coach a number of these teams myself, my primary expertise is not in these arguments and their broader development within the community. If my time in debate has taught me anything, it's that a lot of policy teams/coaches see debate like math i.e. x argument + y argument + z concession + this particular card = this definitive result... I do not see debate this way. I never have. If you're expecting a decision that sounds something like that, then I am not the judge for you.

Yes, I care about evidence quality! I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I rarely will ever ask for a card document. I don't like reading evidence at the end of a debate in place of students making arguments and doing their own analysis. That being said, I understand that reading evidence has become a large part of judging, BUT because I'm not ever cutting politics updates please be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading evidence and what I should be looking for! 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 probably haven't done your job and will probably receive more judge intervention from me.

Clipping(skipping over words or speaking in such a way that I cannot make out the word that's supposed to be there) or cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss. I follow along more closely in 1AC and 1NC documents bc this is where clipping happens the most. After these speeches I rarely open sent documents and flow by ear.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing” you. If I have to clear you more than twice, your speaks will be affected.

Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated.

___________________________________________________________________

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 + Planless 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. You should be able to articulate why your strategy being located within debate is good.

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! #RockChalk

@ the Nano Nagle (HS LD / PF)

"Did you read x card..." or "Which cards did you skip" are QUESTIONS so the CX timer should be started, this mess is flighted so please don't waste my or the tournament's time.

Arguments have three parts: 1] Claim 2] Data/Evidence 3]Warrant -- if these are not present your chance of winning in front of me are low.

I primarily judge high school and college policy -- at the point in which you integrate policy arguments, norms, and techne is the point in which I evaluate the debate as a 1v1 policy debate. I will take no notes.

I promise I have no problem clearing you or your opponent so please don't clear one another -- if it's actually unclear I will more than likely beat you to it.

I don't like having to read evidence in place of you all actually debating/making arguments. That being said if your evidence is just a series of one-liners / a sentence long, only partially highlighted I prob won't take your stuff seriously.

Don't read Kant in front of me and expect me to see the debate the way you do -- if you don't know that means: Don't read it.

AJ Byrne New Trier High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 4:59 PM CDT

ajbyrne1018(at)gmail.com -please put me on the chain.

I coach for New Trier and Northwestern.

I judged 80+ debates last year and am on track this year to judge even more this year. I like judging a lot and take it very seriously. The only things I love more than debate are my cat and the game Bloodborne for the Playstation 4®

I am far more truth oriented than other judges, I like evaluating the big picture and the interaction between arguments rather than reassembling the technical minutiae of the flow. Debate is a game of voting thresholds and virtually no argument exists in a vacuum.

----I reserve all rights to not vote for an argument if I don't understand it and you have to pinky-promise to not yell at me if that happens to you.-----

I find the proliferation of arguments involving microaggresions extremely disappointing - I will likely not vote for any of these arguments and could be persuaded that the frivolous use of these arguments is pretty harmful.

IF you feel like the other team has disrespected you in a way that they should therefore deserve to lose - stake the debate on it - and we can talk about it.

Args that I will never consider good enough to vote on: ASPEC, Conditions CPs (unless the plan specifies unconditional action), Animal Wipeout, T-Subsets on this year's high school topic, Any of the "edgy" impact turns, Sparking/Wiping out the aff in lieu of actually cutting case negs.

Flowing/Clarity: I do not flow off of the speech doc and will likely not have it open during speeches. Please do not read your blocks at top speed in front of me. I will greatly reward debaters who are putting in effort in the clarity, flowing, and organization aspects of their game. If you are standing up for a speech 2AC-onwards without your flows you are not debating the right way.

T vs K: I do not like judging big framework debates, not because I think that K teams are all cheaters but because these are debates where teams just brow-beat each other with their blocks they wrote in August and somehow expect the judge to come up with a satisfying RFD. I heavily rely on offense-defense while deciding these debates and will likely be more deferential to whichever team that kept the debate more organized. Reading T-USFG is not a violent speech act. I find most fairness pushes outside of the most basic establishment of procedural fairness pretty whiny. I am far more interested in clash and the vision each team has for how debate around the resolution should operate.

T vs Policy: I am not very good for the negative in this area. I find reasonability/predictability pushes very persuasive. I am not a member of the cult of limits, Literature limits almost certainly check and high schoolers should be encouraged to cut more cards. I will happily join the cult if I am presented with some good evidence though. I have no idea what Plan Text in a Vacuum means.

CP Theory: I don't vote for Conditions CPs. I think the aff's ability to go for theory is pretty dependent on the germaneness of the CP to the topic. Example: Consult Japan on a Nukes topic is probably pretty good! International Actor CPs on a Domestic topic seem pretty bad! The NGA CP is pretty bad.

My default is not kicking the CP for the neg in the 2NR - That being said you were probably in elementary school the last time I judged a debate that hinged on the CP linking to the net benefit.

I don't know what "non-resolutional theory" means.

Kritiks: I am not voting for the Framework Process CP. Framework is a defensive argument for the negative and I am easily persuaded that "you link you lose" is anti-educational. If the negative wins framework but fails to make inroads on other parts of the K I will vote aff on presumption. However, I am a total sucker for good alt explanation or a link analysis that puts a lot of doubt on the aff's ability to solve their internal links. I will give extremely high points for debaters that are able to use real world/historical examples to effectively bolster their arguments. I find a lot of 2ACs that attempt to answer the K absolutely dreadful.

DAs: Zero-risk is a thing. Plan Popular is not an argument that link turns an agenda DA.

I will look very grumpy during your debate - I am still very likely having a very enjoyable time, I just look like that most times.

Please refrain from talking to the other team when they are preparing for rebuttals

If you are rude to your partner I will call you out on it and give you a 26 - please be normal.

If you are not an active questioner/responder in your designated CXs I will be pretty punishing towards your points.

I miss the Security K :(

Nora Cai Bellarmine College Preparatory 7 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 8:41 AM PDT

Dartmouth, Interlake. She/Her.

Important

I flow on computer, but I do not flow with the documents open. This means If I can't flow the tags of a 1NC off case position or a permutation they will be non-starter arguments. I am expressive and will probably look confused if I can't flow you.

Email chain:

noracai52@gmail.com

Please include the tournament, round number, & teams in the subject line.

Online:

Do not start a speech before receiving verbal or visual confirmation from all debaters & me. If my video is off assume I am away.

T/L:

My IP knowledge dates to end of camp; please explain things!

Tech over truth, but the "tech" necessary to win untrue arguments is always higher.

My evaluation of line-by-line is premised on the requirement that an argument requires a claim and a warrant. Anything less than that (cardless con-con) should be quickly addressed and dismissed. When it does become an argument, new answers are permitted.

I will read evidence after the round if debaters compare evidence in their speeches (they should) or if evaluating the flow alone is insufficient to render a decision.

Hiding ASPEC = 25.

I default to offense-defense but can be convinced otherwise. Examples:

- I default to competing interps but will invert that given a well-executed 2AR about predictability & reasonability.

- Zero-risk of a DA is possible, but I must be told why a zero-risk frame is justifiable.

CPs:

Advantage CPs that simply... "induce" are non-starters. Planks need to depart from the status quo and propose substantive solutions. That requires more granular problem definition than [here is the aff's impact which we think is a problem and we shall now declare we will fix this].

I am comfortable adjudicating competition debates if they are made flowable. I am not ideological about voting for/against particular theory arguments.

Ks:

Ks on the neg - Good for Ks that critique core assumptions of the 1AC. Bad for Ks of tangential card rhetoric. My knowledge of critical literature diminishes the further the K strays away from identity/ecology.

Ks on the aff - I am more capable of adjudicating affs that present defense to T impacts and offense solved by a counter-interp than affs that impact-turn topicality. While I will technically adjudicate these debates to the best of my ability, note that I have exclusively read plans throughout my debate career and may have subconscious biases. If you are aff, you should raise the threshold for explanation of why your offense links to T. If you are neg, fairness and clash are both terminal and independent impacts. Internal links should be explained through the lens of predictable limits.

Speaker points

- Rewarded for cutting well-researched, specific strategies over the NGA CP, evidence comparison, persuasive ethos, well-executed CX, strategic vision.

- Rewarded for being flowable (technical prowess, numbering, argument labels, & not stacking perms at the top of a CP page).

- Tanked for shenanigans, being disrespectful (check yourself if you are a white cis-het male).

Matt Cekanor Northview High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 1:55 PM CDT

Experience-This will be my sixth year as the head coach at Northview High School. Before moving to Georgia, I coached for 7 years at Marquette High in Milwaukee, WI.

Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is mcekanordebate@gmail.com

*As I have gained more coaching and judging experience, I find that I highly value teams who respect their opponents who might not have the same experience as them. This includes watching how you come across in CX, prep time, and your general comportment towards your opponent. In some local circuits, circuit-style policy debate is dwindling and we all have a responsibility to be respectful of the experience of everyone trying to be involved in policy debate.*

I recommend that you go to the bathroom and fill your water bottles before the debate rather than before a speech.

LD Folks please read the addendum at the end of my paradigm.

Meta-Level Strike Sheet Concerns

1. Debates are rarely won or lost on technical concessions or truth claims alone. In other words, I think the “tech vs. truth” distinction is a little silly. Technical concessions make it more complicated to win a debate, but rarely do they make wins impossible. Keeping your arguments closer to “truer” forms of an argument make it easier to overcome technical concessions because your arguments are easier to identify, and they’re more explicitly supported by your evidence (or at least should be). That being said, using truth alone as a metric of which of y’all to pick up incentivizes intervention and is not how I will evaluate the debate.

2. Evidence quality matters a bunch to me- it’s evidence that you have spent time and effort on your positions, it’s a way to determine the relative truth level of your claims, and it helps overcome some of the time constraints of the activity in a way that allows you to raise the level of complexity of your position in a shorter amount of time. I will read your evidence throughout the debate, especially if it is on a position with which I’m less familiar. I won’t vote on evidence comparison claims unless it becomes a question of the debate raised by either team, but I will think about how your evidence could have been used more effectively by the end of the debate. I enjoy rewarding teams for evidence quality.

3. Every debate could benefit from more comparative work particularly in terms of the relative quality of arguments/the interactions between arguments by the end of the round. Teams should ask "Why?", such as "If I win this argument, WHY is this important?", "If I lose this argument WHY does this matter?". Strategically explaining the implications of winning or losing an argument is the difference between being a middle of the road team and a team advancing to elims.

4. Some expectations for what should be present in arguments that seem to have disappeared in the last few years-

-For me to vote on a single argument, it must have a claim, warrant, impact, and impact comparison.

-A DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link and impact argument is presented.Too many teams are getting away with 2 card DA shells in the 1NC and then reading uniqueness walls in the block. I will generally allow for new 1AR answers.

Similarly, CP's should have a solvency advocate read in the 1NC. I'll be flexible on allowing 1AR arguments in a world where the aff makes an argument about the lack of a solvency advocate.

-Yes, terminal defense exists, however, I do not think that teams take enough advantage of this kind of argument in front of me. I will not always evaluate the round through a lens of offense-defense, but you still need to make arguments as to why I shouldn’t by at least explaining why your argument functions as terminal defense. Again this plays into evidence questions and the relative impacts of arguments claims made above.

Specifics

Case-Debates are won or lost in the case debate. By this, I mean that proving whether or not the aff successfully accesses all, some or none of the case advantages has implications on every flow of the debate and should be a fundamental question of most 2NRs and 2ARs. I think that blocks that are heavy in case defense or impact turns are incredibly advantageous for the neg because they enable you to win any CP (by proving the case defense as a response to the solvency deficit), K (see below) or DA (pretty obvious). I'm also more likely than others to write a presumption ballot or vote neg on inherency arguments. If the status quo solves your aff or you're not a big enough divergence, then you probably need to reconsider your approach to the topic.

Most affs can be divided into two categories: affs with a lot of impacts but poor internal links and affs with very solid internal links but questionable impacts. Acknowledging in which of these two categories the aff you are debating falls should shape how you approach the case debate. I find myself growing increasingly disappointed by negative teams that do not test weak affirmatives. Where's your internal link defense?? I also miss judging impact turn debates, but don't think that spark or wipeout are persuasive arguments. A high level de-dev debate or heg debate, on the other hand, love it.

DA-DAs are questions of probability. Your job as the aff team when debating a DA is to use your defensive arguments to question the probability of the internal links to the DA. Affirmative teams should take more advantage of terminal defense against disads. I'll probably also have a lower threshold for your theory arguments on the disad. Likewise, the neg should use turns case arguments as a reason why your DA calls into question the probability of the aff's internal links. Don't usually find "____ controls the direction of the link" arguments very persuasive. You need to warrant out that claim more if you're going to go for it. Make more rollback-style turns case arguments or more creative turns case arguments to lower the threshold for winning the debate on the disad alone.

CP-CP debates are about the relative weight of a solvency deficit versus the relative weight of the net benefit. The team that is more comparative when discussing the solvency level of these debates usually wins the debate. While, when it is a focus of the debate, I tend to err affirmative on questions of counterplan competiton, I have grown to be more persuaded by a well-executed counterplan strategy even if the counterplan is a process counterplan. The best counterplans have a solvency advocate who is, at least, specific to the topic, and, best, specific to the affirmative. I do not default to judge kicking the counterplan and will be easily persuaded by an affirmative argument about why I should not default to that kind of in-round conditionality. Not a huge fan of the NGA CP and I've voted three out of four times on intrinsic permutations against this counterplan so just be warned. Aff teams should take advantage of presumption arguments against the CP.

K-Used to have a bunch of thoughts spammed here that weren't too easy to navigate pre-round. I've left that section at the bottom of the paradigm for the historical record, but here's the cleaned up version:

What does the ballot do? What is the ballot absolutely incapable of doing? What does the ballot justify? No matter if you are on the aff or the neg, defending the topic or not, these are the kinds of questions that you need to answer by the end of the debate. As so much of K debating has become framework debates on the aff and the neg, I often find myself with a lot of floating pieces of offense that are not attached to a clear explanation of what a vote in either direction can/can't do.

T-Sitting through a bunch of framework debates has made me a better judge for topicality than I used to be. Comparative impact calculus alongside the use of strategic defensive arguments will make it easier for me to vote in a particular direction. Certain interps have a stronger internal link to limits claims and certain affs have better arguments for overlimiting. Being specific about what kind of offense you access, how it comes first, and the relative strength of your internal links in these debates will make it more likely that you win my ballot. I’m not a huge fan of tickytacky topicality claims but, if there’s substantial contestation in the literature, these can be good debates.

Theory- I debated on a team that engaged in a lot of theory debates in high school. There were multiple tournaments where most of our debates boiled down to theory questions, so I would like to think that I am a good judge for theory debates. I think that teams forget that theory debates are structured like a disadvantage. Again, comparative impact calculus is important to win my ballots in these debates. I will say that I tend to err aff on most theory questions. For example, I think that it is probably problematic for there to be more than one conditional advocacy in a round (and that it is equally problematic for your counter interpretation to be dispositionality) and I think that counterplans that compete off of certainty are bad for education and unfair to the aff. The biggest killer in a theory debate is when you just read down your blocks and don’t make specific claims. Debate like your

Notes for the Blue Key RR/Other LD Judging Obligations

Biggest shift for me in judging LD debates is the following: No tricks or intuitively false arguments. I'll vote on dropped arguments, but those arguments need a claim, data, warrant and an impact for me to vote on them. If I can't explain the argument back to you and the implications of that argument on the rest of the debate, I'm not voting for you.

I guess this wasn't clear enough the first time around- I don't flow off the document and your walls of framework and theory analytics are really hard to flow when you don't put any breaks in between them.

Similarly, phil debates are always difficult for me to analyze. I tend to think affirmative's should defend implementation particularly when the resolution specifies an actor. Outside of my general desire to see some debates about implementation, I don't have any kind of background in the phil literature bases and so will have a harder time picturing the implications of you winning specific arguments. If you want me to understand how your argumets interact, you will have to do a lot of explanation.

Theory debates- Yes, I said that I enjoy theory debates in my paradigm above and that is largely still true, but CX theory debates are a lot less technical than LD debates. I also think there are a lot of silly theory arguments in LD and I tend to have a higher threshold for those sorts of arguments. I also don't have much of a reference for norm setting in LD or what the norms actually are. Take that into account if you choose to go for theory and probably don't because I won't award you with high enough speaks for your liking.

K debates- Yes, I enjoy K debates but I tend to think that their LD variant is very shallow. You need to do more specific work in linking to the affirmative and developing the implications of your theory of power claims. While I enjoy good LD debates on the K, I always feel like I have to do a lot of work to justify a ballot in either direction. This is magnified by the limited amount of time that you have to develop your positions.

Old K Paradigm (2020-2022)

After y’all saw the school that I coach, I’m sure this is where you scrolled to first which is fair enough given how long it takes to fill out pref sheets. I will say, if you told me 10 years ago when I began coaching that I’d be coaching a team that primarily reads the K on the aff and on the neg, I probably would have found that absurd because that wasn’t my entry point into the activity so keep that in mind as you work with some of the thoughts below. That being said, I’ve now coached the K at a high level for the past two years which means that I have some semblance of a feeling for a good K debate. If the K is not something that you traditionally go for, you’re better off going for what you’re best at.

The best debates on the K are debates over the explanatory power of the negative’s theory of power relative to the affirmative’s specific example of liberalism, realism, etc. Put another way, the best K debaters are familiar enough with their theory of power AND the affirmative’s specific impact scenarios that they use their theory to explain the dangers of the aff. By the end of the 2NR I should have a very clear idea of what the affirmative does and how your theory explains why doing the affirmative won’t resolve the aff’s impacts or results in a bad thing. This does not necessarily mean that you need to have links to the affirmative’s mechanism (that’s probably a bit high of a research burden), but your link explanations need to be specific to the aff and should be bolstered by specific quotes from 1AC evidence or CX. The specificity of your link explanation should be sufficient to overcome questions of link-uniqueness or I’ll be comfortable voting on “your links only link to the status quo.”

On the flipside, aff teams need to explain why their contingency or specific example of policy action cannot be explained by the negative’s theory of power or that, even if some aspects can be, that the specificity of the aff’s claims justifies voting aff anyway because there’s some offense against the alternative or to the FW ballot. Affirmative teams that use the specificity of the affirmative to generate offense or push back against general link claims will win more debates than those that just default to generic “extinction is irreversible” ballots.

Case Page when going for the K- My biggest pet peeve with the current meta on the K is the role of the case page. Neither the affirmative nor the negative take enough advantage of this page to really stretch out their opponents on this question. For the negative, you need to be challenging the affirmative’s internal links with defense that can bolster some of your thesis level claims. Remember, you are trying to DISPROVE the affirmative’s contingent/specific policy which means that the more specificity you have the better off you will be. This means that just throwing your generic K links onto the case page probably isn’t the move. 9/10 the alternative doesn’t resolve them and you don’t have an explanation of how voting neg resolves the offense. K teams so frequently let policy affs get away with some really poor evidence quality and weak internal links. Please help the community and deter policy teams from reading one bad internal link to their heg aff against your [INSERT THEORY HERE] K. On that note, policy teams, why are you removing your best internal links when debating the K? Your generic framework cards are giving the neg more things to impact turn and your explanation of the internal link level of the aff is lowered when you do that. Read your normal aff against the K and just square up.

Framework debates (with the K on the neg) For better or worse, so much of contemporary K debate is resolved in the framework debate. The contemporary dependence on framework ballots means a couple of things:

1.) Both teams need to do more work here- treat this like a DA and a CP. Compare the relative strength of internal link claims and impact out the terminal impacts. Why does procedural fairness matter? What is the terminal impact to clash? How do we access your skills claims? What does/does not the ballot resolve? To what extent does the ballot resolve those things? The team that usually answers more of these questions usually wins these debates. K teams need to do more to push back against “ballot can solve procedural fairness” claims and aff teams need to do more than just “schools, family, culture, etc.” outweigh subject formation. Many of you all spend more time at debate tournaments or doing debate work than you do at school or doing schoolwork.

2.) I do think it’s possible for the aff to win education claims, but you need to do more comparative impact calculus. What does scenario planning do for subject formation that is more ethical than whatever the impact scenario is to the K? If you can’t explain your education claims at that level, just go for fairness and explain why the ballot can resolve it.

3.) Risk of the link- Explain what winning framework does for how much of a risk of a link that I need to justify a ballot either way. Usually, neg teams will want to say that winning framework means they get a very narrow risk of a link to outweigh. I don’t usually like defaulting to this but affirmative teams very rarely push back on this risk calculus in a world where they lose framework. If you don’t win that you can weigh the aff against the K, aff teams need to think about how they can use their scenarios as offense against the educational claims of the K. This can be done as answers to the link arguments as well, though you’ll probably need to win more pieces of defense elsewhere on the flow to make this viable.

Do I go for the alternative?

I don’t think that you need to go for the alternative if you have a solid enough framework push in the 2NR. However, few things to keep in mind here:

1.) I won’t judge kick the alternative for you unless you explicitly tell me to do it and include a theoretical justification for why that’s possible.

2.) The framework debate should include some arguments about how voting negative resolves the links- i.e. what is the kind of ethical subject position endorsed on the framework page that pushes us towards research projects that avoid the links to the critique? How does this position resolve those links?

3.) Depending on the alternative and the framework interpretation, some of your disads to the alternative will still link to the framework ballot. Smart teams will cross apply these arguments and explain why that complicates voting negative.

K affs (Generic)

Yes, I’m comfortable evaluating debates involving the K on the aff and think that I’ve reached a point where I’m pretty good for either side of this debate. Affirmative teams need to justify an affirmative ballot that beats presumption, especially if you’re defending status quo movements as examples of the aff’s method. Both teams benefit from clarifying early in the round whether or not the affirmative team spills up, whether or not in-round performances specific to this debate resolve any of the affirmative offense, and whatever the accumulation of ballots does or does not do for the aff. Affirmative teams that are not the Louisville project often get away with way too much by just reading a DSRB card and claiming their ballots function the same way. Aff teams should differentiate their ballot claims and negatives should make arguments about the aff’s homogenizing ballot claims. All that being said, like I discussed above, these debates are won and lost on the case page like any other debate. As the K becomes more normalized and standardized to a few specific schools of thought, I have a harder and harder time separating the case and framework pages on generic “we couldn’t truth test your arguments” because I think that shifts a bit too strongly to the negative. That said, I can be persuaded to separate the two if there’s decent time spent in the final rebuttals on this question.

Framework vs. the K Aff

Framework debates are best when both teams spend time comparing the realities of debate in the status quo and the idealized form of debate proposed in model v. model rounds. In that light, both teams need to be thinking about what proposing framework in a status quo where the K is probably going to stick around means for those teams that currently read the K and for those teams that prefer to directly engage the resolution. In a world where the affirmative defends the counter interpretation, the affirmative should have an explanation of what happens when team don’t read an affirmative that meets their model. Most of the counter interpretations are arbitrary or equivalent to “no counter interpretation”, but an interp being arbitrary is just defense that you can still outweigh depending on the offense you’re winning.

In impact turn debates, both teams need to be much clearer about the terminal impacts to their offense while providing an explanation as to why voting in either direction resolves them. After sitting in so many of these debates, I tend to think that the ballot doesn’t do much for either team but that means that teams who have a better explanation of what it means to win the ballot will usually pick up my decision. You can’t just assert that voting negative resolves procedural fairness without warranting that out just like you can’t assert that the aff resolves all forms of violence in debate through a single debate. Both teams need to grapple with how the competitive incentives for debate establish offense for either side. The competitive incentive to read the K is strong and might counteract some of the aff’s access to offense, but the competitive incentives towards framework also have their same issues. Neither sides hands are clean on that question and those that are willing to admit it are usually better off. I have a hard time setting aside clash as an external impact due to the fact that I’m just not sure what the terminal impact is. I like teams that go for clash and think that it usually is an important part of negative strategy vs. the K, but I think this strategy is best when the clash warrants are explained as internal link turns to the aff’s education claims. Some of this has to due with the competitive incentives arguments that I’ve explained above. Both teams need to do more work explaining whether or not fairness or education claims come first. It’s introductory-level impact analysis I find lacking in many of these debates.

Other things to think about-

1.) These debates are at their worst when either team is dependent on blocks. Framework teams should be particularly cautious about this because they’ve had less of these debates over the course of the season, however, K teams are just as bad at just reading their blocks through the 1AR. I will try to draw a clean line between the 1AR and the 2AR and will hold a pretty strict one in debates where the 1AR is just screaming through blocks. Live debating contextualized to this round far outweighs robots with pre-written everything.

2.) I have a hard time pulling the trigger on arguments with “quitting the activity” as a terminal impact. Any evidence on either side of this question is usually anecdotal and that’s not enough to justify a ballot in either direction. There are also a bunch of alternative causes to numbers decline like the lack of coaches, the increased technical rigor of high-level policy debate, budgets, the pandemic, etc. that I think thump most of these impacts for either side. More often than not, the people that are going to stick with debate are already here but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences to the kinds of harms to the activity/teams as teams on either side of the clash question learn to coexist.

K vs. K Debates (Overview)

I’ll be perfectly honest, unless this is a K vs. Cap debate, these are the debates that I’m least comfortable evaluating because I feel like they end up being some of the messiest and “gooiest” debates possible. That being said, I think that high level K vs. K debates can be some of the most interesting to evaluate if both teams have a clear understanding of the distinctions between their positions, are able to base their theoretical distinctions in specific, grounded examples that demonstrate potential tradeoffs between each position, and can demonstrate mutual exclusivity outside of the artificial boundary of “no permutations in a method debate.” At their best, these debates require teams to meet a high research burden which is something that I like to reward so if your strat is specific or you can explain it in a nuanced way, go for it. That said, I’m not the greatest for teams whose generic position in these debates are to read “post-truth”/pomo arguments against identity positions and I feel uncomfortable resolving competing ontology claims in debates around identity unless they are specific and grounded. I feel like most debates are too time constrained to meaningfully resolve these positions. Similarly, teams that read framework should be cautious about reading conditional critiques with ontology claims- i.e. conditional pessimism with framework. I’m persuaded by theoretical arguments about conditional ontology claims regarding social death and cross apps to framework in these debates.

I won’t default to “no perms in a methods debate”, though I am sympathetic to the theoretical arguments about why affs not grounded in the resolution are too shifty if they are allowed to defend the permutation. What gets me in these debates is that I think that the affirmative will make the “test of competition”-style permutation arguments anyway like “no link” or the aff is a disad/prereq to the alt regardless of whether or not there’s a permutation. I can’t just magically wave a theory wand here and make those kinds of distinctions go away. It lowers the burden way too much for the negative and creates shallow debates. Let’s have a fleshed out theory argument and you can persuade me otherwise. The aff still needs to win access to the permutation, but if you lose the theory argument still make the same kinds of arguments if you had the permutation. Just do the defensive work to thump the links.

Cap vs. K- I get the strategic utility of these debates, but this debate is becoming pretty stale for me. Teams that go for state-good style capitalism arguments need to explain the process of organization, accountability measures, the kind of party leadership, etc. Aff teams should generate offense off of these questions. Teams that defend Dean should have to defend psychoanalysis answers. Teams that defend Escalante should have specific historical examples of dual power working or not in 1917 or in post-Bolshevik organization elsewhere. Aff teams should force Dean teams to defend psycho and force Escalante teams to defend historical examples of dual power. State crackdown arguments should be specific. I fear that state crackdown arguments will apply to both the alternative and the aff and the team that does a better job describing the comparative risk of crackdown ends up winning my argument. Either team should make more of a push about what it means to shift our research practices towards or away from communist organizing. There are so many debates where we have come to the conclusion that the arguments we make in debate don’t spill out or up and, yet, I find debates where we are talking about politically organizing communist parties are still stuck in some universe where we are doing the actual organizing in a debate round. Tell me what a step towards the party means for our research praxis or provide disads to shifting the resource praxis. All the thoughts on the permutation debate are above. I’m less likely to say no permutation in these debates because there is plenty of clash in the literature between, at least, anti-capitalism and postcapitalism that there can be a robust debate even if you don’t have specifics. That being said, the more you can make ground your theory in specific examples the better off you’ll be.

Allie Chase Greenhill School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:57 PM CDT

Co-Director of Speech & Debate @ Pembroke Hill

Still helping KU in my free time

Please add me to the email chain: a.rae.chase@gmail.com

I love debate and I will do my absolute best to make a decision that makes sense and give a helpful RFD.

Topicality

Competing interpretations are easier to evaluate than reasonability. You need to explain to me how we determine what is reasonable if you are going for reasonability.

Having said that if your intep is so obscure that there isn't a logical CI to it, perhaps it is not a good interpretation.

T debates this year (water topic) have gotten too impact heavy for their own good. I've judged a number of rounds with long overviews about how hard it is to be negative that never get to explaining what affirmatives would be topical under their interp or why the aff interp links to a limits DA and that's hard for me because I think much more about the latter when I think about topicality.

T-USFG/FW

Affirmatives should be about the topic. I will be fairly sympathetic to topicality arguments if I do not know what the aff means re: the topic after the 1AC.

I think teams are meming a bit on both sides of this debate. Phrases like "third and fourth level testing" and "rev v rev debates are better" are kind of meaningless absent robust explanation. Fairness is an impact that I will vote on. Like any other impact, it needs to be explained and compared to the other team's impact. I have also voted on arguments about ethics, education, and pedagogy. I will try my best to decide who wins an impact and which impact matters more based on the debate that happens.

I do not think the neg has to win a TVA to win topicality; it can be helpful if it happens to make a lot of sense but a forced TVA is generally a waste of time.

If the aff is going for an impact turn about debate, it would be helpful to have a CI that solves that impact.

DA’s

I would love to see you go for a disad and case in the 2NR. I do not find it persuasive when an affirmative team's only answer to a DA is impact framing. Impact framing can be important but it is one of a number of arguments that should be made.

I am aware the DA's aren't all great lately. I don't think that's a reason to give up on them. It just means you need a CP or really good case arguments.

K's

I really enjoy an old-fashioned k vs the aff debate. I think there are lots of interesting nuances available for the neg and the aff in this type of debate. Here are some specific thoughts that might be helpful when constructing your strategy:

1. Links of omission are not links. Links of “commission” will take a lot of explaining.

2. Debating the case matters unless there is a compelling framework argument for why I should not evaluate the case.

3. If you are reading a critique that pulls from a variety of literature bases, make sure I understand how they all tie to together. I am persuaded by aff arguments about how it's very difficult to answer the foundation of multiple bodies of critical literature because they often have different ontological, epistemological, psychoanalytic, etc assumptions. Also, how does one alt solve all of that??

4. Aff v. K: I have noticed affirmative teams saying "it's bad to die twice" on k's and I have no idea what that means. Aff framework arguments tend to be a statement that is said in the 2AC and repeated in the 1AR and 2AR - if you want fw to influence how I vote, you need to do more than this. Explain how it implicates how I assess the link and/or alternative solvency.

5. When ontology is relevant - I feel like these debates have devolved into lists of things (both sides do this) and that's tough because what if the things on the list don't resonate?

CP's

Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author - excellent! I don't have patience for overly convoluted counterplans supported by barely highlighted ev.

I do not subscribe to (often camp-driven) groupthink about which cp's "definitely solve" which aff's. I strongly disagree with this approach to debate and will think through the arguments on both sides of the debate because that is what debate is about.

Solvency deficits are a thing and will be accounted for and weighed along with the risk of a DA, the size of the DA impact, the size of the solvency deficit, and other relevant factors. If you are fiating through solvency deficits you should come prepared with a theoretical justification for that.

Other notes!

Some people think it is auto-true that politics disads and certain cp's are terrible for debate. I don't agree with that. I think there are benefits/drawbacks to most arguments. This matters for framework debates. A plan-less aff saying "their model results in politics DA's which is obviously the worst" will not persuade absent a warrant for that claim.

Love a good case debate. It's super under-utilized. I think it's really impressive when a 2N knows more about the aff evidence than the aff does.

Please don't be nasty to each other; don't be surprised if I interrupt you if you are.

I don't flow the 1AC and 1NC because I am reading your evidence. I have to do this because if I don't I won't get to read the evidence before decision time in a close debate.

If the debate is happening later than 9PM you might consider slowing down and avoiding especially complicated arguments.

If you make a frivolous or convoluted ethics challenge in a debate that I judge I will ask you to move on and be annoyed for the rest of the round. Legitimate ethics challenges exist and should/will be taken seriously but ethics challenges are not something we should play fast and loose with.

For debating online:

-If you think clarity could even possibly be an issue, slow down a ton. More than ever clarity and quality are more important than quantity.

-If my camera is off, I am not there, I am not flowing your speech, I probably can't even hear you. If you give the 1AR and I'm not there, there is not a whole lot I can do for you.

Yao Yao Chen Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 11, 2024 at 10:32 AM CDT

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know: do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
They give poorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
They reconstruct the debate and try to find the most creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that, when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
Evidence comparison is under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school. If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison.
When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points give highly organized and structuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, and emphasize key moments in their speeches.
Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview and do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them. I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NC for me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

Just like most judges, I prefer case-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
I think that I lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

Look and sound like you want to be here. Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
Argument resolution minimizes judge intervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
Demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate. If you're reading pre-scripted 2NC/2NR/2AR blocks without adapting the language to the specifics of your debate, you've only proven that you're literate but possibly also an NPC. I would much rather hear you give a 2NR/2AR without a laptop, just off your paper flows, even if it's not as smooth.
I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast, being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher points and never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards. It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

Sam Church Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2 rounds

Josh Clark Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 19, 2024 at 4:47 PM EDT

Joshua Clark

Montgomery Bell Academy - 2013 - current

University of Michigan - Institute Instructor (2007 - Current)
Email: jreubenclark10@gmail.com

Past Schools:
Juan Diego Catholic 09-13
Notre Dame in Sherman Oaks 08-09
Damien 04-06

Debating:
Jordan (UT) 96-98
College of Eastern Utah 99
Cal St Fullerton 01-04

Website:
policydebatecentral.com

Speaker Points
Points will generally stay between 27.5 and 29.9. It generally takes a 28.8 average to clear. I assign points with that in mind. Teams that average 28.8 or higher in a debate mean I thought your points were elimination round-level debates. While it's not an exact science, 29-29.1 means you had a good chance of advancing in elimination rounds, and 29.2+ indicates excellence reserved for quarters+. I'm not stingy with these kinds of points; they have nothing to do with past successes. It has everything to do with your performance in THIS debate.

Etiquette
1. Try to treat each other with mutual respect.

2. Cards and tags should have the same clarity
3. Cards MUST be marked during the speech. Please say, "Mark the card," and please have you OR your partner physically mark the cards in the speech. It is not possible to remember where you've marked your cards after the speech. Saying "mark the card" is the only way to let your judge and competitors know that you do not intend to represent that you've read the entirety of the card. Physically marking the card in the speech is necessary to maintain an accurate account of what you did or didn't read.

Overview
My 25 years in the community have led me to formulate opinions about how the activity should be run. I'm not sharing these with you because I think this is the way you have to debate but because you may get some insight about how to win and earn better speaker points in front of me.

1) Conceded claims without warrants - These aren't complete arguments. A 10-second dropped ASPEC is very unlikely to decide a debate for me. Perm, do the CP without a theoretical justification; it also makes zero sense. Perm - do both needs to be followed by an explanation for how it resolves the link to the net benefit, or it is not an argument.

2) Voting issues are reasons to reject the argument. (Other than conditionality)

3) Debate stays in the round -- Debate is a game of testing ideas and their counterparts. Those ideas presented in the debate will be the sole factor used in determining the winning team. Things said or done outside of this debate round will not be considered when determining a winning team.

4) Your argument doesn't improve by calling it a "DA" -- I'm sure your analytical standard to your framework argument on the K is great, but overstating its importance by labeling it a "DA" isn't accurate. It's a reason to prefer your interpretation.

Topicality vs Conventional Affs: I default to competing interpretations on topicality but can be persuaded by reasonability. Topicality is a voting issue.

Topicality vs Critical Affs: I generally think that policy debate is a good thing and that a team should both have a plan and defend it. Given that, I have no problem voting for "no plan" advocacies or "fiat-less" plans. I will be looking for you to win that your impact turns to topicality/framework outweighs the loss of education/fairness that would be given in a "fiated" plan debate. Affirmative teams struggle with answering the argument that they could advocate most of their aff while defending a topical plan. I also think that teams who stress they are a pre-requisite to topical action have a more difficult time with topical version-type arguments than teams who impact turn standards. If you win that the state is irredeemable at every level, you are much more likely to get me to vote against FW. The K aff teams who have had success in front of me have been very good at generating a good list of arguments that opposing teams could run against them to mitigate the fairness impact of the T/FW argument. This makes the impact turns of a stricter limit much more persuasive to me.

I'm also in the fairness camp as a terminal impact, as opposed to an emphasis on portable skills. I think you can win that T comes before substantive issues.

One note to teams that are neg against an aff that lacks stable advocacy: Make sure you adapt your framework arguments to fit the aff. Don't read..." you must have a plan" if they have a plan. If a team has a plan but doesn't defend fiat, base your ground arguments on that violation.

Counterplans and Disads: The more specific to the aff, the better. There are few things better than a well-researched PIC that just blind sites a team. Objectively, I think counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy are not legitimate. However, I still coach teams to run these arguments, and I can still evaluate a theory debate about these different counterplans as objectively as possible. Again, the more specific the evidence is to the aff, the more legitimate it will appear.

The K: I was a k debater and a philosophy major in college. I prefer criticisms that are specific to the resolution. If your K links don't discuss Intellectual Property rights this year, then it's unlikely to be very persuasive to me.

I also do not think Fiat bad is negative ground. Obviously, that can change based on the debate, but when so many K teams kick their topic-specific links to go for the Fiat K in the 2nr, I can't help but mourn how great the debate would have been actually negating the substance of the affirmative.

Impact comparisons usually become the most important part of a kritik, and the excessive link list becomes the least of a team’s problems heading into the 2nr. It would be best if you won that either a) you turn the case and have an external impact or b) you solve the case and have an external impact. Root cause arguments are sound but rarely address the timeframe issue of case impacts. If you are going to win your magnitude comparisons, then you better do a lot to mitigate the case impacts. I also find most framework arguments associated with a K nearly pointless. Most of them are impacted by the K proper and depend on you winning the K to win the framework argument. Before devoting any more time to the framework beyond getting your K evaluated, you should ask yourself and clearly state to me what happens if you win your theory argument. You should craft your "role of the ballot" argument based on the answer to that question. I am willing to listen to sequencing arguments that EXPLAIN why discourse, epistemology, ontology, etc., come first.

Conclusion: I love debate...good luck if I'm judging you, and please feel free to ask any clarifying questions.

To promote disclosure at the high school level, any team that practices near-universal "open source" will be awarded .2 extra per debater if you bring that to my attention before the RFD.

Matt Conway Berkeley Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu July 18, 2024 at 9:05 PM EDT

jmu '25

affiliations: berkeley prep (2022-), saint ignatius and Solon (2021-22)

mconcon4@gmail.com

bprep-debate@googlegroups.com

tl;dr

tech>truth

will vote on 0 risk

speed is fine (I will only "clear" you once and then ill flow what I can)

call me conway or matt not judge (he/him)

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

clipping = auto L and 0

unlikely to vote on things that happened outside of the round

K Affs/FW

I think K affs should have some relation to the topic and am less persuaded by debate bad arguments. you don't need a c/I to win. I am persuaded by both fairness and clash. the easiest way to my ballot is establishing external offense vs internal link turns and do real impact comparison. presumption isn't gone for as much as it probably should. contextualizing the links to how they specifically destroy the ability of the alt to happen will help you out a lot. don't assume I know any of your lit.

you can win without an alt, however I prefer if you generate UQ from somewhere else rather then going for the k as a linear disad. I think teams spend way to much time on fw, in almost every case the aff gets to weigh the 1ac and the neg gets reps links.

CPs

I like well thought out advantage cps. affs don't utilize their 1ac enough when answering cps. condo is good, multi-plank condo is good. pretty much all other theory is probably a reason to reject the arg.

DAs

The politics DA was most of my high school career. I enjoy complex stories with clear internal link turns to the aff or some form of cirvumvention/a solvency take out. teams who explain how the direction of x shapes the direction of y are much more likely to win a close debate. I will probably not read you ev during the debate, but if the final rebuttals include a DA, please send a card doc.

default to competing interps but its not hard to get me to vote on reasonability. the simpler the definition/the clearer the violation the better.

misc

organization/signposting is important

I enjoy impacts turns/traps/double binds etc.

have fun

Ari Davidson Pace Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 3:00 AM PDT

WFU '23

Now at UT-Austin for grad school

Yes email chain — ask before the debate.

NDCA Update:

If you are a senior, please tell me either before the debate starts or right after it ends. I’d love the opportunity to congratulate your achievements and give you a speaker points boost. Getting to the end of a 4-year high school debate career takes hard work and deserves to be rewarded. Congratulations on getting here.

I think I value novel and well-thought-out strategies at the championships more than most as they reflect detailed preparation in service of a deep desire to win. Make your blocks actually respond to what your opponent says. Listen and flow the other team's speeches intently. Specificity wins debates, now more than ever.

Don’t clip. I’m paying attention to your doc and not afraid to tell you that you did it. I am not one to second guess myself and I usually highlight the lines you skipped in my copy of the doc in case I’m questioned about it. It’s a championship tournament, debates are won at the margins, and every debater should go in expecting to be given a fair shake. Especially in a time crunched activity like LD, clipping can make all the difference in determining a win or loss. I’ve certainly seen it happen before!

CX is not extended prep.

If you anticipate disclosure shenanigans and you want me to vote on an argument about it, I suggest you attempt to do disclosure while I am present. I know this is near-impossible given coaching responsibilities... do with that what you will. Obviously, if both teams agree on what had happened in the disclosure (ex: "it was new and they didn't disclose"), I will decide from those shared presumptions.

As I allude to in other parts of my paradigm, I flow in excel in line by line fashion. I look at the speech doc purely while cards are being read (for clipping + to assess evidence quality) and will not reconstruct parts of a speech if I couldn’t understand an analytic argument or tag. Please number your arguments when you are the first responder (1NC on case, 2AC on DA), answer arguments in order, and refer to your previous arguments by name and number in the final rebuttals.

I'd prefer you not refer to me by any name at all, but if nothing else please do not call me "chat." You are not a twitch streamer and we are real people.

COLLEGE CLIMATE TOPIC ADDENDUM: If you are a team that reads carded evidence, I expect quality to be very high and will find it hard to vote for you if your cards are from Exxon execs or bloggers without degrees when up against an opponent of near-peer skill level with better/more specific/more qualified evidence. Every author on all sides has a take on climate change. Say something smart about it!

Paradigm:

Say what you want and defend what you say. I reward clash of all kinds and dislike cowardice more than almost anything. I will attempt to write down every argument presented in the way you present it, regardless of your argumentative or speaking “style”, to repeat it in my RFD. This means clarity, both in argument explanation and words coming out of your mouth, is imperative. Don’t over-adapt to what you (probably wrongly) think I want to hear. Debate is for the debaters, just have fun and say smart things and I’m your judge.

The only caveat to this is I have very little interest in parsing through interpersonal disputes between debaters over events that occurred outside of the debate round. I understand that sometimes we have personal disagreements with one another as a community founded on discord, and I also understand that sometimes we don't feel comfortable sharing how we feel with the people we disagree with in other interpersonal settings — and that is reasonable. But I struggle to find why the solution to this is to have that precise conversation during a debate round and for judges to insert their own interpretations over events they have little knowledge of. This applies doubly to high school debate. Given this, while I will not ignore any words you say in a debate, you will notice that my decision proper will not pertain to/include the content of personal disagreements tangential to the topics of the debate. To clarify, if you find something the other team has said or done in the debate round to be objectionable, this is obviously fair game and I am more than happy to hear reasons why it should be a voting issue. I think issues of disclosure fall into this category as well given that prep time is part of a debate round and proper disclosure is what enables proper pre-round preparation.

Also, say words if you want me to judge kick the counterplan. I’m indifferent personally, but prefer to go with what debaters say out loud in a debate. If neg conditionality is not contested, saying “the neg should never be stuck with an option worse than the status quo” is sufficient.

Speaker Points:

My speaker points no longer vary as widely as they once did. This is because despite the fact that the quality of debates I judge varies widely, I am much more invested in using speaker points as a carrot than a stick because I prefer (inevitably) imperfect participation over universalized burnout. From now on, my floor will be at a 27. I do adjust my points to the tournament and division, so for example if you got a 29 at a regional and a 28.5 at a major it does not necessarily mean you got worse (in fact, your performance may have improved!)

My approximate scale for the open division is as follows (does not apply to JV and Novice):

You will not get a 30 unless it's your last prelim debate ever -- and even then, it requires spectacular debating. If you ask for a 30, your speaker points will have a 3 in them, but it won't be the first digit.

A speaker whose performance, if replicated, would land them a Top 5 award + deep elims will receive between 29.9-29.7. Most proficient and well-executed winning performances receive between a 29.6-29.4. Most winning performances receive between 29.3-29. Above average execution with a chance at clearing receives between 28.9-28.7

Middle of the pack gets 28.6-28: speeches need work on technical proficiency, block writing, proper use and comparison of evidence, etc.

Lower than a 28 indicates some or all of the following: speeches and CX execution need work including time management, we're not effectively answering the opponent's arguments (if paying attention to them at all), speech order is messy and not cohesive, speaker is unclear and could benefit from speaking drills, dead speech time, ineffective use of prep, speeches leave time on the clock, CX is spent asking clarification or "wouldn't you agree that..." questions.

Any lower than a 27 means something interpersonal has occurred and we will talk about it prior to speaker points coming out -- whether that is in the RFD, in a talk with your coach, or both.

LD Addendum:

I've been out of the game for a few years now, but I did just teach three weeks at NSD, which gave me a deep refresher across the vast LD argumentative spectrum.

I will not constitutively rule out any particular style of argument, but I will apply a strict "makes sense" test to all arguments. This applies just as much to a sparsely-highlighted DA as to a misrepresented K or a poorly-explained philosophy argument.

I will not pretend that I understood your arguments if you were unclear in your speech. Clarity comprises both structure, in explanation of arguments, as well as my physical ability to hear and type words coming out of your mouth. If an argument in the first constructive was 5 seconds long, but it comprises several minutes of the rebuttal(s), it will be hard to convince me that it was structurally clear enough to warrant deciding the debate on it (I'm looking at you, "resolved a priori"). If an argument was analytically made at top speed with no pen time and it does not appear on my flow in an earlier speech, it will be near-impossible to convince me that it was physically clear enough to appear in my decision given that my decisions rely on repeating words flowed back to the debaters.

Despite my belief that debate is for the debaters and you should be able to make the arguments you want, I will not pretend that I don't have biases.

Regardless of style, I prefer arguments to be about the topic. I prefer advantages to be germane to the plan presented. I prefer criticisms, on both the aff and neg, to use topic language throughout the evidence presented (whether that's carded evidence or organic scholarship). I prefer Process Counterplans to compete off core resolutional mechanisms. I prefer philosophical syllogisms to reflect core topic controversy rather than rely on tricks or theoretically-justified standards. I prefer topicality arguments to be grounded in evidence interpreting words in the resolution.

This is not to say that I will not vote on your generic positions. I will vote on any argument executed proficiently. However, there is a proportional, linear relationship between the specificity of your arguments and the energy necessary for your opponent to defeat them -- as one goes up, so does the other; as one goes down, so does the other.

An aside is that I find "truth testing vs. comparative worlds" to be a false dichotomy. Consequentialist ethical frames simply say that the way to figure out if the resolution is true or not -- that is to say, whether or not the actorought to pursue said action -- is to compare the hypothetical world in which the resolutional statement is enacted to one in which it is not. Counterplan competition is a great example of this -- you define words to prove that the counterplan does not, in fact, prove the resolutional statement to be true and that it instead is a legitimate opportunity cost thatdisproves the question of the resolution. TLDR: less "truth testing good: jurisdiction" and more "our ethical system proves the plan is intrinsically bad, so it should not occur despite its hypothetical positive consequences." Or vice versa, obviously.

Won’t flow RVIs. Make real arguments.

Also unlikely to believe that most non-resolutional procedural arguments aside from condo or spec are “voting issues.” Arguments in favor of reasonability, proportional punishment (rejecting the argument, not the team), and substance crowd-out will be prevalent in my decisions in these debates if made — but you have to make such arguments somewhere for me to vote on it.

After judging, observing, and coaching a significant number of LD debates at the first tournament, I have concluded this activity has a specific dearth of knowledge surrounding counterplan competition on all sides. Teams who effectively exploit this -- on both sides -- will see an exponential increase in win-rate in front of me. Do with this information what you will.

Procedural Addendum:

I follow along with speech documents because I am curious about evidence quality, applicability, as well as your adherence to the text of the evidence. I have noticed an epidemic of clipping across all debate events that I judge at all skill levels. Clipping is generally defined as misrepresenting the words in your evidence you actually read by highlighting more than what is spoken. The brightline of this is contested, but the most lenient, universally-agreed-upon one is "five words skipped in a row in any card, even once."

To this end, if I notice this, I will apply a "yellow card/red card" method for dealing with speaking infractions. I very much understand it's possible a debater has clipped despite their trying not to/without their knowledge. They're stressed, trying to go fast, and sometimes are reading cards they haven't read before (in some instances, they've never read cards before!). Even more, sometimes people have trouble processing words quickly so they don't even know that they've skipped anything because their brain hasn't told them or they're scrolling too fast. I am sympathetic to all of this. Given that, if I notice that a team debating in front of me has clipped and it seems unintentional (it's less than 5 words in a row here or there, or it only happens once), I will let you know after the debate as a warning for the future. If it happens again in another debate, the debater who clipped will lose with 25 speaker points. If it is particularly egregious the first time around, you may lose the debate without a warning. However, for the educational merit of the activity, I will still flow and detail a decision I would have given if it was not decided on clipping.

Yay debate!

Jordan Di Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 7:25 AM EDT

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sonya Doubledee NSU University School 2 rounds

Sean Duff Washburn Rural High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:30 AM CDT

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

Danielle Dupree BASIS DC 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 25, 2024 at 8:47 AM EDT

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

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

The things you're probably looking for...

Speed:

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

Kritiks:

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

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

Performance:

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

Theory:

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

My Strategy Reminders...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Ellis Washburn Rural High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 2, 2024 at 7:38 AM CDT

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net ,

I am the head debate coach at Washburn Rural High School. I dedicate a large portion of my free time to coaching and teaching debate. I will work very hard during debates to keep an accurate flow of what is being said and to provide the best feedback possible to the debaters that are participating. I cannot promise to be perfect, but I will do my best to listen to your arguments and help you grow as a debater, just like I do with the students that I coach at Washburn Rural.

Because I care about debate and enjoy watching people argue and learn, I prefer debates where people respond to the arguments forwarded by their opponents. I prefer that they do so in a respectful manner that makes debate fun. Tournaments are long and stressful, so being able to enjoy a debate round is of paramount importance to me. Not being able to have fun in a debate is not a reason I will ever vote against a team, but you will see your speaker points rise if you seem to be enjoying the activity and make it a more enjoyable place for those you are competing against.

I will do my best to adjudicate whatever argument you decide to read in the debate. However, I would say that I generally prefer that the affirmative defend a topical change from the status quo and that the negative team says that change from the status quo is a bad idea. I am not the best judge on the planet for affs without a plan (see the first part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. I am not the best judge on the planet for process counterplans (see the second part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. Much like having fun, the above things are preferences, not requirements for winning a debate.

Topic specific things about intellectual property rights:

The neg is in a tough spot on this year's topic in terms of generics. If you are good at debating topicality, it will likely not be difficult to convince me that a more limited version of the topic could be better. However, limits for the sake of limits is not really a persuasive argument, so a big limits DA alone does not automatically result in a negative victory.
Equally debated, I can be convinced that the mere presence of resolutional words in the plan is insufficient to prove that the affirmative's mandate is topical.
Please debate the affirmative case. I know it can be tempting to just impact turn the aff, but generally the scenario you are turning lacks solvency or an internal link, and perhaps that would be a better use of your time than ripping into heg bad cards off your laptop for 13 minutes.
This topic is dense and difficult to research. Speaks will likely reward teams who engagein specific research, affirmative or negative, for the positions that they present.
I am not going to stop you from doing open cross-ex, but I really think it is overutilized and generally uneducational. In most situations, the best outcome is that you look mean or make your partner look incompetent. If your strategy revolves around not letting your partner speak in cross-ex, do not expect to receive high speaker points from me.

Ross Fitzpatrick Greenhill School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 5:17 PM EDT

Put me on the email chain (ross.fitz4@gmail.com AND greenhilldocscx@gmail.com)

I debated for four years at Barstow in Kansas City and four years at the University of Kansas

Currently teaching debate full-time at Greenhill + doing some judging for USC when I have time

Top Level:

Do what you do best, I'll try to keep up. That being said, what I really want to see (especially for high schoolers) is teams debating straight up. What I mean by that - I'm getting tired of this meta that seems to forefront winning on tricks over out debating your opponent. I don't like seeing things like hidden A-spec or a 1nc constructed out of 2017 backfiles with one substantive position. Pick what you are best at, be willing to start the debate over that position early in the round, and have at it. I'll vote on whatever that choice is, but I like teams that are truly willing to clash and engage with the best version of their opponent's arguments.

I try my best to get everything down on my flow, and it's what I'll decide the debate on. If you think an argument is especially important to deciding the debate, make sure you slow down and emphasize its importance so it ends up factoring into my decision

Your speaks will reflect how easy you make my job, that means focusing on argument comparison, judge instruction, and framing my ballot for me in the final rebuttals. Impact out conceded arguments and choose a few issues you're winning to frame out your opponent's offense.

Argument Specifics:

FW: I've debated both sides of this argument, although I've spent more time thinking about it on the neg than the aff. I think affs should have some sort of relationship to the topic, but I don't have strong feelings about what that should be. I think fairness and clash are both impacts and impact turnable. Aff teams, I think the best strategy is an impact turn to the negative standards, and an emphasis on how the 1ac interacts with framework. I find that in these debates I often vote for the team that is best at re-characterizing the debates that occur in the other team's model. i.e. does the TVA ever actually get debated like the neg team says it would? what types of affs would the counter-interp include outside of the generic list of popular K authors? I also like to reward innovation in explanation in these rounds, because it's easy for them to feel stale.

T: I am pretty neutral on the question of competing interpretations vs reasonability. Reasonability should be a question of the aff's counter interp and not the aff itself. Impact comparison is just as important in a T debate as any other.

Ks: Links don't have to be to the plan, but you should explain how they implicate the plan and use aff language, evidence, performance to prove them. Alternatives that solve the links are better than ones that don't. I can be convinced the debate should be about something other than the consequences to the aff. I'm also down to vote on extinction outweighs and the aff is a good idea.

CPs: Well developed, specific CPs w solvency advocates are awesome. I've gotten more comfortable evaluating competition debates in the last year or so, but probably not as proficient on all the moving parts as you might want if process is consistently your A strat.

DAs: Thumbs up. Spin can get you out of a lot, even if you're worried about specific evidence. Impact overviews and turns case arguments are an absolute must, especially in later rebuttals. Again, make my job easy. Tell me why your impacts are more important than theirs.

Theory: Proving in round abuse is the best way to get a ballot. Most of the time I lean toward rejecting the argument over the team.

Jay-Z Flores Huntington Park High School 4 rounds

Eric Forslund Pace Academy 2 rounds

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

email: eforslund@gmail.com

Copied and Pasted from my judge philosophy wiki page.

Recent Bio:

Director of Debate at Pace Academy

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

Zero rounds on the current college topic in 2020.

Coached at the University of Wyoming 2004-2005.

Assisted Wake, Trinity, and Michigan at various NDTs

2024-2025 Addendum: Stop reading this uncooperative federalism cp. It is junk. If it is in the block you are maxing-out at 27.5 speaker points. The "say yes" arguments are lies, and out of context --- I can't believe this garbage argument has survived this many years --- it needs to die.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick Dillon Fox Damien High School and St. Lucy’s Priory 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 9:45 AM CDT

Playlist Update: TFA '25 - i like music a lot, it was going to be my career before debate ruined my life. i listen to a confusingly wide range of it. debaters and coaches can recommend me a song to listen to during prep or decision time - good enough songs may merit a small (+0.1) speaks bump for everyone in the room. a friend told me since i ask debaters to recommend me music, i should put the music i'm listening to here for reference. currently listening to Texas Flood - Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble.

TFA Rant - a few big updates that i think matter for strategy and speaker points. nothing new per se, but this season has accelerated my final metamorphosis into a grumpy old person judge and made a few tendencies that generally ring true to me stick out more than usual:

1. neg teams need to read better cards and read cards better. i am not the card machine i used to be, and i will never knock the 2n hustle - sometimes the 2nr just has to be slop by necessity - but i am increasingly frustrated by the absence of quality, aff-specific evidence produced by 1ncs - cutting 2-4 cards about the 1ac's legal framework being nonsense is a much more winning addition to neg strat than the third process counterplan. most affs on this topic do not solve, are not key to the impact, read cards that say nothing, and are an ungodly amalgamation of legal standards that were never meant to intersect in the way 2as are forcing them to - the number of advantages that can be reduced to zero by a smart cx and recuttings or even just close readings of 1ac evidence is only matched by the number of 2ns that fail to do it. i get this topic is rough for the neg, but it's not that rough - we can cut a real disad, a case turn, or a deficit every once in a while (or even, god forbid, go for the K). IP bad is not astounding by any means, but with smart debating and good cards it beats 80% of what qualifies as a neg generic on this topic (*cough*sui generis*cough*).

2. i am increasingly astounded by how good i am for the "soft left" aff. this may be related to the above, but most disads and net benefits have laughable internal links and in no coherent world are a higher risk than the aff. this is not carte blanche to say "menand 5" at the impact and move on, but it is to say that if you are reading a 1ac that is built to capitalize on defending an impact that is "smaller", but starts at 100% risk, you should take me extremely high and expect speaker points bordering on irresponsible if you can execute. i am in no way bad for extinction in these debates, but "util=trutil" is increasingly less an argument and more a dogma judges and debaters cling to, and quality evidence and smart cx beats nonsense 2nr ramblings about 1% risk + 10 cards citing Bostrom/MacAskill and the CSER that border on sociopathic. this could also be me just getting bored of abstractions like "try or die" vs "timeframe controls the direction of turns case" as a substitute for real impact calculus, though, so reading an aff with a real advantage and making smart answers to the disad likely helps you here as well.

3. clash debates suck and framework teams are getting worse. this is not to say i am worse for framework - i am as good, if not better for it, than ever - but it is to say that the 2ns who seem most committed to the idea framework is an engaging and responsive negative strategy are making the best possible case for why it isn't one. most 2ncs and 2nrs are scripted essays with zero allusion to the aff or it's evolution through the debate, and your blocks are brain-meltingly boring. if you gave the same 2nr impact overview on a disad regardless of what aff scenarios you were weighing it against it would be lazy and unstrategic debating (maybe a bad example, since 2ns do this one a lot now too), yet i have heard the same "clash turns the case" speech a billion times without explanation of the contours of said "clash" or what parts of "the case" it turns, which has led to an increasing aff win-rate. look, i'm maybe in the minority of "k people" at this point who actually agrees fairness is an impact and framework substantively answers these affs - but you gotta, you know, answer the aff with it. come on, gamers.

4. k teams are getting annoying again and 2as need to stand on business more. the first time i saw antonio 95 in a neg doc this year i almost had a stroke. 90% of 2ns who go for "microaggressions" as a framework angle couldn't define the term if pushed. i can't really blame neg teams though - the reason these strategies win is because 2as are failing to call stupid stupid and instead pretending calling tabroom over the imaginary microaggression that is "reading a plan" is a substitute for answering the K and forcing the neg to win a real link argument. if the 2nr is 5 minutes of ontology and fiat bad, the 2ar can and should punish them by straight turning this for 5 minutes straight. framework alone is not a neg win condition, it just sets one - 2as need to have the guts to win under it anyways or double down on setting their own so we can get out of this mess (because that's how the meta finally shifted away from this last time we were here). in general, 2ar brute-force against the K needs to make a comeback.

5. debaters should try to be jerks less. i'm not a decorum fiend by any means, and this isn't to say you can't have swagger or enjoy throwing down, but the level of outright posturing has far outpaced any justification for it from debaters. i was *also* annoyingly self-righteous earlier in my coaching and debating career and probably felt every debate was a chance to prove something or settle some imagined beef, so i really get it, but we all grow up eventually, and i cannot help but cringe at this sort of thing in retrospect. i promise you being level-headed and direct while simply debating better is far bigger aura than whatever is happening in most CXes these days. debate is a community of profound differences, but everyone i've ever met in debate tends to agree on a few things: none of us had to show up or do this on a random weekend, this whole thing kinda sucks when you take it too seriously, but we ultimately do it anyways for a shared love of the game. there are far too few rounds in a debater's (or even judge's) career to waste it on being annoying about nothing.

All chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com

and, please also add (based on event):

HSPD: dulles.policy.db8@gmail.com

HSLD: loyoladebate47@gmail.com

CPD: uhoustondebate@gmail.com

please have the email sent before start time. late starts are annoying. annoying hurts speaker points.

Dulles High School (HSPD), Loyola High School (HSLD), University of Houston (CPD) - if you are currently committed to debating at the University of Houston in the future, please conflict me. If you're interested in debating at UH, reach out.

please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are all fine.

he/him/his - do not misgender people. not negotiable.

"takes his job seriously, but not himself."

safety of debaters is my utmost concern at all times. racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. not tolerated - i am willing to act on this more than most judges. don't test me.

debated 2014-22 (HSPD Oceans - NDT/CEDA Personhood), and won little but learned lots. high school was politics disads and advantage counterplans with niche plans. college was planless affs and the K, topicality, or straight turning an advantage. i'm a 2N from D3 - this is the most important determinant of debate views in this paradigm.

overall, flexibility is king. on average, i'm happiest in debates where the aff says "plan, it's good", the negative says "disad" or "kritik", and lots of cards are read, but high-quality, well-warranted arguments + judge instruction >>> any specific positions - Kant, planless affs, process counterplans, and topicality can be vertically dense, cool debates. they can also be total slop. every judge thinks arguments are good or bad, which makes them easier or harder to vote on, usually unconsciously. i'm trying to make it clear what i think good and bad arguments are and how to debate around that. i'm a full time coach and i judge tons of debates (by the end of the 24-25 season, i will have judged 900 rounds since graduating in 2019), but my topic/argument knowledge won't save bad debating. i flow carefully and value "tech" over "truth", but dropped arguments are only as good as the dropped argument itself - i don't start flowing until i hear a warrant, and i find i have a higher threshold for warrants and implications than most. i take offense/defense very seriously - debating comparatively is much better than abstractions.

quoth Bankey: "Please don’t be boring. Your pre-written blocks are boring." increasingly annoyed at the amount of rebuttal speeches that are entirely read off a doc. a speech off your flow that is obviously based on the round that just happened with breaks in fluency/efficiency will get higher speaks than a speech that is technically perfect but barely contextual to the debate i'm judging.

Wheaton's law is axiomatic - be kind, have fun. i do my best to give detailed decisions and feedback - debaters deserve no less than the best. coaches and debaters are welcome to ask questions, and i know passions run high, but i struggle to understand being angry for it's own sake - just strike me if you don't like how i judge, save us the shouting match.

"act like you've been here."

details

- evidence: Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” Richard Garner: "I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting"

- organization: good (obviously). extend parts your argument as responses to theirs. follow the order of the previous speech when you can. hard number arguments ("1NC 2", not "second/next"). sub-pointing good, but when overdone speeches feel disjointed, substitutes being techy for sounding techy. debating in paragraphs >>> bullet points.

- new arguments: getting out of hand. "R" in 1AR doesn't stand for constructive. at minimum, new args must be explicitly justified by new block pivots - otherwise, very good for 2NRs saying "strike it".

- inserting cards: fine if fully explained indict of card they read – new arguments or different parts of the article should be read aloud. will strike excessive insertions if told if most are nothing.

- case debates: miss them. advantages are terrible, easily link turned, and most aff's don't solve. solvency can be zero with smart CX, close reading of 1ac ev, and analytics. executing this well gets high speaker points.

- functional competition: good, makes sense. textual competition: silly, seems counterproductive. positional competition: upsetting. competing off of immediacy/certainty: skeptical, never assumed by literature, weird interpretation of fiat and mandates. plank to ban plan: does not make other non-competitive things competitive. intrinsicness: fine, but intrinsic perms often not actually intrinsic. voting record on all these: very even, teams fail to make the best arguments.

- process counterplans: interesting when topic and aff specific, annoying when recycled slop. insane ideas that collapse government (uncooperative fedism), misunderstand basic legal processes (US Code), and don't solve net benefit (most) can be zero with good CX. competition + intuitive deficits > arbitrary theory interps.

- state of advantage counterplan texts is bad. should matter more. evidence quality paramount. CX can make these zero.

- judge kick: only if explicitly told in a speech. however, splitting 2NR unstrategic – winning a whole counterplan > half a counterplan and half a case defense. better than most for sticking the neg with a counterplan, but needs airtime before 2AR.

- "do both shields" and "links to net benefit" insanely good, underrated, require a comeback in the meta. but, most permutations are 2AC nothingburgers, making debates late breaking - less i understand before the block = less spin 1AR gets + more lenient to 2NR. solve this with fewer, better permutations - "do both, shields link" = tagline, not argument.

- uniqueness controls link/vice versa: contextual to any given debate. extremist opinions ("no offense without uniqueness"/"don't need uniqueness") both seem silly.

- impact turns: usually have totalizing uniqueness and questionable solvency. teams should invest here on top of impact debate proper.

- turns case/case turns: higher threshold than most. ideally carded, minimally thoroughly explained for specific internal links.

- impact framing: most is bad, more conceptual than concrete. "timeframe outweighs magnitude" sometimes it doesn't. why does it in this debate? "intervening actors check" who? how? comparing scenarios >>> abstractions. worse for "try or die" than most - idk why 100% impact x 2% solvency outweighs 80% link x 50% impact. specificity = everything. talk about probability more. risk matters a lot.

- the K: technical teams that read detailed evidence should take me high. performance teams can also take me - i coach this frequently with some success, and i'm better for you than i seem (most teams are terrible at recognizing/answering arguments within performances). good: link to some 1AC premise/mechanism with an impact that outweighs the net benefit to a permutation, external impact that turns/outweighs case, a competitive and solvent alternative. bad: antonio 95, "fiat illusory", etc. devil's in the details - examples, references to aff evidence, etc. delete your 2NC overview, do 8 minutes of line-by-line - you will win more.

- aff vs K: talk about the 1ac more, dump cards about the K less - debate on your turf, not theirs. if aff isn't built to link turn, don't bother. "extinction outweighs" should not be the only impact calculus (see above: impact framing). perm double bind usually ends up being dumb. real permutation and deficit > asserting the possibility of one - "it could theoretically shield the link or not solve" loses to "it does neither" + warrant.

- framework arguments: "X parts of the 1AC are best basis for rejoinder/competition because Y which means Z" = good, actually establishes a framework. “weigh the aff”/“reps first” = non-arguments, what does this mean. will not adopt a “middle ground” interp if nobody advances one – usually both incoherent and unstrategic. anything other than plan focus prob gives the negative more than you want (e.g: unsure why PIKs are bad if the negative gets “reps bad” + "plan bad"). consequently, fine with “delete plan”, but neg can win with a framework push that gives links and alt without doing so.

- clash debates: vote for topicality against planless affirmatives more often than not because in a bad debate it’s easier for the negative to win. controlling for quality, I vote for the best K and framework teams equally often - no strong ideological bent. fairness or a specific, carded skills impact >>> “clash”. impact turns and counterinterps equally winnable, both require explanation of solvency/uniqueness and framing against neg impacts + link defense. equally bad for "competition doesn't matter" and "only competition matters". language of impact calculus (“turns case/their offense”, higher risk/magnitude, uniqueness, etc) helps a lot. both sides usually subpar on how what the aff does/doesn't do implicates debates. TVA/SSD underrated as offense, overrated as defense - to win it, i need to actually know what the aff/neg link looks like, not just gesture towards it being possible.

- best rounds ever are good K v K, worst ever are bad ones. judge instruction, organization, specificity key. "turns/solves case" >>> "root cause", b/c offense >>> defense. explaining what is offense, what competes, etc (framework arguments) >>> "it's hard to evaluate pls don't" ("no plan, no perm"). aff teams benefit from "functional competition" argument vs 1NCs that spam word PICs and call it "frame subtraction". "ballot PIK" should never win against a competent aff team. Marxism should win 9/10 negative debates executed by a smart 2N. more 2NRs should press case - affs don't do anything. idk why the neg gets counterplans against planless affs - 2ACs should say this.

- critical affs with plans/"soft left" should be more common. teams that take me here do hilariously well if they answer neg arguments (the disad doesn't vanish bc "conjunctive fallacy").

- topicality: for me, more predictable/precise > “debatable” - literature determines everything, unpredictable interpretations = bad. however, risk is contextual - little more precise, super underlimiting prob not winner. hyperbole is the enemy - "even with functional limits, we lose x and they get y" >>> "there are 4 gorillion affirmatives". reasonability: about the counterinterpretation, good for offense about substance crowd-out and silly interps, bad for "good is good enough". plan in a vacuum: good check against extra/fx-topicality, less good elsewhere. extra-topicality: something i care less about than most. extremely bad for arguments about grammar/semantics.

- aff on theory: “riders” to the plan, plan being "horse-traded" - not how fiat works. counterplans that fiat actors different from the plan (including states) - a misunderstanding of negation theory/neg fiat. will probably never drop more than the argument. neg on theory: literally everywhere else. arbitrariness objection strong. i don't think new affs justify neg terrorism - seems silly, 2ns should pre-emptively case neg things - but i do think being neg justifies it. i consider conditionality a divine right and will defend it with religious zeal. RVIs don't get flowed. these are the strongest opinions in this paradigm. i am an unapologetic hack on these matters.LD theory shenanigans: non-starter.

- disclosure: good, but arbitrary standards bad. care little about anything that isn't active misclosure. new unbroken affs: good. "disclose 1NC": lol.

- LD “tricks”: disastrously bad for them. most just feel like defense with extra steps. nobody has gotten me to understand truth testing, much less like it.

- LD phil: actually pretty solid for it. well-carded, consistent positions + clear judge instruction for impact calculus = high win-rate. spamming calc indicts + a korsgaard card or two = less so. i appreciate straight turn debates. modesty is winnable, but usually a cop-out + incoherent.

- if the above is insufficiently detailed, see: Richard Garner, James Allan, J.D. Sanford (former coaches), Brett Cryan (former 2A), Holden Bukowsky, Bryce Sheffield (former teammates), Aiden Kim, Sean Wallace, (former students) and Ali Abdulla (best debate bud). my ordinal 1 for most of college was DML.

procedural notes

- flowing: i do it on my laptop. i have pretty bad hearing damage in my left ear (tinnitus), and i don’t flow off the doc. i will occasionally open docs during CX or prep time if a particular card becomes important, but this is not something you should bank on to save you being incomprehensible. i consider myself really good at flowing, but clarity matters a lot – 2x "clear", then I stop typing, put my hands up, and stare at you uncomfortably until you catch on. debaters go through tags and analytics too quickly – give me pen time, or i will take pen time. you can ask to see my flow after the debate.

- terrible poker face. treat facial and bodily expressions as real-time feedback.

- i have autism. i close my eyes or put my head down during a speech if i feel overstimulated. promise i'm still flowing. i make very little eye contact. don't take it personally.

- card doc fine and good, but only cards extended in final rebuttals – including extraneous evidence is harshly penalized with speaks. big evidence enjoyer - good cards get good speaks, but only when i'm told to read them and how.

- CX: binding and mandatory. it can get you very high or very low speaks. i flow important things. "lying by omission" is smart CX, but direct dishonesty means intervention (i.e: 1NC reads elections, "was elections read?", "no" = i am pausing CX and asking if i should scratch the flow).

- personality is good, but self-righteousness isn't really a personality trait. it's a game - have fun. aggressive posturing is most often obnoxious, dissuasive, and betrays a lack of appreciation for your opponents. this isn't to say you can't talk mess (please do, if warranted - its funny, and i care little for "decorum"), but it's inversely related to the skill gap - trolling an opponent in finals is different from bullying a post-nov in presets.

- prep time ends when the doc is sent. prep stolen while "sending it now" is getting ridiculous. if you are struggling to compile and send a doc, do Verbatim drills. i am increasingly willing to enforce this by imposing prep time penalties for excessive dead time/typing while "sending the extra cards" and such.

- there is no flow clarification time – “what cards did you read?” is a CX question. “can you send a doc with the marked cards marked” is fine, “can you take out all the cards you didn’t read” means you weren't flowing, so it'll cost you CX or prep. not flowing negatively correlates with speaks. be reasonable - putting 80 case cards in the doc and reading 5, skipping around randomly, is bad form, but objecting to the general principle is telling on yourself.flow.

- related to above, if you answer a position in the doc that was skipped, you are getting a 27.5. seriously. the state of flowing is an atrocity. you should know better. flow.

- speaks: decided by me, based on quality of arguments and execution + how fun you are to judge, relative to given tournament pool. 28.5 = 3-3, 29+ = clearing + bidding, 29.5+ = top 5-10 speakers + late elims, 30 = perfect speeches, no notes. no low-point wins, generally - every bad move by a winning team correlates to a missed opportunity by the loser.

- not adjudicating the character of minors I don’t know regarding things I didn’t see.

- 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.

- ethics challenges: only issues that make continuing in good faith impossible are worth stopping a debate. the threshold is criminal negligence or malicious intent. evidence ethics requires an impact - omitting paragraphs mid-card that conclude neg changes the argument; leaving out an irrelevant last sentence doesn't. open to alternative solutions - i'd rather strike an incorrectly cited card than not debate. ask me if i would consider ending the round appropriate for a given issue, and i will answer honestly. clipping requires a recording to evaluate, and is an instant loss (no other way to resolve it) if it is persistent enough to alter functional speech time (criminal negligence/malicious intent, requires an impact). inexperience grants some (but minimal) leniency. ending a debate means it will not restart, all evidence will be immediately provided to me, and everyone shuts up - further attempt to sway my adjudication by debaters or coaches = instant loss. loser get an L0 and winners get a W28.5/28.4. all this is out the window if tabroom says something else.

- edebate: it still sucks. i keep my camera on as much as possible. if wifi is spotty, i will turn it off during speeches to maximize bandwidth, but always turn it back on to confirm i'm there before speeches. assume i am not present unless you see my face or hear my voice. if you start and i'm not there, you don't get to restart. low-quality microphones and audio compression means speak slower and clearer than normal.

closing thoughts

i have been told my affect presents as pretty flat or slightly negative while judging - trying to work on this - but i truly love debate, and i'm happy to be here. while i am cynical about certain aspects of the community/activity, it is still the best thing i have ever done. debate has brought me wonderful opportunities, beautiful friendships, and made me a better person. i am very lucky it found me, and i hope it can be the same for you.

take care of yourself. debaters increasingly present as exhausted and malnourished. three square meals and sleep is both more useful and better for you than overexerting yourself. people underestimate how much even mild dehydration impacts you. it's a game - not worth your well-being.

good luck! have fun!

- pat

Tim Freehan New Trier High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 14, 2024 at 9:59 AM CDT

Yes, email chain. debateoprf@gmail.com

ME:

Debater--The University of Michigan '91-'95

Head Coach--Oak Park and River Forest HS '15-'20

Assistant Coach--New Trier Township High School '20-

POLICY DEBATE:

Top Level

--Old School Policy.

--Like the K on the neg. But I also vote neg on framework a lot.

--Quality of evidence matters. Massive disparities warrant intervention on my part. You can insert rehighlightings. There should not be a time punishment for the team NOT reading weak evidence.

--Not great for theory debates.

--I value research and strategic thinking (both in round and prep) as paramount when evaluating procedural impacts. It defintely informs how I vote.

--Utter disdain for trolly theory args, death good, wipeout and spark. Respect the game, win classy.

Advantage vs Disadvantage

I gravitate towards the team that wins probability. The more coherent and plausible the internal link chain is, the better.

Zero risk is a thing.

I can and will vote against an argument if cards are poor exclusive of counter evidence being read.

Not a big fan of Pre-Fiat DA's: Spending, Must Pass Legislation, Riders, etc. I will err aff on theory unless the neg has some really good evidence as to why not.

I love nuanced defense and case turns. Conversely, I love link and impact turns. Please run lots of them.

Counterplans

Short answer to every question is "Having a solvency advocate solves all neg problems."

Conditionality—

I am largely okay with a fair amount of condo. i.e. 4-5 not a big deal for me. You are taking a big risk if condo is your 2AR. I have voted Aff, but rarely.

Competition—

1. I have grown weary of vague plan writing. I tend think that the Neg need only win that the CP is functionally competitive. The Plan is about advocacy and cannot be a moving target.

2. Perm do the CP? Intrinsic Perms? I am flexible to neg if they have a solvency advocate or the Aff is new. Otherwise, I lean Aff.

(2025 ADDENDUM: I feel like this needs to be clearer because it has become an issue. I like Process CP’s when they are relevant to the topic. I give the Aff leeway re: limited intrinsic perms when they are run against a process CP that has zero topic relevance. This is because I value topic research and will reward the team that accesses an impact that incentivizes research and argument innovation and discourages file recycling. You have been warned.)

Other Stuff—

PIC’s and Agent CP’s are part of our game. I err neg on theory. Ditto 50 State Fiat.

No object fiat, please. Or international fiat on a domestic topic.

Otherwise, international fiat is a gray area for me. The neg needs a good Interp that excludes abusive versions. Its winnable.

Solvency advocates and new affs make me lean neg on theory. If you don't have one, it is acceptable in cases where CP's just ban something detrimental to impact. That just shows good strategic thinking.

I will judge kick automatically unless given a decent reason why not in the 1AR.

K-Affs

If you lean on K Affs, just do yourself a favor and put me low or strike me. I am not unsympathetic to your argument per se, I just vote on framework 60-70% of the time and it rarely has anything to do with your aff.

That said, if you can effectively impact turn framework, beat back a TVA and switch side debate, you can get my ballot.

Topic relevance is important.

If your goal is to make blanket statements about why certain people are good or bad or should be excluded from valuable discussions then I am not your judge. We are all flawed.

I do not like “debate is bad” arguments. I don't think that being a "small school" is a reason why I should vote for you.

Kritiks vs Policy Affs

Truth be told, I vote neg on kritiks vs policy affs A LOT.

I am prone to voting Aff on Perms, so be advised college debaters. I have no take on "philosophical competition" but it does seem like a thing.

I am not up on the Lit AT ALL, so the polysyllabic word stews you so love to concoct are going to make my ears bleed.

I like reading cards after the debate and find myself understanding nuance better when I can. If you don’t then you leave me with only the bad handwriting on my flow to decipher what you said an hour later and that’s not good for anybody.

When I usually vote neg its because the Aff has not done a sufficient job in engaging with core elements of the K, such as ontology, root cause claims, etc..

I am not a great evaluator of framework debates and will usually err for the team that accesses education/research impacts the best.

Topicality

The requirement for offense on the part of the affirmative is something on which I place little value. Put another way, the aff need only prove that they are within the predictable confines of research and present a plan that offers enough ground on which to run generic arguments. The negative must prove that the affirmative skews research burdens to a point in which the topic goes beyond 20-30 possible cases and/or renders the heart of the topic moot.

Plan Text in a Vacuum is a silly defense. In very few instances have I found it defensible. If you choose to defend it, you had better be ready to defend the solvency implications.

Limits and Fairness are not in and of themselves an impact. Take it to the next level.

Why I vote Aff a lot:

--Bad/Incoherent link mechanics on DA’s

--Perm do the CP

--CP Solvency Deficits

--Framework/Scholarship is defensible

--T can be won defensively

Why I vote Neg a lot:

--Condo Bad is silly

--Weakness of aff internal links/solvency

--Offense that turns the case

--Sufficiency Framing

--You actually had a strategy

PUBLIC FORUM SUPPLEMENT:

I judge about 1 PF Round for every 50 Policy Rounds so bear with me here.

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at things from a cost benefit perspective. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Impacts need to be tangible.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote on what is on the flow (yes, I flow) and keep my personal opinions of arguments in check as much as possible. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

While I am not a fan of formal “Kritik” arguments in PF, I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. Racism and Sexism will not be tolerated. You can attack your opponents scholarship.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. Again, I am not a fan of the Kritik, but if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Often the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance and not style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

Christopher Fry Glenbrook North 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 12:30 PM CDT

In accordance with guidance from my employer, please upload docs to the file share on Tabroom instead of emailing them to me.

I debated at KU and Blue Valley Southwest, I am currently coaching at Glenbrook North

FW

I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense. The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Counter interpretations can be useful, but the goal of establishing a new model sometimes exacerbates core neg offense (limits).

I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.

I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation.

CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.

I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.

If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.

Ariel Gabay Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 9:58 AM CDT

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.

Daniel Gallagher Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2 rounds

Eugenia Giampetruzzi Univ Of Chicago Lab School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 7:25 AM EDT

Email chain: eugiampe@gmail.com

I debated at Emory University from 2019 to 2023 and now coach occasionally for Carrollton and Emory.

I have a profound appreciation for the dedication that goes into preparing for policy debate tournaments, and I judge debates accordingly. I try to default to the technical debating and evidence presented in the round. With that said, all judges have predispositions that can influence decisions and speaker points. These are mine:

1. Debate is competitive, voluntary, and low stakes. I’m bad for strategies that center around personal attacks or community disputes. You will not convince me that debate is bad, and I am terrible for teams that act like they don’t care about the activity.

2. I’m fine for Ks on the NEG if you can out-tech the policy team. If it functions as a CP, I am AFF-leaning on the perm. On framework, you need substantial defense to clash and fairness.

3. Each debate should center around the desirability of a proposed policy. I’m bad for plan-less AFFs and AFFs with non-extinction impacts.

4. Impact calculus and defense are critical. Don’t go for internal link defense (i.e. alt causes, impact inevitable) without mitigating or solving the impact. Timeframe matters most if the magnitude of two impacts is close to equal.

5. I enjoy T, politics, and competition debates. If you need to go for any, don’t hesitate. As for theory, only conditionality is a reason to reject the team and most (if not all) other theory arguments are arbitrary and self-serving.

6. You can’t insert rehighlightings or cross apply perms.

7. Cross ex factors heavily into my speaker points. I don’t care if you’re a little mean as long as you’re right and ideally funny. I would rather you honestly admit you don’t know the answer to a question than that you stall or dodge it.

8. Be professional. It’s important that you take the round seriously and that the debate move as efficiently as possible (i.e., send speeches out swiftly, avoid unnecessary breaks).

9. Every speech in a policy debate aside from the 2NR and 2AR should be primarily cards.

10. I strongly believe that treating ethics challenges like case negs is worse for the integrity of the activity than the ethics issues in question. You should email your opponents if you have an ethical objection to their evidence or strategy pre-round. If you dedicate your pre-round or pre-tournament prep to crafting such a challenge and the decision is up to me, you will lose.

Colton Gilbert Little Rock Central 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 5, 2024 at 7:07 AM CDT

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains at cgdebate1906@gmail.com. If it’s a policy round then ALSO includelrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,If it’s an LD round then ALSO include lrc.lddocs@gmail.com please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Judge Commitments

I’m SO sick and tired of circuit-level teams/competitors providing NON-circuit/lay judges to cover their commitment. Debaters spend a LOT of time crafting/drafting arguments and deserve to come to tournaments and have judges who will work equally as hard, when it comes to evaluating debates. If I am judging you and your school did/does NOT provide quality judging then expect me to be more arbitrary in judging debates than I would normally; if you are unwilling to provide others with a quality judge experience then I have no qualms giving bad, arbitrary, or other non-flow based decisions. IF you want me to provide you with a quality judging experience then you should populate the pool with similar-minded people. If you are unsure of what constitutes non-quality judging then see the non-comprehensive list below:

- 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

We as a community understand that some people cannot hire out judges and maybe only their parent is available but the lack of training that they give to those parents/certain questionable ways that they teach them to judge are still not good. In short, if you want me to be the best version of myself then provide other judges who are willing to work equally as hard.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you win my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

Nathan Glancy Niles North High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun August 4, 2024 at 5:21 AM CDT

Last Updated: January, 2025. Please put me on the chain: nathanglancy124@gmail.com

***Background***

Debated at:

Niles West High School (2014-2018)

Trinity University (2018-2020)

Michigan State University (2020-2023)

Coached for:

Winston Churchill (2018-19)

Niles West High School (2020-2023)

Niles North HS (2023-2024)

University of Wyoming (2023-2024)

Glenbrook South (2024-now)

I debated for 9 years, all the way from Oceans to Personhood. I've been a 2n for longer than I've been a 2a, but at heart I am a 2a. I currently coach at Niles North High School in northwest Chicagoland and do remote coaching for the University of Wyoming. I went for policy-style arguments throughout my debate career and relied on debate to help realize/finance my college education. Debate's done a lot for me and I'd like to think I'm doing what I can for debate. If you already know me, say hi!! If you don't know me yet, don't mind the fact that I have a grumpy resting face! I'm not shy and would love to show you pictures of my dog.

***TL;DR***

I really want to ensure you all have a satisfying judging experience. I think this means it is my role as a judge to try my best to render a decision based on the arguments made in the debate. I care about debate's existence and success. I hope that is reflected in my feedback and my efforts as a judge.

High school debaters will do well in front of me if they keep the round organized and moving, show their motivation to improve/learn/win, and maintain a positive approach to the round despite the competitive nature of debate. They'll do even better if this is coupled with good, SPECIFIC arguments :)

College Debaters should consider me capable of judging whatever you need me to. I don't have any large predispositions and therefore I would consider myself quite impressionable if faced with good judge instruction and application of arguments at the end of the debate.

I have comparatively lower amounts of topic knowledge - fair word of warning for acronyms

*Non-argument Things*

CLIPPING: I am soooooo done with people getting away with murder clipping everywhere. In that light, I will now start dropping non-novice teams that meet my minimum standard for clipping. Triggering any one of these conditions will result in an immediate loss after the speech, with minimum speaks to the individual who does it...

1. Speaker skips a paragraph of a card in a speech

2. Speaker skips a sentence that is 10 or more words in a speech

3. Speakers skips 3-5 words 5 times within a speech

4. Speaker systematically skips 1-2 words throughout a speech

Speaks: I will reward speaks mostly on the following criteria...

1. How did you impact your team's ability to win?

2. How did you impact my judging? Did something impress me?

3. Mastery of Material - "knowing what's going on" at the highest level

4. Mastery of Tech/Organization - did you cause/fix any unnecessary/avoidable decision time hurdles?

Clarity: I'm starting to care way way more about the clarity of argument communicated earlier for how I assess risk later in the debate. I really feel like rewarding good packaging of arguments, labeling, and organization that guides the judge through what you're saying AND why that matters. I will try and highly prioritize this analysis over reading every card and seeing who did the better research project. However, instructing me to read a portion of a card obviously constitutes a form of argument that I will take into account.

Conduct: The more we have good vibes in the round, the better the experience will be for everyone. Feel free to have competitive spirit, but don't let that turn you into an unlikeable person!! That's not a winning recipe. Also I am a fan of corny humor, often to a fault. I have given one 30 in my lifetime, and it was to someone who's joke made me uncontrollably laugh during the 2ar (they lost). Don't reach for a bad joke though that's never funny.

Online Debate: Before EVERY speech and EVERY CX, please confirm that everyone is here AND that the sound is clear! Feel free to do camera on or off, I understand everyone has their reasons. Please be understanding of the different complications of online debate and let's do everything we can to keep online accessible and effective. Oh and I HATE prep stealing and doing it while online doesn't excuse it.

Inserting Evidence: If you plan to "insert evidence re-highlighting" it should only come after a clear, comprehensive analytical argument. Re-highlighting can be referred to, but not inserted. If you want to say "their ev goes neg" then you're gonna read the re-highlighting.

***Argument Things***

Case:

I should understand a consistent explanation of the 1ac and its advantages throughout the debate. Changing this narrative or being dodgy/vague is easily subject to punishment by a good neg team. AFF teams should punish teams that are light on case using clear 2ac articulations of dropped arguments instead of being equally as vague. 2NRs on case should focus on identifying what AFF impacts your case defense is responding to.

I am starting to get really tired of bad highlighting here and teams that point this out can mitigate offense here.

DAs:

They're cool, but oh my gosh do teams double, triple, quadruple turn themselves with these so often! I don't care about spamming DAs, but I wish more AFF teams would exploit contradictions in "neg flex". Neg teams can best win their DAs by getting impact framing out early and being clear about 1ar concessions to establish a high risk of your offense.

I am starting to get really tired of bad highlighting here and teams that point this out can mitigate offense here.

I think explaining your vision of the topic is one of the most underrated and underutilized ways to win a T debate. Please just explain to me why in your squad room you decided that T made sense? What's the "core thing" that the AFF did that is the controversy being debated?

Things that help a lot: TVA, case-list of good AFFs under your interpretation, case-list of bad AFFs under their interpretation, definition comparison, explanation of neg ground under your interpretation AND the other teams'.

Theory:

I HATE bad theory arguments and don't want to vote on them, but I hate teams that don't flow slightly more so I will vote on that stuff (and if I miss one line ASPEC that's on you, debate's a communication activity!). Bad theory debating is a one way ticket to low speaks, but good theory debating can drastically alter how rounds go down.

I'm pretty good for theory all things considered. I went for states CP theory a lot on the education topic and am a 2a at heart, but as someone who was a 2n I understand the deep, deep love we share for condo. I feel like the best theory debaters are FLOWABLE while doing their theory debating, SPECIFIC in their impact articulation beyond just talking about clashing and doing some fair education, and INSTRUCTIVE to the judge on questions of impact comparison and justifying new arguments.

CPs:

CPs are defense and should be explained in the context of what it is defending against (the 1ac's mandate, evidence, and how the advantages are explained). This is how I often think about deficits and how a CP implicates my ballot. Re-cutting the 1ac/AFF evidence is usually the gold standard for proving a CP sufficiently solves. I feel like fore-fronting how you explain a CP early and not deviating from that is the best way to ensure you don't bring in new explanations so I don't let the AFF get new answers. I lowkey hate process CPs but sometimes it must be done.

Ks:

I'm better for the K than you think, but likely need more judge instruction about how to apply X argument. Better for evidence-heavy OR depth-focused debate. Any amount of generic evidence is best addressed through specific analysis.

"Exceeds expectations"/I've gone for: Cap, Security, Biopolitics/Agamben

"Meeting expectations"/I feel fine judging: Set Col, Anti-blackness (Nihilism, Pessimism, to name a few), Orientalism/Colonialism, Imperialism, Queer pessimism, Trans pessimism, Ableism

"Needs improvement"/err towards over-explaining: Psychoanalysis, Bataille, Heideggerian stuff, Baudrillard, Deleuze

I have not judged a KvK debate yet.

Framework:

I almost exclusively went for t-usfg/framework in HS and college, but that doesn't make me care about dropping a policy team. Impact articulation matters for me but far too often I find teams blending concepts such as fairness and clash in incoherent ways. I don't care about the label, but rather the underling explanation and how it is being applied in the debate. If you have any other questions look at Josh Harrington's philosophy on K AFFs, that'll reflect roughly how I feel.

Nate's sliding scales about debate:

Tech/Truth----------------------------X-Facts are Facts & Dropped args are as true as the warrants conceded

Condo-------X----------------------Respect the Aff Peasant (have and will vote on it, clear args in the 1ar key)

Process CP/Normal Means Competition----------------------------X- 100 plank case-specific advantage CP

Super Big CP-----------------X------------Deep Case Debating

Simply saying "Sufficiency Framing"-----------------------------X-Explain why CP solves sufficiently

Zero Risk Framing----------X-------------------Any Risk Framing

Perm Double Bind--------------X---------------Haha Silly Policy Hacks

Deb8=Karl Rove----------------------------X-That was one dude

Salad K----------------------------X-Single K Thesis

Economic Growth----------------------------X-( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

***Miscellaneous***

Email chain is always preferable to anything else barring tech issues

I don't like cards in the body of the email... but nobody seems to care... oh well...

I am fine with open cx. All people should be.

The Prep Rule: I will increase speaks from what I would have given by .1 for every minute of prep not used - speaks can be earned by specifically telling me the balance of prep your team had remaining before their last rebuttal. Capped at .5 boosted speaks.

Massive pet peeve: if you call a CP a "see-pee" I will think about it so much that it might disrupt my flowing and you might instantly lose (I am being sarcastic).

here's a photo collage about debate that I made in high school:

Image result for T Related image Image result for impact turn Image result for criticism bad

Rosalind Goldman Notre Dame High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 1, 2024 at 4:23 AM PDT

Please add me to the chain: rosgoldman8@gmail.com

Notre Dame '23, UCLA '27

She/her

I was 2N who went for primarily policy args, but I will work to evaluate all arguments fairly and without predisposition.

Tech > truth

Ev quality is VERY important to me. Cards with 6 words highlighted out of context and/or grammatically incorrect are highly unpersuasive. The other team pointing this out will be rewarded with high speaks and most likely a win (presuming they have better cards).

Be clear!!! Slow down on analytics/tags/overviews/anything you really want me to understand and number your arguments (in every single speech). I am not the most exceptional flow in the world, so prioritizing clarity of a few good args over proliferation of lots of meh args will work in your favor.

I have no topic knowledge, so do not assume I understand your acronym or jargon and please err on the side of over-explanation of topic specific stuff, like mechanisms, norms, and processes.

I am super comfortable in these debates.

I love thorough, well-researched advantage CPs and agent CPs. I do not love process CPs with contrived internal NBs, but I understand that they are sometimes necessary. If you must, please reads cards that are actually about the process you fiat in the context of the topic and do your best to explain why the INB links to the aff. If you are aff in these debates, I am most likely to be persuaded by an intrinsic perm, but you must have a theoretical justification for it and explain how it resolves both the aff and the NB.

I lean heavily neg on theory and think most theory args vs CPs are meaningless affirmative whining. Condo is good probably up to 5 and then I maybe start to become more sympathetic to the aff, so long as they can explain the impact of IN-ROUND abuse. Even then, I will vote for whoever does the better technical debating. You need to explain your model of the topic and what impact it solves (and ideally, how it also resolves the other side's offense). Do not speed through a prewritten condo (or any) block at top speed; I won't be able to flow it. I find this is often a problem more for the 1AR, but all rebuttals from both sides need to have a clear interpretation, internal links to impacts, and answers to the other side's offense. Lastly, I'll probably default to judge kick unless the aff wins a theoretical reason I should not. It's better for the neg to start these debates early rather than say one line in the 2NR and let the 2AR quadruple your time here.

Please make a complete argument. DAs need UQ, a link, an internal link, and an impact. Every single part needs to be present in the 1NC and clearly extended throughout each speech, with evidence to support ALL of it.

The neg should make as many turns case args as possible, at each level of the DA (i.e. link turns case, IL turns case, impact turns case) and the aff needs to answer all of then or it's a pretty rough recovery.

Do impact calc and do it well

I am comfortable in K v Policy debates, but will be least qualified in K v K debates.

It will probably be best for you to assume I am unfamiliar with your args and lit base and so you should clearly explain your theory of power, why the aff/topic is bad, how you resolve impacts, etc.

I don't think a strong link wall necessarily needs a ton of cards(although it won't hurt), but does need to be very specific to the aff's cards, scenarios, and CX explanation.

I am probably pretty neg leaning in FW vs K aff debates. I often struggle to understand how the aff can resolve the material impacts explained in the 1AC without material change in or beyond the debate space. This means the aff needs to be very clear on what change to the squo they defend and how it overcomes structural problems in debate and the world. The neg team should always go for some sort of presumption argument on case. I also think a TVA is great defense on FW, but the neg needs to explain why it means the aff can engage under their model. Likewise, the aff cannot neglect the TVA portion of the debate.

Both sides must have a case list and explain why their list creates a better topic.

PTIV is a bad arg and a cop out, but the neg needs to explain why. Also, the neg should check that the word is, in fact, in the plan text, because I've seen this happen too many times.

I honestly really love a short (but competent) T extension in the block because I think it puts a disproportionate amount of time pressure on the 1AR. But, it's a fine line; please don't spend 45 seconds spewing through nonsense words without establishing proper offense or defense.

Misc

You cannot insert rehighlightings unless the words you have rehighlighted have already been read by the other team.

Time your own speeches and don't steal prep

Be nice, but not too nice: there is zero reason to yell at or attack your opponents, but assertive and sassy debaters are fun to watch.

Michael Greenstein Glenbrook North 2 rounds

David Griffith Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 3:13 PM EDT

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.

Genevieve Hackman Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 5:00 AM EDT

Director of Debate at Georgetown Day School

Current Affiliation - Northwestern (2024-)

Assistant Coach, University of Kentucky (2020-2024)

Debated at University of Kentucky (2017-2020)

Debated at Milton High School (2013-2016)

add me to the email chain: ghackman at gds dot org

TLDR

I like for debate to be fun and will generally enjoy judging in debates where it is clear you are having a good time and doing what you're passionate about. Don't be afraid to let your personality show in how you debate - being funny in the CX are often times I enjoy the debate the most. I understand the amount of time and dedication it takes to do this activity seriously, so I will work very hard to make sure that I am evaluating your debate in a way that respects the hard work that you have put into the activity, and the time and energy you are using to be present at each tournament.

The more I reflect on how I judge, the more I think it is really important for debaters to provide instruction/guidance in their speeches about how to tie all of the different pieces of the debate together. 2NRs and 2ARs that do a lot of this, backed by quality evidence read in earlier speeches, will often find themselves winning, getting good speaker points, and being more satisfied with my decision and how I understood the overarching picture in the debate. I generally believe, in the 2NR and 2AR, reading cards should be an absolute last resort.

Asking what arguments were read/not read/skipped is CX time or prep time. Unless clarity is an issue or the speaker was skipping around in the doc, generally avoid broad questions like "what arguments did you not read?" or "what cards did you skip?". I find these indicate you are not flowing and will lower your points accordingly. Specific questions like "in between x card and y argument, you said something, what was it?" or "what was the warrant for x argument you made?" are totally fine.

I am always sleepy, generally have a resting expression of frowning, often stare into the distance while typing. It's probably not about you, don't read too much into it.

Online Debate

--If my camera is off during prep time, I have probably walked away. I'll generally try to pop my camera back on when I get back to signal I have returned, and will also usually keep a headphone in to maintain awareness of when you stop prep. Just give me a sec to turn on my camera and get settled before you launch into an order or the speech.

--I have an audio processing disorder, which makes it more challenging to flow due to the variety of ways that online debate affects clarity/feedback/etc - please take this into account and put in more effort to be clear on your transitions, tags, etc. It helps me to be able to see you talking, so if you are angled to be completely hidden by your laptop, I will likely be less of a precise flow than otherwise.

--Please recall that while I cannot hear you when you are muted on zoom, I can still see you - things like talking for the entire 2AR, blatantly not flowing your opponents speeches, etc are still bad practice, even if you can technically do it.

DA/Case/CP

--my favorite debates!

--smart and effective case debating is the best thing in debate

--topic specific cps or cps clearly grounded in topic lit > competes off of should and resolved and is a version of cp read in 2004

Topicality (vs aff with a plan)

--predictable limits are good, arbitrary interpretations are bad

K (vs aff with a plan)

--links applied specifically to the plan are great, buzz words without explanation are bad

--if your model of debating is 'go for dropped framework da', I am a bad judge for your k

--unlikely to categorically reject links for being non uq, but even less likely to not evaluate consequences of the aff for any reason

--even if statements are important, don't assume you'll win a full risk of any arg because its unlikely you will. tell me how to decide the debate accordingly

Planless Affs

--I think clash is good but needs to be articulated well in order to turn/potentially outweigh the case

--limits + a defense of the topic are important

--specific strats against a planless aff is interesting, will be rewarded with speaker points, I generally think if something is in the 1AC I am likely to believe there is a link to your argument, and am very persuaded by strategies that utilize the cx to pin down specificities of the 1ac advocacy and then predicate the strategy off of that. If the aff is unwilling to speak specifically about the strategy of the advocacy, I generally tend to be more persuaded by framework.

Misc.

--extinction good or death good are nonstarters in front of me, nuclear war good is extremely unlikely to get my ballot and I will strongly dislike the debate but will not categorically refuse to evaluate it

--tend to lean towards conditionality being good, but would be persuaded otherwise in particularly egregious incidents. unlikely to vote on it if new aff

--It has come to my attention that I am what one might call a "points fairy". I will be working to adjust my points to more accurately reflect the scale I find most other judges follow.

--I like when lots of quality evidence is read, and will often read your evidence at the conclusion of the debate (and if evidence is referenced in a cx, will usually try to find what you are referencing while it's being discussed) but good evidence is not substitute for warranted extensions and applications

--be on time, clean up behind yourself, don't steal prep, be efficient in transition times like sending docs, and be prepared to start the 1ac at the start time of the debate

Kevin Hamrick Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

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

KRHAMRICK@GMAIL.COM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joyce Harduvel Kenwood Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 20, 2024 at 12:35 PM CDT

Former UC Lab debater and current Kenwood Academy coach (16-present)

jharduvel [at] cps [dot] edu

The most important things that you can do to get my ballot are:

Strategic overviews with judge instruction that explains how to resolve the key issue(s) of the debate
Comparative warrant analysis throughout
Well-impacted arguments that collapse down to the essentials by the end of the debate

I will do everything I can to resolve the debate based off of my flow rather than by following along with your speech doc or reading evidence.

I will vote on whatever arguments that you wish to make. I'm more familiar with critical literature so if you're planning for a tech-y policy debate, be ready to explain your arguments thoroughly and do some storytelling in your overview.

Slow down enough on analytics that they are clearly flowable. I flow what you say not the speech doc so you need to be intelligible. I believe that there is a threshold you need to meet for me to vote for any given argument. Blippy extensions are going to give me significant pause and even if something is conceded, I need more than "They dropped condo and it's a voting issue for fairness and education!" to vote on it.

Topicality and theory: These debates should include clash, comparative analysis, and impacts just like any other part of the debate. I don't understand how one would evaluate a plan text in a vacuum.

Kritiks: I prefer when debaters are specific on the link and alternative debates, and when they go for arguments like the K turns case or is a DA to case instead of vague impacts. I tend to err that the aff gets to weigh their impacts under most frameworks even if they also have a burden to (for example) justify their methodology to access them.

Counterplans: I am sympathetic to aff theory arguments against PICs, consult CPs, and process CPs. On the permutation debate, I tend to lean neg and assume risk of a link to the net benefit (unless I am told otherwise, of course).

K v. K: Try to keep it as organized as possible and don't skip a strategic overview that explains the interaction of arguments. Links should be specific and contextual to aff. I like these debates the most when warrants are fleshed out, nuanced, and (I'll say it again!) specific with minimal cards.

Clash debates: You don't have to be topical or defend government action but you probably need a link to the topic. Whether you are aff or neg, give me a clear role of the ballot and explanation of your model and its advantages. I evaluate tech over truth but I do believe that debate has significant disparities and that conversations that seek to confront and address that are important.

Speaker Points: I reward judge instruction, line-by-line, comparative impact calculus, clash, creative argumentation, explanation of warrants, and smart analytics. I prefer fewer cards, fewer blocks, and more debating off your flow. I will deduct speaker points for oppressive language or arguments, rudeness, being purposefully evasive or deceitful, excessive interruptions of your partner, and ethical violations. Clipping cards or refusing to provide the other team with access to your cards are serious violations, and I will deduct speaker points accordingly whether the other team points these issues out or not.

Tessa Harper Head-Royce High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 3:26 PM EDT

Hi, I'm Tessa -- I use she/they pronouns and will openly laugh if you call me "judge" at any point during the debate.

Got a few First Rounds to the NDT at Wake Forest University, alongside a generally high level of competitive success writ large. My college career was spent reading solely critical arguments, although I spent quite a lot of time as a policy debater in high school as well. Since leaving debate, I have spent time both in the cybersecurity and AI industries as well as the academy discussing trans studies, AI and critical theory.

Currently coaching for University of Iowa.

Yes I want to be on the email chain -- ask for my email if you don't have it (Don't put your emails online in searchable places like this, kids!).

***Spark Notes***

Do what you love. If you have no passion in your heart, then do what you are good at. Debate is about scholarship, rhetoric, and competition, so do one or more of those well and you will probably have my ballot. Care about one of those and you will probably get good speaks too.

I enjoy daring, ambitious, and nuanced strategies and will reward debaters who put in the work to execute them, whether it is a hyperspecific CP/DA strategy or a complex new interpretation of a critical theory.

All of my assumptions and proclivities are endlessly negotiable and if a team makes an argument I will do my best to put that before my own thoughts on the matter.

If you do wish me to toss out the flow or line by line please tell me to do so explicitly, early, and give me an alternative way to adjudicate the debate.

Judge instruction is the single most important aspect of the debate, especially the final rebuttals and how both teams frame and compare offense will massively influence how I approach my flow. Explicitly comparing and evaluating offense in the 2AR and 2NR will be the surest route to my ballot regardless of the content of the debate. Extending offense without instructing me on how to compare it to the other side will leave me in the unfortunate position of having to think too deeply about the debate, which neither of us want.

I tend to view arguments > evidence. Debate is a communicative activity, and therefore how I evaluate evidence is filtered through what I am told about it, all else being equal. For me, reading evidence after the debate occurs when it is sufficiently flagged by one or both teams as central to a key issue in the debate. Good evidence is not an excuse for a bad articulation, but can be a net benefit to a good one. That said, quoting, rehighlighting, or otherwise engaging with both your own and opponents evidence will greatly influence the weight I assign to arguments and the speaker points I award.

***Clash debates***

Okay, I know this is the only part of a paradigm anyone ever reads so...

I judge *a lot* of these debates. Almost all of my ballots end up being focused on execution and top level framing. Be on top of those two and you'll have a good shot at my ballot regardless of what you read. This applies to form, not just content. I am very happy when explicitly told why I should vote on procedural impacts over content, or vibes/truth over line by line, or prioritize methods over aesthetics, or whatever other form argument you might be implicitly making.
"Intrinsic goods" do not exist. Procedural impacts might, but I must be convinced as to why and how they interact with other concerns about how we should use this pace. Make warrants for fairness as an impact and do impact calculus about why it outweighs. Saying "it comes first because debate is a game" will rarely get my ballot if given a similarly tagline aff response. I tend to vote for impacts other than fairness far more often as it seems notably difficult for many debaters to articulate fairness beyond such an internal link or tautological defense of old school debate.
Defense is underrated in these debates. Most of my decisions in these debates are heavily influenced by small, smart defensive arguments that break ties between well-crafted pieces of offense on both sides. This is especially true for FW arguments on the aff or neg. I find that most affirmatives lose by underestimating small negative defensive arguments at the level of a FW with both policy and critical affirmatives.

***Can't believe I have to say this but...***

- Anti-blackness, other forms of racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, etc. will be responded to with anything from an autoloss to zero speaks to a 27 depending on the severity of the issue. Impact > Intentions.

- clipping is an autoloss and results in the lowest possible speaks.

- I do not believe the other team has the burden to call these things out and will stop the round if I feel it is unsafe or un-educational for anyone involved.

- Disclosure is good for debate and should generally be reciprocated absent safety concerns.

- And, an unclear/unflowable argument is a blank space on my flow -- I will not evaluate arguments I cannot hear and understand. Yes, even if you think you are hot shit.

Jack Hightower Mamaroneck High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 5:34 PM EDT

Jack Hightower

Assistant Coach at Georgetown University (2022-Present)

Coach at Bellarmine College Preparatory (2025-Present)

Coach at Mamaroneck High School (2023-2024)

Assistant Coach at Woodward Academy (2022-2023)

Woodward Academy Debater (2017-2022)

He/Him

Email Chains: jch334@georgetown.edu

Emails That Aren't Chains: jack@thehightowers.com

Last Updated 03/10/2025

IP Topic Knowledge: somewhat familiar with the topic and its mechanisms - I've produced a few files for the topic and worked at a camp. I do have some understanding of IP law, but if you want to have a super in-depth debate about IP law though, you probably should still explain things.

People that have influenced parts of my debate philosophy: Bill Batterman, Maggie Berthiaume, Ashna Ghanate, Nico Juarez, Brandon Kelley, Elizabeth Li, Ria Thakur, Ben Sayers, Gabe Lewis, Tyler Thur, Cole Weese, Kieran Lawless, Zidao Wang, Adam White, Connelly Cowan, Zachary Zinober, Kumail Zaidi, Jake Lee, Bryce Rao.

This list is meant more as a tribute than an explanation of how I judge, but use it how you want.

TLDR

Respect your opponents.

Debate what you enjoy and have fun.

Learn something from each debate.

Ask me any questions you have.

Feel free to email me after the round.

Clash > Tricks

All biases are subject to change through debate.

If I cannot flow you, it does not count as an argument.

If something does not have a warrant, it does not count as an argument.

I will read evidence that I deem important. If there are certain cards that you want me to read, you should point me towards them in your speech.

Longer Explanation

Biases

Good debating will always be able to change my mind about issues.

Any argumentative preferences I list below speak to which arguments I find more true/intuitively persuasive than others, but they are certainly not set in stone.

Clash

I reward good clash with speaker points and will most likely punish obvious attempts to evade clash with less speaker points. Making an effort to actively engage with your opponents’ arguments and doing detailed impact and evidence comparison will be a good way to increase your speaker points.

I wish people would flow better and/or at least stop making "did you read this card" and "what are the reasons to reject the team" the very first questions in CX.

Super vague plan texts make me sad.

I'm a huge sucker for really well researched arguments. If you took the time to prepare an aff-specific strategy that involved doing actual debate research, I will reward you for it.

Theory

I don't think I am a particularly amazing judge for theory debates, and I also don't really enjoy them (the same extends to competition). That is not to say that I have strong aff or neg biases on theory/won't vote for certain arguments, but it is meant as a warning about the fact that there is some risk that you will get a decision that you don't like in these types of debates.

I default to conditionality being the only reason to reject the team, but I could be convinced by a few other arguments.

Line by line > pre-scripted blocks

Topicality

Plan text in a vacuum has never made sense to me, but you are welcome to try to change my mind.

T is not a reverse voting issue.

CPs

CPs should have a solvency advocate. If the first time a solvency advocate is read is in the block, the affirmative gets new answers in the 1AR.

Unless you have a very good solvency advocate, CPs should compete off of more than definitions of words like “should.”

CPs should fiat a specific policy.

If your strategy is a more common K like capitalism, settler colonialism, or security, then I should be a good judge for you; however, as you move beyond those, there is a risk you might start to lose me some background knowledge-wise.

If you’re reliant on winning fiat bad/debate bad style arguments, I’m probably not a great judge for you.

K Affs

I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate, but I do only have experience being negative vs critical affirmatives. I have, however, done some work at Georgetown helping/coaching teams reading K affs.

If you choose not to defend the resolution, you should probably defend the entirety of your 1AC, including your authors and concepts forwarded in evidence, since there's no solid stasis point for competition otherwise. Because of that, I might have a higher threshold for the perm when a negative team has specific links for a critique to the affirmative.

Fairness might or might not be an impact depending on how you explain it.

DAs

The link is usually the most important part of disadvantage debating. Winning a high risk of a link gives you a lot of leeway with the uniqueness and impact.

If a 1NC DA is not complete (missing uniqueness, internal link, etc.), the 1AR gets new answers when those parts are added.

Turns case can be very useful, but it needs to be well-developed.

Speaker Points

I'll try my best to stick roughly to this scale:

29.5-30.0: should win the tournament or gave one of the best speeches I have heard in a long time.

29.2-29.5: top 10% of teams in the pool.

28.9-29.2: top 33% of teams in the pool.

28.6-28.9: middle 14% of the pool.

28.3-28.5: bottom 33% of teams the pool

28.0-28.3: bottom 10% of teams in the pool.

0-27.5: did something offensive.

If you ask for a 30, I'll lower your points.

Random

Prep time ends when the speech doc is saved or you stop writing on your flow.

John Hines Head-Royce High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 15, 2024 at 3:52 PM PDT

For thirty years, I've competed, judged, coached, and taught this activity at "out rounds of the TOC" level quality.

In the past decade, I've judged nearly 150 rounds for those of you who are number-oriented. 44% of those rounds were "out rounds" or Round Robin rounds. I "sat" or dissented in approximately 11% of those panel decisions.

I have not entered myself into a judge pool for over a year, but out of respect for the Greenhill tournament's request for DODs to put themselves into the judge pool, I have entered myself and updated my paradigm.

After returning to the activity after a five-year hiatus that allowed me to miss all COVID-era online debatings, I honestly have no idea how to adjudicate debates fairly and objectively based on current line-by-line in-round execution.

My understanding of technical line-by-line debate and the current practice of line-by-line appear incommensurate.

I will not read speech docs because I expect you to speak coherently.

I will FLOW the round and vote based on MY FLOW.

If you abandon MY FLOW as the decision-making metric for the debate

I will not be very amenable to an aggressive and argumentative post-round discussion about how I voted in said debate.

If you like technical debates about complex and nuanced subjects based on evidence-based comparisons, I'm you're judge.

But PLEASE

FLOW and Debate from the FLOW

Allow "pen time," look up at me, take a breath when reading theory blocks, slow down, and make eye contact during essential/round decisive moments to ensure I'm getting it down on the flow or simply ready when you move on to the next argument.

I have zero ideological investment in the content of your arguments beyond my legal and professional obligations as a teacher and mandatory reporter.

I want to provide the fairest and most objective decision possible.

Please debate off the flow.

Pre-round questions about what I've written here are encouraged.

Kevin Hirn Univ Of Chicago Lab School 4 rounds

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

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

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

Debate Coach, Westwood HS (2024-)

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

Last updated: August, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

0) Online debate

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

1) Tech v. Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) General Philosophical Disposition

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

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

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

3) Topicality and Specification

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

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

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

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

4) Risk Assessment

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

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

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

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

5) Counterplans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) Politics

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

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

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

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

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

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

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

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

10) Procedural Norms

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

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

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

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

Topicality for Fiscal Redistribution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jam Hoffmann Shawnee Mission South High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 7:48 AM CDT

they/them

please add me to chain - jamdebate@gmail.com

important stuff not directly related to my opinions about debate:

after over a year of the most public display of genocide in history i am no longer going to pretend that defending “the u.s. led liberal international order” is not morally equivalent to defending the holocaust. if you say the u.s./nato/"liberal international order" is good then strike me. i am sick of listening to that fourth reich stuff. your speaks will suffer drastically for making those arguments and i will be extremely sympathetic to criticisms of them.

climate topic update - i have done no research for it

please be honest with yourself about how fast you are going. i need pen time! i don't need you to go dramatically slower than you normally would, but please do not drone monotonously through your blocks as if they are card text or i will likely miss some arguments.

if debating online: go slower than usual, especially on theory

how i decide stuff:

i am not a judge that thinks that any argument is true until disproven in the debate. as much as some consider themselves "flow purists," i think every judge agrees with this to a degree. for example, "genocide good" or "transphobia good" etc. are obviously reprehensible arguments that are harmful to include in debate and i won't entertain. that being the case, i have kind of a hard time distinguishing those "obvious" examples from more commonly accepted ones that are, to me, just as harmful and can even be outright genocidal, like first strike counterplans, interventions good, arms sales to israel are good, increasing police funding is good, etc.

despite how the above paragraph might be interpreted, i frequently vote for arguments i don't like, including arguments i think are harmful for debate. at the end of the day, unless something i think drastically requires my intervention, i will try to judge the debate as objectively as i can based on my flow

by default i will vote for the team with the most resolved offense. a complete argument is required to generate offense, so i won't vote for an incomplete argument (e.g. "they dropped x" still needs a proper extension of x with a warrant for why it's true). judge instruction is very important for me. if there is an issue in the debate with little guidance from the debaters on how to resolve it, don't be surprised if there is some degree of intervention so i can resolve it. i will also not vote for an argument that i cannot explain

opinions on specific things:

i am willing to vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the debate, but need those arguments to be backed up with evidence/receipts. this is not because i don't/won't believe you otherwise, but because i don't want to be in the position of having to resolve a debate over something impossible for me to substantiate. i know it’s somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like the least arbitrary way for me to approach these debates without writing them off entirely, which is an approach i strongly disagree with. however, if someone i trust tells me that you are a predator or that you knowingly associate with one, i will not vote for you under any circumstances.

plan texts: if yours is written poorly or intentionally vaguely, i will likely be sympathetic to neg arguments about how to interpret what it means/does. neg teams should press this issue more often

planless affs: i enjoy judging debates where the aff does not read a plan. idc if the aff does not "fiat" something as long as it is made clear to me how to resolve the aff's offense. i am very willing to vote on presumption in these debates and i yearn for more case debating

t-usfg/fw: not my favorite debates. voting record in these debates is starting to lean more and more aff, often because the neg does a poor job of convincing me that my ballot cannot resolve the aff's offense and aff teams are getting better at generating uniqueness. i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debateis (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something else.

k thoughts: not very good for euro pomo stuff (deleuze, bataille, etc) but good for anything else. big fan of the cap k when it's done well (extremely rare), even bigger hater of the cap k when it's done poorly (almost every time). if reading args about queerness or transness, avoid racism. i don't mind link ev being somewhat generic if it's applied well. obviously the more specific the better, but don't be that worried if you don't have something crazy specific. i think "links of omission" can be persuasive sources of offense. for the aff, saying the text of a perm without explaining how it ameliorates links does not an argument make

theory: please make sure you're giving me pen time here. i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team (obvi does not apply to condo). that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just saying that statement. not weirdly ideological about condo (i will vote on it)

counterplans/competition: a perm text without an explanation of how it disproves the competitiveness of the counterplan is not a complete argument. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, tell me not to

lastly, i try to watch for clipping. if you clip, it's an auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it, but i am much more comfortable voting against a team for clipping if the issue is raised by the other team with evidence provided. if i clear you multiple times and the card text you're reading is still incomprehensible, that's clipping. ethics challenges should be avoided at all costs, but if genuine academic misconduct occurs in a debate i will approach the issue seriously and carefully

avoid saying slurs you shouldn't be saying or you'll automatically lose

Pranay Ippagunta Northview High School 3 rounds

Lauren Ivey Alpharetta HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 26, 2024 at 3:52 PM EDT

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

I am currently serving a three-year term on the topic committee.

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

I try my best to be a tabula rasa judge and simply evaluate the round in front of me with as little intervention as possible.

I do not flow off the doc, but I do spot check for clipping and as I've gotten older I am increasingly willing to just say if I can't understand what you are saying it's not getting flowed.I think I am decent at flowing so if I miss something because you were unclear it seems reasonable your opponents would miss it too.

I am increasingly frustrated by teams just dropping random buzzwords and asserting these are arguments. The word "semiotics" or "fungibility" and then moving on is not an argument. Asserting something is a "sequencing DA" and moving on without an explanation of the argument is not an argument. I am not going to vote for you unless I can explain the argument back to you, so you need to make sure claims (or words) have warrants and explanations.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth. I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of voting for people based on allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

Cat Jacob Head-Royce High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 4:42 AM EDT

Cat Jacob

Northwestern' 23

WY'19

Coaching at Head Royce 2019-Present

I work at a think tank, I'll understand your policy arguments

Put me on the chain - catherinelynnjacob01@gmail.com AND hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Topicality - I have been in a lot of T debates this year - the only thing I want here is good line by line and impacted out standards in the 2nr/2ar (e.g. and aff ground o/ws neg ground -but why?)

T-USFG - - make the 2ar responses to the 2nr on FW clear, the 1ar is make or break in FW debates for me so beware technical concessions. I don't really have a preference between prioritizing fairness vs education arguments. For the aff in these debates - dont drop SSD, TVA, or a truth testing claim on your scholarship - with minimal mitigation that's an easy neg ballot to write.

Disadvantages - - do turns case analysis and have a link story (even if its non specific), have an external impact and you're golden. Bad DAs are fine (ANWR, tradeoff etc), if they read a bad DA produce an amusing CX from it to showcase the contrived link chain, it'll up your ethos (and your speaks)

Counterplans - Have a competitive counterplan text with a net benefit. I will vote on a CP flaw/whether or not a CP is feasibly possible, I will not judgekick unless I am told to. Theoretically illegit CPs are fine and the theory debate should be done well if you really want me to reject them. Unorthodox CPs are also cool w me - anarchy for example.

Conditionality - Explain it, go for it if you want - I don't consider myself having a high threshold for judging theory, unless condo is dropped it should be at least 45 seconds of the 1ar (if extended) or else I will be less lenient in a 2ar on theory. In the 1ar, if condo is extended in 10 seconds as an afterthought (e.g. YEAH condo ummm its abusive next) that's annoying and I won't vote on that if the 2nr spends 8 seconds there and is marginally less coherent than you.

Kritiks v Policy Affs - - I have seen any K you're going to run in front of me and have a reasonable threshold for voting on K tricks. That being said - Reps are shaped by context - In round links/impacts are fine .

--------things that will annoy me in these debates

- Claiming that I should give you leeway because they read a "K trick" a. no BL for a K trick, b. unless you're going for condo with an impact of in round abuse/some other theory arg stop whining to me.

- unresponsive answers to FW that lead to an interventionist decision

- an incoherent link story/alt solvency

- not being able to explain your K in CX

-not Cross applying FW if they read more than one K and instead spending twenty seconds reading the same FW again

-Claiming the role of the aff in debates is to "stfu" - I don't like voting for this model of debate because it is one sided and in debate as a competitive activity engagement is critical - but I can't make that argument for you.

That being said - go read Khirn's reasoning for why he votes for Kritiks most of the time, and what his RFDs look like. I agree with him.

Ks I have written files on/answering/into the lit for - spanos, psycho, cap, communist horizon, security, fem, mao, death cult, berlant, scranton, queerness, set col, *the thing you'll really need to do in high theory debates is be responsive to 2ac answers and break your prewritten block dependency, show me you know what you're doing and I won't use my background knowledge to help you.

Kritiks v K affs - Usually interesting. the RFD will most like be they did/didnt win the perm (that's usually how it goes).

Death Good - I'll vote on it but I'll have a high threshold.

Ethics Violations - Dont clip. Ethics Violations as pertaining to evidence quality/evidence flaws are not usually a voter (these types of debates will also annoy me)- it is not your role to persuade me that it was particularly abusive - if you introduce one of these into the round a. it is make or break - if i determine you're wrong, you lose and that is a decision I will make myself without consideration from either team by reading the ev, b. these are usually accidents and stupid to waste time doing, c. the appropriate thing is to tell the team to correct it and not weaponize it for a strategy - that's a bad model of debate for several reasons and doing so makes you a living representation of a moral hazard.

Impact Turns - They're funny and usually have questionable evidence quality, I think that good impact turn debates are underused and very threatening to a stupid team that reads both an ineq and hard impact adv.

Misc -

- don't shake my hand, don't try it's weird and i don't like it

- I'll vote on a floating PIK

- There's a brightline between being argumentative and being rude, everyone loses that line sometimes but it's important to be attentive and paying attention to the responses of your opponents.

- Ill be on the email chain but I usually won't be flowing off of it

- You get two clears - then I stop flowing

- Time your own prep

- do untopical policy things against K teams it is their fault they can't go for T

-counter-fiction/poetry is acceptable

Feel free to message me w questions about my RFDs/comments - take notes during the RFD

Taylor Johnson Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 8:28 AM EDT

General things:

Please add me to the email chain.

dukesdebate@gmail.com

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

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

My decision-making process/how I approach debates:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stylistic things

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Violations:

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

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

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

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

Speaker Points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case debate

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

T/Framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please give me pen time.

Counterplans

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

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

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

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

Disads

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz Alpharetta HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 9:14 AM EDT

Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz, UGA '27. HS - Chattahoochee. TOC 2x, NDT once before cutting sophomore year debating short. I now coach at Alpharetta for Policy and Ivy Bridge Academy for Public Forum

Email - esh5.atl.debate@gmail.com

Debate is a game. It also is an environment, a social space, a research activity. Debate is a lot of things and how you choose to relate to that game and the implications that come with it is up to you to decide.

That said - in that social space, there are imminent political risks associated with being alive for many of us. If you are afraid of being outed, if there is an issue that you are facing, if you do not want to interact with an abuser or someone who will seriously put you at risk, feel free to come to me and we will work out the best possible solution.

However, because debate is a game, I am willing to evaluate a wide range of arguments. Death good, impact turns, religious arguments, conspiracy theories, etc. are fine strategies as long as they do not result in racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc., which will result in a loss and serious email to coaches. The opponent team has the burden to call these arguments out for it to impact my decision.

Tech and truth are buzzwords so devolved from meaning anymore. I will evaluate the debate through the flow, the persuasive ability of teams, etc.

No one actually cares about people’s takes on policy arguments anymore. Whoever is reading this doesn’t either. Here’s all relevant thoughts: people’s cards nowadays are terrible and warrantless. If this is you, either fix them or hope really really hard no one looks at me and hits a thumbs down. I’m not the best informed on counterplan competition, though I do get like 70% of it. I’ve seen KAFFs more topical than some of these policy affs lately.

Kritiks - Kaff counter interps are silly 99% of the time. I’d rather you just say framework is bad. K links should be contextualized to the aff in the block even if the 1NC card is generic. I will vote on whatever K, K style counterplan, K style T. Identity arguments interest me more than pomo.

Tricks - I think you are bad for debate as an activity. “Tricks bad” in the 2NR/2AR is probably infinitely more believable than anything you will say. LD is located in a different building.

Phil - I think LD is located in a different building. I’m more flexible on this than tricks.

Kendall Kaut Olathe North High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri August 9, 2024 at 3:24 PM UTC

Kendall Kaut

Olathe North (KS)- 2006-2009; Assistant Debate Coach 2021-present-I serve as the primary argument coach for Olathe North CF. I work full-time as an attorney.

Baylor- 2009-2013-I was ranked in the coaches poll my sophomore, junior and senior seasons.

I want emails. kendallkaut@gmail.com

The vast majority of debates are decided on technical mistakes/one team being substantially better than the other in that contest. What follows is what may decide close issues in close debates.

Tech v. truth-Truth sets the baseline for how much tech is needed. If you argue, "The federal government includes the states," I don't need a carded response. I am fine with saying, "It's not- separate governments," and you moving on. If you say, "China rise is bad because it leads to war because the Thucydides' Trap is predictive of conflict, and Graham Allison's studies are good (card)" obviously an opponent needs to provide substantive responses.

I find very few elite debates come down to tech/truth. All of us who debated at major tournaments have felt cheated by a judge who read every card in the debate and started lining up arguments, seemingly ignoring anything that happened in the debate. I will never do that. But the worst judge or decision you faced should not overwhelm that some things require more time to answer than others.

There are good and bad arguments-I have voted for nearly everything, and I had stretches where I went for many bad arguments. I do not wake up early to do a second job--after working a full-time gig during the week--jazzed to see if I can vote for "rocks are people too." I may indeed be forced to do that, but I would stress you can and should go for better arguments than that.

Choice and clarity will win you more debates than anything else below-You don't need to go for 12 arguments against a DA in the 2AR. The block does not need to extend four different viable 2NRs. If there's one thing I would change about my career, it would be choosing more. Depth on the key issues in the debate will be much better than hoping I decide your 14th argument at 3:40-3:51 of the 2AR won the debate.

Points- Flow, be clear and answer things logically. Be nice and innovate when possible. There is nothing illegitimate about answering or asking questions during your partner's cross-examination. But absent your partner having zero idea what the argument is or answering a question 180 degrees from the correct answer, you should allow them to answer questions. Debate is a two-person game for each side. Don't kill your partner's ethos thinking you are perfection.

Where I'm good for the affirmative:

Aff teams should go for theory more against process CPs- The explosion of process counterplans has not been good for debate. Many affirmative teams are bad or too reluctant to go for theory, so I understand why the negative is going for ridiculous process counterplans. Again, I've voted for many process CPs. I had stretches where I went for them. But you are much better off having a stable interpretation of "Counterplans that do the whole affirmative are bad" than trying to find offense to every net benefit. I can be persuaded limited intrinsicness is good when the plan itself does not link to the net benefit. I am often quite persuaded that if a CP competes off of "resolved" "should" or "substantial" that it's not legitimate.

Conditionality is hitting an upper limit-I would be hard pressed to think two conditional worlds are bad. I have a hard time believing a stable 2AC can be given if someone reads five or six, as I see in so many debates. If the negative has read almost no evidence explaining why a CP solves the aff, I would allow new answers in the 1AR.

Big advantage CPs can sometimes be destroyed with analytics-Obviously if the negative reads good solvency evidence, or if they recut affirmative evidence, the aff needs real responses. But if the negative reads eight planks, I could easily be persuaded those planks may link to the net benefit or have some catastrophic failure that tanks the economy or does something else that makes solving the aff impossible.

Elections strikes me as awful-The idea the plan's mechanism would flip the election is incredibly dubious on this topic. Last year's topic had quite strong link arguments--though we were so far away and Biden ended up dropping out. But a good 2AR going for, "Other issues outweigh," and "nobody cares about the plan to flip votes" would require resounding negative debating to defeat.

Where I'm good for the negative:

The 2AC needs some substance answering case-If the negative has read seven conditional worlds, so your response is to blow off the case in the 2AC, then you should instead think about going for theory! But I don't think--especially when the negative has made new claims your 1AC evidence does not answer--the 2AC should be allowed to read a 15 second overview then make zero warranted arguments to answer new case attacks.

Limits seem good on this topic-There does not seem to be a core topic argument like the Econ DA last year. And the politics/elections DAs are awful. Maybe someone will convince me that justifies more negative theory terrorism. But I think it at least justifies a narrower topic if there's a decent topicality argument. I am probably--if the debating is done close to evenly--going to think limits are more important than the educational value of more affirmatives.

Kritiks that link to the affirmative and give them some ground to answer you-If your entire K strategy is to only go for, "The affirmative can't weigh anything it said in the 1AC because this question comes first," I'm a terrible judge for you. If you give the affirmative something it said as an answer to you, I'm probably a fine judge for you. I remain 50-50 voting when the negative goes for a K.

Framework/T against no plan teams-I have voted for no plan teams plenty before. But if you can simply explain why fairness and some limits to debate are good/debate can be productive, you are extremely likely to win the debate absent any major technical concessions.

David Kilpatrick Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 9:21 AM PDT

cardstealing@gmail.com

Conflicts:

I am a teacher at The Harker School. Other conflicts: Texas, Emory, Liberal Arts and Science Academy, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School

Paradigm:

I have eliminated sections containing opinions on argument style/choice, because they should be irrelevant to the evaluation of individual debates. Debaters work hard and deserve judges who work hard too, regardless of the content of their arguments.

Do what you do best. I will attempt to solely base my decision on the technical execution of arguments. If I think you're being unclear or have no idea what you're saying, I'll make it obvious. Technical debating includes clarity, lining arguments up, and clear explanation. If an argument does not include a claim, warrant and implication, it is not a complete argument.

Two caveats:

1. I am a poor evaluator for arguments that endorse personal self-harm and of debaters who berate their opponents. These practices will result in lower points and I will stop the round if it becomes egregious.

2. If both sides agree that something other than technical debating should determine the outcome, it liberates me from any constraints requiring me to be objective and I'll decide however I want. If there is disagreement, I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to the argument that one side winning that judges should ignore technical debating in favor of something else is self-defeating because it requires technical evaluation to determine in the first place.

Speaker points:

High points will be awarded to debaters who are:

ready to start on time, have the email chain setup and ready to go, proceed without lengthy delays, non prep time related breaks or prep stealing;

execute the simplest path to victory;

demonstrate they're flowing via clash with their opponents arguments.

Other:

Clear evidence of clipping, clear misrepresentation of evidence, physical abuse, and other forms of cheating will always result in a loss.

I encourage you to rigorously question any part of my decision where we might disagree or understand things differently. You can ask me questions during the RFD, later during the tournament, and/or via email.

Aaron Kim Univ Of Chicago Lab School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 12:31 PM EDT

ajkdebate@gmail.com

UCLab '22

Emory '26

TLDR

I’m usually tired when judging, so the less time wasted, the higher the speaks.

Include line by line and judge instruction.

I like easy, clean debates.

I enter decisions relatively quickly. This isn't a referendum on the debate.

I will not vote for arguments I do not understand.

I am willing (begrudgingly) to vote on arguments about microaggressions, but will never vote on "X microaggression outweighs Y microaggresion." I am fine with link defense but will not vote on impact calculus. I will assume the impact is the same for both X and Y and will drop speaks for anyone that does impact calculus. You can say microaggressions outweighother arguments like fairness but should never compare which microaggressions mattermore infront of me (or in general).

Paradigms are biased self-reports but I've debated with and you should check the paradigms of Don Pierce, Lucas Lobo, Jared Shirts, and Mahi Shah.

I've included a longer paradigm below.

Topic thoughts

Little to know topic knowledge. If your strategy is legally complicated or something to IP (even things like the sui generis CP), spend extra time and slow down explaining the legal context that matters to make a decision.

It seems incredibly aff biased. Thus, I understand the reliance on process CP's, UQ CP's, and other similar CP's that are questionably competitive. That being said, I will increase speaks for teams that have case specific strategies or 2NR's that do not include a CP that is not questionably competitive.

K Affs

I've read K affs my entire junior year but have also gone for framework against K affs.

Aff: Affs should choose between defending in round impacts versus spill up arguments. In addition, ballot solvency features prominently in majority of my decisions. That being said, the neg must win both that the ballot doesn't consequentially solve something and that consesquentialism is good in order to zero aff offense. Against fairness, I am generally better for in round impacts, but can be convinced that I should evaluate models of debate. Against clash, I am equally good for both a K of their model that turns clash as well as in round impacts that frame out clash as an ideal that cannot be solved by the ballot.

If the 2NR is a K, most teams run to the perm. I have a bit of a higher threshold for voting aff on the perm given the fact that there isn't a stable advocacy and it seems as though the 1AC and 2AC are irrelevant to the debate against a K because the 1AR and 2AR are completely new explanations of both the aff and the perm. In addition, the aff must have offense as to why the alt alone is insufficient, not just a reason why the links don't matter that much.

Neg: Ballot solvency is equally as important here. If you are going for clash versus an in round impact aff, then you must win that even if the ballot doesn't result in a model of debate, it is valuable to evaluate models. Conversely, if you are going for fairness versus an aff that defends a counter interp, it is helpful to win you should only evaluate consequential impacts to the ballot. I am best for a 2NR that emphasizes a fairness impact as an independent impact and utilizes clash to internal link turn aff offense.

K's against K affs are fine. I prefer framework debates because it's far easier to establish a link and a locus of offense. Thus, going for K's must have hyper specific link explanation and must pin the aff down to defending particular things as early as possible in the debate. In addition, links/K turns case arguments with external offense (similar to clash turns aff offense + fairness as external) is the most convincing explanation of going for the K that minimizes any net benefit to the perm.

K's on the Neg

Aff: Generally best for framework + util 2AR's. Majority of my thoughts on going for framework on the neg apply to framework on the aff, especially against fiat K's. Aff teams that lose usually lose because they either make technical concessions on framework, do not explain ballot solvency, or drop tricks including but not limited to arguments like link turns case, alt solves case, X is unsustainable, etc. I am also amenable to impact turns to fiat K's/affs that have offense premised off of scholarship as something to weigh against the link. Affs that are against alternatives that do something materially should include perm double bind and have offense as to why the alt alone doesn't solve. Should also include both framework arguments about competition as well as theory arguments about the alt. 2AC's should answer every link argument both at the level of fiat and scholarship. Saying it's a link to the squo might be sufficient if you win you should evaluate fiated implementation, but is the equivalent of dropping the link if the link is about scholarship not implementation.

Neg: Fine for both fiat K's and substance K's. Higher speaks for teams that technically execute K's that are not just framework K's due to higher difficulty. Generally bad for alts that fiat a lot, which makes links turn case with try or die alt far more persuasive than an alt that solves everything. However, smart competition arguments established by framework along with a robust theoretical defense of the alt makes the alt solves everything strategy viable. Fiat K's that moot the plan but go for links specific to the aff have a lower threshold for a link versus K's that moot the aff and only go for fiat is bad.

Fine for everything. No particular thoughts. Generally better for PDCP than the intrinsic perm but understand that depending on how the CP is written, intrinsic perm may be necessary. Depending on the CP, delay perms that are explained as CP's may compete off of certainty but not immediacy is also very compelling. Willing to vote on conditionality bad, but not a conditionality hater. I default to no judge kick unless explicitly told.

No particular thoughts. Make sure you make and answer DA turns case arguments. Probability of the link/DA filters the relevance of turns case.

No topic knowledge, willing to vote on most T arguments. Relatively better for aff ground rather than predictability. PTIV is not unwinnable but is an uphill battle.

Case

Honestly don't really care whether you go to case or not to win. Strategies that are case specific generally get higher speaks. Willing to vote on most impact turns. If your preferred 2NR is death good, I assume there has been some kind of trigger warning with the other team.

Misc

Tech over truth. Caveats include: ethics violations, -isms, and I will not vote on arguments that I cannot explain from warrants in the final rebuttals.

Impact calculus tips the scales in close debates, but is also executed poorly. Generic probability, magitude, timeframe impact calculus is insufficient when both teams are vaguely gesturing at an extinction impact that has no brink. Timeframe is helpful in close debates. I also find try or die and turns case arguments very compelling. That means you should always include a bit of impact defense/impact non-unique arguments in final speeches. Other logical presses like timeframe first, turns case/DA, and only evaluating opportunity costs/what impacts are resolved are convincing if explained well.

Card quality is important but only in very close debates. Majority of debates I will not read cards.

I flow on my laptop and try to type out/transcribe as much as possible. That means go slower, emphasize, and number analytics, otherwise I will miss warrants and will not evaluate it in later speeches.

I've found myself unengaged in most CX's. That means if something important is happening, make it interesting.

Everything is relative risk unless the other team has conceded it or if their arguments have literally zero comprehensible warrant.

+0.1 speaker point for every minute of prep not used, with a cap of 29.9. This only applies if you win the round, not if you're getting killed and you just want higher speaks.

Brian Klarman NSU University School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 11:25 AM EDT

Judge Philosophy

Conflicts: UGA, Emory University, North Broward, NSU

Email: Brianklarmandebate@gmail.com - Yes, put me on the thread. No, I won't open all of the docs during the round and will likely ask for a doc of cards I find relevant at the end.

2025 Updates:

I am not a full time debate coach and I have not judged a debate in a year. I know very little about the topic. I appreciate cutting cards and thinking about debates. I was a full time debate coach for 7 years.

In the past few years, I have told debaters that they should be going for the Cap K, Intuitive Topic DAs/CPs, T arguments, and Process CPs about the topics. I love impact turns, but they are rarely strategic unless paired with advantage CPs. I rarely suggest people go for Ks that do not have a strong link, Politics DAs, or Process CPs that are not about the topic.

I am someone who believes tech > truth. However, I do not look at cards during debates, so if your arguments are not clear by explanation/flowable tags/very clearly read card text, they are not "tech" that is on my flow. My favorite debates involve strategy (think: creative "cross applications," argument that are "good because the other teams can't read their best answers," etc). I enjoy a good theory debate (conditionality, solvency advocate, perms, politics theory arguments, etc.) and I would prefer that debates have some depth by the end of the negative block.

Older Advice:

(1) "X Outweighs Y" - If the 2NR/2AR does not start with some version of this (or include this elsewhere), I will almost certainly vote the other way. I don't super care how you say it, but if you are unwilling to say that the impact you will win is more important than the impact the other team will win, things aren't going well.

(2) T & Theory - I seem to like them more than everyone else I judge with. Go for conditionality bad! I don't necessarily think it is true but never seem to hear 2NC or 2NR blocks that have great offense or impact calc. After judging on a slew of panels, I realize that I am more likely to be into technical theory & T arguments then others. I also tend to expect complete arguments in the 1NC/2AC/2NC (theory needs warrants, T needs the necessary defense and offense).

(3) Tech > Truth - I feel like I have said this a number of times, but I realized that I think this more than others (or at least more than people that I judge with). A "bad" disad has high risk until/unless answers are made. This also has made me amenable to voting on some not great disads vs. planless affs just on the basis of 2ACs lacking necessary defense.

(4) T vs. Planless affs - I have found that I tend to vote affirmative when something is conceded or answered completely incorrectly. I tend to vote negative when the negative goes for a limits/fairness impact and responds to every argument on the line by line. I tend to find myself confused about the relevance of all arguments that the content of the resolution is either good or bad. I feel like I find my voting record to be like 50/50, but I haven't done the math.

(5) Decision making process -I often decide debates by (1) determining what I need to decide (2) looking through my flow for if it is resolved and then (3) reading cards if necessary. I'm unlikely to read a card (for the decision) to figure out something that the debaters never made clear. That said, I am happy to talk about some card or look through your evidence to give advice after the debate if you want - I tend to think debate is collaborative and we should all make each other better.

Do not: Clip cards, lie, use something out of context, or do anything else unethical. These will result in loss of speaker points or loss of rounds.

Gabriel Koo Georgetown Day School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 4:35 AM EDT

Background:

Director of Debate at Georgetown Day School.

Please add me to the email chain - georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com .

For questions or other emails - gkoo@gds.org .

I do not share speech documents from rounds I have judged. Please reach out to the teams who debated.

Big Picture:

Read what you want. Have fun. I know you all put a lot time into this activity, so I am excited to hear what you all bring!

Policy Debate

Things I like:

2AR and 2NRs that tell me a story. I want to know why I am voting the way I am. I think debaters who take a step back, paint me the key points of clash, and explain why those points resolve for their win fare better than debaters who think every line by line argument is supposed to be stitched together to make the ballot.
Warrants. A debater who can explain and impact a mediocre piece of evidence will fare much better than a fantastic card with no in-round explanation. What I want to avoid is reconstructing your argument based off my interpretation of a piece of evidence. I don't open speech docs to follow along, and I don't read evidence unless its contested in the round or pivotal to a point of clash.
Simplicity. I am more impressed with a debater that can simplify a complex concept. Not overcomplicating your jargon (especially K's) is better for your speaker points.
Topicality (against policy Aff's). This fiscal redistribution topic seems quite large so the better you represent your vision of the topic the better this will go for you. Please don't list out random Aff's without explaining them as a case list because I am not very knowledgeable on what they are.
Case debates. I think a lot of cases have very incredulous internal links to their impacts. I think terminal defense can exist and then presumption stays with the Neg. I'm waiting for the day someone goes 8 minutes of case in the 1NC. That'd be fantastic, and if done well would be the first 30 I'd give. Just please do case debates.
Advantage CP's and case turns. Process CP's are fine as well, but I much prefer a well researched debate on internal links than a debate about what the definition of "resolved" "the" and "should"" are. Don't get me wrong though, I am still impressed by well thought out CP competition.
Debates, if both teams are ready to go, that start early. I also don't think speeches have to be full length, if you accomplished what you had to in your speech then you can end early. Novice debaters, this does not apply to you. Novices should try to fill up their speech time for the practice.
Varsity debaters being nice to novices and not purposefully outspreading them or going for dropped arguments.
Final rebuttals being given from the flow without a computer.

Things:

K Affirmatives and Framework/T. I'm familiar and coached teams in a wide variety of strategies. Make your neg strategy whatever you're good at. Advice for the Aff: Answer all FW tricks so you have access to your case. Use your case as offense against the Neg's interpretation. You're probably not going to win that you do not link to the limits DA at least a little, so you should spend more time turning the Neg's version of limits in the context of your vision of debate and how the community has evolved. I believe well developed counter-interpretations and explanations how they resolve for the Neg's standards is the best defense you can play. Advice for the Neg: Read all the turns and solves case arguments. Soft left framework arguments never really work out in my opinion because it mitigates your own offense. Just go for limits and impact that out. Generally the winning 2NR is able to compartmentalize the case from the rest of the debate with some FW trick (TVA, SSD, presumption, etc.) and then outweigh on a standard. If you aren't using your standards to turn the case, or playing defense on the case flow, then you are probably not going to win.
Role of the Ballot. I don't know why role of the ballot/judge arguments are distinct arguments from impact calculus or framework. It seems to me the reason the judge's role should change is always justified by the impacts in the round or the framework of the round. I'm pretty convinced by "who did the better debating." But that better debating may convince me that I should judge in a certain way. Hence why I think impact calculus or framework arguments are implicit ROB/ROJ arguments.
Tech vs. truth. I'd probably say I am tech over truth. But truth makes it much easier for an argument to be technically won. For example, a dropped permutation is a dropped permutation. I will vote on that in an instant. But an illogical permutation can be answered very quickly and called out that there was no explanation for how the permutation works. Also the weaker the argument, the more likely it can be answered by cross applications and extrapolations from established arguments.
Kritiks. I find that K turns case, specific case links, or generic case defense arguments are very important. Without them I feel it is easy for the Aff to win case outweighs and/or FW that debates become "you link, you lose." I think the best K debaters also have the best case negs or case links. In my opinion, I think K debaters get fixated on trying to get to extinction that they forget that real policies are rejected for moral objections that are much more grounded. For example, I don't need the security kritik to lead to endless war when you can provide evidence about how the security politics in Eastern Europe has eroded the rights and quality of life of people living there. This coupled with good case defense about the Aff's sensational plan is in my opinion more convincing.

Things I like less:

Stealing prep. Prep time ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed. If you read extra cards during your speech, sending that over before cross-ex is also prep time. I'm a stickler for efficient rounds, dead time between speeches is my biggest pet peeve. When prep time is over, you should not be typing/writing or talking to your partner. If you want to talk to your partner about non-debate related topics, you should do so loud enough so that the other team can also tell you are not stealing prep. You cannot use remaining cross-ex time as prep.
Debaters saying "skip that next card" or announcing to the other team that you did not read xyz cards. It is the other team's job to flow.
Open cross. In my opinion it just hurts your prep time. There are obvious exceptions when partners beneficially tag team. But generally if you interrupt your partner in cross-ex or answer a question for them and especially ask a question for them, there better be a good reason for it because you should be prepping for your next speech
2NC K coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads paragraphs on the links, impacts, and alt that could have been extended on the line by line.
2NC T/FW coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads extensions on your standards when that could have been extended on the line by line.
10 off. That should be punished with conditionality or straight turning an argument. I think going for conditionality is not done enough by Affirmative teams.
Debaters whispering to their partner after their 2A/NR "that was terrible". Be confident or at least pretend. If you don't think you won the debate, why should I try convincing myself that you did?
Card clipping is any misrepresentation of what was read in a speech including not marking properly, skipping lines, or not marking at all. Intent does not matter. A team may call a violation only with audio or video proof, and I will stop the round there to evaluate if an ethics violation has happened. If a team does not have audio or video proof they should not call an ethics violation. However, I listen to the text of the cards. If I suspect a debater is clipping cards, I will start following along in the document to confirm. If a tournament has specific rules or procedures regarding ethics violations, you may assume that their interpretations override mine.

PF Debate:

Second rebuttal must frontline, you can't wait till the second summary.
If it takes you more than 1 minute to send a card, I will automatically strike it from my flow. This includes when I call for a card. I will also disregard evidence if all there is a website link. Cards must be properly cut and cited with the relevant continuous paragraphs. Cards without full paragraph text, a link, a title, author name, and date are not cards.
You are only obligated to send over evidence. Analytics do not need to be sent, the other team should be flowing.
Asking questions about cards or arguments made on the flow is prep time or crossfire time.
If it isn't in the summary, it's new in the final focus.
Kritiks in PF, go for it! Beware though that I'm used to CX and may not be hip on how PF debaters may run Kritiks.

Kevin Kuswa Berkeley Preparatory School 3 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________ (previous paradigm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lorilei Lassen Corner Canyon High School 4 rounds

Jack Lassiter Berkeley Preparatory School 3 rounds

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

Berkeley Prep Assistant Coach - 2017 - Present

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

Email: Jack.Lassiter4@gmail.com

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

I am flowing the speech, not the document.

I am making my decision based on the flow.

Truth throughout tech.

Framework

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

The Kritik

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

Topicality:

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

Counterplans:

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

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

Updates:

Judging for Berkeley Prep - Meadows 2020

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

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

Judging for Damien Debate - Berkeley (CA) 2016

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

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

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

Kieran Lawless Mamaroneck High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 16, 2024 at 10:31 AM CDT

Debated at Georgetown University 2020-2024 (NDT Quarterfinalist 2023, Octafinalist 2024, First Round 2023, 2024)

Debated at Walter Payton College Prep 2016-2020

Add to the email chain:

klawlessdebate@gmail.com ;

debatedocs@googlegroups.com ; ***ONLY IF COLLEGE DEBATE

Top level:

I still do a little bit of college and high school debate coaching, but this is pretty minimal. I have very little topic knowledge and no pre-conceived ideas of how the topic should look.

I want to note that for everything outside the "Non-negotiables" section is up for debate. Given debaters can never resolve every issue in the debate, the following describes how I evaluate rounds when left to my own devices. Any predispositions are easily overcome by judge instruction.

Non-Negotiables:

Speech times, speech orders, everyone only speaking for one constructive/rebuttal.

I will not vote on any accusations about what happened outside of the round (that includes disclosure theory).

An argument has a claim and warrant. "Climate change is existential" is not an argument, it is an assertion. "Climate change is existential - higher temperatures destroy food security, cause mass displacement, or conflict" is. Basically, for something to be dropped, I should be able to explain why something is true to the other team in the RFD. Please don't make me intervene to say you didn't make complete arguments.

Asking for 30s caps speaks at 25.

Ethics violations stop the round. I err against voting on these, so if you're going to say this make sure the violation is really bad and actually modified the nature of the debate.

Re-highlighted evidence MUST be read. However if both teams decide to just insert things, I will grumpily evaluate it.

Card docs cannot include analytics, unless they are perm/CP texts.

It is always easier to be aff than neg (assuming equal skill of participants and no crazy neg abuses like object fiat).

I've noticed a bad trend where judges let debaters get away with murder on clarity because they send analytics. I flow on paper and my laptop will remain closed until the debate ends, so debate like a human not a robot.

Cards written by debaters either about debate or while they were debaters are no better than you making the argument yourself. If pointed out by the opposing team, I will scratch them.

Evaluating Debates

Assuming no one has made any arguments about how I should evaluate my debates, my default is that I am evaluating whether the actor of the resolution should take the action of the resolution based on whether the consequences of the act are net good or bad. Affs can absolutely be justified through different ethical frames (deontology, rule utilitarianism, etc), but I default to consequentialism. Please add on extra explanation if you are explaining something complex like Kant because I do not understand your LD buzzwords.

Under this frame, I evaluate the magnitude*probability of the positions in the round. My default is that future lives matter somewhat, but a lot less than people now. Timeframe acts a tie breaker if magnitudes/probabilities are similar. The onus is on soft-left affs to propose a different way of evaluating impacts, and I am receptive to those, I just don't default to it.

Case

Please explain acronyms. Fine for whatever. Would prefer if you erred against impacts like "X thing solves numerous existential laundry lists" as I think the other team can just flag there's no warrant any of the things listed are problems.

Soft left affs are fine. Center debating on logical flaws with negative off-case positions and please answer the whole "extinction is infinite" argument. Getting rid of that makes it pretty easy to win the soft left aff outweighs a bad DA.

Plans should mean things. I am very gettable on vagueness of a plan means it gets circumvented (you only get to durably fiat mandates).

I'm pretty good for the aff against extra-T if you specified a mechanism/process which the plan happened. Obviously the neg can PIC out of that, but I think it's legit for the aff to do.

More on the limits side, as a 2A I felt like on any topic there were always enough affs/scenarios to find (yes even on the nukes topic).

I know little about any given topic, so examples of what the debates under your model look like, what ground and core generics exist for the neg and how that has built in link uniqueness is huge.

Perfectly debated, reasonability is pretty good, but can easily be persuaded by competing interpretations. Don't explain reasonability as "never vote on T" that's not what it is.

Some judges have a disdain for T as opposed to other types of policy arguments, I do not.

I think plan-text in a vacuum is borderline unwinnable if even semi-correctly answered. Aff teams should know exactly what the mandates of their plan are, and I expect them to answer questions about them in cx.

Counterplans

Pretty aff leaning on questions of competition. Textual competition is nonsense, text only gets meaning by the function of the counterplan. Theory can be a reason to reject the argument but is almost never a reason to reject a team (except for condo and even there I think there is a good neg argument for just "stick us with all the CPs").

I think properly debated, the "other issues" perm is unbeatable. I do not understand why the aff is not allowed to permute functions of the CP, even if it as generic as "the United States should." The proper neg response to this is to cut and read DAs to the normal means implementation of the perm. I find theoretical arguments against these perms to be as justified as the arg that the neg should "always get the assurance DA because it is hard being neg." While I do sympathize with 2Ns, I do not think that uncompetitive counterplans are the solution. However, if the "other issues" perm specifies a new function I am very gettable on rejecting the perm for being intrinsic. I am not interested in playing mad-libs, so as long as the perm keeps the core functions of the counterplan, I do not care if it adds words.

Counterplans must actually do policies not ideas. Text: "The United States should fund climate protections" is meaningless and aff teams should point that out (neg teams should do so as well when plan texts are that vague).

Better than most for states/international fiat bad.

Very neg leaning on infinite condo. Neg ground/logic are good in front of me. Idea testing is not. A certain number of condo C/Is don't make much sense, except for maybe one condo. However, 2NC counterplans justify 1AR add ons.

I'm bad for 1NC CPs without solvency advocates. "CP: The 50 states should do the plan," is not a complete argument. The 1AR basically gets all new answers if you extend it. If you explain, even analytically, why the CP competes/solves the 1AR gets much less leeway for new args.

If I remember I will judge kick. But please remind me because I might forget.

Critiques

I will only vote for negative arguments that negate the desirability of the resolution.

K Affs

I will only vote for affirmative arguments that affirm the desirability of the resolution.

DAs

More open to well debated intrinsicness than most judges. Politics/Riders are fine, the aff should have to defend their process.

This year it seems like politics will be important. I work in the Senate, so politics is my whole life now. That gives me a much higher bar in evaluating politics scenarios than most judges have. If you're not naming the Senate/House members that PC matters for, or at least like what faction (I.E. moderate republicans like Collins and Murkowski) I am going to be so susceptible to aff no link args.

That being said, well debated politics DAs are probably my favorite type of thing to evaluate, and on this climate topic the link stories actually make sense.

Speaks

Top 1-10 speaker at the tournament: 29.4-30

Top 11-20 speaker: 29.4-29.0

Clearing but no speaker award: 29.0-28.7

Not clearing, but positive or even record: 28.7-28.5

Below positive record: 28.5-27.5

Other

I care about evidence quality a lot. If I feel like many issues have become unresolved, I often times use team's evidence as a way to help guide my decision. I only resort to this if the 2NR/2AR did not give me enough to render a competent decision for them. This is especially true when the debate is light on warrants/evidence comparisons.

I'm good for impact turns. I think those are some of the most fun debates I've been a part of. That includes Spark/Wipeout. I do prefer to see innovation with these turns, rather than rehashing old stuff.

I really don't mind being asked questions about my decisions. Everyone works hard and deserve a thoroughly defended decision. Feel free to follow up after as well.

I am so bad for cheap shots like sneaking ASPEC or new affs bad somewhere in the doc.

I believe scrolling ahead in a doc is cheating. Teams breaking new strats are welcome to send it out in parts, break it on paper, or remove the tags from the navigation pane to ensure your opponents don't scroll ahead.

John Lawson Wylie E. Groves HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 5:34 PM EDT

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged public forum rounds, it is only more recently that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

Jake Lee Mamaroneck High School 2 rounds

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

Jake Lee (He/Him)

Math Teacher and Director of Debate at Mamaroneck High School

For Email Chain: jakemlee@umich.edu

Also add: mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

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

General:

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

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

Respect your opponents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't do any of the following below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick Lepp Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 5:26 AM EDT

I am currently an assistant debate coach with both Montgomery Bell Academy and Michigan State University. This is my 16th year involved with policy debate. I finished my PhD at the University of Georgia (go dawgs) in October 2024. My dissertation is a Derridean/rhetorical reading of the word queer.

I use he/him pronouns.

Last updated: 3/31/2025

Please put me on the email chain & make me an ev doc at the end of the debate. NJL1994@gmail.com.

Set up and send out the 1AC 10 minutes before the debate begins. Please avoid downtime during debates. If you do both of these things without me needing to say anything (send out the 1AC 10 minutes early + avoid downtime) you'll get higher speaker points.

If I'm judging you online, please slow down a bit and emphasize clarity more than normal.

Top level things:

I think about debate in terms of risk (does the risk of the advantage being true outweigh the risk of the disad being true?). I am willing to vote on presumption, particularly when people say really ridiculous stuff or people's cards are highlighted to say nothing.

I like specificity, nuance, and for you to sound smart. If you sound like you've done research and you know what's going on, I'm likely to give you great points. Being specific, having nuances, and explaining your distinctions is the easiest way to get my ballot.

Judge direction is a lost art. If you win the argument that you're advancing, why should it matter? What does this mean for the debate? What does it mean for your arguments or the other team's arguments? This is the number one easiest way to win my (and really anyone's) ballot in a debate. Direct your judges to think a certain way, because if you don't, your judges are likely to go rogue and decide things that make sense to them but not to you. So impact your arguments and tell me what to do with them. I think it's way more valuable to do that than include one more tiny argument and almost certainly the easiest way to get me to overcome any predispositions.

Decorum is very important to me. If your strategy is to belittle, upset, talk down to, yell at, escalate, curse at, or otherwise be rude or mean to your opponents, then you can expect me to give you terrible speaker points. I also reserve the right to end the debate early if I find the behavior particularly atrocious or potentially threatening to anyone in the room. I am very uninterested in the “I know what you did last summer” strategy or any personal attacks. You certainly don't have to be best friends with your opponents, but I do expect a sense of cordiality when engaging your opponents and their arguments.

"The existence of speech time limits, the assumption that you will not interrupt an opponent's speech intentionally, and the fact that I (and not you) will be signing a ballot that decides a winner and loser is non-negotiable." (taken verbatim from Shree Awsare).

I am incredibly uncomfortable adjudicating things that did not occur in the debate I am watching. Please do not ask me to judge based on something that didn’t happen in the round. I am likely to ignore you.

High school debaters in particular: I have consistently noticed over the past few years of judging that I vote for the team whose arguments I understand. If I cannot connect the dots, I'm not going to vote for you. This goes equally for kritikal and policy debaters. Most of my decisions in high school debates come down to this.

How I decide debates:

First: who solves what?-- does the aff solve its impacts, and (assuming it's in the 2NR) does the negative's competitive advocacy solve its own impacts and/or the aff? In framework debates, this means the first questions I resolve are "does the aff solve itself?" and "does the TVA solve the aff sufficiently?"

Second: Who’s impact is bigger? This is the most important question in the debate. Do impact calculus.

Third: Whatever you have told me matters. Because I have started with solvency & impact calculus questions, everything else is always filtered along those lines (including framework/role of the ballot/role of the judge).

Other misc things:

1. A dropped argument is a true argument but it needs to be a complete argument to begin with or I will likely allow people new answers. For example, this epidemic with high schoolers reading aspec on the bottom of T flows to hide it: if it’s so quick I didn’t catch it in the 1NC, the 1AR gets all the new args they want. Additionally, an argument is not just a claim and a warrant, but a claim, warrant, and reasoning. In other words, your warrant needs to be connected to your claim in order for it to be an argument.

2. I am very flowcentric. Do not ask me to not flow, because I won't listen. Please do line-by-line. If you don't, I'll be frustrated and less likely to buy new extrapolations of arguments. Your speaker points will definitely drop if you don't do line-by-line. I do not like overviews ("overviews are evil"-- one of my labbies; "flowing is good for your health" -- another one of my labbies).

3. Show me that you care. Show me that you know things, that you've done research on this topic, that you want to win, and that debate matters to you. I love this activity and if you also love it I want to know that.

4. Judge kicking makes sense to me but I frequently forget about it, so if you want me to judge kick something you should tell me so in the block/2NR.

5. Cards and highlighting: Teams should get to insert rehighlightings of the other team's cards, but obviously should have to read cards if they're new/haven't been introduced into the debate yet. Two offshoots of this-- 1. You should insert rehighlightings of other team's cards if they suck 2. You should read cards that don't suck.

I do not follow along with speech docs during debates.

Please highlight your ev so it reads as complete sentences. This does not mean that I need you to highlight complete sentences, but if you are brick highlighting, I want to be able to read highlighted portions of your ev as complete sentences—it flows better to me. IE don't skip the letter "a" or the words "in" or "the." Just a random pet peeve.

If you do not have a complete citation or at least a full paragraph from your evidence I will not evaluate what you've said as evidence. Cherrypicked quotes with no context are not evidence.

I tend to not read a lot of cards after the debate unless things are highly technical or I think the debaters aren’t explaining things well. That being said, I’ll likely read at least some cards. Please put together a card doc for me.

6. Debaters parroting their partners: I usually just flow what the partner said. That, obviously, only exists within reason (you don’t get to give a third speech in a debate, but you can interrupt your partner to say something and I will flow it).

7. New 2AR args are bad for debate. I consciously hold the line against them as much as I can. I as a 2N feel as if I got a few decisions where a judge voted aff on an arg that didn't exist until the 2AR and it's the most frustrating. You can expect me to try to trace lines between args in earlier & later speeches. However, if I think the argument they're making is the true argument or a logical extrapolation of something said in the 1AR, I'm more likely to buy it. 2As-- this means if you're gonna do some 2A magic and cheat, you should trick me into thinking that you're not cheating.

Some specifics:

Disads: I’m better for the smart DAs than the silly ones, but I understand the value of bad DAs and will vote for them. I will likely reward you with higher speaker points if I think I understand your story really well and/or you have some cool/unique spin on it. I am fine with logical take outs to DAs that don’t require cards (especially if there’s some logic missing internally in the DA). Don’t just read new cards in the block or 1AR, explain your args (although also read new cards obviously).

Theory, CPs, and K Alternatives: I put these pieces together because my thoughts on these three args blend together.

Competition is determined off the plantext, not off cross-x, nor off the resolution. PICs & PIKs are only competitive if they PIC/PIK out of something in the plantext. I do not believe that you get to PIC/PIK out of a justification or non-plantext based word. The only way I will ever be convinced otherwise is if the aff allows you to do so.

Condo: It’s good. “They should get one less CP” is an arbitrary interp and makes no sense. The phrase "dispo solves" at the end of your bad 2AC condo block is not an argument and I will not be writing it down on my flow. I will vote on this if it's dropped, but I'm pretty persuaded by neg flex and education-style args.

"Performative Contradictions" is a term of art that has been bastardized to no end by debate. You're either saying the neg has double turned themselves or you're saying conditionality is bad; in my mind, perf con is not even worthy of being written on my flow.

Particular Theory: I’m better for this than most judges (and MUCH more persuaded by it than condo). States theory, international fiat, consult/condition, vague alts, utopian alts, etc—I have gone for all of these and actively coach my debaters to do the same. My predisposition is to reject the arg not the team, but I can be persuaded to reject the team on non-condo theory args (you should introduce the arg as reject the team in the 2AC, not CX, if you want this to be an option).

Theory can be a reason you get to make a cheating perm.

Counterplans/alternatives that use aff evidence as solvency advocates are awesome.

If the CP/alt links less I think it makes sense that I prefer it, but make that arg yourself because I won’t make it for you.

Case: I love love love case debate. You should make logical extrapolations that take out the internal link chains and make me question how the advantage makes sense. The block should read more cards but feel free to make logical case take outs without cards. I don't think you should have to go for impact defense to beat advantages-- uniqueness and internal link take outs are almost always the easier place to attack advantages. I tend to prefer a well-developed take out to the death by a thousand cuts strategy.

Affs-- 2NR that don't do well-developed case debate are generally overwhelmed by your "try or die"/"case outweighs"/"1% chance of solvency" args.

Topicality: I'm getting better for this as a strategy lately than I used to be. I do still generally think that it's about the plantext, but can be persuaded that I should think of the plantext in the context of the 1AC. Topicality is only ever a voter, not a reverse voter. I’m not great for silly/arbitrary T interps (I am very persuaded by the arg that these interps are arbitrary). Literature should drive these debates.

Kritiks: I like Ks that care about people and things. I'm optimistic to a fault. I certainly believe that things are still terrible for billions of beings, but it's hard to convince me that everything in the world is so absolutely irredeemable.

Your long overview is actively bad for debate and you will not change my mind.

Make your K interact with the affirmative. I want your links to be about the result of the aff as opposed to just the reading of the aff. Fiat bad links are bad (high schoolers, why are we so obsessed with the fiat K? Didn't we resolve this question 25 years ago? Can't we research and talk about the topic even just a little bit?). Your "state is always bad" links are slightly better, but also terrible. Don't just explain your theory of how power works, explain how the action of the aff is bad according to your theory of power.

I think that I am worse for structuralist style kritiks than I used to be for two reasons: 1) I feel more so that I want you to be responding to the action of the aff than I used to 2) I generally study poststructuralism and queer theory. I read a lot of Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler.

Grad school has taught me that theory is way more complex than I used to think it was. I will get annoyed if I know that you’re deploying the theory wrong. I'm not good for things like "death good," "meaning doesn't mean anything," or "language is meaningless" because I don't think those are questions even worth asking.

I have read some literature about antiblackness academically and have read a bit more from a debate standpoint. I would not call myself an expert by any means in this literature, but I do understand some of it better than I used to. I am still unwilling to fill in those blanks for you if you are lacking them (ex-- just saying the words "yes antiblackness ontological, natal alienation proves" is not an argument in my mind).

99.99% of the time I will entirely ignore your framework/role of the ballot args when you're going for the K against a topical aff. There's a high chance that I will just stare at you and not flow during your incredibly long and generic 2NC/2NR framework block on your K. I am serious, I may not even waste the ink in my pen flowing this. I do not know how to decide debates unless I'm weighing the merits of the aff against the merits of the K. For example, if the aff is an object of study, then to evaluate that object of study I have to weigh the aff's consequences. You are better off just saying "yes the aff can weigh the plan, we'll just beat it" in front of me. This also means that the role of the ballot/judge is only ever to vote for whoever did the better debating in every round I judge. The flip side of this, however, is that I almost never find a 2AR that is entirely or almost entirely framework persuasive.

“Perms are a negative argument” and “method v method debate means no perms” are both not arguments. Despite judging for however long I have, I still do not know what a "method v method debate" is or why it's different than every other debate. I will not write these words on my flow.

I also generally do not find the "voting for us gives us more wins/sends us to elims" as a solvency mech persuasive or that "X thing done in the debate is policing/surveillance/violence" (other than actual/physical policing/surveillance/violence) to be persuasive.

Ultimately, I evaluate K debates just like I evaluate policy debates. Technical line by line is key. Explain your args well. Put the debate together. Don't ignore the other side.

2NRs on the K that include case debate (with some level of internal link/impact defense; not just your security K cards on case) are substantially more persuasive to me.

Framework against non-topical affs: you should also read my section on Ks (right above this one) as well.

Framework is a strategy and it makes a lot of sense as a strategy. Just like every other strategy, you should try to tailor it to be as specific to the aff as you possibly can. For example, how does this particular aff make it impossible for you to debate? What does it mean for how debate looks writ-large? What's the valuable topic education we could have had from a topical discussion of this aff in particular? Same basic idea goes for when you’re answering generic aff args—the generic “state always bad” arg is pretty easily beaten by nuanced neg responses in front of me. The more specific you are, the more likely I am to vote for you on framework and the more likely I am to give you good speaks.

Stop reading huge overviews. They’re bad for debate. Your points will suffer. Do line by line. Be a good debater and stop being lazy. The amount of times I have written something like "do line by line" in this paradigm should really tell you something about how I think about debate.

I do not find truth testing/"ignore the aff's args because they're not T" very persuasive. I think it's circular & requires judge intervention.

I do, however, think that fairness/limits/ground is an impact and that it is the most important standard in a T debate.

T and/or framework is not genocide, nor is it ever rape, nor is it a microaggression, nor is it real literal violence against you or anyone else.

I’m a sucker for a good topical version. Teams seem to want to just laundry list potential TVAs and then say "idk, maybe these things let them discuss their theory". I believe that strategy is very easily beaten by a K team having some nuanced response. It makes way more sense to me if the TVA is set up almost like a CP-- it should solve a majority or all of the aff. If you set it up like that and then add the sufficiency framing/"flaws are neg ground" style args I'm WAY more likely to buy what you have to say (this goes along with the whole "I like nuance and specificity and you to sound like you're debating the merits of the aff" motif that I've had throughout my paradigm-- it applies to all debaters).

I oftentimes wonder how non-topical affs solve themselves. The negative should exploit this because I do feel comfortable voting neg on presumption. However, I won’t ever intervene to vote on presumption. That’s an argument that the debaters need to make.

Non-topical affs should have nuance & do line by line as well. Answer the neg’s args, frame the debate, and tell me why your aff in particular could not have been topical. You HAVE to have a defense of your model and not just say that framework is bad or else I will probably vote neg on presumption. The same basic idea applies here as it does everywhere else: the more generic you are, the more likely I am to vote against you.

Garbage/Hidden Stuff/Tricks: Nope. New affs are good, hiding aspec makes you a coward, death is bad, wipeout and/or spark in all of its various forms are indefensible, free will exists and I don't care if it doesn't. Make better arguments.

Cross-ex: I am becoming increasingly bored and frustrated with watching how this tends to go down. Unless I am judging a novice debate, questions like "did you read X card" or "where did you mark Y card" are counting as parts of cross-x. I tend to start the timer for cross-ex pretty quickly after speeches end (obviously take a sec to get water if you need to) so pay attention to that.

I pay attention & listen to CX but I do not flow it. Have a presence in CX & make an impact. I am listening.

Speaker points-- I do my best to moderate these based on the tournament I'm at and what division I'm in. That being said, I won’t lie—I am not a point fairy.

I will grant extra speaker points to people who number their arguments and correctly/aptly follow the numbering that has been established in the debate.

Paraphrasing from Shree Awsare-- I will not give you a 30.

29.8-- Top speaker
29.2-29.5-- You really impressed me and I expect you to be deep in the tournament
29-- I think you deserve to clear
28.3-- Not terrible but not super impressive
27.5-- Yikes
I will award the lowest possible points for people who violate the basic human dignities that people should be afforded while debating (e.g., non-black people don't say the N word).

I've also been known to give 20s to people who don't make arguments. I will not be giving you a 30; nobody gives a perfect speech.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the debate begins, or send me an email. I also do seriously invite conversation about the debate after it occurs-- post-rounds are oftentimes the most valuable instantiation of feedback, the best way to get better at debate, and important for improving intellectually. I know that post-rounds sometimes get heated, and I think we all get defensive sometimes when we're being pressed on things we've said (or think we've said) so I will likely consciously try to take deep breaths and relax if I feel myself getting heated during these times. This also means that I may take a second to respond to your questions because I am thinking. I also might take awkward pauses between words-- that's not because I don't think your question is important, I'm just trying to choose my words carefully so I can correctly convey my thoughts. I only post this here because I don't want anyone to feel like they're being attacked or anything for asking questions, and I apologize in advance if anything I say sounds like that.

Ethics Challenge Addendum:

I would strongly discourage ethics challenges in all but the most extreme instances. I don't want to adjudicate them, you don't want to be the team who makes the challenge, etc. If you notice something is wrong, please contact coaches and/or debaters and try to fix the problem rather than making it a challenge in round.

An ethics challenge is not a no-risk option for me. That is, when an ethics challenge is issued, the debate ends. I will clarify that the team issuing the challenge has issued one and then end the debate and adjudicate the challenge. I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward then and there. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances.

An ethics challenge may be issued along one of three lines: either you have accused the other team of clipping cards, of misciting evidence, or of misrepresenting evidence. Nothing else will be considered an ethics challenge for me.

Clipping cards is defined as claiming to have read more or less of the evidence than one actually has. Please note that I do not follow along with evidence as the debate is occurring. Missing a single word/a few words is not enough. I will decide what constitutes enough of the card to be considered clipping.

Misciting evidence is understood as providing the incorrect author and/or date as well as missing the first author, source of publication, and date (at least the year). Please note that putting something like "the New York Times" instead of "Nate Silver" is acceptable for an authorship. Source of publication can be broad (article title, URL, book title). If the article is easily accessible, then it is acceptable, and I am likely to not vote on this ethics challenge if I don't determine this to have radically altered the debate. Again, I will determine what constitutes an incomplete or miscited citation if this becomes a relevant question.

I do not consider missing credentials to be unethical but I do consider those pieces of evidence to be incredibly weak.

Misrepresenting evidence is understood as inserting evidence which is missing lines or paragraphs within the parts of the initial article/book being read. So, for example, if you want to read the first and third paragraph from an article, you must leave the second paragraph in the evidence you read in the debate. This means that, for me, ellipses to indicate that parts of the card are missing or stating something like “pages 4-5 omitted” is unethical. Cards need to be full paragraphs.

Providing a single quote from a book or an article is not a card. As such, I will not consider it as you having introduced evidence and it is not unethical for me. However, not providing full paragraph pieces of evidence means your argument is substantially weaker for me (because, again, then you have not read evidence).

I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances. Please note that I will take this seriously; an ethics challenge is not something to be debated out in a round.

The speaker points I will give are as follows: 28.6 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I vote for, 28.5 for the 1^st speaker of the team I vote for, 28.4 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I do not vote for, 28.3 for the 1^st speaker of the team I do not vote for. My assumption in the event of an ethics violation is that you made an honest mistake and that you were not intentionally cheating. I do not understand ethics challenges to be the equivalent of academic dishonesty or worthy of any punishment besides my ballot being cast in that particular debate. I do not hold these challenges against you in future rounds nor do I believe that you should be in trouble with your debate coaches or schools.

Please note that what I have written here is designed for varsity debate only; that is, when judging novice and JV debates, I will be more lenient and talk through what's going on with the students and, depending on the situation, allow the debate to continue.

These are thoughts that are still evolving for me as I talk with more people. Please bear with me as I continue to think this out. (Also note that this caveat goes along well with the first statement in this section: I would prefer you not introduce an ethics violation unless it is a serious issue in that particular debate).

Please also note that these rules do not apply to my standards for threatening violence against another debater (physical or otherwise) or hurling slurs at your opponent. I will immediately end the round and give the lowest speaker points that Tab will allow me to in that situation.

Nethmin Liyanage Damien High School and St. Lucy’s Priory 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 9:14 AM PDT

tldr - do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; topic-specific research is good; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

about me:

she/her

i coach policy debate at damien-st. lucy's

i'm not a full-time debate coach (i'm a full time data scientist), but i'm at a tournament almost every weekend. this means most of my interaction with debate is at tournaments and/or when i'm contributing to team research. more importantly, this means i care a lot about the debate community. i come to so many tournaments because i want to make debate better and i care about students -- i have almost zero tolerance for teams who are mean, actively try to make the activity worse, etc. so, be nice!

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments. I am good for teams that do topic research and not the best for teams whose final rebuttals sound like they could be given on any topic/against any strategy.

Topic Knowledge: I don't teach at camp but I do keep up with the topic. I'm involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research. My topic knowledge for events that aren't policy debate is zero, but I'll rarely be judging these events anyway.

email chains:

damiendebate47@gmail.com

nethmindebate@gmail.com

please add both

non-negotiables:

1 - speech times - constructive are 8 minutes, rebuttals are 5, each partner must give one constructive and one rebuttal, cx cannot be transferred to prep.

2 - evidence ethics is not a case neg - will not vote on it unless you can prove a reasonable/good-faith attempt to contact the other team prior to the round.

3 - clipping requires proof by the accusing team or me noticing it. i'll vote on it with no recording if i notice it.

4 - i will not evaluate out-of-round events. this means no arguments about pref sheets, personal beef, etc. i will evaluate disclosure arguments.

flowing from the speech doc?

i will not flow from the speech doc.

i will only open speech docs in the middle of a debate for the following purposes:

1 - checking for clipping (i'll do this intermittently throughout the debate)

2 - to look at something that was emailed out and flagged as necessary for my understanding of the debate (rehighlighted evidence, disclosure screenshot, chart that's part of a card, perm text with certain words struck out, etc)

i will download speech docs at the end of the debate to read all relevant evidence prior to submitting my ballot

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:) you must show me your flows before i enter the ballot!!

Some general notes:

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve theory arguments about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. Going fast is fine, being unclear is not. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate is still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

Disclose or lose. Previously read positions must be on opencaselist. New positions do not need to be disclosed. "I do not have to disclose" is a losing argument in front of me 100% of the time.

Evidence -- it matters and I'll read it. Judge instruction is still a thing here. Don't just say "read this card" and not tell me why. Ev comparison is good. Cutting good cards is good. Failing to do one or both of those things leaves me to interpret your bad cards in whatever way I want -- that's likely to not be good. The state of evidence quality these days is an actual crime scene. If you read ev that is better than the national-circuit average, I will be so happy and your points will reflect that.

Technical debating matters.I have opinions about what arguments in debate are better/worse. I think things like the fiat k and process counterplans probably produce less in-depth and educational debates than positions that require large amounts of topic research. I've still voted for these positions when the team reading these arguments executes a technical win. This means that you should not be too stressed about my predispositions -- just win the debate and you'll be fine!

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

2ac add-ons must be coherent in the speech they are presented. You don't get to turn a random card on a random sheet into an add-on in the 2ar.

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have some kind of relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

I think framework is true but I will do my best to evaluate your arguments fairly.It is easier to win against framework when affirmative teams explain the warrants for their arguments and don't presuppose that I immediately agree with the warrants behind their impact turns to framework.

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am better for the neg. However, either team/side can win my ballot by doing better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness. I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponent's strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

Theory arguments other than conditionality are likely not a reason to reject the team. It will be difficult to change my mind on this.

Theory arguments must have warrants in the speech in which they are presented. Most 2ac theory arguments I've seen don't meet this standard.

Conditionality is an uphill battle in front of me. If the 2ac contained warrants + the block dropped the argument entirely, I would vote aff on conditionality, but in any other scenario, the aff team should likely not go for conditionality.

Please weigh! Many theory debates feel irresolvable without intervention because each team only extends their offense but does not interact with the other team's offense.

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are very helpful.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

"Plans bad" is pretty close to a nonstarter in front of me (this is more of a thing in LD I think).

Kritiks (neg):

I am best for K teams that engage with the affirmative, do line-by,line, and read links that prove that the aff is a bad idea. Good k debating is good case debating!

I am absolutely terrible for K teams that don't debate the case. Block soup = bad.

I vote for K teams often when they are technical and make smart big-picture arguments and demonstrate topic knowledge. I vote against K teams when they do ... not that!

In general, clash-avoidant K strategies are bad, K strategies that involve case debating are good.

Disads:

Nothing revolutionary to say here. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare betterin close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about counterplan theory other than that condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

Competition debates have largely become debates where teams read a ton of evidence and explain none of it. Please explain your competition evidence and I will be fine! I'll read cards after the debate, but would prefer that you instruct me on what to do with those cards.

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra points for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus points for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-"tricks"

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

-new affs bad

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

sim low Georgetown Day School 2 rounds

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

my background

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

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

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

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

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

general

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

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

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

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

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

keep track of your own time.

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

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

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

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

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

public forum

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

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

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

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

Alyssa Lucas-Bolin Glenbrook South High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 8:25 AM CDT

Top shelf:

Pronouns are she/her

Just call me Alyssa or ALB - do not call me judge and dear debate Lord do not call me ma'am.

TOC 25 UPDATE: Literally all I care about is that you flow and do line by line. That is way more important to me than argument choice. If you are actually debating I will be good for you. If you are just going to read blocks without engaging your opponents please have mercy and do not put me on your pref sheet.

RE: Truf's flowing off the doc post - times I look at the doc:

-I typically will read the plan text and CP texts during the round in the sense that if I mis flow those we are all kinda cooked. I spot check for clipping on cards every once in a while. If there is an ornate perm text I will check that during the debate. If a specific piece of evidence is called into question during CX or during a speech I may check that piece of ev during CX or during prep. Besides that I will not under any circumstances flow off the doc. If you are unclear and I therefore do not understand your argument I could not expect your opponents to and therefore I will not vote for you. Thisincludes the text of cards - I need to be able to hear the warrants IN those cards.

Email chains: SonomaCardsCardsCards@gmail.com AND alyssa.lucas-bolin@sonomaacademy.org AND ipostround@googlegroups.com I strongly prefer email chains over speech drop etc.

I deleted most of my paradigm

...Because I have run into way way way too many situations where people wildly misinterpret my paradigm and it leads to a rather miserable situation (mostly for myself.)

Debate well and we'll figure it out.

I'd prefer you talk about the topic and that your affirmative be in the direction of the topic. I could not possibly care less if that is via policy debate or K debate. False divide yada yada. Both policy teams and K teams are guilty of not actually talking about the topic and I am judging ALL of you.

Speed is fine but I need clear distinction between arguments and I need you to build up your speed for the first 10 seconds.

Tag team is fine but I'd prefer that the designated partner handle most of the cross ex - only intervene if it is absolutely necessary. I am an educator and would prefer to see each student develop their skill set.

Stop stealing prep.

Please make as many T Swift references as possible.

Have solvency advocates - plz plz plz don't read a cardless CP :(

Heavy stuff:

*No touching. Handshakes after the debate = fine but that is it.

*I am not the right judge for call outs of specific debate community members

*I am a mandatory reporter. Keep that in mind if you are reading any type of personal narrative etc in a debate. A mandatory reporter just means that if you tell me something about experiencing violence etc that I have to tell the authorities.

*I care about you and your debate but I am not your debate mommy. I am going to give you direct feedback after the debate. I won't be cruel but I'm also not a sugar coater. It takes some people off guard because they may be expecting me to coddle them. It's just not my personality - I deeply care about your debate career and want you to do your best. I also am just very passionate about arguments. If you're feeling like I'm being a little intense just Shake It Off (Lauren Ivey.)

*Clipping = zero points and a hot L. Clarity to the point of non-comprehension that causes a clipping challenge constitutes clipping.

*I am more than fine with you post rounding as long as you keep it respectful. I would genuinely prefer you understand my decision than walk out frustrated because that doesn't help you win the next time. Bring it on (within reason). I'm back in the ring baby.

Let's have a throwdown!!! If you're reading this before a round I am excited to see what you have to offer.

Kate Marin Baltimore City College 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 6:52 AM EDT

The briefest background info ever:

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

1- K, phil

2- policy/LARP

3/strike- theory/tricks

Put me on the email chain

cgmarin186@gmail.com

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

* Misc things that are not up for debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

My default procedure for evaluating a debate -

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

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

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

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

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

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

- the negs job is to convince me to vote neg

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

- I start my evaluation with framework/framing

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

more detailed takes for people who want them:

K's:

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

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

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

DAs:

Love them (and never get to judge them lmao)

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

CPs:

Solvency advocate theory is probably true

These are a solid and underutilized strategy against k affs

Theory/T:

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

I am very persuaded by perf con

Disclosure theory means I need screenshots with a timestamp

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

T FW/T USFG

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

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

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

affs

I've read all kinds of affs.

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

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

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

Extra

+.1 speaks for a one piece reference

+.2 speaks if you make me laugh

John Marshall Greenhill School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 15, 2024 at 11:36 AM EDT

Johnisthe4@gmail.com

I debated at Lawrence Free State from 2018 to 2022 and the University of Kansas from 2022 to 2025. I love policy debate and have a profound appreciation for the preparation that goes into the activity. Debaters work hard, so I will work hard for them. Below is a general outline of my decision-making process:

1. My decision starts and ideally ends with what the debaters said as determined by the flow. These decisions are non-interventionist. I will not arbitrarily disregard calling old arguments new, going for eye-roll-worthy theory arguments, making uncontested new arguments prior to the 2AR, and so on. This includes cross-examination: while I flow it and treat it as binding, debaters must use and apply CX answers in their speeches for them to matter in my decision-making. If an argument is dropped, I accept it at face value. This is tempered by a few exceptions:

A. Explanation matters. My understanding of an argument as communicated is the basis for its consideration. Meeting the threshold of ‘understanding’ requires each claim have some accompanying explanation. The words ‘no US-China war,’ even if dropped, mean nothing for my decision-making no matter how easy it may be to fill-in the blanks. Also—the more esoteric an argument is, the more explanation it will require. I try to be as debater-friendly as I can in this exception: I will work hard with the explanation given to overcome my own knowledge gaps. But at the end of decision time I will disregard portions of the flow which were not effectively communicated; err on the side of over-explanation.

B. Clarity and pace matter. I will read the text of evidence as much as I can during speeches to check for clipping but I do not follow tags or analytics digitally. If I cannot flow an argument, I cannot understand it and thus will not evaluate it even if it was actually present in the debate. I do not verbally clear speakers; err on the side of extreme clarity.

C. I will not vote on events that occurred outside of the debate. I err on the side of continuing productive debate should ethics issues raise, such as scratching the card.

D. One debater, one constructive, one rebuttal. I will not flow the other debater if they interject or read parts of another debater’s speech and stop flowing a second or two after the end of a speech.

2. If my flow alone is insufficient to reach a decision either way, I will intervene to the minimum extent necessary. At a minimum, this involves extrapolating warrants and arguments from evidence. I evaluate cards in invisibility mode; err on the side of over-highlighting. At a maximum, here are my predispositions which can influence decisions:

A. I default to judge kick and competing interpretations.

B. I am a proud member of the cult of limits. I find extremely limited, controversial topics far preferable to even moderately-sized topics that allow the AFF to evade controversy and departure from the status quo or monopolize moral truisms.

C. I am more likely to agree with the AFF the less a CP is assumed in topic literature.

D. Perf cons zero NEG kritik frameworks. Fiat is an inevitable, predictable, and productive form of imagination.

E. Pragmatism, rationality, consequentialism, and prevention of unnecessary death and suffering are good.

Kathy Martinez Northside College Preparatory 2 rounds

Samuel Maurer Head-Royce High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 2:45 PM CDT

Samuel Maurer
Part time coach @ Head-Royce

Yes I want to be on the speech doc. samuel.maurer@gmail.com

TOC 2024 update

I haven't judged a debate in a year so you're going to have to fill me in on topic nuance if you want me to vote on it. Since I also haven't been flowing for awhile, focusing on transmission of the important stuff is probably a very valuable use of your time.

ALSO...I clarify below that CXing and getting CXed are speeches to me. If you waive your CX to prep, the floor for speaker points falls well below a 27, just as if you had 'opted-out' of a rebuttal. Not being able to come-up with any useful attempts at CX questions screams "I don't understand strategy" to me so I don't have reservations about wrecking points. You've been warned.

old stuff

A note on speech docs: I read them during the debate to enhance my knowledge of your arguments. I do not read them to fill-in the blank for a speech that is incomprehensible. I judge the debate speeches, I don't referee emails. So assuming that the written existence of an argument in the document is a sufficient means of introducing it into the debate is dangerous in front of me. If that key comparison was buried in the middle of a wall of text you read like a bored robot, I'm not going to evaluate it. Conversely, if you are deliberately unpacking evidence that I can re-read to verify your interpretations and arguments, your doc can help add depth to your argument. I read the doc as a speech supplement, not a substitute.

I’ll talk about some more specific proclivities that may be useful for your strike-sheet since, if you are reading this, you’re probably filling it out.

Speaker points/CX: I believe that debaters give 4 “speeches” in a debate: C, R, CX, and Being CXed. My speaker points are based on all 4. If you don’t answer/ask a CX question, your speaker points will suffer dramatically. If you’re an jerk or don’t answer simple questions or are simply obstructionist, speaker points suffer. Don’t neglect CX. I will diligently flow cross-examination but if you take prep to ask questions, I consider it to not be part of the debate. Don't be offended if I leave while you go into overtime.

Know when its better to slow down

-- if I’ve never judged you before, give me time at the beginning of a constructive to get used to your voice.

-- complex/tricky CP texts – please slow down during these. I’m not going to look at the speech doc and CX won’t always clear it up. Clearly emphasize the differences (supreme court, different language pic, etc.)

-- Judge instruction helps me -- big picture moments in rebuttals -- "if we win this, we win the debate", etc. Crucial moments of impacts/evidence comparison.

Evidence: Quality over Quantity – I know this is almost a cliché in judging philosophies but I don’t just mean lots of bad cards are worse than 1 good card. That is obvious. I also mean that you should consider focusing on fewer cards in front of me than you might otherwise.

-- Indexing – judging debates where last rebuttals (more often 2NR’s) mention every name of every card and say how it interacts with an argument concept (“McCoy means we turn the link”, “Smith is the impact to that”) is very frustrating for me. I thrive on the big picture. I don’t view your evidence as that or even an argument unto itself – I view your evidence as a tool. You have to explain how it works and why.

-- highlighting – I find myself increasingly choosing to ignore or assign very little weight to evidence because scant highlighting leaves a lot to the imagination. In front of me, it might be wise to select a few important cards in the debate that you would read a longer version of (crucial internal link card for elections, link to the PIC’s net benefits, alt cards, etc.).

-- I read evidence after debates to confirm its function in your speeches, not so that it can “make an argument” to me in some disembodied fashion 15 minutes after the round ends.

I prefer narrower, deeper debates: Not going to lie, when debates get horizontally big and stay that way through rebuttals, I’m less comfortable making a decision. I think this has to do with how I read evidence (above) in that often times debates that stay horizontally big require the judge to do a lot of inference into conclusions made in cards they read as opposed to speeches they evaluate. I’m okay with debates on several sheets of paper but just make sure you are identifying what you think are the strategic bottlenecks of the debate and how you are winning them. “they can’t win X if we win Y because the following impact comparison wasn’t answered…”

Links/UQ: I think debaters too often think of link direction in purely binary terms. In addition to winning links, debaters need to explicitly create mechanisms for evaluating link direction. don’t just put “this thing key” cards in my hands and expect me to ref an ev fight. Tell me why this internal controls the other or vice versa.

Framework: I’ve voted for either side of this debate plenty of times. If it’s a choice between an engaging strategy against a critical aff and T, the former is a preferable strategy in front of me. I will vote on impact turns to topicality even if the negative doesn’t go for it (provided, of course, the affirmative makes a valid argument for why I should). I find myself often frustrated in debates that lack concrete nouns and instead choose arguments/strategies where abstractions are posited in relationship to one another, concretizing through examples helps a lot. I think 'fairness' is an internal link that, when well-developed with method for debate that is academically engaging and balanced, can have a large impact on my decision. By itself, a fair game is just stable, could be good or bad. I think negs running framework are best when talking about dynamics of the debate, not just complaining about how much/many affs there are. I'm not one who believes in the "procedural fairness or education" dilemma, good framework execution involves both I think. TVA's and SSD's are defense/counterplan type arguments that I think both sides are wise to not just address but frame in my decision.

Theory: Seems dead. Seemingly fewer and fewer affirmatives even make a meaningful press on theoretical objections to the CP. I still appreciate theory on the aff and not just as an “independent voter” but rather a good way to strategically dictate the landscape of the debate. This by no means implies that I’m a hack for any affirmative theory argument. But it does mean aff’s that hear a 3 cp’s in the 1NC and don’t make more than a 10 second conditionality block and don’t mention that there were 3 counterplans are giving up on some production. I think it goes without saying that very blippy theory debates are terrible. Slowing down and being more thematic and explanatory is almost always a better approach the theory execution in front of me. In the end, I'm pretty old school and think theory needs to make a comeback (mostly so aff's can not give their cases away to disposable 15-plank hydras every debate) but it seems perfunctory in execution anymore.
Finally, please make sure to mark evidence as you read it.

Lauren McBlain Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue August 27, 2024 at 11:19 AM CDT

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.

I AM A VERY BAD JUDGE FOR TRICKS --- READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Everything else from policy probably applies.

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.

David McDermott Glenbrook South High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed July 3, 2024 at 12:04 PM EDT

please add to the email chain:

gbsdebate2024@gmail.com

djmcdermott2@gmail.com

HS Debate: 18-22 (4 years) -- Walter Payton WM

College Debate: 23 (1 year) -- Michigan MS

Top

Judging record is more informative than judging opinions.

How I Decide Rounds

I go through parts of the debate in this order, and stop at one if it is sufficient for me to not need to go further.

1. The flow.

This aspect is all tech, no truth. As far as I can tell, I am easily among the most tech-oriented debaters/judges in debate right now. I imagine I'd pull the trigger on a small technical concession much more readily than many other judges. Similarly, I think there are probably far more low point wins than are actually given out. The flow is where my analysis will end for almost all crushes and many debates that are semi-close but not that that close. I have switched to flowing on computer because back-to-back analytics were unflowable for me on paper. I still have no qualms voting you down on an argument I didn't flow in a speech because you were spreading through blocks even if it truly had been there, but hopefully flowing on computer will make this less of an issue.

2. Evidence

Mixture of tech and truth (truer args have better ev, but better card cutters/researchers will put out better ev). I get to this level of analysis in two circumstances: either a) I'm told to read cards or evidence quality is centered in the debate or b) despite not being told to read ev, the flow is too close to vote on alone. This is where most good, close debates will end.

3. Minor Intervention

Tech guided by truth. If I still can't comfortably decide a round based on ev and flow, I'll do things like give more weight to evidence quality despite not being told to by the debaters, look for potential cross-apps, or try to find something like that to decide a round without having to fully insert my opinion. This is where most bad debates without enough judge instruction will end.

4. Major Intervention

All truth. This is where bad debates with no clash and no judge instruction will end.

Biases

I hope to use the above steps consistently irregardless of what args are in front of me, and I think judges who are ideologically predisposed for or against a certain argument or style are annoying. I hope these biases won't affect my decisions, but the way someone has debated/coached will inevitably affect their judging in some way, so following is a list of biases based on how I've debated:

1. Policy bias. I'm almost certainly better for the K than you think (especially Ks on the NEG), and certainly better for it than my debating record would suggest; cross-apply all the tech first stuff here -- more than happy to vote on some small conceded disad to a NEG framework model if competently extended. This bias is mainly limited to thinking about these debates differently from how primarily K debaters would since I've almost always been on the policy side of policy v K debates.

2. 2N bias. This is small and to be honest could help the AFF more than it helps the NEG because I'm somewhat lenient for 1ARs in terms of if I count an extension to be an argument. I think structural AFF side bias (first and last speech) is probably true in theory but tech determines if I think that's true when judging. Overall I don't expect this to affect my judging very much. Probably one of the most 50/50 judges on condo. Default to judge kick.

3. "Small School" bias. For the most part I think people complaining about being from a "small school" would be better off spending the time they spend talking about it cutting cards, and if you do that you'll be just as competitive as your peer from a big school. However, the one area where I think there is truly a difference in schools is that I think a sizeable majority of judges are likely to (obviously subconsciously) factor school's/team's rep into their decision in close debates. I hate this and have a bit of a chip on my shoulder because of it. If debate rounds could be judged blindly I'd be all for it. I obviously won't hack for "small schools" or against "big schools," but when I was doing prefs late in my career I frequently wondered if a judge who would be good for me in most debates might be bad for me in those few key debates where I was hitting a team with more rep. I am not one of those judges.

4. Good argument bias. This is maybe too obvious to warrant saying. I'll vote on tricks and dropped ASPEC or whatever (all the flow first stuff applies for annoying args as well) but obviously in a close debate find it easier to vote for an argument with good ev, deep defenses, well-explained warrants, etc., and will likely award higher speaks in those kinds of debates.

Stuff I Frequently Wondered About Judges

-- What framework impact? --

I almost always went for fairness and consider it the most strategic, however I know I was considerably worse going for non-fairness impacts when I tried to adapt to judges, so I would just do whatever you like best.

-- Can I go for the K/K AFF? --

Yes.

-- How many condo? --

Don't care. If you lose condo you'll lose and if you win condo you'll win, the amount you read probably won't end up mattering past a good 2A contextualizing their interp to the round.

-- Do advantage counterplans need solvency advocates? --

Don't care.

-- 1NC construction/do they care about a ton of off? --

Don't care. Do whatever.

-- Insert rehighlightings? --

Fine.

-- Plan text in a vacuum? --

Fine.

-- Is going for theory hopeless? --

No.

-- If they drop condo or aspec or it's a crush etc do I have to fill the whole 2NR/2AR? --

No.

Speaks

Mean speaks is 28.5, standard deviation is .4, so two-thirds of debaters will be from 28.1-28.9, 95% will be from 27.7 to 29.3, and essentially all will be from 27.3 to 29.7.

Ryan McFarland Blue Valley Southwest High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 1, 2024 at 4:33 AM CDT

Ryan McFarland
Debated at KCKCC and Wichita State

Two years of coaching at Wichita State, 3 years at Hutchinson High School in Kansas, two years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel, now at Blue Valley Southwest.

email chain: remcfarland043@gmail.com , bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

Stop reading; debate. Reading blocks is not debating. You will not get higher than a 28.3 from me if you cant look away from your computer and make an argument.

I've seen deeper debates in slow rounds than I've seen in "fast" rounds the last couple years. "Deep" does not mean quantity of arguments, but quality and explanation of arguments.

Talk about the affirmative. I've judged so many debates the last couple years where the affirmative is not considered after the 1AC. Impact defense doesn’t count. I don't remember the last time my decision included anything about impact defense that wasn't dropped.

2024-2025 things ----

I haven't done as much topic reading at this point in the year as I have in the past. I think the topic is incredibly boring and neg args are pretty bad. I think the K links are much more persuasive this year than previously. I'm not sure how I feel about being very anti-process/ridiculous advantage counterplans in a world where the best DA is court clog, but I could see myself being much more sympathetic to negative teams in this regard. That said, I still think affirmative teams should get good at theory against these arguments.

I've left my paradigm from last year below. That should still filter how you pref me, but I will likely find the K much more strategic and persuasive, which is probably the most significant change.

Old ----

I am not a fan of process counterplans. I’m not auto-vote against them, but I think they’ve produced a lazy style of debating. I don’t understand why we keep coming up with more convoluted ways to make non-competitive counterplans competitive instead of just admitting they aren’t competitive and moving on with our lives.

I'm not good for the K. I spent most of my time debating going for these arguments, have coached multiple teams to go for them, so I think I understand them well. I've been trying to decide if it's about the quality of the debating, or just the argument, but I think I just find these arguments less and less persuasive. Maybe its just the links made on this topic, but it's hard for me to believe that giving people money, or a job, doesn't materially make peoples lives better which outweighs whatever the impact to the link you're going for. I don't think I'm an auto-vote aff, but I haven't voted for a K on this topic yet.

If you decide to go for the K, I care about link contextualization much more than most judges. The more you talk about the aff, the better your chances of winning. I dislike the move to never extend an alternative, but I understand the strategic choice to go for framework + link you lose type strategies.

An affirmative winning capitalism, hegemony, revisionism true/good, etc. is a defense of the affirmatives research and negative teams will have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

I think K affirmatives, most times, don't make complete arguments. They often sacrifice solvency for framework preempts. I understand the decision, but I would probably feel better about voting for an affirmative that doesn't defend the topic if it did something.

Zero risk is real. Read things other than impact defense. Cross-ex is important for creating your strategy and should be utilized in speeches. Don’t be scared to go for theory. Conditionality is good. Argument legitimacy is not a reason to reject the team, but should be a strategic tool for affirmatives. I will not vote on something that happened outside of a debate, or an argument that requires me to make a judgement about a high school kid's character.

Don't clip. Clarity issues that make it impossible to follow in the doc is considered clipping.

Valerie McIntosh New Trier High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu August 22, 2024 at 7:25 AM EDT

Debate Coach - University of Michigan

Debate Coach - New Trier High School

Michigan State University '13

Brookfield Central High School '09

I would like to be on the email chain - my email address is valeriemcintosh1@gmail.com. For high school debates, please add ntpolicydebate@gmail.com to the chain. For college debates, please add debatedocs@umich.edu to the chain (or if you're already adding the debate docs google group, that works too).

A few top level things:

If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is. This also includes forwarding the argument that death is good because suffering exists. I will not vote on it.
If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
I'm a very expressive judge. Look up at me every once in a while, you will probably be able to tell how I feel about your arguments.
I don't think that arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates are at all relevant to my decision and I will not evaluate them. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.

Pet peeves

The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start
Asking if I am ready or saying you'll start if there are no objections, etc. in in-person debates - we're all in the same room, you can tell if we're ready!
Email-sending related failures
Dead time
Stealing prep
Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team
Asserting things are dropped when they aren't
Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards
Disappearing after the round

Online debate: My camera will always be on during the debate unless I have stepped away from my computer during prep or while deciding so you should always assume that if my camera is off, I am not there. I added this note because I've had people start speeches without me there.

Ethics: If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points.
*NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me.

Organization: I would strongly prefer that if you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn that it go on its own page - its super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders. Ditto to reading advantage CPs on case - put it on its own sheet, please!

Cross-x: Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions. If you don't start the timer before you start asking those questions, I will take whatever time I estimate you took to ask questions before the timer was started out of your prep. If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Translated evidence: I am extremely skeptical of evidence translated by a debater or coach with a vested interest in that evidence being used in a debate. Lots of words or phrases have multiple meanings or potential translations and debaters/coaches have an incentive to choose the ones that make the most debate-friendly argument even if that's a stretch of what is in the original text. It is also completely impossible to verify if words or text was left out, if it is a strawperson, if it is cut out of context, etc. I won't immediately reject it on my own but I would say that I am very amenable to arguments that I should.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate: I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting. This can also be accomplished by reading those lines in cross-x and then referencing them in a speech or just making analytics about their card(s) in your speech and then providing a rehighlighting to explain it.

Topicality: I enjoy judging topicality debates when they are in-depth and nuanced. Limits are an an important question but not the only important question - your limit should be tied to a particular piece of neg ground or a particular type of aff that would be excluded. I often find myself to be more aff leaning than neg leaning in T debates because I am often persuaded by the argument that negative interpretations are arbitrary or not based in predictable literature.

5 second ASPEC shells/the like that are not a complete argument are mostly nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans: I would say that I generally lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps, but obviously am more than willing to vote for them if they are debated better by the negative.

I think that CPs should have to be policy actions. I think this is most fair and reciprocal with what the affirmative does. I think that fiating indefinite personal decisions or actions/non-actions by policymakers that are not enshrined in policy is an unfair abuse of fiat that I do not think the negative should get access to. The CP that has the US declare it will not go to war with China would be theoretically legitimate but the CP to have the president personally decide not to go to war with China would not be. Similarly CPs that fiat a concept or endgoal rather than a policy would also fall under this.

It is the burden of the neg to prove the CP solves rather than the burden of the aff to prove it doesn't. Unless the neg makes an attempt to explain how/why the CP solves (by reading ev, by referencing 1AC ev, by explaining how the CP solves analytically), my assumption is that it doesn’t and it isn’t the aff’s burden to prove it doesn’t. The burden for the neg isn’t that high but I think neg teams are getting away with egregious lack of CP explanation and judges too often put the burden on the aff to prove the CP doesn’t solve rather than the neg to prove it does.

Disads: Uniqueness is a thing that matters for every level of the DA. I am not very sympathetic to politics theory arguments (except in the case of things like rider disads, which I might ban from debate if I got the choice to ban one argument and think are certainly illegitimate misinterpretations of fiat) and am unlikely to ever vote on them unless they're dropped and even then would be hard pressed. I'm incredibly knowledgeable about politics and enjoy it a lot when debated well but really dislike seeing it debated poorly.

Theory: Conditionality is often good. It can be not. Conditionality is the ONLY argument I think is a reason to reject the team, every other argument I think is a reason to reject the argument alone. Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Kritiks: I've gotten simultaneously more versed in critical literature and much worse for the kritik as a judge over the last few years. Take from that what you will.

Your K should ideally be a reason why the aff is bad, not just why the status quo is bad. If not, you're better off with it primarily being a framework argument.

Yes the aff gets a perm, no it doesn't need a net benefit.

Affs without a plan: I generally go into debates believing that the aff should defend a hypothetical policy enacted by the United States federal government. I think debate is a research game and I struggle with the idea that the ballot can do anything to remedy the impacts that many of these affs describe.

I certainly don't consider myself immovable on that question and my decision will be governed by what happens in any given debate; that being said, I don't like when judges pretend to be fully open to any argument in order to hide their true thoughts and feelings about them and so I would prefer to be honest that these are my predispositions about debate, which, while not determinate of how I judge debates, certainly informs and affects it.

I would describe myself as a good judge for T-USFG against affs that do not read a plan. I find impacts about fairness and clash to be very persuasive. I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I am not very persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.

I generally am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.

I don't think debate is roleplaying.

I am uncomfortable making decisions in debates where people have posited that their survival hinges on my ballot.

Devon McSager Kenwood Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 2:11 PM CDT

Email Chain: The Round must use the in tabroom, or similar, to share files as this is safer for you & me :)
speechdrop.net is easy to use. Use this if the tabroom share isn't setup.

Debate Experience
I've never debated. If you want detailed analysis of your speeches and in round decisions I am not your judge.

"Coaching" Experience

Philips Academy- Chicago, IL 2010-2012
*I was a second adult.

Kenwood Academy- Chicago, IL 2014-present
*My main focus is coaching and supporting the novices (and driving the bus). If you're planning to run a strategy far outside something that a generic novice packet would include and a novice would be able to understand I likely won't either... Just because my team runs K Affs doesn't mean I understand what they are doing.

I def. lean truth over tech...

**If you are going to try to argue that Racism or any of the isms doesn't exist or isn't that bad then I'm probably not going to vote for you. I try to go in neutral but I can't completely divorce the round from what I believe to be true about the systems of the world and our society (which include racism, sexism, etc..)**

I want to hear clash and a good demonstration of understanding from the AFF and NEG (if you're reading a card you should understand and be able to explain it - especially in R speeches. basically "why is this argument or evidence important". I find I give slightly more leniency to the negative in terms of understanding especially for novice debaters, but, Affs you chose the case so you should know and understand your own cards and plan.

Good signposting is so important to me and really helps me to flow arguments and not waste time trying to figure out which flow you've moved on to.

I'm always looking for good impact calc and a good solid explanation of why your team wins over the other. "they dropped x-y&z" often isn't good enough for me- why were those arguments essential for them to win and without them they have now in your interpretation lost the round.

I'm okay with spreading as long as I can understand what you're saying. don't just assume because you sent out the cards that you can blur all of your words together. If I can't confidently flow it then I wont and it wont be part of my decision. For novice debaters it is often helpful to slow down for the tags. sign posting and a clear roadmap are also essential to a well organized debate. (it might not be normal but I love when debaters give the name of their offs in the 1NC- just helps me stay organized).

please run your own timer

You don't have to ask to take prep, it is your prep, use it! just make sure you don't steal prep.

Racism, bigotry, homo/transphobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, or hatred towards a group is never acceptable and I will give the win to the other team almost automatically.

Be respectful and assume best intent from your opponents.

Brad Meloche Wylie E. Groves HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 10:23 AM EDT

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

Piper's older brother (pref her, not me)

Email: bradgmu@gmail.com (High School Only: Please include grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com as well.)

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain)

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and most forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Stolen bits of wisdom

...from DML: If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

...from Christopher Callahan, PhD: I find the desire for explicit/written-out "perm texts" bewildering. If your counterplan's strategy involves nitpicking the words in a permutation rather than substantively distinguishing the actions of the plan and the counterplan, I'll be a bad judge for it.

Specifics

Non-traditional – I believe debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life. Similarly, I don't want to mediate debates about things that happened outside the context of the debate round.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest. "Let's flip a coin to decide who wins and just have a discussion" is a nonstarter.

4) Name-calling based on perceived incongruence between someone's identity and their argument choice is unlikely to be a recipe for success.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K or to permute an uncompetitive alternative.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - ...are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual to the tournament, division, round, etc. I am more likely to reward good performance with high points than punish poor performance with below average points. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Being rude to your partner or the other team is a good way to persuade me to explore the deepest depths of my point range.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

Random

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision. Inserting a chart where there is nothing to read is ok.

Absent a tournament rule allowing it, cross-x and prep time are NOT interchangeable. You have 3 minutes of time to ask questions. Cross-x time shall not be used for prep, and other than MAYBE a quick clarification question, prep should not be used to grill your opponents.

Piper Meloche Wylie E. Groves HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2024 at 7:05 AM EDT

Piper Meloche [she/her, last name rhymes with "josh" not "brioche"]

1L at Harvard Law School

pipermeloche@gmail.com [all email chains, questions]

grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com [high school only]

What I expect from you

1. Non-negotiables - Racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, or other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated. Nor will cheating. Unless the tournament rules tell me otherwise, I will not let an ethics challenge be "debated out." If there is an instance of discrimination in a round I am judging, I will allow the impacted person to decide whether the debate continues. I cannot adjudicate what I did not directly witness.

2. Strong preferences - flow, keep your own time, and frame my ballot at the top of the late rebuttals. Whenever possible, prioritize evidence quality - good cards and smart re-highlights will be rewarded with high speaks.

3. Be nice to each other and have fun - the people we meet and the ideas we learn in debate are far more important than the result of any individual round, tournament, season, or career. I am very sensitive to condescending and rude cross-ex questions - especially when the two students have a power imbalance.

What to expect from me

1. Tech over truth - but the two are far more interwoven than many debaters think. I often grow frustrated when teams give their opponents' best arguments the same attention as their opponents' worst arguments. Truth exists and should determine how you execute tech. Arguments also must not be morally repugnant - death good, oppression good count as morally repugnant, and hot take, global warming good is pushing it. All below preferences assume equal debating.

2. Better for policy arguments... - The purpose of this paradigm is not to constrain what you do in front of me but to give you the most accurate understanding of my predispositions and how I try to judge debates. I have far more experience in the realm of policy v. policy debates. States and politics is my ideal neg block on pretty much any domestic topic. I'm downright envious of how good the elections disad is on the college topic this year.

3. ...but I love a good clash round - The above being said, I immensely enjoyed debating and presently enjoy adjudicating clash rounds. The more the four debaters in a given round defy the stereotype of speeding through pre-written t-blocks, the more I will enjoy the round (as will your other judges I promise). I might know less about your theory of power than many other judges. Buyer beware, I guess.

Topic Things

Not familiar with the high school or college topics. Please explain acronyms and the like.

Policy v. Policy

1. The politics disad is good, actually. It's only "bad" if you're bad at storytelling. Know the major political figures and forces involved in the disad.

2. A smartly constructed advantage counterplan can solve most affs.

3. Counterplans should compete. Creative permutations can and should check counterplans that do not compete.

4. Conditionality is good, and all other theory is a reason to reject the argument. Conditionality ends after the 2NR if there is equal debating on judge kick or everyone is silent on the issue.

Clash

I'm far more familiar with identity Ks than Baudrillard and friends.

K affs v. Topicality --

1. Neg teams should answer case.

2. K affs should have a substantial tie to the topic.

3. Creative TVAs are an underrated part of the T debate - they should be something you actively research, not an afterthought.

4. I would prefer that aff teams provide and defend a clear counter-interpretation for the topic.

5. Everyone should avoid making gross exaggerations on the topicality page. K affs, for example, will not cause everyone to quit the activity.

Policy affs v. K --

1. Aff teams are most successful in these debates when they invest time in link comparison and flesh out the perm.

2. Neg teams are usually in a better spot when they prove that the aff is worse than the status quo and invest a substantial amount of time into the alternative.

K v. K

I have not judged enough of these rounds to give insight into how I evaluate them. Please prefer and provide judge instruction accordingly.

Random Hot Takes

1. The state of the high school and college wikis is disheartening. If you are scared that your entire strategy will collapse if others have your evidence, your evidence is probably not that good to begin with.

I think posting cites instead of Open Source is perfectly fine. BUT you have to check that you’re uploading complete citations! That includes the full tag, author, date, qualifications, a link to where we can access the text if available, and the first and last 3 words of your card.

2. Inserting rehighlights is *usually* good practice - read better evidence if this makes you sad. Rehighligted evidence will only be considered to the extent that it is explained. "Meloche goes neg" is not an explanation. At some point, introducing excessive rehighlights makes the level of explanation I need impossible.

3. A phenomenal 2AR cannot make up for a 2AC with sloppy mistakes - taking a few seconds of 2AC prep to make sure everything is in order is more valuable than saving those 15 seconds for the 2AR.

4. Your breath control sucks - easiest way to fix it is to try and take breaths at the end of sentences like we do in normal conversations. You'll sound and feel better.

5. After each tournament, I check how the points I gave compared to those received by the teams I judge throughout the weekend. This is my attempt to keep up with point inflation, but it doesn't always work.

6. Death by a Thousand Cuts is a fantastic Taylor Swift song - it is a mediocre neg strategy.

7. I am judging how easy to read, quickly sent, and aesthetically pleasing your judge doc is. Not in a win/loss way, but in a "I'm keeping a mental tier-list" way.

----

I've been trying to delete this numbered list for like 20 mins and gave up :(

Dustin Meyers-Levy Glenbrook North 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 9:24 AM CDT

Misc procedural things:

1. He/him/his; "DML">"Dustin">>>"judge">>>>>>>>>>"Mr. Meyers-Levy"

2. Debated at Edina HS in Minnesota from 2008-2012, at the University of Michigan from 2012-2017, and currently coach at Glenbrook North and Michigan

3. Evidence sharing procedures:

High school: Speechdrop or the Tabroom/NDCA fileshare are preferred due to the requirements of my employer.
College: Email preferred; please add dustml[at]umich[dot]edu and debatedocs[at]umich[dot]edu (note that this is not the same as the community debatedocs listerv).

4. Nothing here set in stone debate is up to the debaters go for what you want to blah blah blah an argument is a claim and a warrant don't clip cards

5. Speaks usually range from 28.5-29.5. Below 28.5 and there are some notable deficiencies, above 29.5 you're one of the best debaters I've seen all year. I don't really try to compare different debaters across different rounds to give points; I assign them based on a round-by-round basis. I wish I could give ties more often and will do so if the tournament allows. If you ask me for a 30 you'll probably get a 27.

6. If you're breaking something new, you'll send it out before your speech, not after the speech ends or as it's read or whatever. If you don't want to comply with that, your points are capped at 27. If you're so worried that giving the neg team 8/9 extra minutes to look at your new aff will tip the odds against you, it's probably not good enough to win anyway.

7.Each person gives one constructive and one rebuttal. The first person who speaks is the only person I flow (I can make an exception for performances in 1ACs/1NCs). I don’t flow prompting until and unless the assigned speaker says the words that their partner is prompting. Absolutely no audience participation. No touching your opponents or their property without consent. If you need some part of this clarified, I’m probably not the judge for you.

8. I am a mandatory reporter and an employee of both a public university and a public high school. I am not interested in judging debates that may make either of those facts relevant.

9. If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

10. Online debates: If my camera's off, I'm not listening. Get active confirmation before you start speaking, don't ask "is anyone not ready" or say "stop me if you're not ready," especially if you aren't actually listening to/looking at the other participants before you check. If you start speaking and I'm not ready or there, expect abysmal speaker points.

11. I am trying to be more militant about timing, because decision times are getting shorter and shorter and people are getting worse and worse about it. I expect a degree of promptness and put-togetherness from you, and if you can't maintain that, it will likely cut into your speaker points. Conversely, if you are timing yourself (and your opponents) and are respectful of my time, I will bump your points. Here are a few things that I am going to try to enforce more diligently than I have in the past:

a. Prep ends when the speech doc has been emailed or uploaded to speechdrop/the fileshare.

b. A "marked document" only involves cards that were marked, not cards that were skipped. If you aren't sure whether or not the other team read a card, or an entire off-case argument, you can use your cross-x or prep time to ask about that. Unless you intend to ask cross-x questions about cards that were marked, you may not ask for a marked document before cross-x starts, and you may not delay the start of prep until the document is sent. I am willing to make exceptions for this when a speech is egregious in a way that seems like it might be trying to confuse the other team (e.g. dozens of marked cards, many more cards in the document than were read, etc), but you should ask me if that's okay.

c. I would prefer no bathroom breaks before your speech unless it's an emergency. Please don't make me ask you if it's an emergency.

d. There is no reason that you should be typing or whispering to your partner while prep is not running or a speech is not happening. If you do, I'll ask one time if you need prep; if you do it again, I'll start docking prep time for you.

e. Please time yourself and your opponents and write your prep time down. I don't keep a timer on me and I like to stretch my legs/get water or coffee during prep. If I have to guess how much time you have left, I will round down precipitously.

Top-level:

"I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity."

1. When making my decisions, I seek to answer four questions:

a. At what scale should I evaluate impacts, or how do I determine which impact outweighs the others?

b. What is necessary to address those impacts?

c. At what point have those impacts been sufficiently addressed?

d. How certain am I about either side’s answers to the previous three questions?

I don’t expect debaters to answer these questions explicitly or in order, but I do find myself voting for debaters who use that phrasing and these concepts (necessity, sufficiency, certainty, etc) as part of their judge instruction a disproportionate amount. I try to start every RFD with a sentence-ish-long summary of my decision (e.g. "I voted affirmative because I am certain that their impacts are likely without the plan and unlikely with it, which outweighs an uncertain risk of the impacts to the DA even if I am certain about the link"); you may benefit from setting up a sentence or two along those lines for me.

2. Intervention on my part is inevitable, but I’d like to minimize it if possible and equalize it if not. The way I try to do so is by making an effort to quote or paraphrase the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR in my RFD as much as possible. This means I find myself often voting for teams who a) minimize the amount of debate jargon they use, b) explicitly instruct me what I need in order to be certain that an argument is true, and c) don’t repeat themselves or reread parts of earlier speeches. (The notable exception to c) is quoting your evidence—I appreciate teams who tell me what to look for in their cards, as I’d rather not read evidence if I don’t have to.) I would rather default to new 2AR contextualization of arguments than reject new 2AR explanation and figure out how to evaluate/compare arguments on my own, especially if the 2AR contextualization lines up with how I understand the debate otherwise.

3. I flow on my computer and I flow mostly straight down. I appreciate debaters who debate in a way that makes that easy to do (clean line-by-line, numbering/subpointing, etc). I’ll make as much room as you want me to for an overview, but I won’t flow it on a separate sheet unless you say pretty please. If it’s not obvious to me at that point why it’s on a separate sheet, you’ll probably lose points. I usually flow 1ACs and 1NC off-case positions less attentively than the rest of the debate because I am reading the evidence and monitoring for clipping. Post-1AC and 1NC, I'll occasionally look at speech docs as cards are being read to check for clipping and understand context, but I'll never transcribe things from the doc. I have a pretty good flow for the most part, but sometimes I am not the fastest typer, so you will significantly benefit from slowing down a little in front of me. I prefer voting on arguments that I am certain about, and it is much easier to be certain about an argument when I know that I have written down everything that you’ve said.

4. At the margins, I would describe myself "truth over tech," in the sense that I must always vote for who did the better debating, and I tend to think that a team who drops "grass is green, voting issue" can still have done the better debating despite that concession (and, indeed, may have done the better debatingbecause they did not waste time answering that). Obviously, this is not to say that technical concessions do not matter--they're probably the most important part of my decisionmaking process! However, not all technical concessions matter, and the reasons that some technical concessions matter might not be apparent to me. A dropped argument is true, but non-dropped arguments can also be true, and I need you to contextualize how to evaluate and compare those truths. Some things that this implies:

a. I will not vote for something if I cannot answer the question "how do I know?" or "why is this true?" with an argument made somewhere else on the flow, or explain why it is a reason that one side or the other has done the better debating, even if it is technically conceded by the other team.

b. Arguments that do not pass the "how do I know?" test can be defeated with a verbal acknowledgement that the argument exists, plus a thumbs-down or a witty retort.

c. If one side has won a contested argument with a warrant, but conceded an argument without a warrant, and the former intuitively takes out the latter, I think it's more interventionist to say the conceded warrantless argument supersedes the contested warranted argument than the inverse.

d. If something is dropped in two (or more) speeches in a row, then all the above is largely out the window and the argument is considered true. The only exception is if a) the argument is not verifiably false based on my flow/recollection of the round (e.g. the neg team says "the 1AC didn't read a plan, vote neg on presumption" when the 1AC did read a plan), and b) the team who made the argument says that they should win despite it being unwarranted, and/or establishes a new warrant (which opens up the door for new answers, of course).

5. Presumption always initially goes negative because the affirmative always has the burden of proof. If the affirmative has met their burden of proof against the status quo, and the negative has not met their burden of rejoinder, I vote affirmative. I am more willing than many judges to vote on presumption, but it must have a warrant for why the case is zero and/or not meaningfully different from the status quo.

6. I appreciate well-thought-out perms with a brief summary of their function/net beneficiality in the 2AC. I get frustrated by teams who shotgun the same four perms on every page, especially when those perms are essentially the same argument (e.g. “perm do both” and “perm do the plan and non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt”) or when the perm is obviously nonsensical (e.g. “perm do the counterplan” against an advantage counterplan that doesn’t try to fiat the aff or against a uniqueness counterplan that bans the plan).

7. I prefer to judge engagement over avoidance. I would rather you beat your opponent at their best than trick them into dropping something. If your plan for victory involves hiding ASPEC in a T shell, or deleting your conditionality block from the 2AC in hopes that they miss it, or using a bunch of buzzwords that you think the other team won't understand but I will, I will be hard-pressed to conclude that you did the “better debating.”

8. I generally assume good faith on the part of debaters and I'm very reticent to ignore the rest of the debate/arguments being made (especially when not explicitly and extensively instructed to) in order to punish a team for what's often an honest mistake. I am much more willing to vote on these arguments as links/examples of links. Obviously, there are exceptions to this for egregious and/or intentionally problematic behavior, but if your strategy revolves around asking me to vote against a team based on unhighlighted/un-underlined parts of cards, out-of-round "receipts," or "gotcha" moments in cross-x, you may want to change your strategy for me.

K affs:

1. Debate is indisputably a game to some degree or another, and it can be other things besides that. It indisputably influences debaters' thought processes and subjectivities to some extent; it is also indisputably not the only influence on those things. I like when teams split the difference and account for debate’s inevitably competitive features rather than asserting it is only one thing or another.

2. I think I am better for K affs than I have been in the past. I am not worse for framework, but I am worse for the amount of work that people seem to do when preparing to go for framework. I am getting really bored by neg teams who recycle blocks without updating them in the context of the round and don’t make an effort to talk about the aff. I think the neg needs to say more than just “the aff’s method is better with a well-prepared opponent” or “non-competitive venues solve the aff’s offense” to meaningfully mitigate the aff's offense. If you are going for framework in front of me, you may want to replace those kinds of quotes in your blocks with specific explanations that reference what the aff says in speeches and cards.

3. I prefer clash impacts to fairness impacts, though I think fairness matters and will be hard-pressed to consciously choose to carry out the procedure of adjudication in an unfair manner. I differ from many other judges in that I actually prefer when the neg goes for framework as a straight turn to the aff without an external impact that "outweighs" (though they can help as tiebreakers). I give really high points to teams who use the aff's language, reference evidence/literature, etc to demonstrate why topical debates resolve the aff's offense better. I vote negative often when aff teams lack explanation for why someone should say "no" to the aff. I find that fairness strategies suffer when the aff pushes on the ballot’s ability to “solve” them; I would rather use my ballot to encourage the aff to argue differently rather than to punish them retroactively. I think fairness-centric framework strategies are vulnerable to aff teams impact turning the neg’s interpretation (conversely, I think counter-interpretation strategies are weak against fairness impacts).

4. I don't think I've ever voted on "if the 1AC couldn't be tested you should presume everything they've said is false"/"don't weigh the aff because we couldn't answer it," and I don't think I ever will.

5. I think non-framework strategies live and die at the level of competition and solvency. When aff teams invest time in unpacking permutations and solvency deficits, and the neg doesn’t advance a theory of competition beyond “no perms in a method debate” (whatever that means), I usually vote aff. When the aff undercovers the perm and/or the alt, I have a high threshold for new explanation and usually think that the 2NR should be the non-framework strategy.

6. Feels like people are just going through the motions when it comes to "yes/no models," "yes/no subjectivity shift," etc. Those parts of the debate are pretty boring to listen to and almost never get implicated out in a way that decides the round.

7. I do not care whether or not fiat has a resolutional basis.

Ks on the neg/being aff vs the K:

I am getting really bored by "stat check" affs that respond to every K by brute-forcing a heg or econ impact and reading the same "extinction outweighs, util, consequentialism, nuke war hurts marginalized people too" blocks/cards every debate. That's not to say that these affs are non-viable in front of me, but it is to say that I've often seen teams reading these big-stick affs in ways that seem designed to avoid engaging the substance of the K. If this is your strategy, you should talk about the alternative more, and have a defense of fiat that is not just theoretical.

I care most about link uniqueness and alt solvency. When I vote aff, it's because a) the aff gets access to their impacts, b) those impacts outweigh/turn the K, c) the K links are largely non-unique, and/or d) the neg doesn't have a well-developed alt push. Neg teams that push back on these issues--by a) having well-developed and unique links and impacts with substantive impact calculus in the block and 2NR, including unique turns case args (not just that the plan doesn't solve, but that it actually makes the aff's own impacts more likely), b) having a vision for what the world of the alt looks like that's defensible and ostensibly solves their impacts even if the aff wins a risk of theirs (case defense that's congruent with the K helps), and/or c) has a heavy push on framework that tells me what the alt does/doesn't need to solve--have a higher chance of getting my ballot. Some more specific notes:

1. Upfront, I'm not a huge fan of "post-/non-/more-than/humanism"-style Ks. I find myself more persuaded by most defenses/critical rehabilitations of humanism than I do by critiques of humanism that attempt to reject the category altogether. You can try your best to change my mind, but it may be an uphill battle; this applies far more to high theory/postmodern Ks of humanism (which, full disclosure, I would really rather not hear) than it does to structuralist/identity-based Ks of humanism, though I find myself more persuaded by "new humanist" style arguments a la Fanon, Wynter, etc than full-on rejections of humanism.

2. I think that others should not suffer, that biological death is bad, and that meaning-making and contingent agreement on contextual truths are possible, inevitable, and desirable. If your K disagrees with any of these fundamental premises, I am a bad judge for it.

3. I don't get Ks of linear time. I get Ks of whitewashing, progress narratives, etc. I get the argument that historical events influence the present, and that events in the present can reshape our understanding of the past. I get that some causes have complex effects that aren't immediately recognizable to us and may not be recognizable on any human scale. I just don't get how any of those things are mutually exclusive with, and indeed how they don't also rely on, some understanding of linear time/causality. I think this is because I have a very particular understanding of what "linear time" means/refers to, which is to say that it's hard for me to disassociate that phrase with the basic concept of cause/effect and the progression of time in a measurable, linear fashion. This isn't as firm of a belief as #2; I can certainly imagine one of these args clicking with me eventually. This is just to say that the burden of explanation is much higher and you would likely be better served going for more plan-specific link arguments or maybe just using different terminology/including a brief explanation as to why you're not disagreeing with the basic premise that causes have effects, even if those effects aren't immediately apparent. If you are disagreeing with that premise, you should probably strike me, as it will require far longer than two hours for me to comprehend your argument, let alone agree with it.

4. "Philosophical competition" is not a winning interpretation in front of me. I don't know what it means and no one has ever explained it to me in a coherent and non-arbitrary way.

5. There's a difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism. I'm open to critiques of the former; I have an extremely high burden for critiques of the latter. I'm not sure I can think of a K of consequentialism that I've judged that didn't seem to link to itself to some degree or another.

6. I am a bad judge for Kant. I just don't get it. I have voted for it, but I have also voted against it more than once because I simply did not understand many of the arguments being made.

7. Would really rather not vote for "you-link-you-lose," "mooting the 1AC=good" approaches to K debating. If your strategy is to swamp the 1AR with backfile check fiat Ks that have little to do with the 1NC, I will suspect that you have a weak will-to-power and I'll be very sympathetic towards the aff.

8. I don't think that the neg wins just by winning a theory of power. The K may have described the world accurately, but my presumption is that that doesn't mean that the aff is an actively bad idea. It is incumbent upon the neg to win that the aff is not an exception to the general rule, and/or a normative claim that the aff should not be done/an alternative (or the status quo) should be preferred.

Policy debates:

1. 95% of my work in college is K-focused, and the other 5% is mostly spot updates. I have done very little policy-focused research so far this season.

For high school, I led a lab this summer, but didn't retain a ton of topic info and have done largely K-focused work since the camp ended. I probably know less than you do about economics.

2. “Link controls uniqueness”/“uniqueness controls the link” arguments will get you far with me. I often find myself wishing that one side or the other had made that argument, because my RFDs often include some variant of it regardless.

3. Apparently T against policy affs is no longer in style. Fortunately, I have a terrible sense of style. In general, I think I'm better for the neg for T than (I guess) a lot of judges; reading through some judge philosophies I find a lot of people who say they don't like judging T or don't think T debates are good, and I strongly disagree with that claim. I'm a 2N at heart, so when it comes down to brass tacks I really don't care about many T impacts/standards except for neg ground (though I can obviously be persuaded otherwise). I care far more about the debates that an interpretation facilitates than I do about the interpretation's source in the abstract--do explanation as to why source quality/predictability influences the quality of debates under the relevant interpretation.

4. I think judge kick makes intuitive sense, but I won't do it unless I'm told to. That said, I also think I have a lower threshold for what constitutes the neg "telling me to" than most. There are some phrases that signify to me that I can default to the status quo by my own choosing; these include, but aren't necessarily limited to, "the status quo is always a logical policy option" and/or "counter-interp: the neg gets X conditional options and the status quo."

5. I enjoy counterplans that compete on resolutional terms quite a bit; I'd rather judge those than counterplans that compete on "should," "substantial," etc.

6. If you think that the affirmative should specify which branch of the United States federal government the plan goes through, you should make that argument as its own separate offcase position. Hiding ASPEC as part of a different T violation is -.1, hiding it on a non-T offcase or case flow is -.3.

7. I would rather judge substance over theory in basically every situation. That said, here are some aff theory arguments that I could be persuaded on pretty easily given a substantive time investment:

--Counterplans should have a solvency advocate ideally matching the specificity of the aff's, but at least with a normative claim about what should happen.

--Multi-actor fiat bad--you can fiat different parts of the USFG do things, and international fiat is defensible, but fiating the federal government and the states, or the US and other countries, is a no-no. (Fiating all fifty states is debatably acceptable, but fiating some permutation of states seems iffy to me.)

--No negative fiat, but not the meme--counterplans should take a positive action, and shouldn't fiat a negative action. It's the distinction between "the USFG should not start a war against Russia" and "the USFG should ban initiation of war against Russia."

--Test case fiat? Having osmosed a rudimentary bit of constitutional law via friends and family in law school, it seems like debate's conception of how the Supreme Court works is... suspect. Not really sure what the implications of that are for the aff or the neg, but I'm pretty sure that most court CPs/mechanisms would get actual lawyers disbarred.

--I think extreme conditionality is nearly indefensible, but I am also finding that I kind of hate judging conditionality debates, especially when I think that the aff has a substantive path to victory.

Joshua Michael Notre Dame High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 12:10 PM EDT

Debated for UWG ’15 – ’17; Coaching: Notre Dame – ’19 – Present; Baylor – ’17 – ’19

email: joshuamichael59@gmail.com

Online Annoyance

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when one card was marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take CX time for it.

Policy

I prefer K v K rounds, but I generally wind up in FW rounds.

K aff’s – 1) Generally have a high threshold for 1ar/2ar consistency. 2) Stop trying to solve stuff you could reasonably never affect. Often, teams want the entirety of X structure’s violence weighed yet resolve only a minimal portion of that violence. 3) v K’s, you are rarely always already a criticism of that same thing. Your articulation of the perm/link defense needs to demonstrate true interaction between literature bases. 4) Stop running from stuff. If you didn’t read the line/word in question, okay. But indicts of the author should be answered with more than “not our Baudrillard.”

K’s – 1) rarely win without substantial case debate. 2) ROJ arguments are generally underutilized. 3) I’m generally persuaded by aff answers that demonstrate certain people shouldn’t read certain lit bases, if warranted by that literature. 4) I have a higher threshold for generic “debate is bad, vote neg.” If debate is bad, how do you change those aspects of debate? 5) 2nr needs to make consistent choices re: FW + Link/Alt combinations. Find myself voting aff frequently, because the 2nr goes for two different strats/too much.

Special Note for Settler Colonialism: I simultaneously love these rounds and experience a lot of frustration when judging this argument. Often, debaters haven’t actually read the full text from which they are cutting cards and lack most of the historical knowledge to responsibly go for this argument. List of annoyances: there are 6 settler moves to innocence – you should know the differences/specifics rather than just reading pages 1-3 of Decol not a Metaphor; la paperson’s A Third University is Possible does not say “State reform good”; Reading “give back land” as an alt and then not defending against the impact turn is just lazy. Additionally, claiming “we don’t have to specify how this happens,” is only a viable answer for Indigenous debaters (the literature makes this fairly clear); Making a land acknowledgement in the first 5 seconds of the speech and then never mentioning it again is essentially worthless; Ethic of Incommensurability is not an alt, it’s an ideological frame for future alternative work (fight me JKS).

General: 1) Fairness is either an impact or an internal link 2) the TVA doesn’t have to solve the entirety of the aff. 3) Your Interp + our aff is just bad.

Aff v FW: 1) can win with just impact turns, though the threshold is higher than when winning a CI with viable NB’s. 2) More persuaded by defenses of education/advocacy skills/movement building. 3) Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere.

Reading FW: 1) Respect teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movement building. 2) “If we can’t test the aff, presume it’s false” – no 3) Have to answer case at some point (more than the 10 seconds after the timer has already gone off) 4) You almost never have time to fully develop the sabotage tva (UGA RS deserves more respect than that). 5) Impact turns to the CI are generally underutilized. You’ll almost always win the internal link to limits, so spending all your time here is a waste. 6) Should defend the TVA in 1nc cx if asked. You don’t have a right to hide it until the block.

Theory - 1) I generally lean neg on questions of Conditionality/Random CP theory. 2) No one ever explains why dispo solves their interp. 3) Won’t judge kick unless instructed to.

T – 1) I’m not your best judge. 2) Seems like no matter how much debating is done over CI v Reasonability, I still have to evaluate most of the offense based on CI’s.

DA/CP – 1) Prefer smart indicts of evidence as opposed to walls of cards (especially on ptx/agenda da's). Neg teams get away with murder re: "dropped ev" that says very little/creatively highlighted. 2) I'm probably more lenient with aff responses (solvency deficits/aff solves impact/intrinsic perm) to Process Cp's/Internal NB's that don't have solvency ev/any relation to aff.

Case - I miss in depth case debates. Re-highlightings don't have to be read. The worse your re-highlighting the lower the threshold for aff to ignore it.

All of my thoughts on policy apply, except for theory. More than 2 condo (or CP’s with different plank combinations) is probably abusive, but I can be convinced otherwise on a technical level.

Not voting on an RVI. I don’t care if it’s dropped.

Most LD theory is terrible Ex: Have to spec a ROB or I don’t know what I can read in the 1nc --- dumb argument.

Phil or Tricks (sp?) debating – I’m not your judge.

Henry Mitchell Mamaroneck High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 26, 2024 at 8:51 PM CDT

General

Last Updated: March 2025

Email chain: hmdebate01[at]gmail[dot]com

Asian Debate League

Graduate of Emory University, 4-time NDT qualifier

Most of my experience is in the traditional policy debate, but I have judged/coached/taught policy, kritikal, LD, and PF debate.

I am pretty much down to listen to anything, barring arguments that are disrespectful to your opponents or any other group of people. Do your thing, and don't take debate too seriously. I try my absolute best to evaluate arguments without letting my personal preferences influence my decisions.

My threshold for a dropped argument is that one team made a warranted claim that was not met with a warranted argument from the opponent.

I love debate. I think the activity has incredible value.

Policy

My default understanding of kritiks are as CPs/DAs that have a different understanding of what constitutes a link and what determines competition. I can be convinced of anything, though.

I don't view topicality against K AFFs dramatically differently than topicality against policy AFFs. I can be convinced of almost anything, which is to say that ballot framing and impact calculus are very important. When talking about the merits of a K AFF, I am perhaps more persuaded than some that AFFs ought to be responsible for defending their method broadly, beyond the confines of just this individual debate.

Topicality, counterplan, disadvantage, and theory debates I have nothing useful to say. I will evaluate these debates purely technically.

I am most comfortable evaluating any type of argument you'd find in policy. I will do my best to evaluate whatever arguments you make, but just be aware that I may have slightly less familiarity with what you're saying than you might be used to with an LD judge, especially with tricks arguments. Ks, phil, and theory are all fine, but just understand that some of my preconceptions about the validity of some of these arguments might be informed by my experience in policy debate.

The most relevant advice I can give for debating in front of me is that I will judge the debate entirely based on the flow and on an offense/defense paradigm. Presentation and narrative will help your speaker points, but it will not affect my decision in any way so long as I can understand your arguments and they are warranted well. Just because I come from policy does not mean you should read plans, CPs, or Ks.

Parker Mitchell Wichita East 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 18, 2024 at 4:43 AM CDT

Parker Mitchell

[unaffiliated/SME] - based in NYC

Updated for: NCFL - May '25 - Link to old paradigm (it's still true, but it's too much. This is a shorter version, hopefully less ranty. If you have a specific question, it's likely answered in the linked doc.)

Email: park.ben.mitchell@gmail.com

He/They/She are all fine.

Not working in debate at the moment: I'm a big policy debate fan, but I am not actively coaching or judging. I consume debate like I consume other niche sports - I'll watch livestreams, read docs, follow tab and try to keep up as much as I can. That said, I have limited hobby time and I currently spend most of it cooking and playing Geoguessr.

'25 Update: I've not judged at all this year :/ which I am not happy about - but I am judging NCFL! This will be my only tournament of the season, take that how you will. I still do think about the activity a lot and watch debates on YouTube (its sad I know), there's just less policy debate activity around New York than Kansas.

NCFL SPECIFIC

I know you have little time - I am probably not the limiting factor on your panel re: "How Fast"/"Can we read a K" etc. Do what you do best and you'll be ok. However, I have not judged a round this year and also I have no background topic knowledge.Anything topic specific (acronyms, Topicality meta etc.) will need extra explanation.

General Opinions

I view debate as a strategic game with a wide range of stylistic and tactical variance. I am accepting (and appreciative of) nearly all strategies within that variance. Although I do try to avoid as much ideological bias as possible, this starting point does color how I view a few things:

First, fairness is an impact. But economic collapse is also an impact, yet I'm willing to vote for DDev. The same holds here. I view Ks and K Affs as a legitimate, but contestable, strategy for winning a ballot. In other words, I will vote for K affs and I will vote for framework and my record is fairly even.

Second, outside of egregiously offensive positions such as Racism, Sexism and Homophobia good, I have very few limitations on what I consider "acceptable" argumentation. Reading arguments on the fringes is exciting and interesting to me. However, explicit slurs (exception - when you are the one affected by that slur) and repeated problematic language is unacceptable.

Third, it affects my views on ethos. I assume most debaters don't buy in 100% to the arguments they make. This is not to say that debate "doesn't shape subjectivity," but it is to say that I assume there is some distance between your words and your being. In other words: There is a distant yet extant relationship between ontology and epistemology.

I find I have an above average stylistic bias to teams that embrace this concept. In other words, teams that aggressively posture (unless they are particularly good and precise about it) tend to alienate me and teams that appear somewhat disaffected tend to have my attention. This is not absolute or inevitable - I can think of many exceptions where highly expressive speakers moved me and less emotive speakers lost me - yet it is a general trend. This operates on the ethos and style level and not on the substance/argumentative level.

Fourth, I will attempt to take very precise notes. My handwriting is awful, but I can read it. I will flow on paper. I will flow straight down and I will not use multiple sheets for one argument (I'm talking Ks too, this isn't parli). I will not follow along with the doc. I will say "clear" if you are unclear during evidence, but not during analytics, that's a you problem. Clarity means I can distinguish each word in the text of the evidence. Cards that continue to be unclear after reminders will be struck from my flow. I flow CX on paper but will stop when the timer does. I will not listen during flex prep, I don't care if you take it.

Experience

14 years of experience in debate. I'm currently working in the legal technology world, not teaching or coaching for the moment.

Formerly: 6 years assisting at Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2015-2021), 2 years as Director of Debate and Forensics at Wichita East (KS, 2021-2023). 4 years as a debater for Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2010-2015), 5 years for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (MO - NDT/CEDA, 2015-2020). I have worked intermittently with DEBATE-Kansas City (DKC, MO/KS), Asian Debate League (aka. ADL, Chinese Taipei, 2019-2021), Truman (MO, 2021) and Turner (KS, 2019). 2 years leading labs at UMKC-SDI. Assisted/judged on a volunteer/occasional basis for both Wichita East (KS, 2023-24) and SME (2023-25).

Topic Experience (HS)

None. I have almost zero knowledge about this topic area.

Topic Experience (College):

None. I debated on many climate topics in the past though, so my lit knowledge and understanding about how these debates play out is pretty ok.

Argument Specific Notes

T - my favorite. Competing interps are best. Precision is less important than debate-ability. "T-USFG" will be flowed as "T-Framework." No "but"s. It's an essential neg strat, but I'm equally willing to evaluate impact turns to framework.

CPs - Condo and "cheating" counterplans are good, unless you win they're bad. Affs should be more offensive on CP theory and focus less on competition minutiae. Don't overthink it.

DAs - low risk of a link = low risk of my ballot. Be careful with these if your case defense/cp isn't great, you can easily be crushed by a good 2AR. I find I have sat or been close to in certain situations where the disad was particularly bad, even if the answers were mostly defense.

Ks - I feel very comfortable in K debates and I think these are where I give the most comments. Recently, I've noticed some K teams shrink away from the strongest version of their argument to hide within the realm of uncertainty. I think this is a mistake. (sidenote - "they answered the wrong argument" is not a "pathologization link", but don't worry, you're probably ahead) (other sidenote - everyone needs a reminder of what "ontology" means)

Etc - My exact speaks thoughts are in the old paradigm, but a sidenote that is relevant for argumentation: my decision is solely based on arguments in the debate (rfd), my speaks arise from the feedback section of my ballot - I will not disclose speaks and I won't give specific speaks based on argument ("don't drop the team, tank my speaks instead" "give us 30s for [insert reason]") I'm much more concerned with your performance in the debate for speaks, argumentation only has a direct impact on my vote and not other parts of my ballot.

I have now unfortunately judged a debate where Chat GPT was used to write speeches. If you are considering this, I would highly suggest you don't. Chat GPT is not good at debate. If you think I won't be able to tell, you are wrong. I used to teach students who tried to pass off AI work as their own and I currently work in the AI space. AI is not good at writing speeches, it sounds inhuman, saccharine and ugly. And while AI might be great at a lot of things, it is quite bad at efficiency and pathos, two things that are key to balance when you are debating. You'll get horrible speaks. If somehow you managed to write and deliver a GPT-sounding speech on your own without AI assistance, that might actually be worse.

What I love about this activity is the multitude of different ways you can approach it. Nearly every one is legitimate, but if you choose this one, I will be sad.

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

that should be all you need before a debate. there are more things in the doc linked at the top including opinions on speaks, disclosure, ethics as well as appendices for online debates and other events.

Eshan Momin Univ Of Chicago Lab School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 5:40 AM EDT

Alpharetta MT '23, Emory '27

Email

eshansmomin@gmail.com

---email title should provide useful information. Ex. Tournament---Round #---Team A v. Team B.

TLDR

---adopted from Anthony Trufanov, Tim Ellis, Jordan Di

—-if you have no idea who I am, literally read all policy arguments my senior year, found the quickest and smallest way to get to nuclear war on the aff while going for every cheaty courts, international fiat, let's fiat X DA in thing possible: https://opencaselist.com/hspolicy22/Alpharetta/MoTh

---debating and judge instruction matter way more than personal preferences.

---generally good: more cards, predictability, conditionality, judge kick.

Top Level

---tech > truth

---I will flow and vote on things said in the debate. Ideological considerations are irrelevant and I will value judge instruction more than anything

---asking for what cards were read is CX

---stop hiding ASPEC or other dumb stuff. You'll lose speaker points.

---flowing is great---if I can tell you are not at least sufficiently, it will not go so well.

---condo is good, if a new aff, go crazy

---don't say buzzwords and I am not as comfortable with these arguments---does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation

---specific > backfile.

---have links to the plan > links about reps

---do case debating

---good framework debating and links don't usually need an alternative

---competing interpretations > reasonability.

vagueness in any form is almost always not a voting issue but can implicate AFF solvency.

---better interpretations and more cards are always good

---impact comparison will heavily shape my decision

---DA/CP---love them, most comfortable with these debates

---default is judge kick. theory is an uphill battle and winning that condo is bad is an uphill battle

---solvency deficits need impacts tied to the ADVs, 1ar and 2ar consistency is crucial here

---intrinsic perms are fine, but they need a justification like textual legitimacy

---pretty NEG on most theory---competition probably decides if it's legit

---framing pages are mostly silly. Ks of things the NEG has said > “but the DA has internal links.”

---I'm down for politics DAs in most variations---please explain what is going on for UQ

---impact turns are fun BUT plz make them coherent

---good impact calc will be rewarded and is always good

Others

---not voting for death good

---stealing prep, clipping cards = auto L

---"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 used 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.

Brendon Morris Lexington HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 30, 2024 at 7:03 PM EDT

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

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

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

Flowing Practices

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

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

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

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

Framework:

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

DA:

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

CP:

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

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

K Affs:

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

Perms:

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

Judge Intervention:

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

Speaks:

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

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

PF Specific

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

LD Specific

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

Quick Bio

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

Ryan Nierman Wylie E. Groves HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 5:45 AM EDT

Please include me on the email chain: ryannierman@gmail.com

Please also add the email grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain.

Top Level: Do whatever you want. My job is to evaluate the debate, not tell you what to read.

Speed: Speed is not a problem, but PLEASE remain clear (especially important for online tournaments) and remember pen/typing time is a thing. This likely means to slow down on procedural or analytic heavy flows and don't frontload your CP block with 4-5 perm texts, etc.

Topicality: I am willing to vote on T. I think that there should be substantial work done on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate, with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation.

CPs: Sure. Whether a CP is abusive or not is up for debate.

Disads: Sure. There should be a clear link to the aff. Yes, there can be zero risk. Overviews should focus in on why your impacts outweigh and turn case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line.

Kritiks: Sure. Make sure that there is a clear link to the aff, read new links in the block, utilize aff ev to prove your links, etc. Explain the alternative. What is the role of the judge? Do you need to win spillover? How do I weigh impacts? I am probably familiar with whatever author you are reading, but the burden is on the team reading the lit to explain their argument to me; don't assume I will do work for you.

Theory: Condo is probably good. Often these debates just turn into rereading blocks, which often makes them hard to decide. In-depth clash and line-by-line always helps. If there are dropped independent voters on a theory debate, I will definitely look there first. Most theory is likely a reason to reject the arg, not the team.

Performance: Sure. I prefer if the performative affirmation or action is germane to the topic, but that is up for debate. Once again, the debate is for you and not me, so I will evaluate any argument as fairly as possible and to the best of my ability.

Paperless Debate: I do not take prep time for emailing your documents, but please do not steal prep. I also try to be understanding when tech issues occur, but will honor any tech time rules established and enforced by the tournament. I will have my camera on during the round. If my camera is off, please assume that I am not there. Please don't start without me. Email chains are preferable to Speech Drop and other file share processes, but will default to whatever method has been established by the tournament (should one exist). Word docs > Google Docs > PDFs. I understand resources, funding, access to programs vary based on person, school district or team protocols, but please don't intentionally PDF documents so that they cannot be utilized in the debate for recutting/rehighlighting purposes or to get some sort of strategic advantage.

Other general comments:

Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.

Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

I do not feel comfortable voting on issues that happen outside the round.

Debate is a speaking activity. Small rehighlightings/recutting of ev to prove that something was out of context or that is sufficiently explained in a a short tag can be inserted. Reading several sentences or cutting another section of their article, etc should be read. Inserting graphs, charts, etc is obviously fine.

Please make sure that your cards are highlighted in a way that makes grammatical sense. The growing trend of "word salad" is concerning. I understand the desire to read more ev, but please make sure that you ev makes sense, is highlighted in context, and contains warrants. I will not piece together your evidence after the round to make a coherent argument. Quality > Quantity every time.

Cross-x is a speech - it should have a clear strategy and involve meaningful questions and clarifications. Concessions gained in cross-x should make it into speeches. The ability to effectively utilize cross-x in a meaningful way always boosts speaker points.

Finally, don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is.

Have fun, be kind, and put all of your hard work into action!

Janet Novack Lexington HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:13 PM EDT

**Updated October 31, 2023

Hello everyone!

My judging history will show that I’ve primarily tabbed at tournaments since the pandemic started. However, I’ve been keeping up with topic discussions across LD, PF, and Policy and am looking forward to judging you all!

I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now, and have been coaching with Lexington since 2016. Starting this academic year, I also teach Varsity LD and Novice PF at LHS. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged mainly policy and LD since 2016. I also judge PF at some tournaments along with practice debates on every topic.

TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round to frame my ballot. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.

Email: debatejn@gmail.com

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES

In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech and throw you off, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important.

I usually use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.

MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES

If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.

LD PARADIGM

In general: Please also look at my policy paradigm for argument specific information! I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates. I am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.

On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.

A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.

On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.

On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.

On Ks: I think that the NR is a difficult speech - answering the first indicts on a K and then having to collapse and go for the K is tricky. Please make sure that you're using your time effectively - what is the world of the alt and why is my ballot key to resolving the impacts that you outline?

PF PARADIGM

In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents.

On Paraphrasing: I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence. However, if you must, please slow down on your analytical blocks so that I can effectively flow your arguments - if you read 25 words straight that you want on my flow, I can't type quickly enough to do that, even when I'm a pretty fast typer in general. Please also make sure that you take care to not misrepresent your evidence.

General Comments On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.

On PF Theory: It's a thing, now. I don't particularly love it, but I do judge based off of my flow, so I will vote on it. However, I really, really, really dislike frivolous theory (feel free to look at my LD and Policy paradigms on this subject), so please make sure that if you're reading theory in a round, you are making it relevant to the debate at hand.

POLICY PARADIGM

On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.

One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.

On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.

On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.

Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow

On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.

One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.

Eric Oddo Niles North High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat August 3, 2024 at 7:37 AM CDT

RETIRED FROM DEBATE COACHING/JUDGING AS OF FALL 2024. WAHOOOO!!!!

~~Please put me on the email chain:eriodd@d219.org.~~

~~Experience:~~

I'm currently an assistant debate coach for Niles North High School. I was the Head Debate Coach at Niles West High School for twelve years and an assistant debate coach at West for one year. I also work at the University of Michigan summer debate camps. I competed in policy debate at the high school level for six years at New Trier Township High School.

Education:

Master of Education in English-Language Learning & Special Education National Louis University
Master of Arts in School Leadership Concordia University-Chicago
Master of Arts in Education Wake Forest University
Juris Doctor Illinois Institute of Technology-Chicago Kent College of Law
Bachelor of Arts University of California, Santa Barbara

Debate arguments:

I will vote on any type of debate argument so long as the team extends it throughout the entire round and explains why it is a voter. Thus, I will pull the trigger on theory, agent specification, and other arguments many judges are unwilling to vote on. Even though I am considered a “politics/counter plan” debater, I will vote on kritiks, but I am told I evaluate kritik debates in a “politics/counter plan” manner (I guess this is not exactly true anymore...and I tend to judge clash debates). I try not to intervene in rounds, and all I ask is that debaters respect each other throughout the competition.

Identity v. Identity:
I enjoy judging these debates. It is important to remember that, often times, you are asking the judge to decide on subject matter he/she/they personally have not experienced (like sexism and racism for me as a white male). A successful ballot often times represents the team who has used these identity points (whether their own or others) in relationship to the resolution and the debate space. I also think if you run an exclusion DA, then you probably should not leave the room / Zoom before the other team finishes questions / feedback has concluded as that probably undermines this DA significantly (especially if you debate that team again in the future).

FW v. Identity:
I also enjoy judging these debates. I will vote for a planless Aff as well as a properly executed FW argument. Usually, the team that accesses the internal link to the impacts (discrimination, education, fairness, ground, limits, etc.) I am told to evaluate at the end of the round through an interpretation / role of the ballot / role of the judge, wins my ballot.

FW v. High Theory:
I don't mind judging these debates. The team reading high theory should do a good job at explaining the theories / thesis behind the scholars you are utilizing and applying it to a specific stasis point / resolutional praxis. In terms of how I weigh the round, the same applies from above, internal links to the terminal impacts I'm told are important in the round.

Policy v. Policy:
I debated in the late 90s / early 2000s. I think highly technical policy v. policy debate rounds with good sign posting, discussions on CP competition (when relevant), strategic turns, etc. are great. Tech > truth for me here. I like lots of evidence but please read full tags and a decent amount of the cards. Not a big fan of "yes X" as a tag. Permutations should probably have texts besides Do Both and Do CP perms. I like theory debates but quality over quantity and please think about how all of your theory / debate as a game arguments apply across all flows. Exploit the other team's errors. "We get what we get" and "we get what we did" are two separate things on the condo debate in my opinion.

Random comments:

The tournament and those judging you are not at your leisure. Please do your best to start the round promptly at the posted time on the pairing and when I'm ready to go (sometimes I do run a few minutes late to a round, not going to lie). Please do your best to: use prep ethically, attach speech documents quickly, ask to use bathroom at appropriate times (e.g. ideally not right before your or your partner's speech), and contribute to moving the debate along and help keep time. I will give grace to younger debaters on this issue, but varsity debaters should know how to do this effectively. This is an element of how I award speaker points. I'm a huge fan of efficient policy debate rounds. Thanks!

In my opinion, you cannot waive CX and bank it for prep time. Otherwise, the whole concept of cross examination in policy debate is undermined. I will not allow this unless the tournament rules explicitly tell me to do so.

If you use a poem, song, etc. in the 1AC, you should definitely talk about it after the 1AC. Especially against framework. Otherwise, what is the point? Your performative method should make sense as a praxis throughout the debate.

Final thoughts:

Do not post round me. I will lower your speaker points if you or one of your coaches acts disrespectful towards me or the opponents after the round. I have no problem answering any questions about the debate but it will be done in a respectful manner to all stakeholders in the room. If you have any issues with this, please don't pref me. I have seen, heard and experienced way too much disrespectful behavior by a few individuals in the debate community recently where, unfortunately, I feel compelled to include this in my paradigm.

Kwudjwa Osei Baltimore City College 2 rounds

Chris Paredes Damien High School and St. Lucy’s Priory 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 9:00 AM PDT

Speed-Run Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school's teammail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien '05, Amherst College '09, Emory Law '13L. This will be my eighth year coaching in debate, and my third year doing it full time. I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) were shaped before today's Michigan-style meta.

IP Topic Knowledge: I studied IP law while at Emory and was the recipient of an IP law scholarship, so I should be a pretty good judge for evaluating topic specific arguments. True analytics that rely on topic knowledge are likely to be super persuasive to me and easy to win. I am very unsympathetic to neg gripes about this topic. I believe case specific research should be the default model of debate so 1) lack of generic neg ground is not a problem, 2) I think there's plenty of neg ground but most teams have not done the pre-requisite research to find it.

Debate Philosophy: Debate is a game. That game can take many forms depending on how the players engage with it. I believe the ideal form of the game is one in which the debaters gain resolutional knowledge by arguing the desirability of proposed hypothetical government action by the aff. The best debaters are ones who develop good topic knowledge and do the research necessary to defend their case or make nuanced objections to the opponent's aff case. Debates about the meta of the game, both the topic (T) and what community norms should be regarding certain tactics (theory), are also a valuable endeavor. I am much more open than a normal judge to decide the round on these issues, and I think that too few teams are brave enough to engage in that discussion vs. making the arguments as a time sink.

Judging Philosophy: The prime directive in every game is to win. Consequently, I will interpret all your choices in debate as tactical decisions attempting to secure maximal chance of victory and will not hold them against you. All of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents and I will vote for almost any argument so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. You can minimize intervention against you by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions. The best 2NRs and 2ARs are pitches that present a fully formed ballot that I can metaphorically sign off on. I am extremely averse to deciding the round on any non-argument norms (how debaters should behave in round), and Iwill not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the game (whether that was at camp or a previous round).

I run a planless aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am very firmly neg on framework, but tech over truth means that I usually end up voting aff close to half the time. Insofar as debate is a game, I draw a distinction between rules and standards. The rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, the standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate compared to your opponent's. What counts as better is determined in round through debate, but is usually a question of debate that is more fair or more pedagogically valuable. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated these questions better. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K's alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack out" on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) start as non-factors until the aff contextualizes them as solvency mechanisms in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however once start reading the critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off with one "painted" card than several under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, beats bad/under-highlighted cards.

Accommodations: External to any debate about my role that happens on framework, I treat my function in the room as judge first and facilitator of education second. Therefore, any accommodation that has potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary. Failure to adhere to proper accommodation request procedure heavily impacts whether I give any credence to in-round voters attached to failure to accommodate or other exclusion based arguments.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive internal link debating. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the superior internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to the more important terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive to reasonability as a filter (when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable) versus reasonability as a weighing mechanism ("Good is good enough.")

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that topicality should be a viable generic negative strategy. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think that it is the proper/only mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually, or extra topical ground proves limits explosion). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments of the flow. The TVA is terminal defense on education; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or is a better type of education itself). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but explain why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, I am fine with clash as an internal link, but I am very receptive to just internal link turning the aff model and arguing that plan-based debate creates more positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why counterplans are competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew);

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness while the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition;

- Aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity;

- the neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies);

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding;

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity);

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors);

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth);

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg;

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments;

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round;

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric (you can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo);

- ASPEC is checked by cross (the neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC; if the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse including potential ground loss).

Kritiks

TL;DR: If you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the specific aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid clash and rely on links of omission and criticisms about the state/fiat, then I am a bad judge for you. If you ended up with me in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs and/or strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance to the aff (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt).A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for disregarding the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I would much rather, and am more likely to, give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than weeding through the epistemology and pedagogy debate to determine that your theory of power comes first.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan. Generics start as very vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and have a much higher threshold on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

Neg ground should be a product of research, not spray and pray checks on the 2AC. I amextremely unfriendly to process counterplans with internal net benefits that are entirely intrinsic to the process; I have a very low bar for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases. A team that understands these differences and can impact them usually wins my ballot.At the same time, an intentionally vague plan text should not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). If the aff is vague, then the neg can and should define normal means then defend the competitiveness of the CP vs. normal means. The aff can win an entire solvency take out if there is a structural defect created by deviating from normal means (which is the case with most process CPs).

I do not judge kick by default absent instruction to do so. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I believe that a lot of issues with debate today is the quest to avoid the hard work of research with universally applicable generics (kritiks, K-affs, and process CPs with internal net benefits). The thing that all of these things share is a lack of uniqueness, therefore I am pre-disposed to value uniqueness whereas most teams undervalue it because uniqueness cannot be turned. This means I generally value defense more than most and I will assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. While I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense, having a good counterplan is the way for the neg has to leverage itself out of flawed disads.

Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average and not everyone being actually average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Strategy & Clash Points: Debaters have increasingly adopted a variety of bad habits. To counter this, I reward good practices -- those that demonstrate research and preparation with a willingness to engage in clash -- with bonus speaks. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Politics on a Courts CP is a disad; "CP gets circumvented" is not a disad). Negative teams with case specific strategies (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks. I will punish teams whose behavior minimizes clash and shows a disdain for research and preparation (hiding ASPEC, misplacing arguments on other flows, etc.) with lower speaks. This is especially true if I am forced to vote on a neg position that I cannot understand when the only neg justification is that pure technical concession means it solves.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Jimin Park Taipei American School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 15, 2024 at 8:33 AM CDT

IR Master's Candidate @ Georgetown

University of Kansas '23, Washburn Rural '19

Coaching Taipei American School and Harvard

jpark.debate@gmail.com

Also add:

for college: harvard.debate@gmail

for high school: taipeiamericanpolicy@gmail.com

________________________________________________________________________________________

TLDR:

I enjoy case-specific, fully developed strategies that are well-explained and backed with high-quality evidence/persuasion.

I am a bad judge for teams that rely on the brute force of conditionality, proliferate incomplete arguments, and use strategies that moot the AFF and K AFFs.

I know functionally zero about the high school and college topics.

General Judging:

1. Respect your opponents.

2. Be efficient. The email chain should be sent out early. Don't steal prep. CX ends after 3 minutes. Prepare a card document ASAP.

3. Flow.

4. Clarity. I should hear every single word you say.

5. One debater, one constructive, one rebuttal. I will not flow the other debater if they interject or read parts of another person's speech.

6. Net benefits should be verbally specified in the 1NC.

7. Will not vote on ad homs.

8. Teams should disclose and open source their evidence.

9. Will try to avoid filling in gaps if debaters don't explain it

Flowing Practices:

I flow on my computer straight-down, include CX, and have docs open the whole debate (usually) — I don't flow based on the doc, but check for clipping/like following along. I wouldn't consider myself the best "flow," but I type relatively quickly, so this has not been a problem in my judging career (yet).

My Biases:

1. Vertical proliferation > horizontal proliferation

2. Specificity > vagueness

3. I prefer debates to be topic-specific. AFFs and NEG strategies should be germane to IPR/clean energy policy — this means 2NRs on wipeout, spark, or generic process counterplans are less strategic in front of me.

4. Dispo > condo

5. Plans don't exist in a 'vacuum.'

6. Counterplans should compete via text AND function.

7. Willing to vote for theoretical objections considered 'arbitrary' if the outlined practice is unreasonable.

8. AFFs should be topical.

9. Links should be to the plan.

10. AFF-specific Ks > generic Ks

Sonny Patel Kenwood Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 1:23 PM CDT

UPDATED FOR THE BLAKE 2024

uclabdb8@gmail.com for speech docs

spatel@chicagodebates.org for anything else

**background**
i identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. i direct programming for Chicago's urban debate league. my academic background is medicine. you may be counseled on tobacco or marijuana cessation. relax, have fun!

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates (Chicago's urban debate league): 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- Chicago Debates Summer Institute - lecturer
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***paradigm***

- i view the speech as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- judge instruction is great - if you put me in a box, i'll stay there
- i like k v k or policy v k debates, as i read critical lit for enjoyment. however i end up with more judge experience in policy v policy rounds as it's north shore debate
- pen time matters. slow down a tick on your scripted analytics, overviews, theory subpoints, etc. if you want me to vote on it. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful.
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters.
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your volume and your music's volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing the debate

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. if you spam a wipeout file, go away. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate. my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.8 & above means I think you belong in elims. 2ARs: do not abuse the 2NR with new arguments.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from "Classic mode" Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i have voted several times for why that's a terrible idea. i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack! So much love for T! nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better. examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik. i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a social court, or use the ballot to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice.a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail isinvisibilia: the callout.

i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to their chaperone & tab. it's a prior question to the round.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more likely to vote on your theory argument if contextualized to the round. i want clash to be developed instead of vomiting blocks at each other.

**disads/cps/case**
i am not a legal scholar and the world of PICs on this topic is dizzying; and i'm here for it! >:D if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- chicago's urban debate leauge
- medical school, medicine
- hinustani classical music, flute
- clinical trial research
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught

**Public Forum - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

Kelly Phil Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Christina Phillips Notre Dame High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:01 AM PDT

Experience

Current Affiliation = Notre Dame HS (Sherman Oaks, CA)
Debates Judged on this topic: about 40 Rounds (UMich Debate Institute)
Prior Experience: Debated policy in HS at Notre Dame HS in Sherman Oaks, CA (1992-1995); Debated NDT/CEDA in college at USC (1995-1999); Assistant debate coach at Cal State Northridge 2003-2005; Assistant debate coach at Glenbrook South HS Spring of 2005; Director of Debate at Glenbrook North HS 2005-2009; Director of Debate at Notre Dame HS Fall of 2009-Present.

General Note

My defaults go into effect when left to my own devices. I will go against most of these defaults if a team technically persuades me to do so in any given debate.

Paperless Rules

If you start taking excessive time to flash your document, I will start instituting that "Prep time ends when the speaker's flash drive is removed from her/his computer."

Major Notes

Topic familiarity

I am familiar with the topic (4 weeks of teaching at Michigan at Classic and involved in argument coaching at Notre Dame).

Delivery

Delivery rate should be governed by your clarity; WARRANTS in the evidence should be clear, not just the tagline.
Clarity is significantly assisted by organization - I flow as technically as possible and try to follow the 1NC structure on-case and 2AC structure off-case through the 1AR. 2NR and the 2AR should have some leeway to restructure the debate in important places to highlight their offense. However, line-by-line should be followed where re-structuring is not necessary.

Ideal 2AR Structure

Offense placed at the top (tell me how I should be framing the debate in the context of what you are winning), then move through the debate in a logical order.

2NR's Make Choices

Good 2NR strategies may be one of the following: (1) Functionally and/or textually competitive counterplan with an internal or external net benefit, (2) K with a good turns case/root cause arguments that are specific to each advantage, (3) Disadvantage with turns case arguments and any necessary case defense, (4) Topicality (make sure to cover any theory arguments that are offense for aff). My least favorite debates to resolve are large impact turn debates, not because I hate impact turns, but because I think that students lose sight of how to resolve and weigh the multiple impact scenarios that get interjected into the debate. Resolving these debates starts with a big picture impact comparison.

Evidence Quality/References

Reference evidence by warrant first and then add "That's [Author]." Warrant and author references are especially important on cards that you want me to read at the end of the debate. Also, evidence should reflect the arguments that you are making in the debate. I understand that resolving a debate requires spin, but that spin should be based in the facts presented in your evidence.

I have been getting copies of speech documents for many debates lately so I can read cards during prep time, etc. However, note that I will pay attention to what is said in the debate as much as possible - I would much rather resolve the debate on what the debaters say, not based on my assessment of the evidence.

Offense-Defense

Safer to go for offense, and then make an "even if" statement explaining offense as a 100% defensive takeout. I will vote on well-resolved defense against CP, DA's and case. This is especially true against process CP's (e.g., going for a well-resolved permutation doesn't require you to prove a net benefit to the permutation since these CP's are very difficult to get a solvency deficit to) and DA's with contrived internal link scenarios. Winning 100% defense does require clear evidence comparison to resolve.

Topicality

I like a well-developed topicality debate. This should include cards to resolve important distinctions. Topical version of the aff and reasonable case lists are persuasive. Reasonability is persuasive when the affirmative has a TRUE "we meet" argument; it seems unnecessary to require the affirmative to have a counter-interpretation when they clearly meet the negative interpretation. Also, discussing standards with impacts as DA's to the counter-interpretation is very useful - definition is the uniqueness, violation is the link, standard is an internal link and education or fairness is the impact.

Counterplans

Word PIC's, process, consult, and condition CP's are all ok. I have voted on theory against these CP's in the past because the teams that argued they were illegit were more technically saavy and made good education arguments about the nature of these CP's. The argument that they destroy topic-specific education is persuasive if you can prove why that is true. Separately, the starting point for answers to the permutation are the distinction(s) between the CP and plan. The starting point for answers to a solvency deficit are the similarities between the warrants of the aff advantage internal links and the CP solvency cards. Counterplans do not have to be both functionally and textually competitive, but it is better if you can make an argument as to why it is both.

Disadvantages

All parts of the DA are important, meaning neither uniqueness nor links are more important than each other (unless otherwise effectively argued). I will vote on conceded or very well-resolved defense against a DA.

Kritiks

Good K debate should have applied links to the affirmative's or negative's language, assumptions, or methodology. This should include specific references to an opponent's cards. The 2NC/1NR should make sure to address all affirmative impacts through defense and/or turns. I think that making 1-2 carded externally impacted K's in the 2NC/1NR is the business of a good 2NC/1NR on the K. Make sure to capitalize on any of these external impacts in the 2NR if they are dropped in the 1AR. A team can go for the case turn arguments absent the alternative. Affirmative protection against a team going for case turns absent the alternative is to make inevitability (non-unique) claims.

Aff Framework

Framework is applied in many ways now and the aff should think through why they are reading parts of their framework before reading it in the 2AC, i.e., is it an independent theoretical voting issue to reject the Alternative or the team based on fairness or education? or is it a defensive indite of focusing on language, representations, methodology, etc.?. Framework impacts should be framed explicitly in the 1AR and 2AR. I am partial to believing that representations and language inform the outcome of policymaking unless given well-warranted cards to respond to those claims (this assumes that negative is reading good cards to say rep's or language inform policymaking).

Neg Framework

Neg framework is particularly persuasive against an affirmative that has an advocacy statement they don't stick to or an aff that doesn't follow the resolution at all. It is difficult for 2N's to have a coherent strategy against these affirmatives and so I am sympathetic to a framework argument that includes a topicality argument and warranted reasons to reject the team for fairness or education. If a K aff has a topical plan, then I think that framework only makes sense as a defensive indite their methodology; however, I think that putting these cards on-case is more effective than putting them on a framework page. Framework is a somewhat necessary tool given the proliferation of affirmatives that are tangentially related to the topic or not topical at all. I can be persuaded that non-topical affs should not get permutations - a couple primary reasons: (1) reciprocity - if aff doesn't have to be topical, then CP's/K's shouldn't need to be competitive and (2) Lack of predictability makes competition impossible and neg needs to be able to test the methodology of the aff.

Theory

I prefer substance, but I do understand the need for theory given I am open to voting on Word PIC's, consult, and condition CP's. If going for theory make sure to impact arguments in an organized manner. There are only two voting issues/impacts: fairness and education. All other arguments are merely internal links to these impacts - please explain how and why you control the best internal links to either of these impacts. If necessary, also explain why fairness outweighs education or vice-versa. If there are a host of defensive arguments that neutralize the fairness or education lost, please highlight these as side constraints on the the violation, then move to your offense.

Classic Battle Defaults

These are attempts to resolve places where I felt like I had to make random decisions in the past and had wished I put something in my judge philosophy to give debaters a fair warning. So here is my fair warning on my defaults and what it takes to overcome those defaults:
(1) Theory v. Topcality - Topcality comes before theory unless the 1AR makes arguments explaining why theory is first and the 2NR doesn't adequately respond and then the 2AR extends and elaborates on why theory is first sufficiently enough to win those arguments.
(2) Do I evaluate the aff v. the squo when the 2NR went for a CP? - No unless EXPLICITLY framed as a possibility in the 2NR. If the 2NR decides to extend the CP as an advocacy (in other words, they are not just extending some part of the CP as a case takeout, etc.), then I evaluate the aff versus the CP. What does this mean? If the aff wins a permutation, then the CP is rejected and the negative loses. I will not use the perm debate as a gateway argument to evaluating the aff vs. the DA. If the 2NR is going for two separate advocacies, then the two separate framings should be EXPLICIT, e.g., possible 2NR framing, "If we win the CP, then you weigh the risk of the net benefit versus the risk of the solvency deficit and, if they win the permutation, you should then just reject the CP and weigh the risk of the DA separately versus the affirmative" (this scenario assumes that the negative declared the CP conditional).
(3) Are Floating PIK's legitimate? No unless the 1AR drops it. If the 1AR drops it, then it is open season on the affirmative. The 2NC/1NR must make the floating PIC explicit with one of the following phrases to give the 1AR a fair chance: "Alternative does not reject the plan," "Plan action doesn't necessitate . Also, 2NC/1NR must distinguish their floating PIK from the permutation; otherwise, affirmatives you should use any floating PIK analysis as a outright concession that the "permutation do both" or "permutation plan plus non-mutually exclusive parts" is TRUE.
(4) Will I vote on theory cheap shots? Yes, but I feel guilty voting for them. HOWEVER, I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A REVERSE VOTING ISSUE EVEN IF IT WAS DROPPED.

Who is a Good Debater

Anna Dimitrijevic, Alex Pappas, Pablo Gannon, Stephanie Spies, Kathy Bowen, Edmund Zagorin, Matt Fisher, Dan Shalmon, Scott Phillips, Tristan Morales, Michael Klinger, Greta Stahl, George Kouros. There are many others - but this is a good list.

Respect

Your Opponents, Your Teammates, Your Coaches, Your Activity.

Extra Notes CP/Perm/Alt Texts

The texts of permutations, counterplans, and alternatives should be clear. I always go back and check the texts of these items if there is a question of a solvency deficit or competition. However, I do feel it is the burden of the opposing team to bring up such an argument for me to vote on it - i.e., unless it is a completely random round, the opposing team needs to make the argument that the text of the CP means there is a significant solvency deficit with the case, or the affirmative is overstating/misconstruing the solvency of a permutation because the text only dictates X, not Y, etc. I will decide that the aff does not get permutations in a debate where the affirmative is not topical.

Technical Focus

I try to follow the flow the best I can - I do double check if 2AR is making arguments that are tied to the 1AR arguments. I think that 2AR's get significant leeway to weigh and frame their impacts once the 2NR has chosen what to go for; however, this does not mean totally new arguments to case arguments, etc. that were presented before the 2NR.

Resolve Arguments

Frame claim in comparison to other team's response, extend important warrants, cite author for evidence, impact argument to ballot - all of these parts are necessary to resolve an argument fully. Since debate is a game of time management, this means going for fewer arguments with more thorough analysis is better than extending myriad of arguments with little analysis.

Disrespect Bad

Complete disrespect toward anyone who is nice; no one ever has enough “credibility” in this community to justify such actions. If there is a disrespectful dynamic in a debate, I ALWAYS applaud (give higher speaker points to) the first person to step down and realize they are being a jerk. Such growth and self-awareness should rewarded.

Fear to Engage Bad

Win or lose, you are ultimately competing to have the best debate possible. Act like it and do not be afraid to engage in the tough debates. You obviously should make strategic choices, but do not runaway from in-depth arguments because you think another team will be better than you on that argument. Work harder and beat them on the argument on which she/he is supposedly an expert. Taking chances to win debates good.

Fun Stuff

And, as Lord Dark Helmet says, “evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb.”

Banecat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ywjpbThDpE

Donald Pierce Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 3:32 PM CDT

Please put me on the email chain: donpierce2025@gmail.com and debatemba@gmail.com.

MBA 21’, Emory 25’

Don’t let that fool you. I primarily run and think about K arguments.

I’m a 2A who has read K affs without plans, K affs with plans, and policy affs that have nothing to do with the K.

I’m also a 1N who has read, extended, and thought through every type of position, from T-Framework and Queer Negativity to the NGA CP and Federalism DA, to impact turns.

Do what you want, don’t overcorrect for me in content. If you are worried, overcorrect in form. If anything, everyone should be overcorrecting in explaining to me why you win the ballot, cause I think far too often, debaters treat ‘judge instruction’ as ‘impact calculus,’ when it is more about explaining to me why and how you get to the ballot.

I will write my ballot starting with the argument either team is winning I should start with. When neither team has done that, I will start with framing/impact calc and/or framework, where you should be comparing/debating out both which sides framing is better and what that means for my ballot. This sets a threshold for what I should look for on the other pages and minimizes intervention. I can be convinced to build offense from the bottom up, meaning I consider each level of offense as a yes/no question and then consider who access more offense at the end of that chain and then do framing/framework/impact calc, but that is not my default.

Theory. I will be fine if you want to go for theory but please slow down. Outside of conditionality, I generally don’t think theory arguments are reasons to reject the team, and it would be difficult to persuade me to vote on it.

Ks. Do not use excessive jargon or just assume that I understand the underlying theory. The framework debate is often not impacted out. What does winning X argument mean for things outside of the framework section of the debate?

K affs. The focus of these debates need to be on clashing and comparing the two sides. Avoiding excessive jargon and using many examples will be the most useful. I generally think procedural fairness is an impact, but I can be persuaded away from it, like most things.

CPs. If you say judge kick and say I could in the 2nr, you should do that impact calc/framing for both a ballot with the cp + da and da + case defense. Generally speaking, I think the literature determines which counterplans are legitimate and which aren’t, but I can be persuaded against that.

DAs. DA plus case is an underrated strategy vs bad affs. You don’t need cards to pick apart a bad case. You just need to show me why their cards are bad.

T. A good T debate is really fun to listen to. A bad one is very annoying. It requires a lot of judge instruction in order to not intervene, so create a narrative for me.

Maddie Pieropan Berkeley Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 8, 2024 at 8:05 AM CDT

Maddie or Mads, not "judge"

any pronouns

maddiepieropandebate@gmail.com

Background/Affiliations: BVSW 2020, current KU debater; Coaching at the Berkeley preparatory school

TLDR: Do your thing, so long as you enjoy the thing you do. My favorite debates to watch are between debaters who demonstrate a nuanced understanding of their literature bases and seem to enjoy the scholarship they choose to engage in. Research should be a fun tool for you to explore new and interesting concepts, and debating is the manifestation of your process and progress in exploring new literature bases. The below paradigm is extremely long and in-depth--since I am largely in the back of clash debates, I feel the need to explain exactly how I decide debates so as to avoid confusion. I judge a ton of debates and I think judging is a privilege.

Prep Notes:

(1) I am very close to adopting Tim Ellis' prep practices. I've seen a major increase in people taking way too much time in between prep, CX, sending docs, etc---I will try and be as sympathetic as I can, but my patience is growing thin.

(2) "marked copy" does not mean "remove the cards you didn't read." you do not have to do that, and you should not ask your opponents to do that. If you must, that's prep (note: prep and not cx time). This is majorly pissing me off recently. (special thank you to holland bald for the wording)

Clipping: If an ethics challenge is forwarded, the debate will end and I will determine its validity with a loss and lowest speaks. If an ethics challenge is not forwarded but I believe clipping happened anyway, I will also give a loss and lowest speaks, but allow the debate to continue. Clipping includes being unreasonably unclear while spreading the text of a piece of evidence--I am willing to clear you three times before doing this.

Most important:

First --- I think most people would characterize me as a “clash” judge, which I’m okay with. I’m down for a good policy throwdown, but I’m best in terms of feedback for K v Policy, Framework, and K v K debates (and they’re the debates I enjoy judging the most). My voting record is pretty even.

Second --- I very passionately situate myself as an educator in debate. What I mean is I place quite a bit of value on my role as an educator, not in how I decide debates necessarily, but rather how I give decisions. I have previously held that I will put in as much effort into judging you as you do debating, but I have since realized that I tend to put in maximum effort into judging debates and give substantive feedback. I flow debates very carefully and care deeply about the post-round commentary and feedback I give, so be prepared for the RFD rants I have grown to enjoy.

Given that, I think the pedagogical value of this activity is tremendous and believe it should be acknowledged as such. If I deem that you have engaged in a practice that harms the community (read: don’t be racist, transphobic, misogynistic, or otherwise), I will not hesitate to dock your speaks, contact tournament directors and/or coaches, or simply end the round early as I deem necessary.

Third (this is important) --- Because I think debate is necessarily educational, I encourage debaters to be intentional in making arguments. Including arguments for the sake of including them is asinine and largely frustrating.

T-USFG/Framework

Things that matter to me:

1. Competing interpretations are more important to me than most others. This isn't true of all kritikal AFFs, but if the AFF is a critique of research practices, pedagogy, or orientations towards either, I am generally of the opinion that your angle vs framework should be one that posits a new model of engaging the activity/research that resolves your offense. The threshold to win an impact turn vs framework when reading an AFF about research practices tends to be difficult because it requires winning a threshold of contingent solvency that I don't think is usually achievable, or at the very least are typically poorly explained.

2. Both teams should identify what 2AC offense is intrinsic to the AFF vs the C/I, there are plenty of debates I watch in which the 2AR goes for a C/I that doesn't solve their impact turn to T, which is not persuasive. Negative teams should be taking advantage of poorly written C/I's.

3. Debate can certainly be characterized as a game, but I think it is better described as a competitive research activity--intuitively, debate is not yahtzee. Debate is a game is impact framing, not an impact.

4. Internal links matter more to me than others and I find this portion of the debate regularly is underdebated. That said, internal links and impacts are not interchangeable, your 2NR explanation should reflect that.

5. I have found myself giving many RFDs this year that are extremely frustrating because 2NR's and 2AR's alike are refusing to go for both offense and defense. Both teams need to extend an impact, do impact calcand impact comparison, and resolve residual pieces of offense with existing defense. If you do this, my life will be easier and your speaker points will be higher.

On the negative ---

----Clash is very persuasive – particularly:

1. Predictability > other internal links alone: Predictable clash is good and guided by resolutional wording. We rely on the resolution as a pre-season and pre-tournament research guide that allows us to determine what is and is not included in research areas under the resolution.

2. Contextualize it to the topic. Why is clash over the resolution good—what pedagogical, transformative, or reflexive potential does it have? I prefer these defenses of research to be personalized and about debate as opposed to spill-up arguments about enacting change – i.e. how does clash over the resolution change the ways we engage with the controversy surrounding the resolution rhetorically, educationally, and politically. These don't necessarily have to be "NATO good" but "studying NATO good" or something.

3. Turns case arguments are your friend, especially against AFFs that criticize debates research. Comparative internal link debating and impact calc are super important here --- contextualizing clash as a pre-requisite to actualizing the telos of the AFF, i.e. the epistemic shift the 1AC attempts to resolve.

----Fairness:

1. Good for this now. That being said, I often am hearing 2NR fairness explanations that end up being roundabout ways to get to a clash terminal, if this is the way you explain fairness, you would be better suited to simply go for clash in front of me.

2. Even when going for fairness, you need to answer AFF offense against your model of debate/content of research you mandate. Saying “debate is a game” and T is a “procedural question” doesn’t mean you are shielded from AFF offense against the content/research produced as a consequence of “fairness”

3. Its an impact, but one that is typically poorly explained.

TVA/SSD: My apparent “hot take” is that I think there are few scenarios in which it is strategic and beneficial to include both a topical version of the AFF and switch side in the 2NR. Usually, there is a blatant reason why either one solves the AFF, and you should pick that in the 2NR. The TVA and switch side are not ‘you drop it you lose,’ but impact defense, use it that way, and flag which piece of offense you think it is responsive against.

On the affirmative---

1AC Construction:

1. Be intentional: I want to emphasize this for those who read kritikal affirmatives. The 1AC should be a complete and cohesive argument in some capacity, I am not particular about the form through which this is conveyed (i.e. performance or scholarship or both), but I think many kritikal affirmatives lack an argumentative telos that is largely frustrating. The AFF should not be an 8 minute framework pre-empt, just as you should avoid including evidence that is not useful to you as offense. (this is a similar frustration to that I hold of policy AFF’s with K-pre empts and framing contentions)

2. You don’t need an advocacy statement, but if you do not have one, I should know what your argument is prior to CX of the 1AC.

C/I:

1. Prior to writing the AFF, you should decide if your angle vs fwk relies on offense that is intrinsic to the speech act of the 1AC or your counter-interpretation as a model of debate/research. You should make this distinction clear in the 2AC and establishes a threshold of what solvency mechanisms you have to win in order to access your framework offense.

2. Contextualize the C/I to the 1NC’s offense, anything the C/I doesn’t solve you should impact turn.

Misc:

I appreciate those who show me that they understand the academic context of the 1AC beyond the evidence included --- that includes history, examples, references to authors, etc.
If you are reading from a literature base from which you are unfamiliar with,I will know and I won't be happy. I do not care if you have skimmed the cards, if you cannot answer questions that your literature base has foundational answers to, I will be reluctant to give you speaks higher than 28.5
1AR/2AR consistency is important --- you should be using similar language to explain your offense
Please defend things. Stop trying to avoid talking about the AFF, if you’ve read your lit base and are confident in your level of explanation, I don’t see a reason why you should be responding to every 1AC CX question with a variation of “we don’t do that,” especially when you clearly do.
ROB/ROJ arguments are very helpful for 2AR packaging and framing, you should use them
2-3 well developed, carded DA’s to FW > shotgunning 8 DA’s that say the same thing
2AR impact turn strategies need defense

Policy v K:

Misc:

1. I usually think AFFs get to weigh consequences/impacts, but you get links to discourse/rhetoric/scholarship, this is easily changed with good framework debating.

2. Framework probably matters to me a lot more than most. I think about debate a lot through its mechanics, not necessarily only through its content. I start here in most debates, unless told otherwise.

On the neg:

----The 2NR should always extend framework as a framing argument for how I evaluate consequences, otherwise you’ll likely take the L to a 2AR that moralizes about extinction. Explain what winning the framework means in context of the permutation/evaluating link arguments, I need contextualization and instruction of what you think framework does for you.

----You don’t need to extend 10 trillion link arguments, 1-2 is fine, impact them out and include link alone turns case arguments and specific contextualizations to the AFF---1AC lines or references to AFF speeches are rewarded.

----If you’re not going to the case debate, tell me why it doesn’t matter - I have been voting on extinction outweighsa lot recently

----I don’t think you need an alternative, but you do need to either win framework or links should have external offense and you should have substantial case defense

----Theories of power/structural claims mean nothing in a vacuum – you have to apply them where they matter and tell me what it means to win your theory of power

----I judge a lot of these debates and find that so many 2NR's overstretch themselves here. The 2NR should not be a condensed version of the 2NC, rather, you should make strategic decisions about whether to go for an alternative OR framework heavy strategy depending on the 1AR's decision

On the AFF:

----Like I said, framework matters a lot more to me, and you should use it to your advantage. The most persuasive way to articulate FW on the AFF in front of me is in the context of competition. Most framework debates devolve into weighing the AFF vs not weighing the AFF, which is always messy. Instead, contextualize your offense to how competition gets established and how that implicates link generation/alt solvency.

----The 2AC permutation explanation should contextualize the permutation to all of the links, explaining how you resolve it

----“Extinction outweighs” is not a defense of extinction rhetoric. You have to defend your research/scholarship by defending its academic/pedagogical value, because most of the time they are not critiquing securitization/extinction rhetoric in a vacuum, but rather the aff’s use of extinction rhetoric in an academic space for whatever reason.

----Asserting that something is a link of omission does not a link of omission make, this 2AC line is often a cop out for answering link arguments.

----Your FWK interpretation shouldn’t be “you don’t get K’s,” I’m far more persuaded by predictable clash style arguments like I explained above. That said, I think predictability and competition based framework offense is incredibly persuasive if you explain why it matters. Framework should always be in the 2AR, competition based offense makes winning a permutation a lot easier as well.

----If the K makes a structural claim or theory of power, you should read defense to it but also offer an alternate theory that explains [the thing]

----I’m not a fan of the 1AC structure that’s like [4 card advantage] [17 K pre-empts], nor am I a fan of the 2AC card dump vs 1 off strategies --- you should be thinking about how your aff interacts with the K and contextualizing 1AC evidence/scholarship vs the K

----I have judged a few debates now where the 2AC reads a link turn and an impact turn to the K. Please refrain from double-turning yourself.

K v K:

----If you have an advocacy statement, I generally agree that you get permutations, but I can be convinced otherwise

----I will be very impressed if you exemplify knowledge of how your literature base interacts with the other literature base your debating, most of the time scholars engage with one another by name and discuss their theories co-constitutively, and if you have read those theorizations and can explain them well I will be very happy.

----Comparative debating about structural claims/theories of power is really important here

Separate note about settler colonialism because I find myself in the back of these debates often:

----I agree almost whole-heartedly with Josh Michael’s paradigm here

----I have found that some people attempt to overadapt and go for settler colonialism in front of me, for whatever reason. If you aren’t familiar with the literature base and read this just for the sake of it, don't. That said, if this is a literature base that you are wanting to become more familiar with, I am more than willing to offer feedback, resources, and any other advice that might be helpful for you to continue exploring!

----I usually think that settler colonialism debates should be one-off debates, most importantly because I feel that it’s difficult to make a well-developed settler colonialism shell that is 3 cards

----GBTL/Material Decol > everything else

----Paperson doesn’t say legalism good.

----“Ontology framing bad” doesn’t disprove the structural claim of settler colonialism.

----You should be reading indigenous scholars. Geez.

In the unlikely event that you find yourself in a policy throwdown with me in the back:

Theory

----SLOW DOWN – I need to catch interps

----neg leaning, dispo is the only thing that solves your offense.

----Random procedurals are a waste of time and ruin speaks.

CP’s

----like these debates. good for PICS, bad for process. Competition debates that depend on legal intricacies are difficult for me to decide.

----Solvency deficits need impacts

----default judge kick

----stop getting to internal net benefits with 30 seconds left in the block.

DA’s

----the more specific your link ev is the better.

----turns case matters more to me than others, i think. tiebreaker in close debates will usually come down to this for me.

----I judge too many debates where the 2NR just doesn't extend an internal link, do that.

----fine for most t debates, bad for t debates that are particularly couched in legal distinctions.

----precision and predictability > debatability

----have judged a few of these debates recently that came down to insufficient violation ev---making this part of the debate clear to me makes deciding the rest of the debate a lot more clear.

Closing rants and pet peeves:

----Don’t use language/jargon that isn’t found in your literature base. Academic diction isn’t something you can mix and match to apply to your argument unless the evidence you're reading uses that particular language. If your evidence doesn’t use “communities of care,” “ontology,” or “social death,” don’t describe things as that.

----“Lengthy” overviews are the bane of my existence. I cannot remember the last time I gave a K 2NC with an overview, everything you do there can be done on the line by line. When I say lengthy I mean literally anything more than 25 seconds.

----I'll doc your speaks by .2 if you give a stand-up 1AR.

----(ONLINE SPECIFIC) Be respectful of everyone’s time. I am sympathetic to tech issues, but please make sure you aren’t having to send 3 different documents because you forgot to hit reply all, someone isn’t on the email chain, or you attached the wrong document.

----I hate the CX line of questioning that's like "if we win x,y,z does that mean we win the debate?" most of the time you're just asking "if we win the debate do we win the debate" and it gets you nowhere

----If you seem like you’re genuinely enjoying the activity, being respectful, and not taking things too seriously, chances are I’ll reward you with high speaks. My favorite debates to judge are those in which debaters are having fun!

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or otherwise, feel free to e-mail me and I’ll try and respond as soon as I can!

Rafael Pierry Westwood 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 4, 2024 at 4:58 AM PDT

Monta Vista PS

Michigan PR

Michigan PP

rafaelpierry@gmail.com

2025 Update

Despite leaving debate, I have tremendous respect for the activity. In fact, I find the above-it-all attitude affected by some former debaters off-putting and insincere. However, many who choose to remain as full-time coaches treat debate as a vicarious substitute for the careers they decided not to pursue. I believe this produces negative outcomes. Accordingly:

1. I do not discriminate between "real" and "not real" arguments. Debate coaches are not field experts. A communications or political science degree does not make you qualified to parse climate science or adjudicate a disagreement between economists. This applies to arguments that I am skeptical of as well. For example, misinformation in debate about law and the state of the judiciary borders on surreal. Nonetheless, I will evaluate those arguments fairly (and without snidely chastising you to "do research" in the RFD).

2. Calling an argument conservative does not answer it. Pointing out that an author has political commitments inconsistent with the debate consensus is an illustration of said consensus's homogeneity, not a response. (Consider: would calling an argument liberal answer it?)

3. I won't punish you for taking the easy way out. I believe my job is to judge the debate fairly, not try to force you into my preferred set of strategies. Judges often forget what it's like to be debaters. It might disappointing, as a spectator, to see a 2N bypass a core premise of the 1AC with an unrelated CP, but it's prudent strategy. I don't disparage such strategies. On the contrary, I think they reward hark work and creativity. Your goal is to win the debate, not maximize clash with your opponents.

Evaluating Debates

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 incapable of answering them.

Similarly, 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.

Planless Affs

Critical teams should pref me if they are confident that they can out-tech their policy opponents. If you can’t do this, then you will likely lose. I don’t have a strong ideological predisposition against critical affs, but personally believe the best arguments favor topicality.

Equally good for fairness or skills framework. The aff either needs to counter-define resolutional words or have an impact turn large enough to outweigh the full magnitude of the neg’s offense.

Critiques on the Neg

The best critiques are framework arguments that moot the plan. Critiques make almost no sense when they use the language of causation or are debated like CPs. By design, they lack uniqueness and attempt to establish exclusivity through something other than traditional opportunity cost. This requires an alternate framework for evaluation.

Accordingly, I am much better for frameworks that exclude the case (or, alternatively, exclude the K) than most. I will decide the FW debate in favor of one side’s interpretation, not attempt to divine some arbitrary middle ground that splits the difference. Of course, you are free to advocate a middle ground interpretation.

Topicality

I judge topicality like any other position. This entails defaulting to offense/defense, not randomly suspending impact calculus because the aff “feels” topical enough. Reasonability is a winnable argument but requires substantial investment and should be offensively framed.

No strong opinions about any standards. Fine for ‘predictability outweighs limits’ and the reverse.

Theory

Most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. The typical theory interpretation is self-serving and contrived. All CPs have "a process," anyone can be a "solvency advocate," and any CP could "result in the plan."

Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome. If, however, you manage to craft an elegant theory interpretation, I’ll be receptive. This could include "CPs can only fiat governments," "CPs may not fiat both federal and sub-federal actors," and so on.

My default is limitless condo. This is a strong default as far as the 1NC and a moderate default for the block. I can be persuaded some egregious CPing---like CPing out of a straight turn in the 2NC---is illegitimate, but I’m inclined to lean negative there as well.

Counterplans

Much better for process and competition-based strategies than most. I don’t share the community’s sanctimonious distaste for Process CPs and tend to think a 2AC requires more than sputtering with indignation. I won’t automatically discount a net benefit because it is "artificial" or "not germane," nor do I take it for granted that process strategies are inherently less educational than their counterparts.

I’m equally good for "must compete textually and functionally" and "functionally only." Textual competition alone is a hard sell. If the aff wins the CP needs to compete both textually and functionally, that justifies permutation that are partially legitimate.

I’ll judge kick the CP if no one says anything. If the aff wants me not to, they need to say so in the 1AR, but it’s an uphill battle.

Disadvantages

I do not understand nor participate in the moral panic about politics, "generic" DAs, or links to fiat. A disadvantage is just some negative consequence the plan brings about. The nature of that consequence is entirely irrelevant, so long as the neg is capable of winning it outweighs the advantages.

What fiat means should be debated like any other argument. My default is to assume that fiat entails durable, good-faith passage and implementation of the plan.

Case

'Try or die' refers to whether extinction is inevitable. If the neg only goes for solvency takeouts, then the aff controls try or die. If the aff drops an internal net-benefit to a CP and only extends deficits, then the neg controls try or die. This is a relevant consideration. Both sides should always be aware of whether they access try or die and either point this out or explain why they win regardless.

Zero risk is obviously possible, but extremely hard to get to in practice. If the neg drops 1AC impacts, you should reference them, but don’t need to formally extend them in the 2AC. However, the 1AR must always extend an impact for it to be eligible for the 2AR.

Miscellaneous

For online debates, I’d prefer cameras on. I won’t punish you if you choose to keep it off though.

You don’t need to take prep for tech issues, going to the bathroom, getting water, etc.

You don’t need to flash analytics.

Stephen Pipkin Glenbrook North 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 6:23 AM EDT

Glenbrook North- he/him

I don't know what has happened to wiki disclosure but current practices are unacceptable. Rather than hard and fast rules, I've decided to just incorporate wiki disclosure into speaker points. The baseline is round reports for all your rounds, including what was in the 1NC, the block, and the 2NR, with full text of your 1ACs and cites for all your off-case. Going beyond that will boost your points. Not meeting that baseline will hurt your points.

Use the tournament's doc share if it's set-up, speechdrop if it's not.

I won't vote for death good.

If you're taking prep before the other teams speech, it needs to be before they send out the doc. For example, if the aff team wants prep between the 2NC and 1NR, it needs to happen before the 1NR doc gets sent out, so I'd recommend saying you're going to do it before cross-x.

1. Flow and explicitly respond to what the other team says in order. I care a lot about debate being a speaking activity and I would rather not judge you if you disagree. I won't open the speech doc during the debate. I won't look at all the cards after the round, only ones that are needed to resolve something being debated out that are explicitly extended throughout the debate. If I don't have your argument written down on my flow, then you don't get credit for it. As an example, if you read a block of perms, I need to be able to distinguish between the perms in the 2AC to give you credit for them. If you are extending a perm in the 2AR I didn't have written down in the 2AC, I won't vote on it, even if the neg doesn't say this was a new argument. The burden is on you to make sure I am able to flow and understand everything you are saying throughout the debate. If you don't flow (and there are a lot of you out there) you should strike me.

2. Things you can do to improve the likelihood of me understanding you:

a. slow down

b. structure your args using numbers and subpoints

c. explicitly signpost what you are answering and extending

d. alternate analytics and cards

e. use microtags for analytics

f. give me time to flip between flows

g. use emphasis and inflection

3. I think the aff has to be topical.

4. I'm not great at judging the kritik. I'm better at judging kritiks that have links about the outcome of the plan but have an alternative that's a fiated alternative that's incompatible with the world of the plan.

5. You can insert one perm text per CP into the debate. Those need to be sent out prior to the 2A getting to those perms. The idea that you can "make" a perm but then actually write it later is absurd. You can insert sections of cards that have been read for reference. You can't insert re-highlightings. I'm not reading parts of cards that were not read in the debate.

6. I flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.

7.Plans: If you say the plan fiats something in CX, you don't get to say PTIV means something else on T. So for example, if you say "remove judicial exceptions" means the courts, you don't get to say you're not the courts on T. If you say normal means is probably the courts but you're not fiating that, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are Congress for a DA or CP.

8. If your highlighting is incoherent, I'm not going to read unhighlighted parts of the card to figure out what it means.

Vivienne Pismarov Notre Dame High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 1:45 PM PDT

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Notre Dame in CA (2011-2015); University of San Francisco (BA in Psychology); JD from UC Davis School of Law (2022). Previously taught 4 classic week labs at University of Michigan Debate Camp.

Update for 2024 TOC: Currently am an attorney and I judge here and there. I judged a few rounds at Long Beach this year, but have not judged rounds since then.

tldr: I'll judge anything but I like policy debates more. Just make warranted arguments and tell me how I should vote and why.

Newest thoughts:

- steal prep and I'm docking points

- don't make your opponent send you a marked doc for just 1-2 marked cards - that is something you should be tracking - I notice this is something teams do and then they just use the time to keep prepping their next speeches

General Notes:

1. I am definitely very, very flow oriented. I flow on paper and care a lot about structure. That being said, to have a full argument you need to make a claim, warrant, and impact. If those things aren't there, I'd rather not do the work for you and reward the team that did.

2. Other than that, you do you. I'm down to listen to anything you want to talk about if you can defend it well.

3. I'm super easy to read. If I'm making faces, it's probably because I am confused or can't understand what you're saying. If I'm nodding, that is generally a good thing.

4. Be good people. There's nothing I hate more than people being unnecessarily rude.

5. There is always a risk of something, but a low risk is almost no risk in my mind when compared to something with a high risk.

6. I'll always prioritize good explanation of things over bad cards. If you don't explain things well and I have to read your evidence and your evidence sucks, you're in a tough spot. That being said, I would rather not call for cards, but if you think that there is a card that I simply need to read, then say so in your speech.

7. Tasteful jokes/puns are always accepted. They can be about anything/anyone (ie Jacob Goldschlag) as long as its funny :)

Topicality: I love topicality debates because they're techy and force debaters to really explain what they are talking about in terms of impacts. That being said, 2nr's/2ar's really need to focus on the impact debate and explain to me why education is an impact or why I should prefer a limited topic over an unlimited one. Reasonability is debatable. I was a 2n in high school and I lean towards a more limited topic, but I'm very easily persuaded otherwise.

K Aff's: I am very convinced by most framework arguments on the negative side. I think that K aff's need to be closer to the resolution than not and I do not think that many of them are. However, this does not mean that I will not vote for a K aff; I just have had trouble understanding the proliferation of Baudrillard and Bataille affs, so if you are aff, you will definitely need to be doing a higher level of experience. I think Cap K's versus these aff's can be very persuasive, but I also think Framework makes a lot of sense if the aff isn't topical. That being said, do you and make smart args. I'm not the most literate in a lot of high-theory literature, so if you want to play that game in front of me, do it BUT explain your theories and I'll catch on quick.Framework: I think that "traditional" framework debates fall prey to a big exclusion DA from the aff. I think we should be able to talk about K affs and that they should be included in the topic - HOWEVER I believe that K aff's do need to prove that they are topical in some way. I lean more towards the neg in framework debates because I do think that many K aff's have little to do with the topic, but there have been so many times when K aff's actually engage the topic in a great way. That being said, on the aff be closer to the resolution and on the neg, explain how your interpretation and model of debate interacts with the aff. Most teams forget that the aff will always try to weigh their impacts against framework, which sucks because it is hard to resolve real world impacts versus theoretical arguments about fairness and education.

Theory: I will most likely lean neg on most theory questions unless a CP is simply very, very abusive, but even those can be defended sometimes :)

Disads: I love disads, specifically the politics DA. Prioritize impact work! Despite my love for DA's, most of them are dumb and you can easily convince me that they are dumb even using analytics and indicting the neg's evidence. However, I still love DA's and wish I got to go for them more in high school. Good politics debates make me happy.

Counterplans: Everything is debatable in terms of theory, so do you. If a CP is very abusive, hopefully the aff says so. If the aff concedes planks of your CP, you should make sure you say that. I think all CP's need a solvency advocate, otherwise it will be hard for the neg to win solvency and potentially theory.

Kritiks: I really like the K when the link debate is specific and I can articulate a SPECIFIC link and reasons why the aff is bad. Fair warning - I am not the most literate in high-theory arguments. This doesn't mean I won't listen to your Baudrillard K's, but it means that I have a very high threshold for SPECIFIC links and also simple explaination of the argument since I will most likely be confused until you explain yourself. The neolib k was my baby in high school and I think it answers everything. Security was Notre Dame's main thing when I was there so go for that too. Teams need to explain what I need to prioritize first, whether that is epistemology, reps, framework, or whatever, just make sure you say so! I don't like overviews and I am a big believe in putting your link and impact work where it makes sense on the line by line because it will always make sense somewhere.

Giorgio Rabbini Westwood 6 rounds

Rayeed Rahman Peninsula High School 5 rounds

shreyas rajagopal Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2 rounds

Riley Reichel Head-Royce High School 2 rounds

Joe Rhee Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 13, 2024 at 7:26 AM EDT

LD: please add my email AND breakdocs@googlegroups.com. please do not add me to a speechdrop. read this section and the must reads.

i have argumentative preferences I have attempted to list below. however, i will not let these affect the result of the round. my main caveat is if the argument doesn't exist in policy, you will probably need to explain it. this includes strange acronyms and phrases that seem to only exist in LD like "does x trigger y". stop asking for marked copies and a million questions about which cards were and weren't read. these are CX or prep questions.

carving out exceptions to technical evaluation is very arbitrary. the only exceptions i have is if a debater wants to stop the round, i think the safety of debaters is at risk, and giving you speaker points just because you asked. no judge is a true blank slate. i will subconsciously use my understanding of arguments and norms to inform my decision, but try my best to check it back.i have rarely been offended by arguments other than LD norms that hinge on the kindness of their opponents showing them their entire hand. judge instruction is paramount. if an argument is new, you must flag it as such and explain why i should not evaluate it. the only exception is the 2ar, where the other debater cannot do so.

i am not perfect. i flow straight down. i have missed arguments before, but would say i flow about 80-90% of most arguments, but certainly paraphrased. to incentivize better communication,i no longer flow off the doc. i will glance at the cards to make sure you're not clipping, but not copy paste. this means if you have complex perm texts, short shells, a slew of tiny cards, or similar, you definitely need to make sure to signpost/slow down/be very clear. if i miss something or just don't understand it, i have no qualms telling you "i didn't get that". this also applies for things referenced in later speeches - if you say "the usfg should...customary international law...ban...unclos" and i couldn't flow even the gist of the counterplan because you sounded like you were in an underwater helicopter, i don't know what to tell you.

Tech--x--------Truth

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

Phil-------x---No

Theory--------x--Substance

Disclose------x----Unverifiable

Tricks----------x-Literally anything else

GCB+30 speaks---------x-Please stop

More NC arguments/cards--x--------New in the NR

the neg is getting away with murder----x------teams should be better at being aff

policy: read below.

i am semi-involved, but haven't extensively cut cards on IP. i did not judge at camp, but have judged ~20 rounds and 10 practice debates on this topic. a detailed judging record (including arguments read) is here, poached from David McDermott.

must reads:

joe, not judge. i'm not that old. yes, email chain. joerhee779@gmail.com
email subject should be include tournament, round, teams, and codes. ex: 2021 TOC - Round 4 - Mitty AP (Aff) vs Little Rock GR (Neg)
safety and integrity are prior. do not touch each other, me, or anyone's property, say slurs, misgender, etc. outside help is prohibited. each debater must give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal, unless there's a maverick situation that has been pre-approved. speech times are non-negotiable. do not clip. clipping = misrepresenting evidence. if you skip a word on accident, don't worry. if you skip a sentence, several words, or even paragraphs, in more than one card, i will be less forgiving. these are an auto-L and lowest speaks possible.
send out the 1AC and be ready to give it at start time. deleting analytics and excessive downtime between the email being sent out will incur prep.
communication first. pausing for pen time, not spreading through blocks like they're cards, and being clear when reading cards is imperative. rehighlightings that explain warrants beyond the tag should be read.

me:

little rock central '22, vanderbilt '26. human and organizational development major, data science minor. you can ask about vandy if you want after a decision has been made or through email.
read basically everything in high school as a 2A and 2N. did two tournaments in college. did the toc once. broke there. qualed twice. read about 55-60% K/45-40% policy args. I research more Ks and K answers than anything else. i judge about 40% policy v. policy, 35% policy v. K, and 25% K v. K debates (adjusted for varsity debates alone). i am probably ideal for an impact turn or policy v. K debate, but am confident i can evaluate anything.
i agree most with Debnil Sur.

argument evaluation:

tech over truth. arguments must have a claim, warrant, and implication. i must be able to explain what i flowed to the other team, not agree with it. worse warrants should be (and are) easier to beat. yes, you can win death/war/warming good, no condo, racism outweighs T, fairness is an impact, etc. however, if i didn't hear/understand the argument (including clarity), i won't vote on it, so hide arguments at your own risk. explaining the importance of dropped arguments 1-3 is more important than extending dropped argument 4. if i can't resolve the debate using tech alone, something has gone horribly wrong.
i will not judge personal character. i lack the resources and willpower to discuss debaters' personal lives. barring a debater saying we ought to openly hate entire groups of people online on a publicly accessible website (screenshots are not evidence), i am unwilling to vote on minors' actions. if someone says something that could be problematic, i will likely correct it after the fact, not drop the debater. you are free to make this a link argument or voting issue, but i will evaluate it like any other argument.
evidence quality matters and is under-debated. a good analytic can beat a bad card, but no cards decreases the chance of a win. evidence comparison is underutilized, but if no one mentions it in the debate, i will not make it part of my decision, nor insert my personal opinion on the evidence unless someone only says "read it after the round" .
i am very expressive. if i don't like an argument, it will show, but i have still voted for teams i made faces at.
debaters work hard, so i will not give a lazy decision. if you disagree post-round, please explain why and i will walk through my reasoning with you.

specific arguments:

Ks: framework is important, and i will only vote on an interp introduced in the debate. i do miss when debaters went for other tricks than the fiat K like link turns case or impact calc, but i'll evaluate the flow technically. in K v. K debates, unsure why framework and impact calculus suddenly disappears and why "no perms in a method debate" is a truism.
K affs: vs. T, choose either a counter interp or impact turn strategy. i am ok with fairness, clash, or education when actually explained. TVAs are usually meh unless the aff is close to the topic. SSD is slightly better but may link to DAs. impact turns like heg/cap/state good are fine. i vote aff when the neg drops DAs to T or can't explain their impact. i vote neg when the aff drops tricks like the ballot pik or subjectivity defense.
T: offense-defense. reasonability doesn't make sense without a counter-interp. thoughts on theory are essentially the same, except that because they lack evidence, most claims like aff and neg bias are usually unwarranted.
CPs: a. solvency deficits must be real, otherwise write a better aff. b. most theory objections would be better phrased as competition, though i'm 50/50 on the legitimacy of most counterplans. c. i've heard enough competition debates to know what's happening. d. not sure why people aren't reading more advantage counterplans.
DAs/case: many DAs and affs are fake, especially the internal link. presumption/zero risk is possible, but is a high bar. 2As - during the 2AC please actually explain line-by-line warrants. half the time it is incomprehensible. 2Ns - exploit 2A posturing and bad evidence quality. read more than just impact d. impact and straight turns are fun, but stay organized.

speaks:

speaker point inflation is terrorism. i will use a wider range than the average judge. more stats are in the judging record linked above.

below 27.0 - reserved for ethics violations.

27.0 - 0.0 percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.5 - 17th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28.0 - 33rd percentile speaker at the tournament.

28.5 - 50th percentile speaker at the tournament.

29.0 - 67th percentile speaker at the tournament.

29.5 - 83rd percentile speaker at the tournament.

30 - 100th percentile speaker at the tournament.

this is the baseline based on speeches. how to get higher or lower:

1. good CX. "tag team" cx is fine, but if one debater is taking every question, speaks will suffer. don't ask a bunch of questions like "what cards did you read" or "can you explain the aff". hard limit is 2 before speaks start dropping.

2. humor, kindness, and demeanor. don't have to be nice all the time because i get debate's competitive and tensions are high, but making a good joke, being generally respectful to others and making debate a better place are all great.

Jeremiah Rimpson Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue August 27, 2024 at 1:15 PM EDT

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

Performance + K Affirmatives

Kritiks

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!

Serena Rupp Univ Of Chicago Lab School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 12:51 AM CDT

Emory 26, Lawrence Free State 22

serenajosephinerupp@gmail.com

I am extremely tech > truth, which frames the rest of my thoughts about debate. Every time I judge this paradigm gets shorter because my predispositions are weak and irrelevant to the vast majority of debates.

Only non-negotiables:

1. No death good.

2. I won't vote on things that happen outside of the round. I'm 20 years old and so unqualified to mediate high schoolers' interpersonal conflicts.

Absolutely love T debates when debaters do impact comparison. Competing interpretations > reasonability.

Truthfully, I think that predictable limits are the gold standard. Limits for the sake of limits are bad. The most legally precise definition isn't necessarily the best one for debate. That being said, just debate.

Ks:

I am comfortable judging Ks like cap, set col, antiblackness, security, etc. I know basically nothing about postmodernism/poststructuralism/high theory.

My predisposition is that teams should get to weigh their aff and that framework interps that entirely exclude Ks are unpersuasive.

K affs:

In a close T debate, I’m a bit better for the neg. This is an issue with experience more so than bias. I’ve basically always been on that side of the debate, so I can subconsciously fill in more gaps when both teams lack judge instruction. With that said, I am so flow-oriented that this rarely matters. I’m just going to vote for the team that wins more of their impact and explains why it outweighs. Fairness is an impact so long as you can explain it as one. I don’t have a strong preference between clash and fairness. If you’re neg, I’m on par better for T than the K because that’s where my experience lies.

DAs:

Obviously great. Smart turns case explanation = good speaks.

CPs:

Functional and textual competition is the gold standard. Default to judge kick.

Theory:

Conditionality is the only reason to reject the team. I'm a 2N and personally believe that condo is good, but quality of debating matters most. The aff needs to clearly explain an impact prior to the 2AR, or else I’m very sympathetic to the neg. Please do line by line.

Juliette Salah Northview High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 15, 2024 at 6:09 AM EDT

Suffolk SW

Northview IS, MS

Assistant Coach - Suffolk University

b2.kingofnato@gmail.com

Top

**If I look confused, I am confused, please make me not confused.

**Yes you can read the K in front of me HOWEVER reading the K in front of me on either side IS NOT a guaranteed ballot. Quite frankly I've grown frustrated with the K especially when it's poorly debated.

**Novices: "I’m a firm believer in flowing and I don’t see enough people doing it. Since I do think it makes you a better debater, I want to incentivize it.So if you do flow the round, feel free to show me your flows at the end of the debate, and I’ll award up to an extra .3 points for good flows.I reserve the right not to give any points (and if I get shown too many garbage flows maybe I’ll start taking away points for bad ones just so people don’t show me horrible flows, though I’m assuming that won’t happen much), but if you’ve got the round flowed and want to earn extra points, please do!By the way you can’t just show one good flow on, lets say, the argument you were going to take in the 2nc/2nr – I need to see the round mostly taken down to give extra points" - Ben Schultz

**LD folks scroll to the bottom for specific LD stuff

General

1—Please don't call me judge. Makes me feel hella old. Just call me Juliette.

2—Tech over truth to its logical extent. Debate is not about solely the truth level of your arguments but your ability to substantially defeat the other team’s claims with your technical ability.

3—When debating ask the question of Why? Technical debating is not just realizing WHAT was dropped but WHY what was dropped matters and how important it is in the context of the rest of the debate. “If you start thinking in these terms and can explain each level of this analysis to me, then you will get closer to winning the round. In general, the more often this happens and the earlier this happens it will be easier for me to understand where you are going with certain arguments. This type of analysis definitely warrants higher speaker points from me and it helps you as a debater eliminate my predispositions from the debate."- Matt Cekanor

4—For those curious, I mainly debated the K in high school (on both sides). I'm usually good with most Ks, even so, you still have the burden of explaining it to me well as I vote off the flow and won't do additional work for you even if I read the lit. (Excuse the rant but...) I think most POMO arguments in debate are stupid and for some reason every POMO debate I've judged the team has double turned themselves (lowk probably cuz most (if not all) POMO is ridiculous to read in this activity). Then again, debate it well and yes I will vote on whatever POMO stuff you throw my way.

K-Affs

Yes, I read a K aff. Yes, I will vote on them. No, I don't think a majority of these affs solve any of the impacts they claim to solve. I think a key thing that most of these affs lack is proper solvency. If you're going to convince me that you solve things, I need a good reason to either why your method is good (i.e. give me concrete examples of what your aff looks like) and/or tell me why an aff ballot in this debate solves. That being said, for the negative, I often find a good presumption push to be a solid strat.

Framework

1. No preference on what impact you go for (but come on, clash is not an impact... alas, if you debate it well I will vote on it). Some impacts require more case debating than others. For example, if going for fairness, you need to spend more time winning the ballot portion of your offense and defense against the other team’s theory of how debate operates. If going for clash, you need to spend more time winning how your model over a year’s worth of debates can solve their offense and spend more time with defense to the affirmative.

2. I have spent a large part of my high school career thinking about arguments for the negative and the affirmative in these debates. To put it into perspective, almost 90% of my debates over a given season are framework debates, on the neg and the aff. For a large amount of framework debates, the better-practiced team always wins.

3. Use defense to your advantage. Nebulous claims of inserting the affirmative can be read on the negative with no specific internal link or impact debating will largely not factor in my decision. However, there are fantastic ways to use defense like switch side debate and the TVA.

4. Very specific TVA’s can work against very specific types of framework arguments. If the affirmative has forwarded a critique of debating the topic then TVA’s can mitigate the affirmative’s DAs. However, if the affirmative team has forwarded an impact turn to the imposition of framework in the round, they are less useful.

5. Impact turning topicality - Do it. Do it well and you'll be rewarded.

6. Often times when starting out, 2AR's go for too much in the 2AR. If you are impact turning T, go for one DA's and do sufficient impact comparison. Your 2AR should answer the questions of how T is particularly violent or links to your theory of power and most importantly HOW MY BALLOT CAN RESOLVE THOSE THINGS. Your impact only matters as much as its scope of solvency. You must also do risk comparison. Most neg framework teams are better at this. The way the aff loses these debates is when there's a DA with substantive impact turn and there's a negative impact that is explained less but is paired with substantively more internal link work and solvency comparison.

If going for a CI, focus on one impact turn and focus on how the CI solves it and how the DA links to their interp. Think of it like CP, your CI should include some aspects of their interpretation but avoids the risk of your DAs.

K v Policy AFF

Two types of 2NRs. Ones that go for in round implications and ones that go for out of round implications.

A)In Round—In round route requires a larger push on framework and a higher level of technical debating on the level of the standards but is usually much easier if you’re a practiced K 2NR. 2NC will usually have like 10 arguments on framework, 1AR extends their standards and answers like 2 arguments. 2NR just goes for the DA and all conceded defense, GGs. In addition, the best K 2NRs going for the in round version will have a link to the “plan or the effects of the plan”. What this means in this sense is that they will tie affirmative implementation to a link that proves their ethic mobilizes bad subjects IN DEBATE.

B)Out of Round—Out of round requires like close to 0 time on framework. Most policy 2As now just grant the K links but just say affirmative vs the alternative. Thus, if you are going for the alternative with links to the plan, just spend time winning the link debate, explaining why the affirmative doesn’t happen in the way they think. Most times these Ks will have a substantial impact turn debate so winning that is essential.

K v K Debates

1. Technical Debating is often lost in these debates but this necessarily happens due to the nature of K v K debates as theory of power debating is often the most important part. That being said, vague link debating will mitigate you winning your theory of power.

2. You need to pick something and defend it. The neg team will ask about the affirmative in 1AC CX, that explanation should stay consistent throughout the round. Lack of a consistent explanation will lower my threshold for buying a risk of a link and higher the burden for you to win the permutation.

3. Use links to implicate solvency. Often times its hard to make a K aff stick to in round or out of round solvency. Use links in the 2NC and 2NR to mitigate parts of both so even if the 2AR consolidates to one, you still have defensive arguments.

4. K affs have built in theory of power and solvency that's inherently offensive. I'll be grumpy if you jettison the aff but will not if you provide extrapolated offensive explanations in the 2AR using your affirmative and pieces of offense that they dropped. 2AR's that do this will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality (Policy v Policy)

1. Fine judge for these debates. T can lower your burden of prepping out some affirmatives that are inherently untopical and it's a good strat to have in your back pocket. However, for this topic the caselists and violations are pretty overlimiting.

2. Caselists are always useful for understanding these arguments.

3. Impact debating doesn't matter much in these debates but internal link debating does. Make sure to indict and compare interps and both sides. Predictability is the IL to all impacts.

4. The best 2AR's in these debates are ones that pick through negative evidence and identify no intent to define, arbitrariness, and combine that with reasonability

Counterplans

1. Probably err negative on theory concerns but if there's a technical crush I will certainly vote affirmative.

2. My predisposition toward counterplans is that they must be both textually and functionally competitive but always up to interpretation by the theory debate in round.

3. The best counterplans are PICs and other counterplans that are cut to beat specific affs. That being said, I do find some PICs to be extremely abusive so I will be sympathetic towards the aff on a PICs bad theory debate.

4. Presumption flips aff when you read a CP.

5. Affirmatives always freak out when they hit a CP they don't have blocks to but your advantages are there for a reason, its not hard to write specific deficits during the 1NC.

Theory

I dislike generic theory debates. I do not think anything but condo/extremely abusive PICs is a reason to reject the team but I can be persuaded otherwise if there is extreme in-round abuse or the other team straight-up drops it.

It will take a lot to convice me to vote aff on condo in a one/two conditional off debate. Three conditional off can start getting more legit in novice. Four and plus and sure I'll listen.

1. Risk matters most when evaluating a DA. The affirmative arguments are made to give me skepticism in the internal links and the negatives job is to mitigate that by link work and turns case debating implicating affirmative solvency.

2. DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact arguments are presented. If not present in the block, the 1AR will get new answers. I also need a full scenario in the 2NR for me to vote on.

3. When the DA is the best utilized is the 1NR. Very hard for the 1AR when 1NR gets 5 minutes to read a slew of cards answering all 2AC claims.

Case

1. Yes you can win on a straight-up presumption ballot. This type of ballot is not popular anymore but it should be. Too many teams get away with reading an affirmative with no specific evidence or internal links. This was especially prevalent on the criminal justice reform topic but it is still a problem on the water topic too. Teams will highlight evidence terribly and act like the solve it even though it makes no sense, especially against the K. K teams should take advantage of this. Ex. aff that talks about financing technologies- solvency advocates will mention one type of technology but the advantage area will be about a different kind. Neg teams call this out and go for presumption.

2. Affirmative teams must answer all case arguments not merely by extending their impact again but by answering the warrants in the card. Most policy teams just say "doesn't assume our x" without refuting the warrants in the card.

Argument Preferences

1. Don't really care what you read in front of me. Though I've spent the vast majority of my high school career in the K realm, and probably because of that, I've thought about most policy answers to the K so either side can make sense to me. However, it is your job as debaters to ensure a technical win, and ensure my job is to solely evaluate the flow.

2. If you are going to read the K in front of me, please do it well. Because I've seen the K debated at some of the highest levels, it's annoying to see it butchered.

3. I'm fine for policy v policy throw-downs. These debates are often much easier to resolve as one team almost always clearly wins on the flow and are much easier to understand.

Speaker Points

I find myself giving speaks on the higher end. Ways to improve your speaks include:

Being funny, making smart arguments, having fun, being clear, not saying your opponent conceded/dropped something when they didn't, talking about penguins, make fun of anyone I know.

Cross-ex can be a great way to improve speaks, however, there's a thin line between being competetive and just being rude and I have no shame in docking speaks if you choose to be a jerk.

It irks me when debaters claim their opponents "dropped" something when I have it on my flow. I understand that sometimes mistakes happen and you don't flow an argument or something similar. However (comma) if it becomes a recurring problem in a speech I will dock speaks each time it happens.

Also, I will yell "clear" three times, if you choose not to slow down or be clear I will start docking speaks. If you are speaking faster than I can move my pen or type then don't complain when I didn't catch something on my flow. "I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it." - Blake Deng

I’m not an LD person, so keep things as simple and direct as possible.

I sorta know what a value criterion is.

You gotta do more weighing in phil debates.

Now on a technicality I’m probably best for the K, however, because policy speech times are longer, I tend to look for more warranted comparisons by the end of the debate. Also, I just have high standards for explanations.

I refuse to vote on something I don’t comfortably understand.

Important thing to remember is I was a policy debater NOT and LD debater. Lucky for you, my face says it all, if I look confused, I am confused, please just make me not confused. Also, NO TRICKS.

Rafael Sanchez Coppell High School 7 rounds

Jet Semrick Taipei American School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 18, 2024 at 9:57 AM CDT

Email: jet.semrick@gmail.com , taipeiamericanpolicy@gmail.com

Coach @ Taipei American School | Debated @ University of Kansas 2019-2023 and Shawnee Mission East 2015-2019

______________________________________________

Summary:

--AFFs should be topical and solve a unique problem.

--I am good for any negative position that argues the plan is undesirable. Bad for arguments that intentionally avoid the case.

--Argument quality matters. I am more likely to be persuaded by complete, sound, and logical arguments. However, technical debating can change this predisposition.

--Preference for fewer, but more developed positions over many underdeveloped ones.

--Be reasonable with down time, sending out emails, and please don't send out or ask for a marked doc if it's not needed.

--Ethos, clarity, and strategic decisions will be rewarded with speaker points.

--I try to transcribe the debate and cross-ex on my computer. I generally don't follow along with speech docs. At the end of the debate, I read cards if needed to resolve important disputes in the debate.

--I do high school topic research. Outside of debate I am a graduate student studying machine learning at Cornell. My undergraduate was in computer science and economics at the University of Kansas.

______________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Plans

Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive defense of a non topical AFF.

Ground is the most compelling standard because a 'limits explosion' can be mitigated by existence of predictable and high quality negative ground.

Counterplans

Evidence that compares the CP to the plan is the gold standard.

Process CPs are awful for debate. If evidence quality is good and comparative to the plan, I am game, otherwise my biases heavily favor the affirmative on theory and competition questions.

I will judge kick counterplans unless instructed otherwise.

I think conditionality is bad, but my voting record favors the negative. One or two conditional advocacies seems reasonable, anything more quickly reduces the quality of the debate.

Ideally, the negative specifies net benefits and establishes competition in the 1NC.

Disadvantages

Link debating and evidence is often the important part of a DA.

Case

Solvency deficits and alt causes are more compelling than impact defense.

Case debating is better than counterplan debating.

If you decide to read a framing page, make it meaningful. Generic framing arguments are boring and generally still devolve to magnitude x probability. I don't need a framing page to vote affirmative for a low magnitude high probability impact vs. low probability DA.

______________________________________________

Critique:

Topicality vs. K AFFs

You should strike me if you don't read a plan. I will vote negative if minimum expectations are met when going for framework.

I think fairness is the best impact, but am also persuaded by arguments about iteration, research, and clash. Without a predictable affirmative constraint, I don't think debate could exist.

Critiques vs. Policy AFFs

I enjoy well researched and specific critical arguments. The negative should win link turns case arguments, solvency deficits, or impact turns.

Framework arguments should have implications. The 2NR and 2AR should give instruction for what to do if you win or lose your interpretation. I default to weighing the impacts the plan can solve against the impacts of links the alternative can solve.

I will vote negative for a linear DA.

The alternative should solve a material problem and am not persuaded by alternatives that 'reject' the plan.

Performative contradictions matter. I am persuaded that the negative does not get to sever reps if other arguments are explicit contradictions. Examples of this are reading the cap K and economy DA.

______________________________________________

Ethics Violations:

I would prefer for debates to be completed and am not interested in judging the moral character of debaters or events that took place outside of the round. I value my role as an educator and will intervene or answer questions mid debate if that leads to an agreeable resolution that allows the debate to continue.

I would prefer to strike evidence rather than end the debate. Questions about qualifications, context, and argument representation should be argued in speeches to undermine the credibility of a position.

If there is a formal ethics challenge by a team, the debate ends. If the challenge is successful, the team who made the challenge wins and receives average speaks. If not, they lose and receive low speaks. I will defer to tab, my experience, and advice of others.

If the issue could have been resolved before the debate and is unintentional, I will likely reject the challenge. If I catch clipping, I will give a warning during the speech under the assumption that debaters are competing in good faith. If there is an egregious pattern or the warning is ignored, I will vote for the other team at the end of the debate.

Archan Sen Georgetown Day School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 9:07 AM CDT

Overview

-archan.debate@gmail.com---please send the 1AC before the round start time.

-Eagan LS, Berkeley US. Coached at Georgetown Day Schools and Head Royce (policy) and Harker (LD).

-Please post-round me if you disagree with me---judges should be held responsible for bad decisions.

-LD at bottom.

-TLDR: Tech over everything. Debate is a game and you should maximize your chances of winning. Judges who say "I'll vote on anything except [xyz]" don't understand what tech over truth means. You do not need to read anything below this---everything else in my paradigm are my general inclination of how debate works, so you can exploit some of the biases that I've accumulated throughout my time in debate. Regardless of what you go for, I will attempt to judge it as fairly as possible.

-Background: debated as a 2A since 8th grade (immigration, arms sales, cjr, water, NATO) and now as a 2N in college (nukes, MBIs). Read only policy affs and went for a K in exactly 4 rounds. Staked some pretty big debates on pretty stupid args (went for hidden aspec in mich finals and christian wipeout at the TOC). Gone for pretty much every policy arg under the sun: core topic DAs and CPs, impact turns (including warming good, spark, and wipeout), good T interps, terrible T interps, non-resolutional theory, process CPs, and Kant. Qualled 3x to the TOC and got to semis my senior year. I came from a small school, and appreciate being scrappy to make up for prep disparities. Despite the laundry list of bad arguments above, my favorite debates are the ones with the most clash and two sides that are well prepared on core topic controversies. Furthermore, from going for all the bad arguments, I've realized why most of them are bad, and even a couple smart analytics can zero most of them.

-Many decisions I've witnessed have been atrocious. Judges don't vote for args they like even though it was a technical crush, they rep out based on coaches poll rankings, or just don't evaluate the tech because they ideologically agree with one side. I will try my hardest to not do any of those things.

-CX is often the most interesting part of the debate. Show resolve and stand your ground. If you defended something in your speech, defend the logical implications in cross. One of my biggest pet peeves is when teams try to weasel out of hard cx questions.

-Innovation is good---if you have something that is genuinely new to debate, I will be very happy to listen to it.

-Neg terror is good. My most fun 2ACs were always against 10+ off. Aff teams should win theory or counter-terror (straight turn the DAs, read stuff that can be cross applied across the flows and don't cross apply till the 1AR, and impact turn everything).

-The point of debate isn't to maximize clash nor to avoid cowardice. It's to win. Go for dropped aspec, don't send analytics, and generally anything that increases your chances of getting the ballot. I will award strategic decisions more than your attempt to showcase your bravery by flexing about how you made the unstrategic decision to take your opponent up on what they're good at.

-If you win a try-or-die claim, I will pretty much always vote for you---if we're guaranteed to go extinct in one world, I'd always choose a different world.

-Inserting rehighlightings is good and should be done more---it lowers the barrier to entry for ev comparison and deters bad evidence.

-There is no substantive argument that's off limits: death good, hidden aspec, and spark are all fair game.

-Rep means nothing to me. A lot of my prefs as a small school debater my junior and senior year were preffing around judges who we thought would vote for whichever team had more clout as debaters. I will not care about how many bids you have, where you are on the coaches poll, or what school you go to.

-Read more impact turns.

-Ad homs are defined as logical fallacies.

K-Affs

-Very good for K teams that realize that Ks are a technical tool that is strategic because it has so many good tricks, very bad for for K teams that try to ethos their way out of technical concessions.

-Meta seems to have shifted pretty much exclusively to microaggressions (or maybe those are just the k teams that pref me). I have unfortunately voted this up many times but I think evenly debated it should be a crush for the neg on tab solves and T isn't a microaggression, especially given the time skew between the block and the 1AR.

-Counter-interps should pretty much never be the 2AR absent large technical mishaps by the neg. Every counter-interp seems pretty contrived and incoherent when held up to scrutiny. Also it probably links to at least some part of your offense.

-Ambivalent between fairness and clash---I think explaining clash is probably easier, but fairness is more true. Go for whatever you're more comfortable with/what you're winning in the round.

-Read more stuff vs K affs---word PICs against un-underlined portions of the 1AC or impact turns to stuff like warming seem to all be fair game.

-Go for presumption. When teams choose to give up fiat, they require winning that voting aff does something. It doesn't.

-I think that I'm more lenient on neg teams for links to DAs. If one of your cards says your method does something, impact turns to that definitely link as it disproves that the endpoint of your research practice as a desirable goal.

Ks on the neg

-Neg framework interps should moot the plan. Trying to debate the K like it's a CP means that it'll lose to the perm double-bind. If the aff gets to weigh their plan, extinction will almost always outweigh.

-Framework is never "a wash". It's a theory debate that has two discrete choices---not a continuous spectrum that the judge can arbitrarily chose their default ideological predisposition from.

-Philosophical competition is a worse version of positional competition (you not only get links off of what the 1AC says, but now the vibes that it gives off too?), but teams mess up on it. No counter-interp to philosophical competition = impossible to go for the perm.

-Use more K tricks. I'm very good for it.

-Defend your method---if the 1AC says that Russia is a threat, then defend that Russia is a threat.

-Beating 'extinction outweighs' relies on you winning an alternative to util (or winning fw to moot the impact).

-More teams should go for theory against alts---most are nonsense and fiat way more than should be allowed.

-If the alt is material, it mostly always has some great DAs to go for. Going for heg good vs basically any material alt is almost always a viable strat.

Soft left affs

-Two types of framing interps that are good:

---Discounted util: defend that consequences matter, but the way that we calculate them should be different in some way that discounts the impact. Eg, probability * ln(impact). Of course, this has some problems, but it's a much better starting point than "probability first".

---Alternatives to util: preferably something that says something like consequences are irrelevant combined with a boatload of "consequences fail" cards.

-Most framing contentions are atrocious. These are some args that are almost uniformly awful in debates:

---Probability first: a 75% risk of a paper cut doesn't outweigh a 74% risk of being tortured.

---Cognitive bias: a helpful tiebreaker, but it's not an interp. Also you open yourself up to cognitive bias claims going in the other direction.

---Conjunctive fallacy: doesn't assume debate where dropped args are true, so the diminishing effect, while true irl, is useless for debate.

---Don't evaluate future lives: might be true (probably not though), but largely irrelevant as if they win their interp, 7 billion * 1% will still outweigh.

---Util is racist/sexist/ableist: it still requires you to have a counter-interp for framing. Even if you win that util is the worst thing in the world, if I don't have some other heuristic to evaluate impacts, then I have to use util because it's the only one introduced in the round.

-I don't understand any alternative to plan text in a vacuum that would be good for debate. Pretty much anything else is equivalent to positional competition, which seems like it would be pretty bad.

-Good for T debates. Read more cards, indict your opponent's ev, and win the tech.

-Reasonability seems pretty bad. The only net benefit is substance crowd-out, but that's impact turned by just winning that T debates are good (which I'm pretty easily persuaded is true). It seems to be arbitrary (at what threshold is an interp reasonable?) and the culmination of all reasonable interps seems pretty unreasonable. Despite this, the main answer seems to be "judge intervention," which honestly is probably inevitable.

-Debatability and predictability are often talked about in a vacuum, separated from the actual context of the debate. Everyone agrees that a definition that isn't predictable at all or one that would destroy our ability to debate would be worse than a middle ground that is fairly predictable or fairly debatable. As such, I think teams should spend like time arguing about whether predictability or debatability outweigh, and spend that time explaining how their opponents interp isn't predictable or debatable.

-Tech over truth means that I'll vote on weird interps. Especially if there's some sort of technical mistake (dropping one interp in an interp spam, debatability outweighs predictability, or that overlimiting is good), you should go for it.

CPs

-I've gone for every flavor of bad CPs available: Space Elevators, Future Gens, Consult [x] country. It's very winnable in front of me, but aff teams that know what they're doing will have no problem in easily defeating most of them on competition.

-Saying the words "sufficiency framing" in every 2NC/2NR overview doesn't really convince me of anything.

-All theory and competition debates are models debates. Make sure that you are defending your model, not whatever happened in this round.

-Every CP is a PIC, and they all have a process. Make your theory interp precise.

-I'm very good for condo debates---on both sides. Condo is about the practice, not the number of condo you read in the round---number interps are inevitably arbitrary and devolve to infinite anyways. It's probably the only theoretical reason to reject the team. The only neg impact is neg flex---I don't know why people go for anything other than that in the 2NR.

-Uniqueness matter a LOT in theory debates. Both sides generally agree on the direction of the link (ie, everyone agrees that a world without condo would be harder for the neg), but you need to win uniqueness to make it be a DA against your opponents interp. Obviously there's the generic debate stuff like first/last speech, infinite prep, or 13-5 block skew, but topic specific analysis almost always trumps those. Engage and interact with your opponents warrants for uniqueness, don't just read your generic block back at them.

-Do more work for the debatability DA for definitions.

-Analytical CPs are good. If its obvious how they solve the aff, no explanation is needed. If it's complicated, then you should explain it, preferably in the 1NC.

-Fiating in DAs is underrated and more teams should do it.

DAs

-Politics is a good DA, I'm not sure why everyone seems to hate it. It's a negative consequence of the plan that's probably real for most affs.

-Good for fake DAs that rely on artificial competition. Fiat in more offense.

-I debated on three topics where there was no link uniqueness (Water, CJR, and NATO). Thumpers are extremely useful. If a neg team can't tell you why the link would be triggered by the plan but nothing else that already happened, it's probably a losing DA.

-Uniqueness CPs and CPing out of future thumpers is pretty much always legit in the 1NC, and debatably legit in the 2NC.

-Both sides should read more evidence on what normal means is on most process DAs. Ie, if you're aff facing a resource tradeoff DA, reading ev that normal means is increased congressional funding is often a good argument.

-I think turns case is often overhyped. It depends on the neg winning the uniqueness and link, which the aff team is rebutting anyways.

Impact Turns

-Go crazy. I'm good for anything you have.

-Sustainability is often more important than both sides give it credit for---it frames functionally everything else in the debate.

-Fiat out of aff scenarios!! I will give high speaks for smart CPs---most external aff impacts vs impact turns are very easy to have an analytic CP that solves it.

-S-risks outweigh X-risks. While it's often helpful to have a card for this, I'll automatically assume it absent impact calc from either side and make it a side constraint to avoid a small risk of any S-risk, similar to how judges would evaluate a 1% risk of extinction over anything else even without explicit impact calc.

-Big pet peeve of mine is saying something is "unethical" without engaging the substance of the argument. In most impact turn debates, both sides agree that util is how you frame ethics. So, if the neg is saying that extinction would net increase utility, saying "wipeout is unethical" isn't an argument unless you win that it's worse (in which case, you don't need to say that argument, because you would've won anyways).

-Update your cards---especially for less common impact turns, everyone reads super old cards---don't do that.

-Spark: go for better args. Nuclear winter is obvi made up and is solved by the bunkers CP. Nuclear tornadoes/Saarg is empirically denied and taken out by a CP that spaces nuclear attacks out. UV is better, but people in the poles would probably survive. But, civilizational collapse would eliminate all tech, making us vulnerable to all disasters and elimination potential for beneficial AI and space col. Those are S-risks that def outweigh any neg scenario (which, to be fair, are almost always worse than aff scenarios).

-Wipeout: win positive V2L, alien contact won't cause extinction, MCE solves animal suffering, and some random future tech won't condemn us all to infinite torture. These are all very intuitive and true arguments. In evenly matched debates, the aff would always win. However, due to prep disparities (people who are planning to go for wipeout will spend more time prepping it out than an average aff team), these debates are not often evenly matched.

LD Stuff

My background is fully in policy. I've gotten into LD recently---coaching/judging tournaments, and talking about LD specific things. I will attempt to evaluate everything fairly, but your best bet is to go for policy-like stuff.

However, with that being said, the neg side bias seems pretty massive in LD and I'll probably be sympathetic to aff teams that try to use tricks or cheaty args to try to compensate for that.

Prefs shortcut:

1 - policy v policy, policy v k, k v policy, theory

2 -tricks

3 - phil

4 - k v k

5/s -

-Tricks---I'll evaluate them, and I feel like I'll be better than most policy judges as I went for pretty tricky stuff, but I think that I'll still be worse for you than most LD judges. I feel like I'll also be more lenient on newer args because I'm used to a format where there's a lot of time to recover if you mess up. I'll be fine for tricks like truth testing, presumption and permissibility, paradoxes, and calc indicts. Probably not so much for things like evaluate after X speech.

-Theory---I'll be pretty decent for you---I'll eliminate most of my biases, and for some stuff (like yes/no 1AR theory), I won't have any biases in the first place. Look at the CP section above for more advice.

-Phil---I'll be okay. I haven't debated this stuff a lot but I'm deep on the lit. I won't know the applications to debate, so you should explain stuff more than you normally would.

-Learned everything I know about LD from Sam Anderson andAerin Engelstad

Ezra Serrins Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun August 11, 2024 at 6:27 AM CDT

LASA 2017 / MSU 2021

ezraserrins @ gmail.com for email chain.

Notes on getting old---

Please for the love of all that is good in this world: flow.

If you're not attempting to flow in a line-by-line format where you put the answers to an argument next to where the argument was made and then maintaining that structure throughout the entire debate, then we're doing a speech activity in the same room as each other and I'm effectively judging a completely different debate than the one you're having.

I recognize I've become one of those people who is grumpy and old and complains. But I also see few scenarios where anyone is happy with the outcome of a debate where I'm consistently peeved at you for making my flow a mess and then you're peeved at me for not catching your sekrit JSPEC argument because I was trying to find the right paper when you answered condo on the wrong CP and then the 1NR talked about uniqueness on the DA first even though it was 2AC #4.

More general debate thoughts:

I will do my very best to judge your debate. I will flow. I will read cards during and after the debate. I will make up for lack of knowledge by being excessively thorough.

The team that has thought through more rounds of argument-and-response on the central issue of the debate and executes on it correctly is usually the team that wins my ballot. Teams should try to shift the central question of the debate to terms that favor them. Advanced thinking about strategy - e.g. how to shift the question of the debate - and arguments - e.g. how and why you win that question - is what I reward with speaker points.

The aff gets to fiat the plan. CPs compete on the plan, not the resolution, or "position" of the 1AC. Vagueness in the plan carries strategic costs for the aff in terms of DA links and circumvention arguments. Specification avoids those DA links/circumvention args, but means CPs compete.

How the debate progresses from start to finish matters more to me than other people. My impression of the credibility of an argument forms in early speeches and has significant impacts on who I evaluate winning a given argument. Relative to another judge, reallocating prep to give a stronger 1NC to 1NR will likely have a return on investment.

Relatedly, some arguments do not pass a basic test of credibility when they're first uttered. If an argument is complete, then it requires a response, but the expectation I have for the depth, quality, and even timeliness of that response is shaped by its perceived credibility. While you can go for whatever manner of dog water nonsense you desire and I will evaluate it, your better path to the ballot likely uses a higher quality argument.

If the Neg going for T wins the following argument and explains how they apply to the aff, I think it's highly likely I'd vote for them: Neg interp is key to limited and predictable topics, those topics produce greater depth of argument refinement and clash, argument refinement and clash a) produce valuable skills and b) turn the case. Aff probably needs a piece of strong defense to at least 1-2 of those claims in the 2AR in addition to some risk of external offense. "fairness" is often "for whom?" and doesn't have an impact anyways.

Framework on the K is about determining the scope of what offense the Aff can weigh and what things the Neg can get offense against. In general, I err towards the Aff being able to weigh the Aff's impacts and the Neg's scope of links being more limited.

CPs:

I'm good for the Neg on theory questions. Conditionality is good. I will always judge kick including parts of the CP. Specific-type-of-CP theory objections are not persuasive to me and are better applied as standards for your theory of competition.

I'm generally good for the Aff on competition. CPs must be functionally competitive and probably textually competitive. Any other model is a "no".

Well written advantage CPs often solve the Aff. Affs must prove why the CP isn't sufficient. This means I'm better for "X Key" Advantages than "X is sort of key to all our advantages".

The resolution defines affirmative ground. Topicality arguments that speak to a predictable and precise definition of the topic, and teams that win their definition is a more literature and language supported, predictable definition of the topic will have success with me judging. These arguments carry a burden of proof only that one definition is better than the other definition.

Topicality arguments that speak to the debatability of the resolution — the "limits" or "ground" under each interpretation — carry an exceedingly high burden of proof if these topicality arguments are not also the most predictable and precise definition. Abandoning the authentic meaning of the assigned topic in order to create a "better" topic is a very tough sell.

DAs/Case:

I am bad for impact turns. I often have difficulty with a) the totalizing nature of the neg's uniqueness arg; b) the Alt working/solving Neg impacts.

I have a high standard for Neg link and Aff internal link/uniqueness evidence.

I would rather see later speeches strategically consolidate to 1-2 arguments than keep alive many threads.

Final note: there's a distinction between taking the debate and the arguments seriously (a good thing) and taking yourself too seriously (a bad thing).

Ezra

Mike Shackelford Rowland Hall 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:48 AM MDT

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Umar Shaikh Berkeley Preparatory School 3 rounds

Arvind Shankar Glenbrook North 2 rounds

Preston Shaw Head-Royce High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 4:53 AM PDT

Top Level:

Head-Royce '22, WFU '26

Topics I debated: Immigration, Arms Sales, Criminal Justice Reform, Water Resources, Legal Rights, Nukes

Add me to the chain, ask me before round

I debate on the college circuit and have been both a 2A and 2N at various times throughout my years of debate. I've read both policy affs and kritikal affs. On the neg, in high school, my partner and I primarily went for T or some other theory/the K vs policy affs and Cap/some theory argument vs K affs. In college, my partner and I primarily read a plan on the aff and k's on the neg.

Debate should be a safe activity for everyone. If you say or do anything offensive, I'll stop the round and give you a loss and zeros.

Short Version:

Do what you do best. I would much rather see teams who know what they are reading and talking about than teams who are trying to adapt to me but lack nuance. My knowledge is pretty flex, but more centered around kritiks. I will still vote for your CP/DA strategies though. I love a good T/Theory debate so if thats your jam, go for it. Writing my ballot for me at the top of the 2NR/2AR is key to get my vote.

Argument Specific:

FW: Can go either way, but I probably err aff. I have a much higher standard for fairness as an impact compared to clash. This doesn't mean I won't vote on it, it just means I prefer clash. The aff team has to clearly explain their interp and the world of the interp. Redefining words of the resolution is key for teams that want to go for the w/m. Implicating the framework DA's to the TVA and SSD is important and I will unlikely do that work for you.

K's: I am versed and experienced in most k lit, but that doesn't mean I'll hack for you. I love specific links to the aff and I like pushes on framework as well. In high school, the K was our go to, so take that info how you will. For aff teams, making sure that your 2AC blocks are responsive to the correct theory of K is a must. I don't have a preference between a case o/w strat and perm/link turn strat, just make sure you articulate and flag the args you want me to vote on in the 2AR.

K Aff's: I love kritikal affs and think they are really interesting and a great part of debate. I read a K aff my junior and senior year. Please clearly explain what your method/solvency does. I should be able to explain it back to you at the end of the debate, and if I can't, you probably don't have my ballot. K aff's get perms.

DA's: You have to have a clear link to the aff, and there has to be impact comparison. A good turns case analysis versus aff impact will make my ballot a lot easier to get.

CP's: I like a good counterplan debate, but I think that advantage cps with a ton of planks can be abusive. I am not the best in a competition debate. There has to be a net benefit to the permutation.

T/Theory: I love T and theory, so please read it. There needs to be a specific violation and impacts explained and warranted through the 2NR for me to vote for you. Plans should be clear and explain what the aff does, I will not be happy with vague plan texts and opens the door for potential theory arguments.

Case: This is the most underutilized part of debate. A good case debate can dismantle an aff, so please spend time on it.

Other things:

Disclosure: It should be 100% correct, and I am not afraid to drop a team for bad disclosure. This includes disclosing the wrong plan text or changing something without alerting the other team.

If you bring an ethics challenge, the round stops.

Please, please, please be nice to each other.

You have to read the card/rehighlight, not insert it.

Conner Shih New Trier High School 6 rounds

Kelly Skoulikaris Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 11, 2024 at 7:01 PM EDT

Glenbrook South '19 | University of Michigan '23

kellymskoulikaris@gmail.com

General

Be organized. Do line-by-line, impact calc, judge instruction, and evidence comparison. Do not just read evidence in the 2AC/2NC/1NR. Smart analytics can overcome bad evidence.

Inserting rehighlightings is okay as long as the rehighlightings are short and the implication is explained in the speeches.

For everything below, I can be convinced otherwise through good debating. Feel free to ask clarification questions pre-round!

Case/DAs

I love good case debating. No, this does not just mean yes/no impact. Yes, this means debating the internal link to advantages (and disadvantages). Debates can easily be won or lost here, and internal link comparison in the final rebuttals is underutilized.

Case-specific DAs are preferable, but politics can be good with decent evidence and persuasive spin.

Rider DAs are not DAs.

CPs

Advantage CPs are preferable to Agent CPs/Process CPs. PDCP definitions (from both sides) should have specific standards/theoretical justifications.

Condo is (probably) good, kicking planks is (probably) good, and judge kick is the default unless debated otherwise.

2NC CPs are good against new affirmatives, but against non-new affirmatives, the 2NC should justify their new planks. The 1AR can convince me this is abusive (especially if the 2NC is adding new planks to get out of a straight-turned DA).

Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team unless debated otherwise.

It is important for both sides to map out what topics look like under their interpretations, especially at the beginning of the season. What affirmatives are included? What negative argument are guaranteed? What does each interpretation exclude? Examples help frame the round!

Evidence quality matters much more in these rounds!

T vs K Affs

Debate is a game, and competition/winning drives our participation in debate. The strongest impacts to T are fairness and clash (iterative testing, testing etc). Negative teams have had success in front of me when they utilize clash to link turn affirmative offense.

Specific TVAs are good. You do not need evidence as long as you have a plan text and explain what debate rounds would look like under the TVAs.

I am most familiar with Anti-Blackness, Capitalism, and Settler Colonialism literature, and not as familiar with Baudrillard, Bataille etc.

Please do not give extremely long overviews. Root cause claims, impact comparisons at the top are smart and strategic, but the rest of the "overview" can be incorporated into the line-by-line later on the flow.

Impact out each link!

Regan E Slish Hire 1 rounds

Eloise So Lowell High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 6:14 AM PDT

Lowell '23

Emory '27

Please add lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain

LD: I have learned I am not good for tricks, philosophy or theory. I did policy in high school, now do policy in college, and have only judged a couple rounds of this event.

It's helpful if chains are titled: Tournament Round # --- Team Code [AFF] v Team Code [NEG]

2024-25 IP Rights: I have next to no topic knowledge ---err on the side of over explanation, I have judged few rounds on this topic.

TLDR: Debate is a game and is played to win. Tech outweighs truth. Judge instruction rules all and should be the first sentence of your 2NR or 2AR. I actively attempt to avoid intervening in my decisions.

I debated at Lowell High School in San Francisco, and as a result almost all my thoughts are very similar to Debnil Sur's. During this time, I debated on the national circuit as well as our local circuit (which was much more lay). I now debate in college at Emory University.

Any confusion about my paradigm or how I judge can be resolved by reading Debnil Sur's, Jessie Satovsky's, or Taylor Tsan's, as all of my thoughts about debate are the shoplifted, trickle-downed version of theirs.

Conditionality is most probably good. I went for the K on the neg sometimes in high school and also read many off policy strategies - as a result, I am pretty much cool to judge many things (absent pomo-esque, niche Ks, and a KvK debate, in which I may be quite confused and not give the most thorough decision).
I think I am better for "bad" neg strategies than many. In this category, I think people would put things like process counterplan/competition debates, K tricks, word PICs, etc - I think that these debates can be fun and interesting
I really dislike debaters being condescending in round — I don’t think it makes you seem smarter, and it makes the round unbearable to debate in and judge. That being said, I understand that it’s a competitive activity and emotions can run high, but for everyone’s sake, please be respectful. What you take away from debate will not be crushing freshman with 10 off, but your teammate ditching you at NSDA for a week to go home early, or your friends getting roasted in an RFD and laughing about it for months after.

GGSA/Lay

I am totally down for a fast circuit style round, BUT if both teams do not want a fast round that's totally fine — lay debate is a good skill to cultivate and learn. I think judge adaptation and learning to read panels is good, so adapt however YOU think is best. I will most likely decide the debate on a technical level, because I don't think there's any more objective way for myself to evaluate a round with the background I have. At the end of the day, it is an activity in convincing a judge (or winning the panel), and this is the best way that I think you can get my ballot.

Miscellaneous

Read anything you want. If an argument is truly bad, do not instruct me to reject it, but instead just beat it. I do not understand judges who will claim to be tech over truth and then have predispositions against arguments that inform their decision.

I flow on computer. That being said, I am not the fastest typer, and have found that speeding through theory blocks, or having no distinction between pages will not be in your favor.

Clipping allegations must be recorded.

An evidence ethics issue becomes an issue if you have contacted the team and they have ignored your correction. Else, I will probably not be swayed by your challenge to reject the team. These issues should be debated like any other argument.

William Soper Blue Valley North 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 1:42 AM CDT

He/him/his. wsoper03@gmail.com

I am the debate coach at Manhattan High School. I did NDT/CEDA debate for four years at the University of Kansas. I worked at both the Michigan and Kansas debate camps this summer and I've judged a lot of debates on the topic.

How I judge. A lot of judges are absolutely tech over everything. I think there is a lot of value to that judging philosophy (it's logically consistent, it results in decisions which feel more objective and fair) BUT that is not how I have ever thought about debate. I think of myself as tech over truth, but to me, that phrase means that I will flow the debate and make a decision based on the arguments in the final rebuttals, as long as those arguments were present earlier in the debate. That does not mean that I will ignore things like argument and evidence quality when I'm comparing two competing claims. I think every judge has biases related to argument quality and I will try to use this paradigm to be transparent about those biases.

One of my biggest biases is against process counterplans. If technical execution and evidence quality is even close to close, I will try to vote aff in these debates. I am a great judge for "perm do both solves the net benefit," "perm do the counterplan (as long as you counter-define neg definitions)," the limited intrinsic perm, or theory. I honestly think these types of counterplans promote lazy debating, discourage topic research, and represent a big barrier to entry for less experienced coaches and programs. I understand the line between a process CP and a topic-related CP which demonstrates an opportunity cost to doing the plan can be hazy, but if any of your competition arguments are based off of certainty, immediacy, or "the butterfly effect," I am probably not your ideal judge.

Another of my biggest biases is against planless affirmatives. In every debate I judge, I will attempt to make a decision based on the arguments made in the debate and provide educational feedback, regardless of the type of affirmative you read. That said, I should probably be lower on your pref sheet if you choose to read a planless affirmative. The arguments that fairness, clash, and education are unimportant make very little sense to me. Debate seems inevitably competitive. Now, I think I am a fine judge for teams who interpret the resolution in creative ways and argue that a counter-model of debate is more fair and educational. I also think teams should be held accountable for what they say in debates, but reading topicality or answering the wrong theory of power are not microaggressions.

Clarity. Clarity is very important to me. I flow on my computer in an excel spreadsheet BUT I do not have the speech document pulled up when the debate is happening. If I don't understand you, I will not vote for your argument. I am very comfortable giving decisions where I say "if you wanted me to vote on that blip, you should have emphasized it more in your speech" or "I didn't read that card because I couldn't understand you when you read it." I will tell you to be clearer during your speech if it becomes an issue.

Evidence matters a lot. Debaters should strive to connect the claims and warrants they make to pieces of qualified evidence. If one team is reading qualified evidence on an issue and the other team is not, I'll almost certainly conclude the team reading evidence is correct. I care about author qualifications/funding/bias more than most judges and I'm willing to disregard evidence if a team raises valid criticisms of it. The best final rebuttals mention the author names of key pieces of evidence and spend time comparing the evidence both teams have on crucial issues.

Presumption/Vagueness. I am willing to (and have) voted negative on vagueness and that the affirmative has not met its stock issues burdens.

Plan text in a vacuum. I think there are two ways the negative can demonstrate a topicality violation. 1. Explaining why the affirmative's plan text does not meet the specific requirement set by the interpretation or 2. referencing a CX where the affirmative clearly committed to a mandate of their plan.
The plan text is the focus of the debate. If you think the affirmative's solvency advocate or advantages describe something other than their plan text, that is a solvency argument, not a topicality argument.

I am extremely anti-prompting/"parroting" your partner. Past the first time, I will not flow any argument that a person not giving the speech prompts the speaker to make. I think that's the most fair way I can discourage the practice.

Things which will make your speaker points higher: exceptional clarity, numbering your arguments, good cross-x moments which make it into a speech, specific and well-researched strategies, developing and improving arguments over the course of a season, slowing down and making a connection with me to emphasize an important argument, not being a jerk to a team with much less skill/experience than you.

You're welcome to ask me questions after the debate or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.

Antonio Souchet Berkeley Preparatory School 7 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 4:54 PM EDT

'22 TOC Finalist/top speaker, '23 sems. '24 NDT Doubles.

BPS' 23

Northwestern '27

email for the chain: souchetantonio@gmail.com .

TBH:

paradigms are fake-- do wtvr and have fun pls. a lot of people say debate is a game with the primary purpose of competition. I say debate's purpose is to learn and travel to see places in the world you otherwise would not, make life-long friends and have fun.

speaker points are also fake-- all just vibes based. don't ask for them tho, that's cringe.

tldr:

do whatever. I'm here for it. debate and have fun. i don't know this topic, like, at all, i.e spamming technical topic-specific terms will not get my ballot. do not pref me for policy vs policy, if i am in the back of that debate i will vote on vibes. policy vs k, k vs k, lets go.

Specifics:

getting my ballot:

tech vs truth...?

i of course, evaluate the flow first and foremost, BUT, i can be made to not care about the flow if given a specific reason otherwise. However, if your going to make me not care about large portions of the flow, your speech must approach this question with absolute precision. the formula for me is this, and you can write this pre-round: we are winning (X) (structural claim or something else), that shapes the way you antonio as a judge must evaluate the flow-- i/e , technical drops are no longer a consideration because (X) shapes the way you evaluate (Y), and then move on into what specific arguments/portions of the flow i should be ignoring. this is a lot of detailed work, however, if done well, is a cheat code to get me to care more about how big-picture things affect the smaller portions of the flow/make them irrelevant, instead of the vice-versa occuring.

Policy affs vs the kritik:

I get less persuased by a 2AR that spreads framework blocks pre-written by coaches at 400wpm, then I do by policy teams that try to specifically engage the K on its merits. I'm not saying framework is zero importance, but im saying you don't need this to win the debate like, at all. For example, Link you lose arguments are intuitively answered and beat by winning extinction outweighs, because, if extinction outweighs why should u lose for the link? Of course this is just preference, and I will flow the debate as it happens, BUT, you have a much higher chance of winning going for the aff is a good idea, indicting their theory/killing the alternative, destroying the links on its claims with both defensive/offensive arguments, and extinction outweighs.

Policy neg vs the K aff:

Framework makes more sense on the neg than the aff. Don't think that just cause i read k's i won't vote for framework, that's not true. Fairness,clash, etc. These are important functions vital to the preservation of the game. Make THEM MATTER. don't brush off the impact turns, actually answer them on their merits and show how your model can be better for them, and explain to me the intricacies of why your model is good not just for the topic, but for long-term skill development and contextualize those skills to the method of the 1AC. even if you aren't exactly on top of it, the fact that your encountering those impact turns with that level of care and detail is intuitive defense to aff arguments about your performance in-round being bad, because you striving to include the aff and show how your model can be beneficial for it shows me you care. idk im lowkey ranting but the problem with policy teams that lose going for framework is that they are winning on the tech, but then don't make 2NR choices and the 2NR sounds like the 2NC which lets the 2AR get away with murder. For example, if the aff drops identity negation, essentialization, and limits explosion, hone in on ONE of them and contextualize it to turning the aff, o/wing their impacts, and proving your model only can solve it. These are lowkey just random thoughts though so do what you want.

K affs vs Policy Neg:

Don't make life harder for yourself. In front of me, you don't necessarily have to go for a counter-interp to win, if you get me in a panel though, and the other two are like you need a C/I, just go for the 2-1 and get the win. For me though, an aff ballot that's like, hey, there's no such things as a model of debate, it's about each individual round and how the neg has intimiately produced (X) form of violence right here right now that is a proximate impact to your ballot that outweighs fairness coupled with arguments about why the aff is good is a winning 2AR. the way to think about framework in front of me is that, because T is not a rule but a norm, you don't have to win a model of debate. The reason why this is true is that the question Framework poses in my mind is not whether the aff is topical, but whether the aff should have been topical in the way the neg mandated it. To me, if the aff gives me a sufficient reason why the answer to that is no, i don't understand why the aff needs to win a counter-model. This is all to say that the main thing you need to focus in front of me is honing in on offense/defense paradigm, going for one impact turn, making it outweigh fairness/clash and proving the link to that impact turn + the aff is good to debate about as defense to their clash/limits offense, and you'll be in GREAT shape.

K neg vs Policy Aff:

Please do not read a k on the negative if you refuse to pick up a book. What i mean is that it's a bad look for you to be like "these conversations matter" and then when the aff asks basic question about your theory like "why is anti-blackness ontological", you fumble, cause then i'm like ok why should this matter when you literally don't even think it does so you lowkey gamify the kritik in the same way you criticize the aff for doing. Idk that's just ranty advice that doesn't really affect my decision but I'm just encouraging a specific style of engaging with the K. That being said, i think winning the theory of power only becomes important when you tell me what it exactly it mean for how i evaluate things like extinction, the link debate, and framework. BUT, it's super persuasive when you do those things. IDK what to say about the kritik. I love it, i enjoy it, it's what's kept me in debate. Honor the legacy of great k debaters in the past, and engage the aff with what you know about your theory. The k isn't a game, especially when it has something to do with identity. We are talking about real issues here, so make sure to have a certain level of care when you think, write, and speak on these things.

Abigail Spencer Univ Of Chicago Lab School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 1:45 PM CDT

Updated 01/07

Prefs TLDR---I have a lot more experience judging K rounds. I read a K aff and a policy aff as a result of being on a lot of hybrid teams. I would say I read K affs more due to coming from a small school than feeling stronger they were better for debate. I alternated KvK and framework/cap good style debates depending on the partner. You'll prob pref me for K rounds - fwiw, I have nothing against policy rounds and I'm fine to judge them.

I generally don't judge that often these days because I teach online classes on Sundays. And maybe because having a picture of a furby in your paradigm affects your prefs.

Hey Furby! Did the popular 90s toy influence the chatbot timeline?

About me---
Coaching: University of Chicago Lab, South Shore, Potomac Debate Academy
Formerly: McDade Classical, Lindblom, Phillips Exeter, SWSDI, CDSI, CSSI

abigailnspencer[at]gmail.com.

I also started this debate sticker shop in HS people keep buying from.

Things that I give high speaks for----
1. Argumentative and strategic consistency and awareness - in every cross or speech you give, I can identify a clear understanding of your case and strategy. You're not just reading each speech in front of you, you're thinking about the round as a whole. For Varsity, my threshold is a bit higher - I'm impressed by quick explanations in response to specific questions about your evidence/mechanics of your arguments. For Novice, I'd say I value decent topic knowledge.

2. What I consider to be good for "professionalism" is being accountable for prep time, speech times, and cross times. I won't be upset if you take a second to get ready when you are about to start your speech. But if you're consistently ending prep and speaking very promptly after, I will reward that with higher speaks since I do dislike when people "end prep" just to then very clearly continue to read through their speech and mentally prep until they start talking.

3. Be kind to your partners. Do not be overly cocky. The most confident and intelligent debaters I've ever seen didn't need to be rude to get that across.

Other things---

1. Speed's cool with me if it's cool with all debaters in the round. I'd personally send out a speech doc after 300wpm because of the likelihood of lag in online settings. In general, if you want your arguments on my flow make sure you're loud and clear. I flow everything on its own sheet, so off-time road maps are cool. Signposting is even cooler.

2. Don't use unnecessary jargon in novice. Unless this is visibly a higher level tech round, I do believe you should be doing everything in your power to make sure everyone in round has access to the same education you do.

3. Make debate educational, above all else. Accessibility is a pre-requisite to education. Exclude, you lose.

Anna Stockstill Hire 1 rounds

Johnnie Stupek Pace Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:20 AM EDT

Head Debate Coach - University of Georgia

jstupek8@gmail.com

Top Level

- Clarity and flowability are the strongest qualities that drive my speaker points. I encourage debaters to adopt speaking practices that enhance their flowability such as: structured line-by-line, slowing down when communicating plan or counterplan texts, emphasizing particularly important lines in the body of evidence, and descriptively labeling off-case positions in the 1NC.

- Arguments do not always need cards to be impactful. I care about logical analytic arguments, particularly those that are set up well in cross-examination.

- Plan and counterplan text vagueness is an under-exploited issue. As such, I'm likely more amenable to specification arguments than your average judge.

- While no judge is a true blank slate, I have and am willing to vote on basically anything.

Disads

- I begin resolving these debates by comparing the relative risk of the internal link chains of the disadvantage and the advantage(s) the 2AR went for. All things being equal, I frequently resolve these debates without turning to questions of impact comparison or impact interaction. The advice I often find myself giving after debates is that second rebuttalists should spend less time on traditional impact calculus or turns case arguments and more time making sure you win your advantage or disadvantage. Of course, all things are not always equal and second rebuttalists should point out when there's a tangible timeframe or magnitude distinction between impacts.

- Brink + link uniqueness is not an adequate substitute for traditional uniqueness and link claims.

- Always been a fan of agenda politics, probably always will be.

- For affirmatives reading framing arguments, your time is almost always better spent making substantive answers to the disadvantage rather than meta arguments about the complex nature of disadvantages.

Counterplans

- Please stop starting your counterplan 2ACs with consecutive permutation arguments delivered at top speed. This is the single most difficult thing to flow properly in my experience. The easiest fix here is to read cards in between each different permutation and slowing down when communicating perm texts.

- I have no inherent aversion to process counterplans. I think that at times these debates can be really interesting, especially when contextualized to the topic.

- I still believe in an abstract academic sense, that the benefits of conditionality outweigh its costs. This issue, however, is so rarely evenly debated that more affirmative teams should consider going for conditionality bad.

- My default view is that counterplan theory arguments that are not conditionality bad are reasons to reject the argument rather than reasons to reject the team. This presumption can be overcome, but the bar is high.

- My default view is that I will judge kick the counterplan and compare the aff vs. the status quo. I can and have been persuaded not to do so when the affirmative team advances that argument.

Topicality vs. Policy Affirmatives

- Including resolutional language in your plan text does not in and of itself persuade me the aff is topical.

- Caselists are incredibly useful for articulating just how under or over limiting a particular interpretation is.

- For affirmative teams, I would rather hear impacts about the benefits of a broader topic for affirmative innovation and flexibility than appeals to education about the affirmative's content. I am unlikely to be persuaded that I should reject a negative topicality interpretation because the affirmative would have a difficult time constructing solvency deficits to a particular counterplan under said interpretation. That argument seems to be a theoretical objection the counterplan rather than a topicality standard.

- Teams articulating a "precision" standard should take care to clearly explain what their threshold for a "precise" interpretation is, why their interpretation meets that threshold, and why the opposing team's interpretation does not.

Kritiks On The Neg

- I care about the alt quite a bit. Teams that have persuaded me to vote for kritiks have often done so on the basis of strong alt debating.

- The way "framework" arguments are currently deployed is somewhat puzzling to me. Most aff/neg framework standards seem to get more at the question of "how much" weight I should give to a particular impact than to whether I should consider a particular impact in the first place. I've never been persuaded that framework means I don't consider the merits of the 1AC. I've equally never been persuaded that framework means the alt has to be policy.

- Kritiks that derive their offense from the affirmative not doing enough or being too incremental are vulnerable to permutations.

- Alt causes are not link arguments. Link arguments are not "disads."

Planless Affirmatives

- I have been persuaded that the aff doesn't have to read a plan or say USFG should, but I have not encountered a situation where I have been persuaded that the aff doesn't have to be topical. Having some sort of counter-interpretation, even if it's just "resolved means to analyze," is important for how I ground and resolve aff arguments about the neg's interpretation. I want to hear in detail about what the affirmative's model of debate might look like. I would rather hear one or two conceptual impact turns to the negative's model, than eight different "DA's" that are difficult to distinguish between.

- For the negative, I would rather hear arguments about the value of procedural fairness than than some of the more "substantive" framework arguments.

- The vocabulary of "internal link" and "impact" is not particularly useful in a debate about theory. Certainly the negative needs to explain why fairness is a valuable concept, but that explanation does not have to involve the same kind of cause and effect logic chain we encounter in advantages or disadvantages. The "just an internal link" pejorative often applies just as well to arguments forwarded by the affirmative. As a whole, these debates would be so much better if no one used the words "impact," "internal link," or "disad."

Speaker Points

- I hesitate to offer some sort of static scale for speaks because I think that speaker points are relative and I am constantly reflecting on whether my speaker point distribution is in line with the rest of the judging community.

- Debaters who debate technically and make good strategic decisions will receive good points.

- Debaters who debate with style (humor, passionate rebuttals, exceptional clarity) will receive good points.

Closing Thoughts

If you've made it this far, I want to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude for the work you do as debaters and coaches. I know how hard everyone works to prepare for debates and I strive to provide judging and feedback that lives up to that standard.

"As I look back at the contours of my own life, many things about it I would change if I could. But not this. The long hours, the demanding schedules, all that goes into effective debating and effective coaching, the lost weekends. I would do it all again. I would do it all again not for any particular tournament or trophy, not for the specifics of any topic, not even for the intellectual benefits debate bestows upon its participants, critical thinking and the like. I would do it all again for the chance to work with hard-working, dedicated, and committed students like those assembled in this room." - Scott Deatherage

Nargis Suleman Blue Valley West 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 3:24 PM CDT

nargissuleman3@gmail.com

debating at ku '27

this is an activity that takes an insane amount of time and effort, so congratulations on all your hard work. that being said, i would say that my debate background is largely critical, and i have spent a majority of my time reading/debating anti blackness, afropess, set col, militarism, etc. for me, warranted analysis, properly extended arguments, and clear judge instruction are most definitely the way to get my ballot. know that my background is not the extent of my comfortability with your preferred argumentation.

yes, judge adaptation, but most importantly, read what you are comfortable with in front of me. i have judged and coached a variety of teams with varying styles of debate so i promise whatever you read i gotchu.

k affs

i think that your aff should have at least some connection to the topic, or a thorough reason as to why it shouldn't. if your aff is performative, don't let it get lost after the 1AC, especially if its tied to whatever method you are advocating for. i think that the easiest way to get my ballot is rob/roj. if at the end of the debate i am left feeling confused as to what your relationship to the ballot is, and why your model OR this debate uniquely is significant and outweighs the other impacts in the debate, then it is going to be difficult for me to vote for you in this situation. for fw, competing interpretations are the best way to go. i am largely of the belief that if you have kritiked a set of research practices/models/wording of the topic, you should propose an alternative to those structures. that being said, this may not be the best method for every aff, and i would advocate for this being something you consider as you construct your 1ACs in the first place, because i do also think impact turns are good, but no necessarily for every aff.

fw v k affs

if you are able to discuss why your model of debate is inclusive and allows for multiple points of education to be accessed including the aff's, you are automatically in a good position in these types of debates. i think that clash is always a better impact than fairness, and i find most fairness debates to be quite shallow - but u do u ig. fw makes the debate about models, so defend to me why your model is good/why debate under your model is more desirable, and im voting neg. i think the tva is probably better than ssd arguments. remember the tva doesnt have to solve for the entirety of the aff's impacts, BUT prove that the affs model of debate is accessible while being topical.

k v k affs

i think that these are some of the most exciting debates to judge/participate in, and i really appreciate the increasing creativity in these types of debate. this is a question of competing methods and at the end of the debate i should know why the negs/affs method is preferable and thorough impact calc is crucial. the aff probably gets a permutation here, BUT the net benefit(s) need to be gas and i should believe that without the aff, the disads are triggered. i love link turns in these kinds of debates and think they are super strategic. for the negative, clearly articulating why the aff can't overcome the link and why the aff links to the net benefit, make it very difficult for the aff to win the perm.

policy v k

fw is so insanely important in these debates. most of the time believe that the aff should get to weigh the consequences of the plan against a competitive alternative. the most strategic position for you is LINK TURNNNN and disads to the alt. additionally, permutations are good and i dont think you need to be spam reading 7 of them in the 1AR but a few are strategic. i think that a lot of Ks dont have unique links and links are usually just towards the status quo. dont get caught up in a bunch of jargon and lose the basis of what ur trying to say.

k v policy

link specificity is good. if the alternative isnt able to overcome the links then i think you are put in a difficult position. the fw debate should provide reasons as to why your interpretation of what debates look like are good for both teams in this round/or a good model for debates to operate under. best argumentation to the perm is why the aff links to the net benefit/disads to the permutation obviously. my familiarity with varying Ks are in the o/v of my paradigm. yes you still should take case in the 2NR imo, but obviously not necessary in every debate.

public forum debate

im fine for theory
im not persuaded by liars or people who get caught lying regarding theory debates and then double down or just try. to say."but we all liars"

random thoughts

you probably going to lose a debate against a k-aff with no case in the 2NR
do not defend israel as a good hegemonic power and/or aid to israel in front of me. find somewhere else to defend genocide!
debate is a site of education and idea cultivation. do not ruin that for anyone else with racism, sexism, islamaphobia, transphobia, other -isms etc.
yes read at whatever speed you want but if you start spitting everywhere and acting like u about to take ur last breath....please.
include a soccer reference/joke and i will boost your speaks 0.1-0.3 depending on how hard i laugh.

Kevin Sun Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 31, 2024 at 3:11 AM EDT

Email: kevinsun127@gmail.com

Debate is a research game. Demonstrate topic knowledge, and you'll earn high speaker points. Isolate one or two questions to hinge the debate on, and you'll have an easier path to victory.

You don't have to read a plan. Just impact turn framework. Don't need an elaborate explanation of your vision of debate.

Fairness is an impact.

Evidence quality matters a little more than in-round strategy. That being said, dropped arguments are true (though it'll be hard to convince me that a 1NC DA shell with 50 words highlighted is a "complete" argument).

Conditionality is good. Unlikely to vote on cheap-shot theory arguments unless dropped.

Topicality usually comes down to evidence quality. If you're decidedly right about the meaning of a word, then you'll probably win. If there's some ambiguity in this, then case-lists help your case better than a generic under/over-limiting block.

Critiques should dispute the reasons to vote affirmative. In other words, not a fan of negative strategies that consist entirely of frivolous pre-requisite questions and framework interpretations. The K should make sense in a world where the plan happens.

Counterplans that compete off of certainty/immediacy are not ideal.

Feel free to post-round.

Send out the 1AC before the speech.

On Evidence Ethics

I have judged a handful of high stakes debates this year that were decided on evidence ethics. I’ve found that these decisions are inevitably unsatisfying as they will rely on my own subjective assessment of the argument in question.

I can safely say that I am completely unqualified to judge these debates. I am not on Twitter or Facebook, and I do not interact with debate people regularly outside of tournaments. I do not know what the community consensus is on certain authors, and I will feel uncomfortable rendering a personal judgement an author’s character after hearing 10 minutes of spreading on the subject.

In hopes of giving debaters some foresight, I would like to clarify my perspective on this genre of theory argument. High stakes evidence ethics challenges (e.g. “reject the team because they included the wrong author qualifications”, “reject the team because [author] is problematic”) will require a high burden of proof and an egregious violation. I have a strong predisposition against positioning these ethics challenges as reasons to fully disregard the rest of your opponents arguments, and I would prefer to just reject the argument in question rather than to hinge my decision on it.

In these circumstances, I would suggest clearly explaining which of your opponents arguments I should throw out if I resolve this challenge in your favor.

Would rejecting this author evaporate your opponent’s framework argument? Should the negative even be allowed to substitute this author with another that makes a similar argument? You’re likely to get further with me by detailing the implications of this ethics challenge in terms of the rest of the debate rather than relying on me to assume that I should automatically make it a gateway issue.

I would suggest finding other ways outside of a competitive debate argument to navigate this ethical challenge rather than placing it in my hands as a judge.

Debnil Sur Lowell High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 3:45 PM PDT

he/him/his

Pronounced phonetically as DEB-nil. Not pronounced "judge", "Mister Sur", or "deb-NEIL".

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains. If you have my personal email, don't put it on the email chain. Sensible subject please.

Lay Debate: I care deeply about adaptation and accessibility. I find "medium" debates (splits of lay and circuit judges) incredibly valuable for students' skills. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread. If both teams explicitly tell me they want a lay debate before hand, I will gladly toss out all my knowledge about debate and judge like a parent (think San Jose Indian father). Speaks will range from 28.5 to 30, and like a lay judge, I will choose random numbers in that range based on your aesthetic appeal.

Resolving Debates: Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor.

I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. In most debates, voting for either team is defensible; I will likely vote for the team that does more comparison and requires less intervention in terms of resolution. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the 1AC and the 1NC. Subsequent evidence is only read when deciding the debate. (When online, I always have docs open.) I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.

I take an above-average time to decide debates. My decision time has little relationship with the debate's closeness, and more with the time of day and my sleep deprivation. (I am typically the sole coach and judge with my teams, so I'm quite tired by elim day.) I usually start 5-10 minutes after the 2AR, so I can stretch my legs and let the debate marinate in my head. Debaters work hard, and I reciprocate that effort in making decisions. My decisions themselves are quite short. Most debates come down to 2-4 arguments, and I will identify those and explain my resolution. You're welcome to post-round. It can't change my decision, but I want to learn and improve as a judge and thinker too.

General Background: I work full-time in tech as a software engineer. In my spare time, I have coached policy debate at Lowell in San Francisco since 2018. I am involved in strategy and research and have coached both policy and K debaters to the TOC. I am, quite literally, a "framer", as a member of the national topic wording committee. Before that, I read policy arguments as a 2N at Bellarmine and did youth debate outreach (e.g., SVUDL) as a student at Stanford.

I've judged many excellent debates. Ideologically, I would say I'm 60/40 policy-leaning. I think my voting records don't reflect this, because K debaters tend to see the bigger picture in clash rounds.

I am judging some college debate, mostly to help the return of Stanford's team. No topic knowledge or college judging experience. I'm likely a policy-leaning clash judge in college prefs?

Topic Background: I judge and coach regularly and am fully aware of national circuit trends. I'm not super in the weeds as a researcher. I don't cut as many cards as I did in the pandemic years, and I don't work at debate camp.

I do work in software and have applied for patents on my day-to-day work. This personal experience will make me more skeptical of sweeping innovation or tech impacts. But if you're detailed, granular, and apply technical knowledge well, your speaks will benefit.

Voting Splits: I haven't updated these in a couple of years. I've been too busy with my non-debate life post pandemic. I think the trends exhibited on water are likely still accurate.

As of the end of the water topic, I have judged 304 rounds of VCX at invitationals over 9 years. 75 of these were during college; 74 during immigration and arms sales at West Coast invitationals; and 155 on CJR and water, predominantly at octafinals bid tournaments.

Below are my voting splits across the (synthetic) policy-K divide, where the left team represents the affirmative, as best as I could classify debates. Paradigm text can be inaccurate self-psychoanalysis, so I hope the data helps.

I became an aff hack on water. Far too often, the 2AR was the first speech doing comparative analysis instead of reading blocks. I hope this changes as we return to in-person debate.

Water

Policy v. Policy - 18-13: 58% aff over 31 rounds

Policy v. K - 20-18: 56% aff over 38 rounds

K v. Policy - 13-8: 62% aff over 21 rounds

K v. K - 1-1, 50% aff over 2 rounds

Lifetime

Policy v. Policy - 67-56: 55% for the aff over 123 rounds

Policy v. K - 47-52: 47% for the aff over 99 rounds

K v. Policy - 36-34: 51% for the aff over 70 rounds

K v. K - 4-4: 50% for the aff over 8 rounds

Online Debate:

1. I'd prefer your camera on, but won't make a fuss.

2. Please check verbally and/or visually with all judges and debaters before starting your speech.

3. If my camera's off, I'm away, unless I told you otherwise.

Speaker Points: I flow on my computer, but I do not use the speech doc. I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.

Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

2. I will vote for the team whose impact comparison most clearly answers the debate's central question. This typically comes down to the affirmative making negative engagement more difficult versus the neg forcing problematic affirmative positions. You are best served developing 1-2 pieces of offense well, playing defense to the other team's, and telling a condensed story in the final rebuttals.

3. Anything can be an impact---do what you do best. My teams typically read a limits/fairness impact and a procedural clash impact. From Dhruv Sudesh: "I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments."

4. Each team should discuss what a year of debate looks like under their models in concrete terms. Arguments like "TVA", "switch-side debate", and "some neg ground exists" are just subsets of this discussion. It is easy to be hyperbolic and discuss the plethora of random affirmatives, but realistic examples are especially persuasive and important. What would your favorite policy demon (MBA, GBN, etc.) do without an agential constraint? How does critiquing specific policy reforms in a debate improve critical education? Why does negative policy ground not center the affirmative's substantive conversation?

5. 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 affirmative. This especially happens when impact turning topicality---negatives do not seem to catch on yet.

6. I quite enjoy leveraging normative positions from 1AC cards for substantive disadvantages or impact turns. This requires careful link explanation by the negative but can be incredibly strategic. Critical affirmatives claim to access broad impacts based on shaky normative claims and the broad endorsement of a worldview, rather than a causal method; they should incur the strategic cost.

7. I am a better judge for presumption and case defense than most. It is often unclear to me how affirmatives solve their impacts or access their impact turns on topicality. The negative should leverage this more.

8. I occasionally judge K v K debates. I do not have especially developed opinions on these debates. Debate math often relies on causality, opportunity cost, and similar concepts rooted in policymaking analysis. These do not translate well to K v K debates, and the team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus typically wins. While the notion of "opportunity cost" to a method is still mostly nonsensical to me, I can be convinced either way on permutations' legitimacy.

Kritiks:

1. I do not often coach K teams but have familiarity with basically all critical arguments.

2. Framework almost always decides this debate. While I have voted for many middle-ground frameworks, they make very little strategic sense to me. The affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge actually compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? As a result, I am much better for "hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik.

3. 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.

4. If the kritik 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.

5. I will not evaluate non-falsifiable statements about events outside the current debate. Such an evaluation of minors grossly misuses the ballot. Strike me if this is a core part of your strategy.

Topicality:

1. This is about the plan text, not other parts of the 1AC. If you think the plan text is contrived to be topical, beat them on the PIC out of the topic and your topic DA of choice.

2. This is a question of which team's vision of the topic maximizes its benefits for debaters. I compare each team's interpretation of the topic through an offense/defense lens.

3. Reasonability is about the affirmative interpretation, not the affirmative case itself. In its most persuasive form, this means that the substance crowdout caused by topicality debates plus the affirmative's offense on topicality outweighs the offense claimed by the negative. This is an especially useful frame in debates that discuss topic education, precision, and similar arguments.

4. Any standards are fine. I used to be a precision stickler. This changed after attending topic meetings and realizing how arbitrarily wording is chosen.

5. From Anirudh Prabhu: "T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet." Topicality 101---the violation is a negative burden. If there's any uncertainty, I almost certainly vote aff with a decent "we meet" explanation.

Theory:

1. As with other arguments, I will resolve this fully technically. Unlike many judges, my argumentative preferences will not implicate how I vote. I will gladly vote on a dropped theory argument---if it was clearly extended as a reason to reject the team---with no regrets.

2. I'm generally in favor of limitless conditionality. But because I adjudicate these debates fully technically, I think I vote affirmative on "conditionality bad" more than most.

3. From Rafael Pierry: "most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. ... Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome." For me, this is especially true with counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy. While I do not love the delay counterplan, I think it is much more easily beaten through competition arguments than theoretical ones.

4. If a counterplan has specific literature to the affirmative plan, I will be extremely receptive to its theoretical legitimacy and want to grant competition. But of course, the counterplan text must be written strategically, and the negative must still win competition.

Counterplans:

1. I'm better for strategies that depend on process and competition than most. These represent one of my favorite aspects of debate---they combine theory and substance in fun and creative ways---and I've found that researching and strategizing against them generates huge educational benefits for debaters, certainly on par with more conventionally popular political process arguments like politics and case.

2. I have no disposition between "textual and functional competition" and "only functional competition". Textual alone is pretty bad. Positional competition is similarly tough, unless the affirmative grants it. Think about how a model of competition justifies certain permutations---drawing these connections intelligently helps resolve the theoretical portion of permutations.

3. Similarly, I am agnostic regarding limited intrinsicness, either functional or textual. While it helps check against the truly artificial CPs, it justifies bad practices that hurt the negative. It's certainly a debate that you should take on. That said, if everyone is just spreading blocks, I usually end up negative on the ink. Block to 2NR is easier to trace than 1AR to 2AR.

4. People need to think about deficits to counterplans. If you can't impact deficits to said counterplans, write better advantages. The negative almost definitely does not have evidence contextualizing their solvency mechanism to your internal links---explain why that matters!

5. Presumption goes to less change---debate what this means in round. Absent this instruction, if there is an advocacy in the 2NR and I do not judge kick it when deciding, I'm probably not voting on presumption.

6. Decide in-round if I should kick the CP. I'll likely kick it if left to my own devices. The affirmative should be better than the status quo. (To be honest, this has never mattered in a debate I've judged, and it amuses me that judge kick is such a common paradigm section.)

Disadvantages:

1. There is not always a risk. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, and we cannot determine its sign or magnitude.

2. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad advantages can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.

3. Shorten overviews, and make sure turns case arguments actually implicate the aff's internal links.

4. Will vote on any and all theoretical arguments---intrinsicness, politics theory, etc. Again, arguments are arguments, debate them out.

Ethics:

1. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points.

2. You need a recording to prove the other team is clipping. If I am judging and think you are clipping, I will record it and check the recording before I stop the debate. Any other method deprives you of proof.

3. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX in constructives or the other's team prep time in a rebuttal. You do not need to remove cards you did not read in the marked copy, unless you skipped a truly ridiculous amount. This practice is inane and justifies debaters doc-flowing.

4. Emailing isn’t prep. If you take too long, I'll tell you I'm starting your prep again.

5. If there is a different alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team alleging the violation if they want to stop the debate. If so, I will ask the accused team to provide written defense; check the tournament's citation rules; and decide. I will then decide the debate based on that violation and the tournament policy---I will not restart the debate---this makes cite-checking a no-risk option as a negative strategy, which seems really bad.

If you could have emailed the other team about your ethics violation, I will only evaluate it if there's proof you contacted the other team. Prepping ethics violations as case negs is far worse than any evidence ethics violation I've seen.

Note that if the ethics violation is made as an argument during the debate and advanced in multiple speeches as a theoretical argument, you cannot just decide it is a separate ethics violation later in the debate. I will NOT vote on it, I will be very annoyed with you, and you will probably lose and get 27s if you are resorting to these tactics.

6. The closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument, the more likely you should be reading it instead of inserting. If you are point out blatant mis-highlighting in a card, typically in a defensive fashion on case, then insertion is fine. I will readily scratch excessive insertion with clear instruction.

Miscellaneous:

1. I'll only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence.

2. Dropped arguments should be flagged clearly. If you say that clearly answered arguments were dropped, you're hurting your own persuasion.

3. Please send cards in a Word doc. Body is fine if it's just 1-3 cards. I don't care if you send analytics, though it can help online.

4. Unless the final rebuttals are strictly theoretical, the negative should compile a card doc post 2NR and have it sent soon after the 2AR. The affirmative should start compiling their document promptly after the 2AR. Card docs should only include evidence referenced in the final rebuttals (and the 1NC shell, for the negative)---certainly NOT the entire 1AC.

5. As a judge, I can stop the debate at any point. The above should make it clear that I am very much an argumentative nihilist---in hundreds of debates, I have not come close to stopping one. So if I do, you really messed up, and you probably know it.

6. I am open to a Technical Knockout. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, not yours) and explain why it is unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out.

Be mindful of context: calling this against sophomores in presets looks worse than against an older team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

7. Not about deciding debates, but a general offer to debate folk reading this. As someone who works in tech, I think it is a really enjoyable career path and quite similar to policy debate in many ways. If you would like to learn more about tech careers, please feel free to email me. As a high school student, it was very hard to learn about careers not done by my parents or their friends (part of why I'm in tech now!). I am happy to pass on what knowledge I have.

Above all, be kind to each other, and have fun!

Larry Swanson Olathe North High School 2 rounds

Wayne Tang Northside College Preparatory 3 rounds

Put me on the email chain (WayneTang@aol.com). (my debaters made me do this, I generally don't read evidence in round)

General Background:
Former HS debater in the stone ages (1980s) HS coach for over many years at Maine East (1992-2016) and now at Northside College Prep (2016 to present). I coach on the north shore of Chicago. I typically attend and judge around 15-18 tournaments a season and generally see a decent percentage of high level debates. However, I am not a professional teacher/debate coach, I am a patent attorney in my real (non-debate) life and thus do not learn anything about the topic (other than institutes are overpriced) over the summer. I like to think I make up for that by being a quick study and through coaching and judging past topics, knowing many recycled arguments.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
Intelligent story telling with good evidence and analysis is something I like to hear. I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). It is a hard road, but I think it is possible to reduce risk to zero or close enough to it based on defensive arguments.

TOPICALITY
I vote on T relatively frequently over the years. I believe it is the negative burden to establish the plan is not topical. Case lists and arguments on what various interpretations would allow/not allow are very important. I have found that the limits/predictability/ground debate has been more persuasive to me, although I will consider other standards debates. Obviously, it is also important how such standards operate once a team convinces me of their standard. I will also look at why T should be voting issue. I will not automatically vote negative if there is no counter-interpretation extended, although usually this is a pretty deep hole for the aff. to dig out of. For example, if the aff. has no counter-interpretation but the neg interpretation is proven to be unworkable i.e. no cases are topical then I would probably vote aff. As with most issues, in depth analysis and explanation on a few arguments will outweigh many 3 word tag lines.

COUNTERPLANS
Case specific CPs are preferable that integrate well (i.e., do not flatly contradict) with other negative positions. Clever wording of CPs to solve the Aff and use Aff solvency sources are also something I give the neg. credit for. It is an uphill battle for the Aff on theory unless the CP/strategy centered around the CP does something really abusive. The aff has the burden of telling me how a permutation proves the CP non-competitive.

KRITIKS
Not a fan, but I have voted on them numerous times (despite what many in the high school community may believe). I will never be better than mediocre at evaluating these arguments because unlike law, politics, history and trashy novels, I don’t read philosophy for entertainment nor have any interest in it. Further (sorry to my past assistants who have chosen this as their academic career), I consider most of the writers in this field to be sorely needing a dose of the real world (I was an engineer in undergrad, I guess I have been brainwashed in techno-strategic discourse/liking solutions that actually accomplish something). In order to win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other affirmative impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique Disad in the policy realm. As such it will probably receive very little weight if challenged by the aff. You must be able to distill long boring philosophical cards read at hyperspeed to an explanation that I can comprehend. I have no fear of saying I don’t understand what the heck you are saying and I will absolutely not vote for issues I don’t understand. (I don’t have to impress anyone with my intelligence or lack thereof and in any case am probably incapable of it) If you make me read said cards with no explanation, I will almost guarantee that I will not understand the five syllable (often foreign) philosophical words in the card and you will go down in flames. I do appreciate, if not require specific analysis on the link and impact to either the aff. plan, rhetoric, evidence or assumptions depending on what floats your boat. In other words, if you can make specific applications (in contrast to they use the state vote negative), or better yet, read specific critical evidence to the substance of the affirmative, I will be much more likely to vote for you.

PERFORMANCE BASED ARGUMENTS
Also not a fan, but I have voted on these arguments in the past. I am generally not highly preferred by teams that run such arguments, so I don't see enough of these types of debates to be an expert. However, for whatever reason, I get to judge some high level performance teams each year and have some background in such arguments from these rounds. I will try to evaluate the arguments in such rounds and will not hesitate to vote against framework if the team advocating non-traditional debate wins sufficient warrants why I should reject the policy/topic framework. However, if a team engages the non-traditional positions, the team advocating such positions need to answer any such arguments in order to win. In other words, I will evaluate these debates like I try to evaluate any other issues, I will see what arguments clash and evaluate that clash, rewarding a team that can frame issues, compare and explain impacts. I have spent 20 plus years coaching a relatively resource deprived school trying to compete against very well resourced debate schools, so I am not unsympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debates. On the other hand I have also spent 20 plus years involved in non-debate activities and am not entirely convinced that the strategies urged by non-traditional debates work. Take both points for whatever you think they are worth in such debates.

POINTS

In varsity debate, I believe you have to minimally be able to clash with the other teams arguments, if you can’t do this, you won’t get over a 27.5. Anything between 28.8 and 29.2 means you are probably among the top 5% of debaters I have seen. I will check my points periodically against tournament averages and have adjusted upward in the past to stay within community norms. I think that if you are in the middle my points are pretty consistent. Unfortunately for those who are consistently in the top 5% of many tournaments, I have judged a lot of the best high school debaters over the years and it is difficult to impress me (e.g., above a 29). Michael Klinger, Stephen Weil, Ellis Allen, Matt Fisher and Stephanie Spies didn’t get 30s from me (and they were among my favorites of all time), so don’t feel bad if you don’t either.

OTHER STUFF
I dislike evaluating theory debates but if you make me I will do it and complain a lot about it later. No real predispositions on theory other than I would prefer to avoid dealing with it.

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex.

I do not count general tech screw ups as prep time and quite frankly am not really a fascist about this kind of thing as some other judges, just don’t abuse my leniency on this.

Speed is fine (this is of course a danger sign because no one would admit that they can’t handle speed). If you are going too fast or are unclear, I will let you know. Ignore such warnings at your own peril, like with Kritiks, I am singularly unafraid to admit I didn’t get an answer and therefore will not vote on it.

I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I probably won’t call for it and assume it says X. However, in the unfortunate (but fairly frequent) occurrence where both teams just read cards, I will call for cards and use my arbitrary and capricious analytical skills to piece together what I, in my paranoid delusional (and probably medicated) state, perceive is going on.

I generally will vote on anything that is set forth on the round. Don’t be deterred from going for an argument because I am laughing at it, reading the newspaper, checking espn.com on my laptop, throwing something at you etc. Debate is a game and judges must often vote for arguments they find ludicrous, however, I can and will still make fun of the argument. I will, and have, voted on many arguments I think are squarely in the realm of lunacy i.e. [INSERT LETTER] spec, rights malthus, Sun-Ra, the quotations and acronyms counterplan (OK I didn’t vote on either, even I have my limits), scaler collapse (twice), world government etc. (the likelihood of winning such arguments, however, is a separate matter). I will not hesitate to vote against teams for socially unacceptable behavior i.e. evidence fabrication, racist or sexist slurs etc., thankfully I have had to do that less than double digits time in my 35+ years of judging.

Terrell Taylor Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:53 AM EDT

Terrell Taylor

add me to doc chains: terrell taylor at gmail dot com. No punctuation, no space, no frills.

Debated at Mary Washington from 2007-2011

Debate is an intellectual activity where two positions are weighed against each other. A part of this is making clear what your position is (plan, cp, alt, advocacy, status quo etc.) and how it measures up against the other team’s position. Arguments consist of a claim (the point you want to make), warrant (a reason to believe it), and an impact (reason why it matters/way it functions within the debate). Evidence is useful when trying to provide warrants, but is ultimately not necessary for me to evaluate an argument. Debates get competitive and heated, but staying polite and friendly and remembering that the name of the game is fun at the end of the day makes for a more enjoyable experience for everyone involved.

Disads/Case and Advantages

These arguments should be stressed in terms of a coherent story of what the world looks like in terms of the status quo, affirmative plan or alternative option. These positions should be attacked from a variety points including the link and internal link chain, impact and uniqueness level. When it comes to link turning, my default thought is that uniqueness determines the direction; if you have an alternative understanding that is particular to a scenario, be sure to explain why it is that the direction of the link should be emphasized or what have you. Impacts should be compared not only in terms of timeframe, probability and magnitude, but in terms of how these issues interact in a world where both impact scenarios take places (the popular "even if.." phrase comes to mind here). Also, keep in mind that I have not kept up with the trends in disads and such within the topic, so explaining specifics, acronyms and otherwise is useful for me. I prefer hearing case specific scenarios as opposed to generic politics and similar positions. This does not mean I will not vote for it or will dock your speaker points, just a preference.

Counterplans and Counterplan Theory

Counterplans should be functionally competitive; textual competition doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me (see later section on theory). I think that perms can be advocated, but am more than willing to hear reasons why they shouldn’t be and why that is a bad way to frame debates. When it comes to agent counterplans, I tend to think that topic specific education should trump generic presidential powers or judicial independence debates. Consult and condition cps just make the logician inside my head painfully confused (not sure why a reason to talk to X country is also a reason why the plan is bad). International fiat is suspect to me, and I tend to think that limiting the discussion to US policy (including its international relevance) is a good thing.

All of this being said, I am open to voting for any of the above arguments. These are merely my general theoretical leanings, and I will certainly flow, listen to, and evaluate arguments from the other side.

Topicality

I haven’t seen many debates on this topic, so if a debate comes down to T, don’t be surprised if you see me googling to find the resolution to check the words. In general I think Topicality is important for two reasons. One is the general reason that most people think it’s good, being that we need to be prepared/have set limits and parameters for debate. The second is that I think each year presents an opportunity to gain in depth education on an issue, even if it's not a policy perspective of that issue. I feel that competing interpretations is generally the default for T, but I am open to defenses of reasonability and in fact, think that there are cases where this is the best means of evaluation. Standards should be impacted in terms of education and fairness, and the debate should come down to the best internal links between the standards and these terminal values. If you are the type to critique T, your critique needs to come down to these terms (education and fairness). RVIs don’t make sense to me. If you want to take the challenge of trying to make one make sense, be my guest, but it’s an uphill battle.

General Theory

As mentioned, I am not wedded to any particular frame or “rulebook” for debate. Part of the beauty of debate to me is that debaters get to be both the players and referee. As such, I enjoy theory and think that such discussions can be fruitful. The flipside to this is that most theory debates devolve into tagline debating, shallow and repetitive arguments, and a race to see who can spit their block the fastest. These debates are 1) hard to flow and 2) not really a test or display of your ability so much as a test of your team’s theory block writer. I reward argumentation that is clear, comprehensible and complete in terms of theory debates, and urge debaters to these opportunities seriously.

I’ve laid out most of my theoretical dispositions in the counterplan section. Conditionality to me is like siracha sauce: a little bit heats up the debate, too much ruins it. I don’t know why three or four counterplans or alternatives along with the status quo is key to negative flex or good debating (one is good, two is ok). Also, if you want to use a status other than conditional or unconditional, (like the imaginary “dispo”) you should be ready to explain what that means. Again, I think that it is okay to advocate permutations as positions in the debate.

In terms of alternate frameworks for the debate (i.e. anything other than policy making) I’m honest when I say I’m not extraordinarily experienced in these areas as I’d like to be. I’ve seen a decent few of these debates and think that they provide some nuance to an otherwise stale activity. That being said (and this is true for all theory positions) you should try and weigh the educational and competitive equity benefits of your position versus the other teams proposed framework the debate. I debated for a squad that saw framework as a strategic and straightforward approach to most alternative forms of debate, so those arguments make sense to me. On the other hand, especially when it comes to arguments concerning structural issues in society/debate, if argued well, and with relevance to the topic in some way, I am willing to listen and evaluate.

Critical arguments (Kritiks/K-affs)

Much of what I just said applies here as well. I had the most success/felt most comfortable debating with these types of arguments as a debater (I did, however, spend most of my career debating with “straight-up” affs and disads that claimed nuclear war advantages). I studied English and Philosophy in undergrad and am pursuing a MA in English with a focus on critical theory, so there’s a decent chance that my interests and background might lean more towards a topic oriented critique than a politics Da.

I will avoid following the trend of listing the genres of critiques and critical literature with which I am familiar with the belief that it shouldn't matter. Running critiques shouldn't be about maintaining a secret club of people who "get it" (which often in debates, is construed to be a club consisting of the critique friendly judge and the team running the argument, often excluding the other team for not being "savy"). In other words, Whether I've read a great deal of the authors in your critique or not, should not give you the green light to skimp on the explanation and analysis of the critique. These debates are often about making the connections between what the authors and literature are saying and the position of the other team, and hence put a great burden on the debater to elucidate those connections. A shared appreciation or research interest between a team and a judge does not absolve you of that burden, in my opinion.

I agree with many recent top tier collegiate debaters (Kevin Kallmyer, Gabe Murillo, etc.) that the difference between policy and critical arguments is overstated. An important piece of reading critical arguments with me in the back of the room is explaining what your arguments mean within the context of the aff/da. If you read a no value to life impact, what about the affs framing makes it so that the people involved see their lives differently; if the critiqued impact is a merely constructed threat, reveal to me the holes in the construction and explain how the construction came to be. Doing that level of analysis (with any argument, critical or policy) is crucial in terms of weighing and relating your arguments to the other teams, and engaging in a form of education that is actually worthwhile. This probably entails removing your hypergeneric topic link and replacing with analysis as to the links that are within the evidence (and therefore, the assumptions, rhetoric, methodology, so and so forth) of your opponents. In terms of vague alts and framework, I have mixed feelings. The utopian fiat involved in most alts is probably abusive, but there is something to be said for making the claim that these arguments are vital to thorough education. On the framework question, gateway issue is probably a poor way to go. I don’t understand why the fact that your K has an impact means that you get to suck up the entire debate on this one issue. Instead, a framing that opens the door to multiple ways of critiquing and evaluating arguments (both on the aff and the neg, or in other words, doesn’t hold the aff as a punching bag) is preferable.

Performance

I didn’t do a whole lot of handling with this genre of argument, but have debated semi-frequently and enjoy the critical aspects of these arguments. I think that there is a difference between the type of critical debater that reads a couple of disads along with a K and case args, and a team that reads a indictment of the topic or reads narratives for nine minutes. If you read a poem, sing, recite a story or anything of that nature, I will be more interested in observing your performance than trying to flow or dictate it on my flow (my reasoning for this is that, unlike a speech organized for the purpose of tracking argument development and responses, I don't think flowing a poem or song really generates an understanding of the performance). More importantly, framing should be a priority; give me a reason why I should look at the debate through a certain lens, and explain why given that framing you have done something either worth affirming your advocacy. I think that these types of debates, especially if related to the topic, can be fruitful and worthwhile. Performance affirmatives should try to find some in road to the topic. If your argument is pervasive and deep enough to talk about, I generally think it probably has a systemic implication for the resolution in some way, even if that doesn’t manifest as a topical plan or even agreeing with the resolution.

For teams going against performance strategies, Framework based arguments are options in front of me. A good way to frame this argument is in terms of what is the best method to produce debates that create the most useful form of education, as opposed to just reading it like a procedural argument. I do think it is important to engage the substantive portion of their arguments as well, (there are always multiple dimensions to arguments of these forms) even if it happens to be a critical objection to their performance or method. Many policy based strategies often want to avoid having to engage with the details involved, and in doing so often fail to rigorously challenge the arguments made in the debate.

Good luck, and have fun. I spent a great deal of my debate career stressing out and losing sleep, instead of experiencing the challenge and fun of the activity; Enjoy your time in the activity above everything else.

Zach Thiede Rowland Hall 2 rounds

Chris Thiele The Quarry Lane School 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 6:44 AM PDT

Big picture:
- I don't read/flow off the doc.
- no evidence inserting. I read what you read.
- I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author/date + claim + warrant + data + impact" model) over breadth (the "author + claim + impact" model) any day.
- Ideas communicated per minute > words per minute. I'm old, I don't care to do a time trial of flowing half-warrants and playing "connect the dots" for impacts. 3/4 of debaters have terrible online practices, so this empirically applies even more so for online debates.
- I minimize the amount of evidence I read post-round to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). Don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
- I care a lot about data/method and do view risk as "everyone starts from zero and it goes up from there". This primarily lets me discount even conceded claims, apply a semi-laugh test to ridiculous arguments, and find a predictable tiebreaker when both sides hand me a stack of 40 cards.
- I'm fairly flexible in argument strategy, and either ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some highlights: wipeout, foucault k, the cp, regression framework, reg neg cp, consult china, cap k, deleuze k, china nano race, WTO good, indigenous standpoint epistemology, impact turns galore, biz con da, nearly every politics da flavor imaginable, this list goes on and on.
- I am hard to offend (though not impossible) and reward humor.
- You must physically mark cards.
- I think infinite world condo has gotten out of hand. A good rule of thumb as a proxy (taking from Shunta): 4-6 offcase okay, 7 pushing, if you are reading 8 or more, your win percentage and points go down exponentially. Also, I will never judge kick - make a decision in 2NR.
- 1NC args need to be complete, else I will likely buy new answers on the entire sheet. A DA without U or IL isn't complete. A CP without a card likely isn't complete. A K with just a "theory of power" but no links isn't complete. A T arg without a definition card isn't complete. Cards without any warrants/data highlighted (e.g. PF) are not arguments.
- I personally believe in open disclosure practices, and think we should as a community share one single evidence set of all cards previously read in a single easily accessible/searchable database. I am willing to use my ballot to nudge us closer.
-IP topic stuff - I have a law degree and am a tech geek, so anything that absolutely butchers the law will probably stay at zero even if dropped.

Topicality
-I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
-I'm extremely unlikely to vote for a dropped hidden aspec or similar and extremely likely to tank your points for trying.
-We meet is yes/no question. You don't get to weigh standards and risk of.
-Aff Strategy: counter-interp + offense + weigh + defense or all in on we meet or no case meets = best path to ballot.

Framework against K aff
-in a tie, I vote to exclude. I think "logically" both sides framework arguments are largely empty and circular - the degree of actual fairness loss or education gain is probably statistically insignificant in any particular round. But its a game and you do you.
-I prefer the clash route + TVA. Can vote for fairness only, but harder sell.
-Very tough sell on presumption / zero subject formation args. Degree ballot shapes beliefs/research is between 0 and 1 with neither extreme being true, comparative claims on who shapes more is usually the better debate pivot.
-if have decent k or case strat against k aff, usually much easier path to victory because k affs just seem to know how to answer framework.
-Aff Strategy: Very tough sell for debate bad, personalized ballot pleas, or fairness net-bad. Lots of defense to predict/limits plus aff edu > is a much easier path to win.

Framework against neg K
-I default to (1) yes aff fiat (2) yes links to 1AC speech act (3) yes actual alt / framework isn't an alt (4) no you link you lose.
-Debaters can debate out (1) and (2), can sometimes persuade me to flip on (3), but will pretty much never convince me to flip on (4).

Case Debate
-I enjoy large complex case debates about the topic.
-Depth in explanation and impacting over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant or card comparison will do far more damage to the 1AR than 3 new cards that likely say same warrant as original card.
-the current D tier link/solvency to core IL to greatest hits of all time impact spam 1AC construction makes me sad. The resolution as plan text model also does. Am happy to zero (or near zero) affs in these debates if the neg comes prepared.

Disads
-Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments less so.

Counterplans
-I think literature should guide both plan solvency deficit and CP competition ground.
-For theory debates (safe to suspect): adv cps = uniqueness cps > plan specific PIC > topic area specific PIC > textual word PIK = domestic agent CP > ban plan then do "plan" cp = certainty CPs = delay CPs > foreign agent CP > plan minus penny PICs > private actor/utopian/other blatant cheating CP
-Much better for perm do cp (with severance justified because of THEORY) than perm other issues (with intrinsicness justified because TEXT/FUNCT COMP english games). I don't really believe in text+funct comp (just eliminates "bad" theory debaters, not actually "bad" counterplans, e.g. replace "should" with "ought").
-perms and theory are tests of competition and not a voter.
-debatable perms are - perm do both, do cp/alt, do plan and part of CP/alt. Probably okay for combo perms against multi-conditional plank cps. Only get 1 inserted perm text per perm flowed.
-Aff strategy: good for logical solvency deficits, solvency advocate theory, and high level theory debating. Won't presume CP solves when CP lacks any supporting literature.

Critiques
-I view Ks as a usually linear disad and the alt as a CP.
-Much better for a traditional alt (vote neg -> subject formation -> spills out) than utopian fiated alts, floating piks, movements alts, or framework is my second alt.
-Link turn case (circumvention) and/or impact turns case (root/prox cause) is very important.
-I naturally am a quantitative poststructuralist. Don't think I've ever willingly voted on an ontology argument or a "zero subject formation" argument. Very open to circumvention oriented link and state contingency link turn args.
-Role of ballot is usually just a fancy term for "didn't do impact calculus".
-No perms for method Ks is the first sign you don't really understand what method is.
-Aff strategy: (impact turn a link + o/w other links + alt fails) = (case spills up + case o/w + link defense + alt fails) > (fiat immediate + case o/w + alt too slow) > (perm double bind) > (ks are cheating).
-perms generally check clearly noncompetitive alt jive, but don't normally work against traditional alts if the neg has any link.

Lincoln Douglas
-no trix, phil, friv theory, offcase spam, or T args written by coaches.
-treat it like a policy round that ends in the 1AR and we'll both be happy.

Public Forum
-no paraphrasing, yes email chain, yes share speech doc prior to speech. In TOC varsity, points capped at 27.5 if violate as minimum penalty.
-if paraphrase, it's not evidence and counts as an analytic, and cards usually beat analytics.
-I think the ideal PF debate is a 2 advantage vs 2 disadvantage semi-slow whole rez policy debate, where the 2nd rebuttal collapses onto 1 and the 1st summary collapses onto 1 as well. Line by line, proper, complete argument extensions, weighing, and card comparisons are a must.
-Good for non-frivilous theory and proper policy style K. TOC level debaters usually good at theory but still atrocious executing the K, so probably don't go for a PF style K in front of me.
-prefer some civility and cross not devolve into lord of the flies.

Aaron Torop BASIS DC 2 rounds

David Trigaux BASIS DC 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 8:24 AM EDT

David Trigaux

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

Director, Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

** Fall 2024 Update **

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

Accessibility:

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

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

5 Min Before Round Notes:

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

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

Ways to Lose Rounds / Speaker Points:

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

In the Weeds

Disadvantages:

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

o Do:

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

o Don’t:

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

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

Counterplans:

I like a substantive counterplan debate.

o Do:

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

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

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

o Don’t:

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

Procedurals/Topicality:

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

o Do:

§ Prove harm

§ Slow down. Less jargon, more examples

§ Creative Violations based in literature or debate-ability.

o Don’t:

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

Case Debate:

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

o Do:

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

o Don’t:

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

Kritiks:

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

o Do:

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

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

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

o Don’t:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-Policy Formats of Debate:

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

On Public Forum and other similar anti-intellectual formats

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

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

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

Iyana Trotman Little Rock Central 2 rounds

Anthony Trufanov Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 12:17 PM EDT

Assistant Director of Debate at Dartmouth;Coach at Sonoma Academy and Head Royce. He/him.

Email Chain

Add me: ant981228@gmail.com

College people, add: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

High school people, add: sonomacardscardscards@gmail.com and ipostround@googlegroups.com .

Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

I write here.

Key Things to Know

1. I will flow your debate and vote based on that flow. I will read evidence if needed to learn more about an issue that the flow is insufficient to decide.

2. I will flow on paper in line-by-line format 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. If you are interested in me writing down what you said, you should deliver your speech in a way that reflects that interest. If I did not understand something you said based on your speech, your opponent does not have to respond to it.

3. I prefer negs that clash.

4. I will judge kick unless instructed otherwise.

5. If you say death good you lose.

6. If you ask for a 30 you will get a 25.

Online

I STRONGLY prefer that all cameras be on whenever anyone in the debate is speaking, but I understand if internet or other considerations prevent this.

If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

Big Picture

Tech determines truth unless it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument. I strongly prefer to solve problems without resorting to violence or force.

Here is my decision procedure:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide them first based on the debating, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide fewer issues.If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue.

5. Being honest, my level of investment in remaining a neutral arbiter decreases the more I feel that you are deliberately and knowingly wasting my time. This is just part of being human. If your plan is to blackmail me into voting for you by threatening to cut off your fingers if I don't, or your plan is to declare yourself to be a divine being, from my perspective you have no grounds to be upset about the debate no matter how or why I vote.

This procedure typically means (for example):

1. I will prioritize resolution of impact claims.

2. I will deprioritize resolution of claims that do not affect the relative magnitude of two sides' offense. For example, in a DA/case debate where turns case is conceded, uniqueness is often irrelevant since aff solvency is reduced to the same extent neg offense is inevitable.

As of end-of-season 2024, I have voted aff 47% of the time, and sat on 11% of panels.

I often vote quickly. This does not necessarily mean the debate was lopsided or bad; more likely, it is a sign that the teams clearly communicated the relationships between their arguments, allowing me to perform evaluations as the debate is happening. If I take a long time that means I was unable to do this, either because there was significant complexity in the debate or because communication was poor.

DAs

The agenda DA will usually not survive a rich, accurate description of the current legislative agenda based on thoughtfully reading the news.

CPs

Will judge kick unless told otherwise. I am neg on most substantive theory questions, but strongly aff on the value of theory debate as an exercise. The idea that theory is categorically bad because it is non-resolutional strikes me as little more than textualist cosplay.

Functional competition + arguing about what your plan does and how we can tell >>>>> anything involving the concept of textual competition. Textual competition is mind poison that corrupts any competition model it touches.

If I can't explain what a CP does and how it accomplishes whatever the neg says it does, I am unlikely to vote for it. You can avoid this by writing a meaningful CP text AND explaining it in the speech.

I love a good T debate. I really don't like a bad one. What sets these apart is specific application of broad offense to interpretations and impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic.

I prefer topics with conceptual frameworks that guide aff and neg preparation and research.

Many parts of a T argument can be enhanced with cards - e.g. link to limits, claims of aff/neg bias in the literature, predictability via prodicts/indicts.

Argue by analogy and comparison to other affs, especially in CX.

All offense needs uniqueness. Uniqueness means that given a framework for evaluating a debate, the harms to be avoided are present on one side and absent in at least one legitimate option presented by the other. I do not care how this is achieved mechanically - turning your K into a DA is fine, an alternative is fine, a framework argument that is secretly an alternative is fine - as long as you communicate how each approach generates uniqueness for the offense you want to go for.

For whatever it's worth, I do most of my thinking about debate arguments through the lens of competition theory. This includes neg K framework arguments (which, in front of me, would benefit from disaggregating the questions of what about the aff is a basis for competition, what alternatives are legitimate, and what impacts are the most important). If you say "ontology first," what I will hear is that the aff's ontology is a basis for competition. I will expect the link arguments to be about the aff's ontology, and I will expect to hear about an alternative ontology. When these components are misaligned, my struggle with neg perm answers tends to increase.

Planless Affs

I do not judge many debates involving nontraditional affs. The biggest hurdles to voting aff for me are usually: 1) why can't the aff be read on the neg, 2) why is the aff's offense inherent to resolutional debate or to voting neg on framework instead of some avoidable examples, and 3) how do I reconcile the aff's vision of debate or the topic with debate's inherently (even if not exclusively) competitive nature.

I am very willing to entertain arguments that attempt to denaturalize debate as competition but struggle when these critiques lack an alternative or a theory of why debate as a way of putting two teams and a judge in conversation with one another is nevertheless useful.

I think affs that creatively reinterpret the resolution in a way that does not create excessive curricular demands would be more up my alley, but no one has tested this, so proceed with caution.

I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan. However, "no plan, no perms" is nonsense.

The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being fun/engaging to watch, being smart, being classy, being clear = higher speaks.

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making CXs annoying/pointless, making bad arguments, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks. A new and frequent pet peeve is answering things from the doc that were not in the speech - that is 28.5 behavior.

I do not view speaker points as divorced from substance.

My points are slightly below average.

You can find my ethics and conduct policies here.

Malone Urfalian Notre Dame High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 17, 2024 at 3:33 PM PDT

add me to the email chain - maloneurfalian@gmail.com

Notre Dame high school - 2018

The burden of the affirmative is to interpret the resolutional question and the burden of the negative is to act as the rejoinder of the aff. This can be whatever you want it to be if it is both flowable and making a clear argument that I can evaluate.

Clear, both argumentatively and speaking wise, debates are good. Unclear and not ideologically consistent arguments are not as good. Teams that tell good stories, see how arguments interact with each other, and contextualize warrants to the round are winning more debates. Debaters that are having fun are also probably happier and gaining more from the activity.

There is an inherent risk in presenting arguments, that is a good thing. Taking these types of intellectual risks helps you grow both in what you know and how you have come to know it. Leaving your argumentative comfort zone is the only way to improve these skills, wether you are reading the new argument or a new argument is presented to you in round.

Debate is fun and also silly! Everyone is doing silly things. It is good to laugh about it.

I have no ideological disposition against any argument. Debate is a free for all. If you think you can win on it, you should go for it. Particularly fond of impact turns and any arguments that challenge an assumption of the argument it is in response to. My version of the truth of an argument has little bearing on my decision, but evidence quality has a high bearing on how the argument is evaluated. Arbitrary line drawing of what I 'will or will not' vote on seems silly, but not in the good way. If had the inverse of this paragraph that said, 'the fifty states counterplan is a non starter for me' I would not be in the back of your round and you would not be reading this.

So, I do not tend to believe that arguments should be dismissed on the grounds of not being 'real', 'practical', or 'worth talking about.' I do not think that a jobs guarantee solving a wage spiral has anymore truth to it than china war good. I do not think that any argument that is not directly personally violent to another debater is a non starter. Autodrop L + ratio for offensive conduct. Judged more than one debate this year where the response to a word pic was to double down on that word. Not a winning strategy. I believe in a good faith apology as defense and some form of offense is a sufficient response. Good faith apology sounds subjective, I think there is a bright line that can demonstrate wether or not an act was intentional and malicious or a result of ignorance and a opportunity to learn. This should be established in the link debating. I would prefer the ballot not be a referendum on someones character. I believe an accusation of a clipping or evidence ethics auto ends the round and supersedes the content of the debate.

I find arguments that exist on polar ends of a bellcurve are more convincing to me because the larger the gap between what my ballot is endorsing and/or resolving the easier it is to think about i.e. heg good vs decol is easier to resolve to me then the perm of a soft left aff about the BIA's failings. I've probably voted for Ligotti and X country first strike about the same amount of times. Both many more than any 'soft left' aff vs a disad or a k. It is not as I don't find these arguments 'real', but that it is rarely debated out to the be the 'best' option to resolve the harms or framing of harms they have presented. I think these fail to capitalize on the benefits of either a critical or policy aff, but they have strategic value in theory. I think soft left aff's sweep non specific links or alts that don't access the impact. But that seems to be reflective of a skill issue on the negatives construction of the link debate more so than endorsement of middle ground strategies. Inversely, meeting on the bottom between poles makes a lot of sense to me and is under represented in negative strategies against arguments on either ideological end. I do think that debate is a util based game, and that winning the framing page thoroughly is the only way to get my ballot in these debates.

In the vein of critical affs I believe debate is a game. I find k affs interesting, strategic, engaging, and fun to think about. When the timer goes off it is still a game to me. I give my rfd, I talk to my debaters about what happened in the round, what we can learn from it, and I move on. Maybe I download some PDF's, cut responses, or pull backfiles if it is particularly compelling. It can be a good game with a code that can be modified round by round, but it is insulated to the 8 speeches. I think tying a personal endorsement to the ballot can be parasitic and result in a negative experience with the game. This can be debated and changed of course, but when I walk into the round I am under the assumption I am adjudicating a game with four players. The way to play that game is up to you. Some rules are negotiable. Some aren't. I think the negative is best serve disproving case in the 2nr when they are going for education/clash impacts. I find it unconvincing that a critical aff is 'unfair and impossible to debate', most of them are not very good. Most of them can be dismantled by reading the book or grad thesis their solvency card comes from. Invest the time do that once and it will change your relationship to the argument. Ballot can solve fairness. Reflecting on past RFD's I have given, to win the fairness impact you need to win that stasis is good and/or their overarching impact turn to fairness is wrong. Usually when I vote against fairness it is because the negative team has not articulated what that means. If your args on case in the 2nr are consequence focus good and pragmatism good, you need to prove why the aff doesn't access these framing arguments. Also why do you? Whats the internal link between consequences and fairness? Why is fairness something that is pragmatic? Why do games nessitate equal starting points? You get to chose where you jump off the battle bus. What is the impact I am evaluating the consequence of when you are going for fairness? Where are analogies and examples that demonstrate how it would materializes in or out of debate?

Where is the global south?

I enjoy reading cards. I enjoy cutting cards. That being said you do not need more than 5 cards to win a debate. If you send me a card doc and I did not hear those author names in the 2nr/2ar something has gone wrong in your construction of that card document. Technically conceded warrantless claims unrelated to the content of the debate do not earn ballots, but this does not mean an argument should not be answered because you think it's 'stupid'. If you cannot beat bad arguments you should not win.

Wether you chose to go for a strategy that centers around material action, epistemological framing, or theoretical illegitimacy, you need to resolve the arguments you are going for. The speech you give should be responsive to the speech before you, not just what you have written on your blocks.

I value technical debate, but I think the energy of a round is inescapable. That energy, moments on the flow, is something lost with eyes locked on the screen. Hundreds and hundreds of individual memories scribed onto long paper. Worlds. Moments. Captured. Even if I never look at them again. There is a reason I wrote it down and I think that is valuable. I'll believe anything.

Is it more truly more efficient to get your 27th condo subpoint out? Maybe it is. But I do not find that style of debate as convincing as taking up the opponent on their position on any level and having it out with them over the course of the round. Trying to win versus trying not to lose seperates the middling to higher teir of speaker points for me.

judge kick -- seems scared when people ask me to judge kick i think that it is an extension of conditionality.

multiplank counterplans -- each plank is conditional unless in a set. These probably also need solvency advocates if they are more than 'ban x' Also when it is 'ban x' arguments in the 2ac as to why banning x might be a bad idea are good and only require evidence in a reciprocal manner.

I remember the rounds I have judged, rooting for you all to get smarter, stronger, and faster when I am in the back of your rounds again !!

Molly Urfalian Notre Dame High School

Last changed on Tue February 27, 2024 at 1:12 AM PDT

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

Notre Dame '23 (2A/1N for 4 years)

UC Berkeley '27 (2A/1N)

You can just call me Molly

Tech > Truth. Very few, if any, of my personal opinions will shape my RFDs. If you’ve won the argument to my understanding, I will vote for it.
Time your own speeches and prep
Judge instruction is super important to me, especially in rebuttals. I am not a mind reader and you are often less clear than you think.
I love CP + DA debates and ptx holds a special place in my heart
I am fairly expressive and do not hide displeasure or confusion well, so look at me
Yes I have always been a 2A, I don’t feel as if this

Topicality

I do not extensively research or keep up highschool topics especially what is and is not topical, so I recommend against throwing out a lot of acronyms or assuming my knowledge
case lists are the most effective way for me to compare visions of the topic
competing interps > reasonability
smaller topics are probably better for innovation

Disads

Any debate with a disad I love to hear
I love ptx disads but I also know a truly garbage one when I see it
turns case and impact calc are your best friends and should start early (on both sides)

Counterplans

Agent CPs are my favorite
I am extremely neutral on process CPs, but not debated well I lean aff on most perms
I dislike super contrived adv cps, but logical ones that exploit poor aff writing are good. Be clear about the planks that you kick.
Do impact calc between the solvency deficit and disadvantage, otherwise you are letting me decide
I default to judge kick

Kritiks

If you go for Ks consistently, I am not the best judge for you. I don't dislike them, I simply never went for them so I may not default in your favor. If you debate well and don’t leave it up to me you should have no problem.
I prefer links to the plan, at least the topic. Does not have to be cards but lines should be taken from the 1AC
Don't read a super long overview, it just sounds like words to me. Do the work on the line by line.
Floating PIKs are probably bad

K Affs

If you read a K aff, I am not the best judge for you, however, I am also not the worst. You will have to do more work explaining your disads to FW than you would in front of K judges. What is intuitive/obvious to you might not be for me.
Consistency of explanation of aff offense is SO helpful. Super shifty K affs make me upset and more importantly, I am much less likely to grant you weight of 2AR offense if it was not rooted in an explanation started in the 1AR.
If you read a high theory K aff I am less likely to vote for you compared to an indentity aff. I understand them less and have the honest pre-disposition of thinking your offense is kinda dumb
I really need your aff to do something. Just explain to me what you solve, if you don't solve anything this round will be hard for you

Neg v K Affs

Presumption is great. I find it challenging to 0 an aff on a sentence or 2 of a 2NR (this is also true of policy affs). You are much more likely to win a presumption debate in front of me if the 2NR takes the extra 15 seconds to actually engage with the 1AR answers.
Fairness is an impact. 2NR can be clash or fairness, whatever you chose is fine with me.
TVAs and SSD are great. I find that 2Ns expect me to fill in some of the reasons as to why these would solve the aff intuitively. I am unwilling to do this work for you.
I was a 1N and took the Cap K or Cap good in every 1NR I ever gave. If you feel inclined to put me in a K v K debate, I am the most familiar with this one, but also don’t. I think neg team's sitting on a usually poorly answered K affs don't get perms debate is a winning debate

Soft Left Affs

The framing page will be an uphill battle for you. I like util.
I find it hard to vote for these affs when the 2NR is a CP and a DA.

Theory

Slow down half a step, I’m a moderate speed typer
I think condo is fine. If the negative has done something actually abusive (my personal brightline is around 5-6 condo and/or a very long adv cp) explain the in round abuse. Otherwise go for it as you please.
Dispo probably does not solve anything other than research, if you want to change my mind then explain it
International fiat and changing the whole world fiat is bad. This includes K alt stuff.
Perm theory debates are cool. Limited Intrinsicness good/bad are the theory debates I had the most and judge the most. I am very neutral on the question. I find often that neg teams win on a deficit to the intrinsic perm than the theory debate.

Speaks

If you yell and are mean I will nuke your speaks. You are allowed to be loud and passionate, but there is a level of respect that needs to be maintained for your opponents at all times.
On a happier note I like snarky remarks and sassy answers. Just be funny with it
If the top of the final rebuttal is why I should vote for you and has judge instruction you're doing yourself a favor

Re-highlighting

Have the theory debate over whether it can be inserted or not, I will evaluate the debate based on the outcome
If you choose not to have the theory debate I will default to letting ev be re-inserted. I changed my position on this issue because I want more debaters to do it, and forcing teams to read re-highlights seems to discourage quality ev idicts
However, I will not do the debating for you, don’t insert re-highlighting without explaining or implicating it in the debate. So only insert the amount of evidence you can reasonably explain

Rosie Valdez Little Rock Central 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 5, 2024 at 6:05 PM CDT

-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions. Please put BOTH of these on chains: rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com and lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com.

Virtual Debate Updates:

I am almost always using two computers so I can watch you speak and flow/look at docs. I would prefer that you debate with your camera on so that I can watch you speak, but PLEASE do feel free to turn it off if doing so stabilizes your audio.

Do NOT start at top speed. You should start a little slower anyway to allow judges to get acclimated to your speaking style, but I think this is especially important in virtual debate.

Do I understand why you don't want to flash theory/overviews/analytics? Of course. Do you have to do it? No. Will I be mad at you if you don't? Of course not. Would it help me flow better in many virtual debates? YES.

TL;DR

Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is exhausting and I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away. My voting record is a pretty clear indication that I judge a wide variety of debates. Who/what I coach(ed) are generally good indications of what I am about. Update: I've found myself recently in some seven off rounds. I really hate to say I am bad for any kind of debate, but I am bad for these rounds. Late-breaking debates make me tired and grumpy, and I find myself having to do way too much work in these debates to resolve them. If seven off is your thing, and I am your judge, do what you do I guess, but know this is probably the only explicit "don't pref me" in this whole paradigm.

Evidence/Argumentation/General

I care a lot about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make.

I think I flow pretty throughly. I often flow in direct quotes. I do this for me, but I feel like it helps teams understand my decision as we talk after a round. I reward organized speakers and meaningful overviews. I am easily frustrated by a messy card doc.

I listen closely to cross-ex.

Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.

Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.

Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.

K Affs vs. FW

For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.

Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

Arkansas Circuit

1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.

Lauren Velazquez Niles North High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 7:20 AM CDT

Name : Lauren Velazquez

Affiliated School: Niles North

Email: Laurenida@gmail.com

General Background:
I debated competitively in high school in the 1990s for Maine East. I participated on the national circuit where counterplans and theory were common.

Director of Debate at Niles North

Laurenida@gmail.com

Experience:

I competed in the 90s, helped around for a few years, took a bit of a break, have been back for about 7 years. My teams compete on the national circuit, I help heavily with my teams’ strategies, and am a lab leader at a University of Michigan. In recent years I have helped coach teams that cleared at the TOC, won state titles and consistently debated in late elim rounds at national tournaments. TL/DR--I am familiar with national circuit debate but I do not closely follow college debate so do not assume that I am attuned to the arguments that are currently cutting edge/new.

What this means for you---I lean tech over truth when it comes to execution, but truth controls the direction of tech, and some debate meta-arguments matter a lot less to me.

I am not ideological towards most arguments, I believe debate structurally is a game, but there are benefits to debate outside of it being just a game, give it your best shot and I will try my best to adapt to you.

The only caveat is do not read any arguments that you think would be inappropriate for me to teach in my classroom, if you are worried it might be inappropriate, you should stop yourself right there.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
When deciding to vote on disadvantages and affirmative advantages, I look for a combination of good story telling and evidence analysis. Strong teams are teams that frame impact calculations for me in their rebuttals (e.g. how do I decide between preventing a war or promoting human rights?). I should hear from teams how their internal links work and how their evidence and analysis refute indictments from their opponents. Affirmatives should have offense against disads (and Negs have offense against case). It is rare, in my mind, for a solvency argument or "non unique" argument to do enough damage to make the case/disad go away completely, at best, relying only on defensive arguments will diminish impacts and risks, but t is up to the teams to conduct a risk analysis telling me how to weigh risk of one scenario versus another.

TOPICALITY

I will vote on topicality if it is given time (more than 15 seconds in the 2NR) in the debate and the negative team is able to articulate the value of topicality as a debate “rule” and demonstrate that the affirmative has violated a clear and reasonable framework set by the negative. If the affirmative offers a counter interpretation, I will need someone to explain to me why their standards and definitions are best. Providing cases that meet your framework is always a good idea. I find the limits debate to be the crux generally of why I would vote for or against T so if you are neg you 100% should be articulating the limits implications of your interpretation.

KRITIKS
Over the years, I have heard and voted on Kritiks, but I do offer a few honest caveats:

*Please dont read "death good"/nihilism/psychoanalysis in front of me. I mean honestly I will consider it but I know I am biased and I HATE nihilism, psychoanalysis debates. I will try to listen with an open mind but I really don't think these arguments are good for the activity or good for pedagogy--they alienate younger debaters who are learning the game and I don't think that genuine discussions of metaphysics lend themselves to speed reading and "voting" on right/wrong. If you run these I will listen and work actively to be open minded but know you are making an uphill battle for yourself running these. If these are your bread and butter args you should pref me low.

I read newspapers daily so I feel confident in my knowledge around global events. I do not regularly read philosophy or theory papers, there is a chance that I am unfamiliar with your argument or the underlying paradigms. I do believe that Kritik evidence is inherently dense and should be read a tad slower and have accompanying argument overviews in negative block. Impact analysis is vital. What is the role of the ballot? How do I evaluate things like discourse against policy implications (DAs etc)

Also, I’m going to need you to go a tad slower if you are busting out a new kritik, as it does take time to process philosophical writings.

If you are doing something that kritiks the overall debate round framework (like being an Aff who doesnt have a plan text), make sure you explain to me the purpose of your framework and why it is competitively fair and educationally valuable.

COUNTERPLANS
I am generally a fan of CPs as a neg strategy. I will vote for counterplans but I am open to theory arguments from the affirmative (PICs bad etc). Counterplans are most persuasive to me when the negative is able to clearly explain the net benifts and how (if at all) the counterplan captures affirmative solvency. For permutations to be convincing offense against CPs, Affs should explain how permutation works and what voting for perm means (does the DA go away, do I automatically vote against neg etc?)

RANDOM

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex and dominating. You are part of a 2 person team for a reason.

Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you have a ton of analytics in a row or are explaining a new/dense theory, you may want to slow down a little since processing time for flowing analytics or kritkits is a little slower than me just flowing the text of your evidence.

I listen to cross ex. I think teams come up with a lot of good arguments during this time. If you come up with an argument in cross ex-add it to the flow in your speech.

Tyler Vergho Bellarmine College Preparatory 7 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 4:32 AM PDT

Bellarmine ‘19, Dartmouth ‘23

Email: tvergho@gmail.com – put me on the chain.

Last Updated: November 2024

Topic Knowledge: I'm no longer actively involved in debate. I may judge a tournament here or there, but it's likely that I'll be hearing whatever your aff is or topic terminology for the first time in the round. Explain your arguments accordingly.

I have read and voted for all types of arguments. I really don’t care what you say. I appreciate debaters who engage the line-by-line, advance smart and well-researched arguments, and generally seem like they want to be there. The best debaters answer and reference arguments in the order they were presented, crystallize the debate into a few central issues in the final rebuttals, and frame the decision they want me to give by resolving those issues.

Tech over truth, but conceded arguments only have the implications you say they do. Nothing you say will convince me to stop flowing or abandon the line-by-line. Otherwise, any of my predispositions can be easily reversed by out-debating the other team.

The one exception to this is: post-TOC, I will no longer vote on "new affs bad" or a similar theory argument if newly read in the block. The standard I will enforce is that theory arguments that could feasibly have been introduced in the 1NC must be. Hiding cheap shots is not debating; debate as if you are grown.

Debaters should presume good-faith engagement by their opponents. If your strategy primarily relies on ad hominems, references to out-of-round events, screenshots, or accusations that could have been resolved by emailing your opponents or their coaches before the round, you should strike me.

Affs should probably be topical. I don’t have a strong ideological bias against planless affs, but evenly debated I’m skeptical of most common aff responses to framework. Procedural fairness is not automatically an impact.

Conditionality is fine. Anything else is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

I default to judge kick. If equally debated, I’ll likely err negative as the logical extension of conditionality.

Objections to counterplans are generally better expressed through competition than theory.

You can insert re-highlightings as evidence indicts, provided that the re-highlighting actually comes from the card your opponent read. If it comes three paragraphs later, you actually have to read the part where the author concludes the other way. I will treat this as the equivalent of an evidence indict with added context. Advancing some extrinsic argument always requires reading the card.

Asking for a 30 = auto 25.

For a description of my procedure on evaluating in-round ethics and conduct issues, see here. (Largely stolen from Truf's paradigm.)

Caitlin Walrath Northside College Preparatory 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 22, 2024 at 6:32 AM EDT

Debate History:

Juan Diego Catholic: 2011-2014 (1N/2A and 1A/2N)

Rowland Hall-St. Marks: 2014-2015 (1A/2N)

University of Michigan: 2015-2019 (1A/2N)

University of Kentucky: 2019-2020 (Assistant Coach)

Wake Forest University: 2020-2024 (Assistant Coach)

University of Utah: 2024 (Poetry, NFA-LD Lead Coach || Parli (NPDA/IPDA) Assistant Coach)

University of Houston: Present (Assistant Coach)

*Please put me on the email chain: caitlinp96@gmail.com - NO POCKETBOXES OR WHATEVER PLEASE AND THANK YOU*

TL;DR:

I'm currently a PhD student who is checked out of debate for most of the year outside of judging ~30 rounds and producing some evidence. Please do not assume I am up-to-date on the latest community consensus on things like T definitions, which affs are "most strategic," etc. - just debate to the best of your ability and be kind and intelligent while doing so.

You do you, and I'll flow and judge accordingly. Make smart arguments, be yourself, and have fun. Ask questions if you have them post-round / time permits. I would rather you yell at me (with some degree of respect) and give me the chance to explain why you lost so that you can internalize it rather than you walk away pissed/upset without resolution. An argument = claim + warrant. You may not insert rehighlighted evidence into the record - you have to read it, debate is a communicative activity.

General thoughts: I enjoy debate immensely and I hope to foster that same enjoyment in every debate I judge. With that being said, you should debate how you like to debate and I’ll judge fairly. I will immediately drop a team and give zero speaks if you make this space hostile by making offensive remarks or arguments that make it unsafe for others in the round (to be judged at my discretion). Clipping accusations must have audio or some form of proof. Debaters do not necessarily have to stake the round on an ethics violation. I also believe that debaters need to start listening to each other's arguments more, not just flowing mindlessly - so many debates lose potential nuance and clash because debaters just talk past each other with vague references to the other team's arguments. I can't/won't vote on an argument about something that happened outside the debate. I have no way of falsifying any of this and it's not my role as a judge. This doesn't apply to new affs bad if both teams agree that the aff is new, but if it's a question of misdisclosure, I really wouldn't know what to do (stolen from DML and Goldschlag). *NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me. (stolen from Val)

General K thoughts:

- AT: Do you judge these debates/know what is happening? Yes, its basically all I judge anymore (mostly clash of civs)

- AT: Since you are familiar with our args, do we not have to do any explanation specific to the aff/neg args? No, you obviously need to explain things

- AT: Is it cool if I just read Michigan KM speeches I flowed off youtube? If you are reading typed out copies of someone else's speech, I'm going to want to vote against you and will probably be very grumpy. Debate is a chance for you to show off your skill and talent, not just copy someone's speech you once saw on youtube.

K (Negative) – enjoyable if done well. Make sure the links are specific to the case and cause an impact. Make sure that the alt does something to resolve those impacts and links as well as some aff offense OR have a framework that phases out aff offense and resolves yours. Assume I know nothing about your literature base. Try not to have longer than a 2-minute overview

K (Affirmative) / Framework – probably should have some relation to the resolution otherwise it's easy to be persuaded that by the interp that you need to talk about the resolution. Probably should take some sort of action to resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. I think FW debates are important to have because they force you to question why this space has value and/or what needs to change in said space. Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Affirmative teams should have a robust reason why their aff is necessary to resolve certain impacts and why framework is bad. Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like if I sign my ballot aff or neg and why that vision is better than the other side’s. Fairness is an impact and is easily the one I'm most persuaded by, particularly if couched in terms of it being the only impact any individual ballot can solve AND being a question of simply who's model is most debatable (think competing interps).

T is distinct from Framework in these debates in so far as I believe that:

- T is a question of form, not content -- it is fundamentally content neutral because there can be any number of justifications beyond simply just the material consequences of hypothetical enactment for any number of topical affs

- Framework is more a question of why this particular resolution is educationally important to talk about and why the USfg is the essential actor for taking action over these questions

Case – Please, please, please debate the case. I don’t care if you are a K team or a policy team, the case is so important to debate. Most affs are terribly written and you could probably make most advantages have almost zero risk if you spent 15 minutes before round going through aff evidence. Zero risk exists.

CPs – Sure. Negative teams need to prove competition and why they are net beneficial to the aff. Affirmative needs to impact out solvency deficits and/or explain why the perm avoids the net benefit. Affs also must win some form of offense to outweigh a DA (solvency deficits, theory, impact turn to an internal nb/plank of the cp) otherwise I could be persuaded that the risk of neg offense outweighs a risk a da links to the cp, the perm solvency, etc.

DAs – Also love them. Negative teams should tell me the story of the DA through the block and the 2nr. Affirmative teams need to point out logical flaws in the DA and why the aff is a better option. Zero risk exists.

Politics – probably silly, but I’ll vote on it. I could vote on intrinsicness as terminal defense if debated well.

Topicality – You need a counter-interp to win reasonabilty on the aff. I default to competing interpretations if there is no other metric for evaluation.

Theory – the neg has been getting away with murder recently and its incredibly frustrating. Brief thoughts on specific args below:

- cps with a bunch of planks to fiat out of every possible solvency deficit with no solvency advocate = super bad

- 3+ condo with a bunch of conditional planks = bad

- cps that fiat things such as: "Pence and Trump resign peacefully after [x] date to avoid the link to the politics da", "Trump deletes all social media and never says anything bad about the action of the plan ever", "Trump/executive office/other actor decides never to backlash against the plan or attempt to circumvent it" = vomit emoji

- commissions cps = still cheating, but less bad than all the things above

- delay cps = boo

- consult cps = boo (idk if these exist on the immigration topic, but w/e)

- going for theory when you read a new aff = nah fam (with some exceptions)

- 2nr cps (yes this happened recently) = boo

- going for condo when they read 2 or less without conditional planks = boo

- perf con is a reason you get to sever your reps for any perm

- theory probably does not outweigh T unless impacted very early, clearly, and in-depth

Bonus – Speaker Point Outline – I’ll try to follow this very closely (TOC is probably the exception because y'all should be speaking in the 28.5+ category):

(Note: I think this scale reflects general thoughts that are described in more detail in this: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html - Thanks Regnier)

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity policy debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

Zidao Wang Glenbrook South High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 11, 2024 at 7:41 AM CDT

About Me:

Georgetown LW

Homestead MW

Put me on the chain: zidao.debate@gmail.com.

Conflicts: Georgetown, Homestead, GBS, Westwood, Northside, Woodward.

Top Level:

Debate is a competitive activity that emphasizes research, strategic thinking, and persuasion. The best debaters possess skills regarding all three.

My biases will only come into play at the absolute margins. All can be overcome with technical debating.

Non-negotiables:

1 - Debate should not be about issues that occurred outside the round. If something has occurred outside the debate that threatens the well-being of any of the debaters, I will end the round and go to tab.

2 - Everyone must follow speech times, speech orders, prep time, there will be one winner and loser, etc.

3 - No asking for speaks or crowd participation.

Decision-making:

Tech over truth. However, truth significantly helps your ability to win the argument. Unwarranted or ridiculous arguments can be easily dismissed, but you must answer them.

Zero risk is possible, but my threshold is higher than some other judges. For example, if the 2NR drops "fiat solves the link to the politics DA" and it was well-warranted in the 1AR, I would likely assign the DA zero risk.

Author quals matter. Cards written by undergrads, etc. should not be given much weight.

Clarity and ease of communication > extremely fast/unclear subpoints that are impossible to flow. Nine times out of ten you are better off slowing down and emphasizing strong moments of connection.

I am not a robot. Debate is a communicative activity. Sounding like you're winning will help.

You can insert re-highlightings if it's within the text of the card that was already read, but you must give it context and explain the implication. If you're inserting something 3 paragraphs after the original card, you have to read it.

If your evidence is extremely under-highlighted, you will have a tough time selling me in a close debate.

Theory:

On the Aff, everything seems to be a reason to reject the argument except condo (but you have to say it).

I will judge condo like any other debate. However, I am intuitively more persuaded by Neg flex than most Aff objections.

The less intuitive the CP is, the more likely I am to be skeptical of it absent evidence. I am a harder sell for solvency advocate theory.

T vs Plans:

Topicality says this debate should not have occurred because the Aff was not within the bounds of the agreed upon resolution. Therefore, it asks me to forego evaluating a debate about the topic in favor of punishing the Aff.

I default to offense/defense in lieu of a reasonability argument. However, an offensively framed reasonability argument can be persuasive to me in light of my above thoughts. This must be grounded in predictable and qualified counter-interp evidence. Additionally, the Aff must win a significant amount of defense to Neg standards.

I don’t view reasonability as a gut check, or a decision based on “vibes.” A successful reasonability argument still requires the Aff to win offense for why viewing the difference between two interps through the lens of offense/defense is a bad frame. It is also grounded in the reasonable doubt burden of proof in criminal law.

I am most likely to vote Neg when they are winning a large link to limits, doing concrete impact calculus, and explaining why they have an inroad to predictability/why Neg ground outweighs.

DAs:

DA turns case/solves case can be high impact. The earlier this debate gets started the better. It's also far more persuasive if you can get it higher up the link chain (ie: link turns solvency > nuke war turns warming).

I care a lot about the story-telling component of DAs. In other words, don't debate the parts of the DAs like a bunch of disaggregated pieces without a clear vision. Focus on the core narrative of the DA and ensure that your line by line supports that narrative. Ultimately, I need to be able to articulate in a few sentences the thrust of the scenario the Neg is trying to sell me. Similarly, the Aff needs to explain why the Neg's story is inaccurate.

Impact turns can be great debates, but the closer they get to spark/wipeout the more they start feeling like bad debates.

CPs:

Not the greatest for process stuff that is not about the plan. If you have a net benefit that is a reason the plan is bad or even genuinely mutually exclusive with the 1AC, then I will be extremely receptive on competition. However, most consult and process backfiles are not competitive given equal debating. Best route to an Aff ballot vs these CPs are perms. This preference, like all other preferences, will not come into play unless the debate is extremely close.

If two teams are advancing different visions of competition in the final rebuttals, I will strictly evaluate the offense and defense for each interpretation.

PICs are fine if they result in something different than the Aff. Not the best for word PICs that do the entire plan. If you have good evidence that the inclusion of a certain topic word affects the plan implementation, then I am much easier to sell on your word PIC. This needs to be grounded in an argument about what constitutes a function.

Ks:

The more your K is secretly a counterplan and a DA, the better I am for it. If your K does not exclude weighing the plan, I find it important for there to be an associated framework argument that checks back against an otherwise relatively persuasive 2AR on perm double bind.

I'm not willing to split the middle ground on framework arbitrarily. If the Aff is saying "No Ks" and the Neg is saying "Only Reps Matter" in the final rebuttals, I will decide on one or the other. However, either team can advocate for a middle ground during the debate and I will be receptive. If you are doing this, make sure to clearly explain what your interpretation looks like and how I should make decisions based on that framework.

I am worse than average for Ks that entirely moot the plan. If equally debated, I find fairness and clash objections to these relatively persuasive. I evaluate these types of Ks similarly to how I would evaluate competition for a Process CP. To win, Affs need to be technically sufficient and answer all tricks/checklist items.

The best 2NRs make clear strategic choices on the K. I find myself voting Aff most consistently when the 2NR fails to collapse the debate down to a core set of issues. (Ex: Going for too many links, trying to both win fiat Ks and links to the plan, not developing your core theory of power enough). Similarly, most 2ARs against the K have to win a few core issues, and the rest usually falls into place.

K Affs:

You do not have to read a plan. All you need to do is out tech the other team. If you can’t do this, I am likely to be persuaded by T.

Against T, I am equally fine for an Aff that defends a counter-interp and an Aff that just impact turns. If the Aff wins that topically itself is violent, then a lot of objections about "models" or "ballet solvency" seem to go away. However, I find most objections to the reading of topicality unpersuasive.

I have no experience adjudicating K v K debates. I don't find "no perms" persuasive but am entirely open to other things besides the advocacy statement being a basis for philosophical competition.

I am also good for impact turns. Does the 1AC say "attempting to control other states" is bad? Sounds like NPT Good is offense. Did the 2AC say reject "all instances of American imperialism?" Sounds like you can say Heg Good.

If the Aff reads a plan but says it's good for a deontological reason like Kant or Buddhism, I think T is basically unwinnable.

Ethics/Decorum:

Minimizing dead time in debates will not only allow me to make better decisions (by giving me more decision time) but will also help your speaks.

Clipping= L + 0. This needs to be multiple lines, not a couple words. Any team may initiate an ethics challenge about clipping or other procedural violations (there must be recorded evidence). If I conclude the team is incorrect, they will lose the round and receive a 25. I will also self-police this.

Overt sexism, racism, homophobia, etc = L+0. Threats of physical or psychological violence will never be acceptable.

If you are online, I prefer camera on. However, I won't seek to penalize anyone for having it off.

Speaker points:

If you opensource (every card you've read) and let me know before the RFD, you will get .1 extra speaks. This doesn't apply if you are in college. I expect you to opensource if you are a college team.

If you give the final rebuttal without the use of a laptop, you will get .1 extra speaks.

Brendan Warshauer New Trier High School 2 rounds

T Weddington Head-Royce High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 27, 2024 at 9:30 AM EDT

Affiliations:

University of Rochester (Debater): 2008-2012
CUNY Debate (Coach): 2012-2015
WVU Debate (Coach): 2012-2018
University of Rochester (Assistant Director): 2019-2021
Head-Royce (Coach-Director-Coach): 2017-2024
Kenwood (Coach) 2024-

top level predispositions (Update pre-season fall 2024):

I'd truly prefer that you don't debate if you're sick. If you must debate, I travel to every tournament with headphones and a laptop sufficient to allow you to debate from a hotel room or space separate from other judges and debaters. If you are symptomatic (nausea, persistent cough, runny nose, etc.) I will stop the debate and politely ask your coach to see if we can set up a remote debate setup for the round.

I won't be reading along with you, and won't spot either team args from pieces of evidence that weren't made in speeches. I'll resolve comparative evidentiary claims, if necessary, after the round.

If I think something racist, sexist, etc. has happened in the round, I'm not going to tabroom lol. If it's especially flagrant I'll vote and talk to coaches, but I can't say how I'll react in every instance. I think that the go to tabroom argument is a non starter and naive about how social dynamics play out in the debate community. I'm also an adult and an educator, so given such behavior has occurred I'm not sure why I would leave students in that situation.

Ethics challenges:

a. I'm not reading along, so I'm not listening for clipping especially close. You should probably record if you think that there's any clipping occurring.
b. Miscut/mischaracterization of evidence: I take this very seriously and will compare the card with the original text to see if any decontextualization / recontextualization / academic dishonesty has occurred. I do not evaluate intent but I do evaluate impact and fidelity to the article or book's original argument.

Plan texts nowadays aren't really descriptive of what the aff will defend and I think negative teams don't take advantage of that enough. I don't like affs that speculative questions about what would or wouldn't be mandated by the plan as if advanced policy debaters should stick their heads in the soil around what normal means to implement a legislative change would entail. I think that affs around a fiated plan should decide what they do and don't defend and plan subsequent strategy accordingly. I will expect aff teams not to dodge simple questions about whether they use courts/congress, about what grounds for claims of IP infringement they establish, etc. I will also tend to read the debate through answers to such questions in CX. Being forthcoming and orienting your strategy around what the aff does is a much better basis for a win in front of me than trying to hide your hand.

I don't like generic neg strategies, if you're going to do this don't pref me please - - this means nonspecific process counterplans, disads, CPs with only internal net benefits, etc.

No, CX can't be used for prep lol.

I'm not going to judge kick. You make a decision about the world you'll defend in the 2nr and I'll follow accordingly.

For many of you reading this, speaker point inflation is the probably norm. I think the standard for what makes a good speech is a. too low and b. disconnected from strategy. My average speaker point range is 28.3-28.7, average meaning you're not doing any work between flows, not making the debate smaller for the sake of comparative analysis, not reading especially responsive strategies, not punishing generic strategies with pointed responses. On the other hand, I reward teams that have ostensibly done the reading and research to give me concrete analysis.

Given the above (and oodles of macrohistorical reasons), we probably are already in the world that the PRL warned us about. I'm more persuaded by empirical analysis of models of debate than the abstract nowadays.

Longer meditations below:

I've found that the integrity in which some high school debaters are interacting with evidence is declining. Two things:

1. Critical affirmatives that misrepresent critical theory literature or misrepresent their affirmative in the 1ac. I'm very inclined to vote against a team that does this on either side of the debate, with the latter only being limited to the affirmative side. Especially in terms of the affirmative side, I believe that a floor level minimum prep for critical affs should be that the affirmative clearly has a statement of what they will defend in the 1ac and also that they stick to that stasis point throughout the debate. If a critical aff shifts drastically between speeches I will be *very* inclined toward to any procedural/case neg arguments.

2. Policy affs that have weak internal links. I understand that a nuclear war scenario is the most far fetched portion of any advantage, but I've been seeing a lot of international relations scenarios that don't really take into account the politics of really any other countries. If your international conflict, spillover, modeling, etc. scenario doesn't have a semblance of the inner workings of another party to the conflict, I'll be *very* inclined to solvency presses and presumption arguments by the negative in that scenario.

I don't want to be on the email chain. If I want to, I'll ask. You should debate as if I'm not reading a speech doc.

I almost exclusively view debate as an educational / democratic training activity. I think rules are important to that end, however. This is to say that I ground much of what I think is important in debate in terms of how skills critical thinking in debate rounds adds into a larger goal of pursuing knowledge and external decisionmaking.

i've been in debate since 2008. at this point i'm simultaneously more invested and less invested in the activity. i'm more invested in what students get out of debate, and how I can be more useful in my post-round criticism. I'm less invested in personalities/teams/rep/ideological battles in debate. it's entirely possible that I have never heard of you before, and that's fine.

you should run what will win you the round. you should run what makes you happy.

Impact scenarios are where I vote - Even if you win uniqueness/link questions, if I don't know who's going to initiate a war, how an instance of oppression would occur, etc. by the end of the round, I'll probably go looking elsewhere to decide the round. The same thing goes for the aff - if I can't say what the aff solves and why that's important, I am easily persuaded by marginal negative offense.

Prep time ends when you email the file to the other team. It's 2024, you've likely got years of experience using a computer for academic/personal work, my expectations of your email prowess are very high.

Competing methods debates don't mean no permutation, for me at least. probably means that we should rethink how permutations function. people/activists/organizers combine methods all the time.

I've found myself especially unwilling to vote on theory that's on face not true - for example: if you say floating PICs bad, and the alternative isn't articulated as a floating PIC in the debate, I won't vote on it. I don't care if it's conceded.

I think fairness is an independent impact, but also that non-topical affs can be fair. A concession doesn't mean an argument is made. your only job is to make arguments, i don't care if the other team has conceded anything, you still have to make the argument in the last speech.

Affs I don't like:

I've found myself increasingly frustrated with non-topical affs that run philosophically/critically negative stances on the aff side. The same is true for non-topical affs that just say that propose a framework for analysis without praxis. I'm super open to presumption/switch-side arguments against these kinds of affs.

Affs that simply restate a portion of the resolution as their plan text.

I'm frustrated by non-topical affs that do not have any sort of advocacy statement/plan text. If you're going to read a bunch of evidence and I have to wait until CX or the 2AC to know what I'm voting for, I'll have a lower threshold to vote on fw/t/the other team.

Finally, I have limited belief in the transformative power of speech/performance. Especially beyond the round. I tend to think that power/violence is materially structured and that the best advocacies can tell me how to change the status quo in those terms.

Negs I don't like:

Framework 2nr's that act as if the affirmative isn't dynamic and did not develop between the 2ac and the 1ar. Most affs that you're inclined to run framework against will prove "abuse" for you in the course of the debate.

Stale politics disadvantages. Change your shells between tournaments if necessary, please.

Theoretically inconsistent/conflicting K strats.

I don't believe in judge kicking. Your job is to make the strategic decisions as the debate continues, not mine.

if you have questions about me or my judge philosophy, ask them before the round!

he/him/his

David Weston New Trier High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 3:19 AM CDT

email: westond@nths.net

I'm currently a head coach at New Trier Township High School outside of Chicago, IL. I've been at New Trier since 2012. Prior to that I was the director of debate at Cathedral Preparatory School in Erie, PA. I debated at the University of Pittsburgh ('07) and at Cathedral Prep ('03).

Here are some defaults into the way I evaluate arguments. Obviously these are contingent upon the way that arguments are deployed in the round. If you win that one of these notions should not be the standard for the debate, I will evaluate it in terms of your argumentation.

*I evaluate the round based on the flow. Technical line by line debating should be prioritized. That's not to say I'm always a "tech over truth" judge. I'm willing to listen to reasonable extrapolations, smart debating, and bringing in some context. However, I don't think I can interpret exactly how an argument in one place should be applied to another portion of the flow/debate unless the debater does that for me. To me, that injects my understanding of how I would spin one argument to answer another and I don't want to do that.

*Offense/Defense - I'm not sure if I'm getting older or if the quality of evidence is getting worse, but I find myself less persuaded by the idea that there's "always a risk" of any argument. Just because a debater says something does not mean it is true. It is up to the other team to disprove it. However, if an argument is claimed to be supported by evidence and the cards do not say what the tags claim or the evidence is terrible, I'm willing to vote on no risk to that argument. Evidence needs to have warrants that support tags/claims.

*I prefer tags that are complete sentences. The proliferation of one word tags mixed with massive card text (often without underlining) reduces the academic integrity of the activity.

*Evidence should be highlighted to include warrants for claims. I am more likely to vote on a few cards that have high quality warrants and explained well than I am to vote on several cards that have been highlighted down to the point that an argument cannot be discerned in the evidence.

* Teams are getting away with some real scholarly shenanigans on evidence. I've seen cards that run 6-7 pages long and they are highlighted down to a few sentences. I think it is up to the debaters to exploit this, but I'm less and less impressed by the overall scholarship in the activity.

*Arguments require claims and warrants. A claim without a warrant is unlikely to be persuasive.

* A note on plan texts: I wish teams would start defending things. I find that more plans are extraordinarily vague and meaningless. They are "resolutional phrase by X." There's no plan text basis for the fiat claims AFF teams are making later on in the round. All of the sudden, there's some wild extrapolation on how the plan is implemented, what a Court decision would look like, that it is done through some random memo, etc. all in an effort to avoid offense. I've just grown a little tired of it. I'm not saying change your plan because of me, you need to do what you need to do to win the round, but the overall acceptance of plans that do not say anything of substance is trend a frown upon.

*Performance/Non-traditional Affirmative -

I can still be persuaded to vote for an AFF that doesn't defend the topic, but it's become much harder for me. I find myself being increasingly on the side of defending the resolution.

My old paradigm read as follows: I would prefer that the debate is connected to the resolution. My ultimate preference would be for the Affirmative to defend a topical plan action that attempts to resolve a problem with the status quo. I think that this provides an opportunity for students to create harms that are tied to traditional internal link chains or critical argumentation. Teams should feel free to read critical advantages, but I would prefer that they access them through a topical plan action. For example, reading an Affirmative that finds a specific example of where structural violence (based on racism, sexism, heteronormativity, classism, etc.) is being perpetuated and seeks to remedy that can easily win my ballot. Debaters could then argue that the way we make decisions about what should or should not be done needs to prioritize their impacts over the negative's. This can facilitate kritiks of DA impacts, decision calculus arguments, obligations to reject certain forms of violence, etc.

Teams who choose not to defend a topical plan action should be very clear in explaining what their advocacy is. The negative should be able to isolate a stasis point in the 1AC so that clash can occur in the debate. This advocacy should be germane to the resolution.

I am not wedded traditional forms of evidence. I feel that teams can use non-traditional forms of evidence as warrants explaining why a particular action should be taken. An Affirmative that prefers to use personal narratives, music, etc. to explain a harm occurring in the status quo and then uses that evidence to justify a remedy would be more than welcome. I tend to have a problem with Affirmative's that stop short of answering the question, "what should we do?" How a team plans to access that is entirely up to them.

*Kritik debates - I like kritik debates provided they are relevant to the Affirmative. Kritiks that are divorced from the 1AC have a harder time winning my ballot. While I do not want to box in the negative's kritik options, examples of kritiks that I would feel no qualms voting for might include criticisms of international relations, economics, state action, harms representations, or power relations. I am less persuaded by criticisms that operate on the margins of the Affirmative's advocacy. I would prefer links based off of the Affirmative plan. Kritiks that I find myself voting against most often include Deleuze, Baudrillard, Bataille, etc.

*Theory - Generally theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. The exception is conditionality. I find myself less persuaded by conditionality bad debates if there are 2 or less advocacies in the round. That is not to say I haven't voted for the AFF in those debates. I am willing to vote on theory if it is well explained and impacted, but that does not happen often, so I end up defaulting negative. Avoid blips and theory blocks read at an incomprehensible rate.

*CP's CP's that result in the plan (consult, recommendations, etc.) bore me. I would much rather hear an agent CP, PIC, Advantage CP, etc. than a CP that competes off of "certainty" or "immediacy."

*Case - I'd like to see more of it. This goes for negative teams debating against nontraditional Affirmatives as well. You should engage the case as much as possible.

Other things
*If your strategy is extinction good or death good, genocide good, racism good, patriarchy good, etc. please do all of us as favor and strike me. These arguments strike me as being inappropriate for academic environments. Imagine a world where a debater's relative recently passed away and that student is confronted with "death good" for 8 minutes of the 1AC. Imagine a family who fled slaughter in another part of the world and came to the United States, only to listen to genocide good. These are things I wouldn't allow in my classroom and I would not permit them in a debate round either. Since I can't actually prevent people from reading them, my only recourse is to use my ballot.

Scott Wheeler Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:03 AM PDT

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Whit Whitmore Pace Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:39 AM EDT

add me to the email chain: whit211@gmail.com

Do not utter the phrase "plan text in a vacuum" or any other clever euphemism for it. It's not an argument, I won't vote on it, and you'll lose speaker points for advancing it. You should defend your plan, and I should be able to tell what the plan does by reading it.

Inserting things into the debate isn't a thing. If you want me to evaluate evidence, you should read it in the debate.

Cross-ex time is cross-ex time, not prep time. Ask questions or use your prep time, unless the tournament has an official "alt use" time rule.

You should debate line by line. That means case arguments should be responded to in the 1NC order and off case arguments should be responded to in the 2AC order. I continue to grow frustrated with teams that do not flow. If I suspect you are not flowing (I visibly see you not doing it; you answer arguments that were not made in the previous speech but were in the speech doc; you answer arguments in speech doc order instead of speech order), you will receive no higher than a 28. This includes teams that like to "group" the 2ac into sections and just read blocks in the 2NC/1NR. Also, read cards. I don't want to hear a block with no cards. This is a research activity.

Debate the round in a manner that you would like and defend it. I consistently vote for arguments that I don’t agree with and positions that I don’t necessarily think are good for debate. I have some pretty deeply held beliefs about debate, but I’m not so conceited that I think I have it all figured out. I still try to be as objective as possible in deciding rounds. All that being said, the following can be used to determine what I will most likely be persuaded by in close calls:

If I had my druthers, every 2nr would be a counterplan/disad or disad/case.

In the battle between truth and tech, I think I fall slightly on side of truth. That doesn’t mean that you can go around dropping arguments and then point out some fatal flaw in their logic in the 2AR. It does mean that some arguments are so poor as to necessitate only one response, and, as long as we are on the same page about what that argument is, it is ok if the explanation of that argument is shallow for most of the debate. True arguments aren’t always supported by evidence, but it certainly helps.

I think research is the most important aspect of debate. I make an effort to reward teams that work hard and do quality research on the topic, and arguments about preserving and improving topic specific education carry a lot of weight with me. However, it is not enough to read a wreck of good cards and tell me to read them. Teams that have actually worked hard tend to not only read quality evidence, but also execute and explain the arguments in the evidence well. I think there is an under-highlighting epidemic in debates, but I am willing to give debaters who know their evidence well enough to reference unhighlighted portions in the debate some leeway when comparing evidence after the round.

I think the affirmative should have a plan. I think the plan should be topical. I think topicality is a voting issue. I think teams that make a choice to not be topical are actively attempting to exclude the negative team from the debate (not the other way around). If you are not going to read a plan or be topical, you are more likely to persuade me that what you are doing is ‘ok’ if you at least attempt to relate to or talk about the topic. Being a close parallel (advocating something that would result in something similar to the resolution) is much better than being tangentially related or directly opposed to the resolution. I don’t think negative teams go for framework enough. Fairness is an impact, not a internal link. Procedural fairness is a thing and the only real impact to framework. If you go for "policy debate is key to skills and education," you are likely to lose. Winning that procedural fairness outweighs is not a given. You still need to defend against the other team's skills, education and exclusion arguments.

I don’t think making a permutation is ever a reason to reject the affirmative. I don’t believe the affirmative should be allowed to sever any part of the plan, but I believe the affirmative is only responsible for the mandates of the plan. Other extraneous questions, like immediacy and certainty, can be assumed only in the absence of a counterplan that manipulates the answers to those questions. I think there are limited instances when intrinsicness perms can be justified. This usually happens when the perm is technically intrinsic, but is in the same spirit as an action the CP takes This obviously has implications for whether or not I feel some counterplans are ultimately competitive.

Because I think topic literature should drive debates (see above), I feel that both plans and counterplans should have solvency advocates. There is some gray area about what constitutes a solvency advocate, but I don’t think it is an arbitrary issue. Two cards about some obscure aspect of the plan that might not be the most desirable does not a pic make. Also, it doesn’t sit well with me when negative teams manipulate the unlimited power of negative fiat to get around literature based arguments against their counterplan (i.e. – there is a healthy debate about federal uniformity vs state innovation that you should engage if you are reading the states cp). Because I see this action as comparable to an affirmative intrinsicness answer, I am more likely to give the affirmative leeway on those arguments if the negative has a counterplan that fiats out of the best responses.

My personal belief is probably slightly affirmative on many theory questions, but I don’t think I have voted affirmative on a (non-dropped) theory argument in years. Most affirmatives are awful at debating theory. Conditionality is conditionality is conditionality. If you have won that conditionality is good, there is no need make some arbitrary interpretation that what you did in the 1NC is the upper limit of what should be allowed. On a related note, I think affirmatives that make interpretations like ‘one conditional cp is ok’ have not staked out a very strategic position in the debate and have instead ceded their best offense. Appeals to reciprocity make a lot sense to me. ‘Argument, not team’ makes sense for most theory arguments that are unrelated to the disposition of a counterplan or kritik, but I can be persuaded that time investment required for an affirmative team to win theory necessitates that it be a voting issue.

Critical teams that make arguments that are grounded in and specific to the topic are more successful in front of me than those that do not. It is even better if your arguments are highly specific to the affirmative in question. I enjoy it when you paint a picture for me with stories about why the plans harms wouldn’t actually happen or why the plan wouldn’t solve. I like to see critical teams make link arguments based on claims or evidence read by the affirmative. These link arguments don’t always have to be made with evidence, but it is beneficial if you can tie the specific analytical link to an evidence based claim. I think alternative solvency is usually the weakest aspect of the kritik. Affirmatives would be well served to spend cross-x and speech time addressing this issue. ‘Our authors have degrees/work at a think tank’ is not a response to an epistemological indict of your affirmative. Intelligent, well-articulated analytic arguments are often the most persuasive answers to a kritik. 'Fiat' isn't a link. If your only links are 'you read a plan' or 'you use the state,' or if your block consistently has zero cards (or so few that find yourself regularly sending out the 2nc in the body rather than speech doc) then you shouldn't be preffing me.

LD Specific Business:

I am primarily a policy coach with very little LD experience. Have a little patience with me when it comes to LD specific jargon or arguments. It would behoove you to do a little more explanation than you would give to a seasoned adjudicator in the back of the room. I will most likely judge LD rounds in the same way I judge policy rounds. Hopefully my policy philosophy below will give you some insight into how I view debate. I have little tolerance and a high threshold for voting on unwarranted theory arguments. I'm not likely to care that they dropped your 'g' subpoint, if it wasn't very good. RVI's aren't a thing, and I won't vote on them.

DJ Williams Berkeley Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 7, 2024 at 7:04 AM EDT

Last Updated: November 6, 2024

Assistant Policy Debate Coach @ Berkeley Prep & Northwestern University.Debated at Little Rock Central High School (TOC Finalist '16) and Wake Forest University (NDT 1st round '19).

Put me on the email chain:williamsd.j.jr@gmail.com

General/TLDR:

Tech over truth. Only caveat, I won't vote on a unwarranted claim without an impact. For example, if a team drops "X is a microaggression," but you fail to explain why, I will not check out for you.

Please be CLEAR. If I can't understand you, then I WON'T flow it. Speed great, just want clarity (Slow down + enunciate on tags). If your strategy is to outspread the other team then name and number offense and don't forget my caveat to tech over truth

No argument preference. I primarily read Ks/K affs; however, I started my career only reading plans, T, DAs, and CPs. Lately, I have found myself in many policy v. policy debates, and I am fan.

I will not evaluate personal attacks against debater's, UNLESS I am a first hand witness to it in a debate round.

"One of the things that makes debate truly unique is the research that is required, and so I think it makes sense to reward teams who are clearly going above and beyond in the research they’re producing. Good cards won’t auto win you the debate, but they certainly help “break ties” on the flow and give off the perception that a team is deep in the literature on their argument.But good evidence is always secondary to what a debater does with it." -- Sam Gustavson

Framework:

1. Debate is a game. My sole concern when I competed and now coach as a coach is winning. However, I don't think this means competition is inherently adversarial or that there isn't value to debate outside of competitive incentives.

2. Fairness is an impact. Games require rules, but what those rules should be is up for debate. I don't start from the presupposition that anything is inherently fair/unfair. The onus is on you to explain why your interpretation of how the game should be played is preferrable.

3. Clash is an underutilized impact. I believe in-depth research/argumentation is something both policy and K teams fundamentally agree is good. I am sympathetic towards arguments that clash turns the affirmative's impacts and/or is necessary to develop certain skills (e.g. advocacy/activism, critical thinking, etc.). Additionally, I think the best models of debate, whether plan focused or not, should ensure some level of predictable ground for both sides. I am less convinced that clash solves dogmatism because I don't believe debaters 1) necessarily believe the arguments they read or 2) determine the validity of their arguments after engaging in SSD/researching both sides.

4. I don't think FW is inherently violent, but it is complicit in legacy and pathos of exclusion. That being said, I dislike the argument that purely reading FW is a microaggression unless there is a specific link to the way it has been deployed in that round. FW/T is exclusionary by nature, so is any counter-interp that imposes a limit on what arguments should/shouldn't be read. The team that best justifies their exclusion or inclusion will earn my ballot.

5. I prefer K-affs be in the direction of the topic. A-topical affs are fine, but I am probably more neg leaning if FW is well developed or the debate is close.

6. These are my personal feelings not a metric for how I evaluate these arguments in debate:

- Fairness paradox misses the forest for the trees. There is no universal notion of fairness everyone agrees to in debate rounds. This is why judges have paradigms outlining their dispositions/preferences and why debater's get a pref sheet to strike judges who are predisposed to their arguments. Debate is a subjective activity and judges aren't provided a formula for making decision

- Alt causes to subjectivities + Double down are silly. Yes, family, friends, school, etc. shape who you are, but 1) those things are involuntary, 2) doesn't disprove the claim that debate also influences subject formation and 3) you're admitting to being easily influenced by people and institutions.

Topicality:

1. I default to competing interpretations. The negative must 1) offer an interp, 2) win the aff clearly violates that interp, and 3) prove the superiority their interp to the affirmative. I can be persuaded to use a reasonability standard, but competing interps is decisively less arbitrary.

2. Plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but how effective it is for determining whether an aff is topical depends on the resolutional wording.

Counterplans:

1. I'll judge kick the CP unless the aff tells me not to.

2. Multi-plank CPs are fine, but if the planks are conditional then the aff gets to permute as many random plank combos as they desire.

3. Process CPs are fine as long as there is a clear internal net benefit. Competition debates are cool, but it'll probably go over my head at times/require more in-depth explanation.

4. Condo is good. I am easily persuaded on conditionality being good (at least 1 CP/ 1 K is fine), but I am willing to vote on conditionality bad, especially when the neg has multiple contradicting positions.

5. Don't make a sufficiency framing argument without doing the work to explain why the CP does not need to solve the entire aff or why I should prefer it as long as it solves most/certain parts of the aff. You have to instruct me on what is "sufficient" and how that influences the way I should evaluate impacts.

Kritiks:

1. Links don't have to be to the plan, but the more specific the better.

2. K v. K - No preferences

Disadvantages:

1. Good impact calc is usually what tips the scales for me if the rest of the debate is fairly even.

2. Evidence quality matters. I will not evaluate links/link turns not grounded in evidence.

Zach Willingham Washburn Rural High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 18, 2024 at 7:30 PM EDT

Live Laugh Love Debate

zwillingham04@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '22

University of Kansas '26

Assistant for Washburn Rural

General Thoughts

I’m studying math and environmental engineering. I don’t know much about intellectual property.

Debate is a technical game of strategy. If you debate more technically and more strategically, you will likely win. Read whatever and however you like. Any style or argument can win if executed well enough or if answered poorly enough. I don’t believe judges should have any predetermined biases for any argument. Dropped arguments are true.

I am operating under the assumption that you have put in considerable effort to be here and you want to win. I will try to put reciprocal effort into making an objective decision unless you have done something to indicate those assumptions are incorrect.

Nothing you say or do will offend me, but lack of respect for your opponents will not be tolerated.

My background is very policy-oriented. I strategically chose to talk about cyber-security instead of criminal justice and water resources. The best argument is always the one that wins. Do what you are best at.

My favorite part about debate is the way different arguments interact with each other across different pages. The way to beat faster and more technical teams is to make smart cross-applications and concessions.

Except for the 2AR, what is "new" is up for debate. Point out your opponent's new arguments and explain why they are not justified.

Evidence is very important. I only read cards after the debate if the issue has been contested. A dropped card is still dropped even if it is trash. Quality > Quantity. I do not see any strategic utility in reading multiple the cards that say the same thing. Card dumping is effective when each card has unique warrants.

Cross-ex is very important. Use it to set up your strategy, not to clarify what cards were skipped. I appreciate it when the final rebuttals quote lines from cross-ex/earlier speeches. Cross ex about things that will be relevant to the 2NR and 2AR.

I do not want to hear a prepped out ethics violation. Tell the team before the round.

I do not want to hear an argument about something that happened outside of the round.

Rehighlightings can be inserted as long as you explain what the rehighlighting says. I see it as more specific evidence comparison.

Argument Specific

Topicality:

Your interpretation is the tag of your definition. If there is any discrepancy between the tag and the body of the card, that is a precision indict but not a reason the aff meets.

Counterplans:

I enjoy quality competition debates. I like tricky perms. Put the text in the doc.

"Links less" makes sense to me for certain disads, but makes it harder for the net benefit to outweigh the deficit. Perm do both is probabilistic. Perm do the counterplan is binary.

If a perm has not been extended, solvency automatically becomes a net benefit.

Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I will not reject the team even on a dropped theory argument unless there is a coherent warrant for why it would not be enough to only reject the argument.

I will only judge kick (without being told) if it has been established that conditionality is good.

Advantages/Disadvantages:

Most scenarios are very construed. Logical analytical arguments can substantially mitigate them. I do not like it when the case debate in the 1NC is only impact defense.

Punish teams for reading new impacts in the 2AC and block.

Extinction means the end of the species. Most impacts do not rise to this threshold. Point it out.

"Try or die" or similar impact framing is very persuasive when executed properly. If the negative doesn't extend a counterplan or impact defense, they are likely to lose.

Zero risk is possible if your opponent has entirely dropped an argument and the implication of that argument is that the scenario is 0. However, I can be convinced that many arguments, even when dropped, do not rise to that level.

Kritiks v Policy Affs:

I will determine which framework interpretation is better and use that to evaluate the round. I will not adopt a middle ground combination of both interpretations unless someone has convinced me that is the best option (which it usually is).

Make it very explicit what the win condition is for you if you win framework. Only saying "The 1AC is an object of research" does not tell me how I determine the winner.

If the K is just one of many off case positions and the block reads a bunch of new cards, the 1AR probably gets to say any new thing they want.

Perm double bind makes a lot of sense to me. The negative needs a reason why the plan and alt are mutually exclusive, a reason why the inclusion of the plan makes the alt insolvent, or framework offense the perm can’t resolve (this is your best bet).

Planless Affs:

All affirmatives should endorse a departure from the status quo.

I do not like it when the 1AC says X is bad, the 1NC says X is good, and the 2AC says no link.

Things to boost speaks, but won't affect wins and losses

Give final rebuttals off paper.

Number/subpoint arguments.

Impact turn whenever you can. Straight turn every disad if you're brave. I love chaos, but the final rebuttals better be resolving things.

Good wiki and disclosure practices.

Don't read arguments that can be recycled every year.

Stand up for cross-ex right when the timer ends. Send docs quickly. Preferably in the last few seconds of their speech.

Make jokes. Have fun. Respect your opponents. Good-natured insults can be funny but read the room.

Pretty speech docs. I will subconsciously judge you need for bad formatting.

Debate with integrity. Boo cheapshots. It is better to lose with honor, than win by fraud.

I’ve never had the privilege of sitting through an entire LD round so if there is specific vocabulary I am not in the loop. Assume I have minimal topic knowledge.

Tell me why you access their offense, why it is the most important thing, and why they don’t access their offense. Be strategic.

Answer your opponent’s arguments explicitly. I want to hear “They say x, but y because z”.

Coralynn Yang Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 1:37 AM PDT

Peninsula '23 | Emory '27

coralynnchiang@gmail.com

I have a profound appreciation for the dedication that goes into preparing for policy debate tournaments, and I judge debates accordingly. I try to default strictly to the technical debating and evidence presented in the round. With that said, all judges have predispositions that can influence decisions and speaker points. These are mine:

1. Explanation matters. My understanding of an argument as communicated is the basis for its consideration. I try to be as debater-friendly as I can in this exception. Given the complexities and arcane knowledge involved in arguments surrounding IPR, I will work hard with the explanation and evidence provided to overcome my own knowledge gaps. That being said, err on the side of over-explanation.

2. Impact calculus & defense are critical. If only one side has an existential impact or accesses try-or-die, I am extremely likely to vote for them. When the relative probability and magnitude of two impacts is close to equal, timeframe matters most. 'Timeframe first' in the face of try-or-die is unpersuasive absent substantial inroads into turning or solving their impact.

3. Reasonability applies to the vast majority of theory and topicality arguments. Going for topicality absent high quality evidence or arbitrary theory arguments absent substantial debatability offense is a risk. If you can win the debate on substance, you should do so.

4. Process counterplans are theoretically illegitimate and not competitive. That being said, it should be noted that many do not solve the aff and it is easy for a small deficit to outweigh a contrived net benefit.

5. Critiques should disagree with a prescriptive, central aff premise. In other words, the link is everything. It should not be possible to simultaneously agree with the critique and the 1ac. Whether this threshold is met is primarily determined by debating, but it is easier to convince me that the 1ac said 'privatizing knowledge is good' than 'the state is good'.

6. Untopical critical affs should lose to topicality. I am a worse judge for teams that do not advocate for a programmatic vision of this activity than those that do. That being said, policy teams that go exclusively for impact defense (no subjectivity shift, tabroom solves) instead of link defense should lose.

Kelly Ye College Prep 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 2:54 AM PDT

https://pref-buddy.vercel.app/public :)

Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers

Please add both kelly@college-prep.org and cpsspeechdocs@gmail.com to the chain.

Something along these lines for the subject line would be great: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code. Please make sure the chain is set up before the start time.

Background

I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum. My comfort for judging rounds is Policy vs. Policy ~ Policy vs. K ~ Clash Rounds >>> K vs. K.

I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur, and I talk about debate the most with Tristan Bato and Ian Beier.

Most Important Things!

Tech >>>> truth and I'll vote on anything as long as it is debated well. I do not hold any firm thoughts about any argument, I will vote for anything as long as there is a claim, warrant, and impact.

I think debate is a communicative research game that can impact student subjectivity. I have found that rounds that are the most frustrating to judge and have to rely on intervention are those in which debaters fail to write a ballot and impact arguments out in the 2NR/2AR. If your strategy is to proliferate as many arguments as possible in the 2NR/2AR without framing how I resolve core controversies of the debate, you'll find yourself unhappy with my decision because my biases may come into play. My biases for certain arguments can, and certainly has, been beaten by good debating. The answer to the question of "how did you evaluate [x argument]" should be "the way that you had instructed me to do so in the final rebuttal". If I don't have an answer you like, you likely did not impact it out or do enough judge instruction for me, and I am unwilling to piece together for you what you wanted the implication of the argument to be.

I am unwilling to use my ballot to take a stance on anything that happened outside of the round (I guess the only exception would be disclosure). Things like call outs that require me to "punish" a team for behavior that I did not witness are a non-starter -- happy to allow you to end the round and take it to tab if you feel like your safety is at risk.

Microaggressions:I fear I have lost the plot with teams proliferating accusations of microaggressions. I interpret microaggressions as a form of interpersonal violence that occurred between debaters within the round, and it should be distinct from questions of whether forms of scholarship or procedural norms can cause psychic violence writ large. I have felt very uncomfortable having to evaluate a few debates now in which both teams have accused each other of committing microaggressions, and will continue to feel uncomfortable having my ballot serve as a referendum on accusations of interpersonal violence within the round. If you strongly believe a microaggression has occurred that requires me to stop the round, I am willing to do so and help mediate accordingly with adults from your school who are responsible for your well-being.

2024-2025 Round Stats:

Policy vs. Policy (14-19): 42% aff over 33 rounds, 40% aff in a theory/T debate over 5 rounds

Policy vs. K (2-7): 22% aff over 9 rounds

Clash (1-2): 66% neg over 3 rounds

K vs. K (3-0): 100% aff over 3 rounds

Sat once out of 13 elim rounds

2023-2024 Round Stats:

Policy vs. Policy (11-20): 35.93% aff over 31 rounds, 22.22% aff in a theory debate over 9 rounds

Policy vs. K (5-2): 71.43% aff over 7 rounds

Clash (2-3): 40% aff over 5 rounds

K v K (1-0): 100% aff over 1 round

Sat once out of 13 elim rounds

Disads

Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. I start evaluation at the impact level to determine link threshold & risk of the disad. My preference for evaluation is if there is explicit ballot writing + evidence indicts + resolution done by yourself in the 2NR/2AR, I would love not to open the card document and make a more interventionist judgement.

CPs

Default to judge kick. If the affirmative team has a problem with me doing this, that words "condo bad" should have been in the 2AC and explanation for no judge kick warranted out in the 1AR/2AR.

The proliferation of 1NCs with like 10 process counterplans has been kind of wild, and probably explains my disproportionately neg leaning ballot record. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."

I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.

Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.

Very bad for post-modernism, simply because I've never read them + rarely debated them in high school. If you have me in the back you need to do a LOT of explanation.

Better for impacts like clash rather than fairness on framework. Generally, I think the internal link to clash > the internal link to fairness because I'm not sure Ks of reps skew the 1AC so much that are at a significant disadvantage. I am more persuaded by the argument that mooting most of the offense in the 1AC decks clash, which is usually a good internal link turn to the neg's offense.

Planless Affs/Framework

For the aff: Tying your criticism to the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of advocacies not tied to the topic.

For the neg: Procedural fairness is harder to win for me as compared to other standards - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate affecting subjectivity. The way that most debaters extend it just sound whiney and don't give me a reason to prefer it over everything else. Impacts like agonism, legal skills, deliberation, etc are infinitely more convincing to me. Absent a procedural question of framework, I am just evaluating whether or not I think the advocacy is a good idea, not that I think the reading of it in one round has to change the state of debate/the world.

Topicality / Theory

Impact framing & explicit judge instruction is the most important thing in these debates!

Ethics Violations/Procedurals

I don't flow off speech docs, but I try to follow along when you're reading evidence to ensure you're not clipping. If I catch you clipping, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what you're doing. I will give you a warning, but drop you if it happens again. If the other team catches you, they can stake the round on an ethics challenge.

Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations. If you believe the ballot should resolve a question of norms (disclosure, open sourcing, etc), then I will evaluate it like a regular procedural. If you believe it's an ethics violation (intentionally modifying evidence, clipping, etc), then the round stops immediately. Loser of the ethics challenge receives an auto loss and 20s.

Evidence ethics can be really iffy to resolve. If you want to stake the round on an evidence distortion, you must prove: that the piece of evidence was cut by the other team (or someone affiliated with their school) AND there was clear and malicious intent to alter its meaning. If your problem isn't surrounding distortion but rather mistagging/misinterpreting the evidence, it can be solved via a rehighlighting.

Online Debate

Please don't start until you see my camera on!

If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.

I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.

Lay Debate / GGSA
I actually really appreciate these rounds. I think at the higher levels, debaters tend to forget that debate is a communicative activity at its core, and rely on the judge's technical knowledge to get out of impacting out arguments themselves. If we are in a lay setting and you'd rather not have a fast round when I'm in the back, I'll be all for that. There is such a benefit in adapting to slower audiences and over-explaining implications of all parts of the debate -- it builds better technical understanding of the activity! I'll probably still evaluate the round similar to how I would a regular round, but I think the experience of you forcing yourself to over-explain each part of the flow to me is greatly beneficial.

Public Forum

I've never debated in PF, I will evaluate very similarly to how I evaluate policy rounds.

I despise the practice of sending snippets of evidence one at a time. I think it's a humongous waste of time and honestly would prefer (1) the email chain be started BEFORE the round and (2) all of the evidence you read in your speech sent at once. Someone was confused about this portion of my paradigm -- basically, instead of asking for "Can I get [A] card on [X] argument, [B] card on [Y] arg, etc...", I think it would be faster if the team that just spoke sent all of their evidence in one doc. This is especially true if the tournament is double-flighted.

If you want me to read evidence after the round, please make sure you flag is very clearly.

I've been in theory/k rounds and I try to evaluate very close to policy. I'm not really a huge fan of k's in public forum -- I don't think there is enough speech time for you to develop such complex arguments out well. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense given the public forum structure (i.e. going for an advocacy when it's not a resolution that is set up to handle advocacies). I think there's so much value in engaging with critical literature, please consider doing another event that is set up better for it if you're really interested in the material. However, I'm still willing to vote on anything, as long as you establish a role of the ballot + frame why I'm voting.

If you delay the round to pre-flow when it's double-flighted, I will be very upset. You should know your case well enough for it to not be necessary, or do it on your own time.

Be nice & have fun.

Messai Yigletu BASIS DC 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 4:45 PM EDT

Messai Yigletu: Head Debate Coach at BASIS DC

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments/Debate

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

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

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

Prefer to hear roadmaps at the beginning of every speech.

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Young Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Peter Zinober Berkeley Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 6:05 AM EDT

Yes email chain: zinobpet@outlook.com

Berkeley Preparatory School 23' – TOC Semifinalist (Berk SZ)

Williams College 27'

Currently Coaching: Berkeley Prep

I debated Policy for 4 years almost exclusively as a K debater, but I don't care about what you are arguing, more so that you are debating well and having fun.

TLDR --

- Tech > Truth unless you do something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc...

- Don't over-adapt to me, I have been around debate long enough to be familiar with many different types of argumentation; therefore, I will be able to navigate the debate despite whatever "style" you choose to debate with.

- I am a sucker for good judge instruction. I would rather recite specific lines from the 2AR/2NR in my RFD as a filter by which I make my decision than try to independently decipher the importance of an argument relative to what your opponent is saying. Basically, good judge instruction = high speaks and prob a W

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Clash debates (FW) –

I love Clash Rounds and, by far, what I have the most experience debating and judging in. Def my favorite rounds to judge. Just do you. I will gladly hear fairness, clash, or even some obscure FW arg to mess with K teams. But, being a K debater, I have heard my fair share of really amazing and really terrible FW speeches. That being said, either way, I will vote for FW just as fast as I will vote against it. It is up to your debating. I am extremely comfortable in these rounds and will most likely have some thoughts on how you could have better executed, or for those who I repeatedly judge, what to do better next time you have me in the back.

Ks + K affs -

This is what I have done throughout my debate career. I think Ks and K affs r dope as long as you know wtf u are talking about. I will reward you if you execute your K strategy well and you know what you are talking about. On the other hand, the myth surrounding K debaters having a higher threshold for Ks while judging definitely reigns true for me, but only when a team obviously has no idea what they are talking about. I would rather you go 12 off w/ only T shells than have you over-adapt and hear a poorly researched, unthought-through K strat. Also, figured I would mention this again, ESPECIALLY for you K debaters: judge instruction is what wins K rounds on both sides.

DAs and CPs

If this is your A-strat, I am not a judge you should pref in your 50% range, but if you happen to get me in the back in one of these rounds, there are a couple of things you can do to make it a W:

DAs – Good impact comparison and internal link debating are essential for me. I find that these debates get annoying to adjudicate when both teams lack in-depth comparison, and I find that judge instruction in your final rebuttals is the single best way to break the tie. Also, please don't assume I know the story of your DAs, especially on this topic; although I coach on this topic, I coach K teams. As long as you explain your arguments and do good debating, I will be just fine.

CPs – Least familiar with these kinds of debates and will try to stick as close to the flow as I can, even though there might be some gaps in my understanding of the more nitty-gritty args, especially competition debates. Some advice: first, if you are the neg, do not forget the internal link work at the level of solvency, i.e., how does the mech of the CP solve whatever 2NR impact? I find that these debates become annoying if there is no discussion or comparison of the aff and neg advocacies at the level of impact solvency. Second, I can't say this enough:judge instruction. Third, CP theory is as far out of my comfort zone as possible, so if the debate ends up being a theory debate, do not assume I know literally anything about what you are talking about and explain the implication behind different args, without superb explanation I can almost guarantee my barrier to understanding theory will bias by decision.

Theory -

Ngl, I dislike judging these types of debates. Of course, I know that sometimes condo just has to be the 2AR, and if that is the case, go for it but I find myself less sympathetic to most theory arguments. (ie. no perms in method debates, condo, perf con, etc...)

If you have any questions after the round, don't hesitate to email and ask (although I can't promise a timely response).

Zachary Zinober Berkeley Preparatory School 3 rounds

Jared Zuckerman Glenbrook South High School 2 rounds

Login to Tabroom

52nd Annual Tournament of Champions

2024 — Lexington, KY/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges