Denmark BR

debatebtbc@gmail.com

Main

Tech > Truth.

The above has no exceptions. I do not hold any disdain for 'evil' or 'bad' arguments: wipeout, plan-less affirmatives, fiat ks, hidden theory, adhoms, or "process" cps all hold equal argumentative weight to the topic DA.

Debaters should do whatever maximizes their chances at winning. I don't care if this involves a "cheap" or "stupid" argument.

Novices

Do a lot of impact calculus.

Don't just spam cards. Extend cards you've read first.

Topicality

Plan text in a vacuum is good.

Do ev comparison.

Counterplans

No predispositions about textual/functional competition.

Positional competition doesn't make much sense.

Most theory interpretations are arbitrary and are better expressed with competition.

Judge kick is good.

Disadvantages

I love turns case, and aff teams rarely answer it correctly.

Not really any predispositions, the more specific the better.

Kritiks

Better for framework focused strategies that moot the plan.

Middle ground interps don't make much sense, I wont arbitrarily insert one.

I don't care whether your links are specific quotes from 1AC evidence or generic links to fiat.

K - Affs

I'm good for critical teams that debate technically and bad for critical teams that don't.

I don't care whether or not you have a topic link.

Fairness is better than clash. It is an impact.

If you're neg in these debates, please just go for framework.

Misc

Conditionality good is more persuasive than conditionality bad.

Open cx is fine.

Inserting rehighlights is good.

Post-rounding is fine and encouraged if you truly believe I made an incorrect decision. I'll approach it as an educational opportunity for everyone in the room and will have a higher threshold than most regarding how emotional you can be.

Northview' 25

debatebtbc@gmail.com

You can read a policy aff. Or a K aff. Or some weird thing in between that no one has ever seen before. I don't mind and will not insert underlying predispositions on any of these.

Tech>truth to it's highest logical extent. Frustrating when judges don't know how to hold the line or look at the flow objectively---I'll try my best to not be that. I will vote on the fiat k or aspec with no hesitation ONLY IF the other team actually drops it.

Fairness>Clash

I don't understand counterplan competition. Probably never will.

If I look like I don't want to be there, it's not because of you, it's because I was talking to Jerry Chen pre-round.

I will not vote on things that occurred outside the round.

Good luck.

Jerry Chen

Northview CT

debatebtbc@gmail.com

Tech over truth. Take every thought and opinion in this paradigm with a grain of salt because any argument can win given the better debating. While evaluating debates, I will refrain from arbitrarily inserting my opinions and instead objectively evaluate the flow.

Novices

Read fewer cards. You read evidence in earlier speeches for a reason. Extend those first, then read more cards.

Flowing is incredibly important. Too many novices overlook it. Being able to track arguments and answer them in the order they're presented makes a huge difference.

Do comparative impact calculus.

Top Level

Debaters should make decisions that maximize their chances of winning. I don't care if this involves a "cheap" or "stupid" argument.

Topicality

Clearly go for predictability or debatability, not a combination or a middle ground.

Plan text in a vacuum is good.

Topicality is a neg burden. If there's reasonable doubt in the validity of a violation, I'll likely vote aff.

Counterplans

I'm comfortable adjudicating competition debates, and don't mind if a counterplan is "recycled" or "process junk".

Most theory interpretations are arbitrary and are better expressed with competition.

Judgekick is good.

Conditionality is good.

Disadvantages

I love turns case, and aff teams rarely answer it correctly.

Otherwise no predispositions or preferences.

Kritiks

Better for framework-based strategies that moot the plan. Going for the alternative coupled with links to the plan's material implications means you will lose to "perm: double bind" and "extinction outweighs".

Links should be contextual and cite 1AC evidence.

Kritikal Affirmatives

I'm good for critical teams that debate technically and bad for critical teams that don't.

Impact turns seem more strategic than counter-interpretations.

Fairness is better than clash. It is an impact.

Misc

Don't mind open cross-ex.

Inserting rehighlightings is good, as long as the part of the card you're inserting was already present in the debate.

Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz, UGA '27. HS - Chattahoochee. TOC 2x, NDT once before cutting sophomore year debating short. I now coach at Alpharetta for Policy

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.

Northview '25

debatebtbc@gmail.com

***time your own speeches*** I will forget.

Have the email chain setup by round start time.

Heavily prefer Word docs.

Top

Tech > Truth

I have no argumentative preferences. I will technically evaluate wipeout, fiat ks, process CPs, k affs, etc. I am equally good against these arguments.

Any argument goes but only if you implicate it (ie. 'serial policy failure' means nothing unless you explain why it matters) and I can explain the argument by the end of the round.

I flow on computer and I will attempt to transcribe your speeches. My decision will be based solely off the flow. If I don't catch an argument I will not evaluate it.

I default to offense-defense. Thus, presumption is truthfully hard to win in front of me; absent literally not extending case, any risk of offense probably outweighs.

For more meta-level stuff, I agree with Jerry Chen.

Misc.

I do not want a card doc.

I'll actively strike/search for new 2AR args; please complain about new args in other speeches.

Open cross is fine.

Fine for PTIV

If you go for a K, framework Ks that moot the plan are most strategic.

Fairness is an impact.

Condo is truthfully good, but often the correct 2AR.

Inserting rehighlightings is good, as long as the part of the card you're inserting was already present in the debate.

Coach at Alpharetta High School 2006-Present
Coach at Chattahoochee High School 1999-2005
Did not debate in High School or College.

E-mail: asmiley27@gmail.com

General thoughts- I expect debaters to recognize debate as a civil, enjoyable, and educational activity. Anything that debaters do to take away from this in the round could be penalized with lower speaker points. I tend to prefer debates that more accurately take into account the types of considerations that would play into real policymakers' decision making. On all arguments, I prefer more specifics and less generics in terms of argument choice and link arguments.

The resolution has an educational purpose. I prefer debates that take this into account and find ways to interact with the topic in a reasonable way. Everything in this philosophy represents my observations and preferences, but I can be convinced otherwise in the round and will judge the arguments made in the round. I will vote on most arguments, but I am going to be very unlikely to vote on arguments that I consider morally repugnant (spark, wipeout, malthus, cancer good, etc). You should avoid these arguments in front of me. Debate is an opportunity to make some of the best minds in the country more ethical. I believe these arguments only are inconsistent with that goal.

Reading cards after the round- I prefer to read as few cards post round as possible. I think that it is up to the debaters to give clear analysis of why to prefer one card over another and to bring up the key warrants in their speeches.

T- I generally enjoy good T debates. Be sure to really impact your standards on the T debate. Also, do not confuse most limiting with fair limits. Finally, be sure to explain which standards you think I as the judge should default to and impact your standards.

Theory-I am willing to pull the trigger on theory arguments as a reason to reject the argument. However, outside of conditionality, I rarely vote on theory as a reason to reject the team. If you are going for a theory arg as a reason to reject the team, make sure that you are impacting the argument with reasons that I should reject the team. Too many debaters argue to reject the team without any impact beyond the argument being unfair. Instead, you need to win that it either changed the round in an unacceptable way or allowing it changes all future rounds/research in some unacceptable way. I will also tend to look at theory as a question of competing interpretations. I feel that too many teams only argue why their interpretation is good and fail to argue why the other team’s interpretation is bad. Also, be sure to impact your arguments. I tend towards thinking that topic specific education is often the most important impact in a theory debate. I am unlikely to do that work for you. Given my preference for topic specific education, I do have some bias against generic counterplans such as states and international actor counterplans that I do not think would be considered as options by real policymakers. Finally, I do think that the use of multiple, contradictory neg advocacies has gotten out of hand in a way that makes the round less educational. I generally believe that the neg should be able to run 1 conditional CP and 1 conditional K. I will also treat the CP and the K as operating on different levels in terms of competition. Beyond that, I think that extra conditional and contradictory advocacies put too much of a burden on the aff and limit a more educational discussion on the merits of the arguments.

Disads- I generally tend towards evaluating uniqueness as the most important part of the disad debate. If there are a number of links and link turns read on a disad debate, I will generally default towards the team that is controlling uniqueness unless instructed by the debaters why I should look to the link level first. I also tend towards an offense defense paradigm when considering disads as net benefits to counterplans. I think that the politics disad is a very educational part of debate that has traditionally been my favorite argument to both coach and judge. I will have a very high threshold for voting on politics theory. Finally, teams should make sure that they give impact analysis that accounts for the strong possibility that the risk of the disad has been mitigated and tells me how to evaluate that mitigation in the context of the impacts in round.

Counterplans-I enjoy a good counterplan debate. However, I tend to give the aff a little more leeway against artificially competitive counterplans, such as consult counterplans. I also feel that a number of aff teams need to do more work on impacting their solvency deficits against counterplans. While I think that many popular counterplans (especially states) are uniquely bad for debate, I have not seen teams willing to invest the time into theory to help defeat these counterplans.

Identity arguments- I do not generally judge these rounds and was traditionally less open to them. However, the methods and messages of these rounds can provide important skills for questioning norms in society and helping all of us improve in how we interact with society and promote justice. For that reason, I am going to work hard to be far more open to these arguments and their educational benefits. There are two caveats to this that I want you to be aware of. First, I am not prima facie rejecting framework arguments. I will still be willing to vote on framework if I think the other side is winning that their model of debate is overall better. Second, I have not read the amount of literature on this topic that most of you have and I have not traditionally judged these rounds. This means that you should not assume that I know all of the terms of art used in this literature or the acronyms. Please understand that you will need to assist in my in-round education.

K- I have not traditionally been a big fan of kritiks. This does not mean that I will not vote for kritiks, and I have become much more receptive to them over the years. However, this does mean a couple of things for the debaters. First, I do not judge as many critical rounds as other judges. This means that I am less likely to be familiar with the literature, and the debaters need to do a little more work explaining the argument. Second, I may have a little higher threshold on certain arguments. I tend to think that teams do not do a good enough job of explaining how their alternatives solve their kritiks or answering the perms. Generally, I leave too many rounds feeling like neither team had a real discussion or understanding of how the alternative functions in the round or in the real world. I also tend towards a policy framework and allowing the aff to weigh their advantages against the K. However, I will look to the flow to determine these questions. Finally, I do feel that my post-round advice is less useful and educational in K rounds in comparison to other rounds.

Northview '25

Northview CT

debatebtbc@gmail.com

Main

Tech>Truth. Any argument imaginable is fair game.

The above has no exceptions. I do not hold any disdain for 'evil' or 'bad' arguments: wipeout, plan-less affirmatives, fiat ks, hidden theory, adhoms, or "process" cps all hold equal argumentative weight to the topic DA.

I'll make a decision based purely based on my flow - that, however, requires me to understand and be able to explain the arguments written on my flow. While I consider myself able to adjudicate debates of all kinds, I will be wrong sometimes. Feel free to post round.

Novices

Less cards, more explanation.

Flow.

Keep track of your own prep.

Signpost clearly.

Have fun!

Topicality

No preferences. Fine for debateability > predictability, although the inverse is more intuitive.

Equally fine for PTIV. It's probably the best model, since the alternative is positional competition.

Counterplans

Yes judgekick, unless told otherwise.

Fine for competition. Functional only > Functional + Textual > Textual only. This opinion will have no bearing on my decision.

Try or die inverts when there is an unanswered net benefit. Similarly, presumption inverts when there is a counterplan without a net benefit.

Disadvantages

No crazy takes.

Go for DA turns case. Link turns case > impact turns case.

Kritiks

I start with framework. Equally fine for 'you link, you lose' as I am for 'no Ks.' I won't make a middle ground interp.

Framework Ks are almost always preferable. Going for the alternative coupled with links to the plan's fiated implications mean you will lose to the perm double-bind and extinction outweighs without some explicit framing.

Plan-less Affirmatives

No preferences. Topic specific aff or a recycled aff from 5 years ago, up to you.

Good for plan-less affirmatives who focus on line-by-line and technically crush their opponents. Bad for those who are averse to line-by-line and rely on big overviews that 'implicitly answer' everything.

Impact turns > counterinterps.

Fairness > another impact.

Just go for T against K-affs. Unless you have a smart specific KvK, these debates are straight brainrot.

Misc

Non-resolutional theory bad is compelling.

Condo is probably good. However, 'condo bad' is underutilized and very often winnable.

Tag team cross is fine.

Card Doc? No. Don't need a 3NR/3AR.

Inserting evidence is good if it's in the original cutting. If it's from a different part of the article, it needs to be read.

Offense-defense. Even if a .0001% risk is sufficient against an offense-less 2NR.