Put me on the email chain: 1fish2fishafishzfish@gmail.com

Experience:

GA @ Indiana in my 1L year

BA: Int'l Law, French @ Indiana University '24

NDT '22 & '23

Overall, give me judge instructions. Tell me where to flow, I'll flow it there. Tell me in your rebuttals what I'm voting on. Tell me why I value your argument over your opponent's.

1) I'll read cards if asked or if they're a contentious issue in the round. I won't insert arguments into the debate based on what the evidence implies, but I can't vote for you if your explanation of the evidence is based on some LARGE misreading.

2) Speed is fine, but be clear. Especially online, it isn't always easy to understand people through algorithms so keep that in mind. (If someone in the round struggles with auditory processing don't spread/send the analytics--discuss with that person for fairness). If I can't understand you, I'm just not going to flow the line I missed (that's an issue, not an iss-me). Analytics need to be slower than cards.

3) Use all of CX if you can, end a speech or CX if you're out of things to say. I think it's more strategic to concede 20 seconds than to let your opponents prep for that time

4) Tech over truth -- but actual misinformation isn't tolerated

5) I love a good theory debate.

T/FW: I'll read cards to compare interps, but the standards debate is the most important part. I don't care if you're right on truth -- I need to know how it affects the round or what it means for your model of debate. I think switch side is a good argument, but if you aren't interacting with specifics of the aff's K v. K warrants, you will lose. Fairness is an internal link to other impacts.

K affs: I'd like the aff to be related to the topic, but it's still the neg's burden to prove that the aff isn't T and why that matters. You can find some defense to read on the aff, even if it isn't topical. I'm no less likely to vote on FW if you read things on case.

K neg: Unique links are good -- weighing is important. Ks don't need to solve the aff. I'll vote on presumption for the aff if there are arguments made why presumption should flip.

DAs: I don't have much to say. Link, UQ, !. Win it, make it make sense.

CPs: CPs need to be competitive, theory on CPs is good. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. Condo is good, I lean toward 3, but you can win that 2 is the bright line. You can still out-debate a team, any condo interpretation is winnable, but you have to define dispo or that's nonsense. I will vote on in-round abuse and arguments about conditional planks.

Perms are a great way for the aff to win the ballot. You can perm a PIC if severance isn't a voter. I don't care if a perm is intrinsic unless you explain to me how it's A) bad for the round and/or B) bad for debate

Other items:
Is CX binding? I'm not partial either way. I'm not flowing CX. Make a theoretical argument to explain why I should or shouldn't make CX binding once it is in dispute.

Add me to the email chain: zanderfishyfish@gmail.com

Indiana University '27 - Sophomore - Open Debater

2x NSDA Nationals Qualifier

1x Indiana Public Forum State Champion

Current policy debater at Indiana University + debated in Public Forum in high school for all for years at Chesterton High School in Indiana.

TLDR: Flexible, but don't read anything that is offensive.

Largely agree with:

-Brian Delong

-Matthew Bricker

-Jamie Davenport

Philosophy per Event:

--- Policy ---

I have done policy debate for only one year in the NDT/CEDA college policy circuit. Most of my judging experience has been at the high school level in Indiana, which is a very lay form of policy debate.

While I am newer, I have had a decent amount of rounds this past year, and I am open to any and all kinds of arguments (Ks, Theory, T, Policy etc.).

All that I ask is to warrant out your arguments and do good line-by-line and sign-posting.

--- LD ---

I am from Indiana so the only LD rounds I have judged have been using values structures like Value and Value Criterion. However, I have seen LD debates in the circuit and I evaluate them in basically the same way as all other debates --- warrant out your arguments and do all the basics and you will get my ballot.

--- PF ---

Out of all the events I have done, I have the most experience in PF. If you are from the national circuit, please put me on your speech docs. If you are not from the national circuit and are from Indiana or other more lay states, make sure you are doing efficient and understandable line-by-line and explaining your arguments well. I am open to Ks and Theory, but please explain your arguments and do not expect me to understand them if you are solely using jargon.

I am not opposed to paraphrasing evidence (I did it all four years of HS). However, if the other team calls out the evidence, I will read it over and either accept it in the round or not.

PF/LD:

E-mail:Hrenj@trinityprep.org

If you are looking for my paradigm in a few words:

I will start by looking at theimpactsas articulated in your final speech.I will thencompare them the way I was told to in your final speech(ex. Prefer on Timeframe. Prioritize probability). If there are competing comparisons, I will choose the one that is best articulated. I will then checkthe link to the impact and see if, in the final speech and previous speech, the other team told me a reason not to give the you access to your impact.If they did, I will make sure that this reason was articulated, at least from the second speech of that team.

My flow can be best described as chaotic, so make sure that you have been really clear and not blippy- if you are blippy, I am liable to miss it.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have experience judging LD at the College and High School level (but it has been a little bit since I have consistently judged LD) and Public Forum at the High School level (fairly consistently). I would by no means say I am an expert. These are some things to keep in mind with me.

Assume that I know nothing. This includes shorthand, theory, or K literature. Even if I do know something, I will pretend I don't to avoid intervening in the round.

Speed Kills (your ability to win the round).I want to be able to flow everything.To this end, I will say “clear” two times and then I am able to flow what I can flow: if I miss something because you’re speeding then it won’t be considered.I do not want to look at cards unless you or your opponent have a tiff about what they actually say.

Additionally, I think that spreading should be a tool to allow for deeper and more specific arguments as opposed to allowing for more short, blippy responses.If you're speeding through a response and that response was only a sentence or two to begin with, it probably doesn't register as that important to me.

Tech over truth except in extreme cases.Tell me what to vote on, tell me what to care about. Clearly weigh your impacts against your opponents do not assume I prefer one over the other without you giving me a reason to prefer.

I care about dropped arguments- you need to extend and that means more than just saying “extend.”Functionally reiterate your arguments or at least summaries of them.

CX- I often will flow this, but it will not factor into my decisions unless you bring it up in your speech. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, DO use this time to clarify, NOT make new arguments.

I hate hate hate people being hyperbolic or lying about what their opponent said or did: Ex. “they dropped this point” when they clearly did not. Just know if you do it I will be inclined toward your opponent. If YOU misheard or misunderstood your opponent’s argument, I get that, but pretending they didn’t respond to something they did is as good as dropping the arg. Also- don't tell me what my paradigm said- I was there when it was written.

Congress:

-The most important things to me are delivery and content.

-If two people are very close on both these aspects content will be more important than delivery.

-I pay attention to questioning, but it is more of a tie breaker for me. If you ask a particularly good question I will note it and you will be ranked higher than someone with the same scores on speeches and no notes about questioning.

-Very important to my ranking of speeches is whether you are moving the round forward or introducing new ideas.

-I prefer evidence usage, though in some analytic cases it is not strictly needed.

-I very much like interaction with the other speeches that have gone (rebutting directly or adding more to a previous argument).

-Taking risks with content or delivery in ways which push the boundaries of the norms will certainly earn some bonus points in my head.

-I think that decorum is important- pay attention to what others are saying, don't engage in personal attacks or generally be rude.

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Tech guided by Truth.All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

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

General Thoughts

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

Policy Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


LD Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

I currently live in my home country of Armenia and am teaching gender studies to university students in addition to working on a research project on the labor market here and translating professionally.

What is below is still relevant and is a reflection of how I think about debate but was written when I was actively coaching both high school and college.In short, I'm K-friendly and flow-focused. I'm also 8 hours ahead of EST which means if it's past 2pm for you, it's past my bedtime and you would benefit from slowing down a touch, especially since we are online.

Who I am

I (she/her) debated college policy (CEDA/NDT) at The New School, where I started as a college novice. I read Ks that were research projects about things I cared about. I love debate for its educational value, the research skills it builds, and the community it fosters. I have no issue dropping speaks or ballots for people who undermine the educational value of the activity by making people defend their personhood.

**I will be wearing a mask. I don't know y'all or where you've been and I don't want you to breathe on me. It's not personal. Please ask me for any other accessibility accommodations you need before the round and I will do my best to make the round comfortable for you!

For all formats (specifics below)

Email for the chain: newschoolBL@gmail.com

I vote on the flow. Do what you're good at and I will evaluate it: what is below are the biases I will default to without judge instruction, but if I am given instruction, I will take it. If provided them, I follow ROBs and ROJs seriously in framing my decision. I have voted both on the big picture and on technicalities.

I am excited to be in your debate, especially so if you are a novice, and I would love to chat post RFD if you have questions! :)

Policy:

DAs, CPs: Fine, no strong opinions here.

Ks: Yes. Explain your links and your impact framing.

T: Hate when blippy, like when thorough & well-explained and have voted on T when it has won the debate many times. I am unlikely to vote on an education impact vs a K aff, though.

High theory for all of the above: Explain yourself. I don't vote on arguments I don't understand/can't explain back.

Likes: Clear spreading, smart debating, impact calculus, well-warranted arguments, case debate, thorough research, debaters from small schools.

Dislikes: Unnecessary hostility, bad evidence, blippy T blocks, strategies that rely on clowning your opponents, mumbling when spreading.

I am by far most comfortable in clash and KvK debates. I don't really care about policy v policy, but will give it the proper attention if put in them.

Public Forum:

If you don't share evidence, strike me. And also re-evaluate your ethical orientations.

Non-negotiables:

1) Email chain. The first speakers should set up the email chain BEFORE the round start time, include everyone debating and me, and share their full cases with evidence in a verbatim or Word document (if you have a chromebook, and in no other instances, a google doc is fine).

2) Evidence. Your evidence must be read and presented in alignment with the intent of whatever source you are citing. I care about evidence quality, and I care about evidence ethics. If you are paraphrasing or clipping, I will vote you down without hesitation. It's cheating and it's unethical.

Debate is a communication activity, but it is also a research activity, and I think that the single most important portable skill we gain from it is our ability to ethically produce argumentation and present it to an audience. I believe that PF has egregious evidence-sharing practices, and I will not participate in them.

I like smart debating, clear impact calculus, and well-warranted arguments. Do what you're good at and I'm with you! This includes your funky arguments.

I am fine with speed, but going fast does not make you a smarter or better debater and will not make me like you more. Debate is above all else a communication activity that is at its best when it's used for education. I can't stand it when more experienced or more resourced teams use a speed strategy to be incomprehensible to the other team so they drop things. It's bad debating and it perpetuates the worst parts of this activity.

Please be as physically comfortable as possible!! I do not care what you are wearing or whether you sit or stand. It will have literally zero impact on my decision.

I am far less grumpy and much more friendly than the PF section of my paradigm might make me seem. I love debate and go to tournaments voluntarily. See you in round!

This got too long, I wanted a summary. The full thing is below.

Do what you want in round.

Yes I want to be on the chain, email: mightybquinn@gmail.com, backup: mckenzieb@trinityprep.org

Speaker points are for speaking well (eg. clarity, speed, civility, etc), Wins and Losses are for winning the arguments in the round. They almost always agree (unless this is WSD, then they do always agree, obviously).

I am a wizened old soul flowing in a cooky lil spreadsheet, judge instruction is important.

If there are specific arguments or preferences you want to know about, or if you have unlimited time to scan through paradigms, go look at the stuff below.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Have fun go wild

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers, not out of spite or anything, I just can't summarize it. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3. Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you should probably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply to all the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I will not flow off the doc, but I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Counter Interps: I think that counter interps are latently defensive unless you tell me otherwise. Honestly, I don't even need a warrant, I just want it specified when you read it that you're trying to gain offense. IMO if it's a "counter" interp it's structured to be defense within the game, if you're styling it as a different, unrelated interp, that just HAPPENS to be about the same thing as the interp they read, I will assume that's offensive. If that's the case though, then it will come down to a model comparison, which is probably what you wanted anyway. This is not like, a carefully thought out assertion or meta-theoretical opinion btw, this is just how my brain will work when I'm flowing what you say at speed, hence I need you to clarify.

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure (including rebuttal docs) is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea. It's been a while since I've seen someone read a role of the ballot on a theory shell tbh, bring it back.

RVI's: I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI. If we get into a "no RVIs" vs "Yes RVIs" debate I'm probably presuming "No" but like, if that's not extended or warranted or if the "yes" is conceded then it is what it is.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me, though it may need to be warranted more clearly than a post-fiat alt would. Why does the ballot matter to your advocacy?

Other progressive case-ish positions: I'm interested to hear them. I'm traditionally susceptible to de-dev arguments, but tend to be predisposed to disliking "death good" style claims. I'm not intervening to vote up or down either way, just making you aware of preferences.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link and an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

Background: Currently debating policy at Indiana University and was recognized as the third-best novice team in the 2022-2023 Spring Season.

Add me to the email chain: iuvishnudebate@gmail.com

If I'm judging you here are a few things to know:

1) I'm not a big fan of people using cross-ex time for prep, or ending their speeches early - it can hurt your speaker points. Personally, I think there's always more to be said or asked about an argument, even if you're way ahead in the game.

2) I place a lot of value on the quality and quantity of evidence presented in a debate. I tend to read through a lot of evidence during the debate because it helps me make better-informed decisions. BUT this DOES NOT mean reading 5 cards on something in the 1AR will automatically get you back in the game instead explain how those 5 cards interact with other evidence in the round.

3) Tech > Truth

4) No Judge Kick unless a team tells me to

5) I can handle speed but if it's online try to go 80% so I can catch everything you say.

6) SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST. This can help me flow better and ensure I won't miss any arguments made during a speech.

7) DO NOT READ PRE-MADE BLOCKS. It is very easy to know when a team is reading blocks made before a round and doing this will only hurt your speaker points. Listen and be attentive to whats going on in round because I believe creating your own args is way better for education than reading blocks. (This is specific to teams having the majority of their speeches be blocks, using blocks here and there are totally okay.)

8) Please send a card doc at the end of the round

9) Have the email chain set up before the round starts. It saves a lot of time and give me more time to be able to give the right decision.

Some Specifics:

T: Love good T debates. Don't just read pre-made blocks, interact with what's happening in the round.

K: I myself am not really deep in K lit but aware of the most prevalent ones in debate. Judge direction is important regarding FW. Explain the Alt and how it works in the context of the round since the same alt can be used in different ways depending on the scenario. Think of me as having no idea what it means and explain how it can at least partially solve some of the cases. Also having a good case defense makes it easier for me to vote for the K.

CP: I really need to understand how the cp solves. So, in the 2NCs/2NRs, I really appreciate it when they kick off with a brief overview of what the counterplan is all about and get into HOW the cp solves better than the aff not just saying it solves better.

DA: In my view, framing is absolutely crucial in a debate. It includes impact calculus, uniqueness, and all that jazz. I believe that a well-crafted argument with a coherent narrative is more important than a bunch of evidence thrown together haphazardly.

Affs: I really like when the affirmative arguments in a debate are about a topical plan. But if they're not, I find that framework arguments about fairness and limits can be pretty convincing. And if you're not going to defend a plan, you need to at least talk about fairness and limits to make your educational points really stick.

Final Thoughts:Debating is such a valuable educational activity. In my opinion, it's even better than most things I've experienced in school when it comes to learning about various topics. So, let's have a blast, and don't worry about making mistakes. Remember, we're all human beings here, not debate robots. If you have any questions before or after the round, feel free to ask me anything. It doesn't have to be solely about debate. And hey, if you prefer, shoot me an email if you feel more comfortable or if you realize you forgot something important during the round. I'm here to help!

Shreeram Modi (he/him)

Lynbrook, NYU, Break Debate, Poly Prep.

debate@smodi.net, breakdocs@googlegroups.com

You can find my full judging record here. This speaks to my judging proclivities better than a paradigm would.

Tech over truth. What is 'true' for the purposes of the debate is entirely based off what the debaters have said. The nature of the argument, its delivery, or how it relates to real world truth have no bearing on my evaluation of it. The degree to which a claim is warranted is the degree to which a response must rise.

Flowing. I flow straight down on excel, I will not flow based off the speech doc nor attempt to reconstruct my flow based off it. I may refer to evidence after the round to resolve questions my flow is insufficient to answer.

My strongest conviction is that debaters should try their utmost to win, the rest is all malleable. Go for the most strategic arguments, not necessarily the ones that maximize clash or display bravery. I will reward strategies that improve your chances of winning, and not punish you for taking the easy way out.

COUNTERPLANS

---Will judge kick unless told otherwise.

---Equally good for "functional" and "functional and textual".

---Most theoretical objections to specific 'types' of counterplans would be better expressed as competition.

KRITIKS

---Offense needs uniqueness, the 2NR going for the kritik either needs framework to generate uniqueness from the AFF's performance, an alt that functions as a uniqueness counterplan, or needs to go for unique links as DAs to the plan.

---Planless AFFs vs Topicality need DAs to something the NEG's model mandates or offense generated from their performance.

---Not sure how to 'weigh case' vs an in-round microaggression. The 2AR going for this will almost certainly lose.

MISC

Debaters should be flowing. You don't need to flash analytics. Similarly, there is no flow clarification slot in debate; cards should be marked orally but you do not need to specify which cards/arguments you did or did not read.

Clarity. I willnot say "clear" during your speech unless your lack of clarity is nearing clipping. Prompting you to be clearer would be no different than telling you to change your speech, i.e. intervention.

---I will only say "clear" in the case that your spreading on cards is approaching an ethics violation. Clarity of tags and analytics won't cause me to say "clear" since I think it would be interventionist to prompt debaters to make their speech more flowable.

Speaker Points. They are mine, not yours; I will not evaluate speaker point theory. The logical conclusion of evaluating this genre of arguments is that everyone reads and agrees to speaks theory at which point they serve no purpose.

---Higher speaks: Making good strategical decisions, knowing a lot about debate/the topic/the world, being engaging to watch, being clear will lead to higher speaks.

---Lower speaks: Not having your tech in order, excessive dead time, answering arguments that were in the doc but were not read, making bad strategic decisions, wasting CX, being mean/tactless, and having cards and documents not formatted properly using verbatim styles will lead to worse speaks.

Insult my brother. While I won't award higher speaks for this, I'll probably find it funny. However, if the insult shows an obvious lack of knowledge or is just corny, I may treat you disfavorably.

Gabe Rusk ☮️&♡

Email: Please cc

gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

fairmontdebateteam@gmail.com

If you have any questions about NSD this summer come chat with me! I will be assisting as PF Curriculum Director at Philly I and II. Come join us.

King/NDCA/TOC

I have judged a lot of rounds folks. The most joy I have in rounds these days is when we are closest to the orbit of the topic literature and doing comparative analysis/weighing/evidence comparison. This is basking in the warm topic sun. This piques my curiosity more at the moment and the farther from the center we go the colder I get. We have come a long way at a lot of these tournaments and I would prefer more topical oriented rounds where possible.

It is with awe
that I beheld
fresh leaves, green leaves,
bright in the sun.

- Basho

Background

My research interests for the last 10 years and in grad school have been legal history, press freedom, and the First Amendment. Check out more recommendations for long-form journalism and press freedom here at www.FreePressForAll.org

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at ISD, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

1 (Thriving) - 5 (Vibes Are Dwindling) - 10 (Death of the Soul)

LARP -1

Topical Kritiks - 3

Non-Topical Kritiks - 4

Theory - 5

"Friv" Theory/Trix - 8

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. This is why metaweighing is so important. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc is a means to differentiate but you need to give me warrants, evidence, reasons why prob > mag for example. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• I would prefer if case docs were sent prior to the constructives to minimize evidence exchange time but not required of course.
• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence.Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do.

• Second rebuttal must at least respond to turns/terminal defense against their own case.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Maybe I am getting old but try to be on time, especially flight 2, like arrive early.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

sophomore in college & I debated in PF during HS as second speaker - happy to give advice/answer questions at the end of the round.

for evidence- 1) add rv2529@barnard.edu to the email chain w this subject line: tournament name - rd # - school team code (side) v. school team code (side), 2) please send docs in the form of pdf (preferably)/word doc -- really don't like google docs/sending directly into the email chain bc it makes centralizing everything worse.

from there, these are things to keep in mind:

--while I can follow speed, please provide a speech doc if you expect I will miss something on my flow. that being said, speed shouldn't tradeoff with clarity.

--TIME yourselves. I beg.

--for elims-if there's a lay on the panel, please please adapt speed to the lay and not to me. please make the debate accessible/understandable for them. but it’s your choice

--in both rebuttals, I expect teams to 1) signpost as you go down the flow so that I know where you are and what is being responded to 2) weigh the arguments and not just say, “we outweigh, ” tell me which weighing mechanism and WHY you outweigh.

--for 2nd rebuttal, frontline terminal defense & turns.

hint: I like link-ins from case & preq. args a lot. BUT I don't like when teams use their case args as the only response ie. deterrence vs. escalation debate. interact w the individual warrants and links.

--make it SUPER CLEAR what you're going for in summary & do all the necessary extensions (contentions, blocks, etc). weigh weigh weigh. meta-weighing is also great (tell me which mechanism is better).

--not a fan of sticky defense but I will consider it if that's what the round comes down to.

--tech or not: the final focus speech is a good time to SLOW DOWN and explain the argument and the direction the round is going in. please do not bring in any new responses or implications during this speech.

--I generally enjoy listening to crossfire. still, I will LISTEN to crossfire, but I will not FLOW crossfire. I can only evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.

--clarity and strategy are the key factors that will impact your final speaks.

--I prefer topical debates but I'm OPEN to theory and progressive arguments when ran well. that said, I'm not super familiar w a lot of these so run it to me like you're running it to a parent (make your points VERY clear & accessible).

Current Policy Debater at Indiana University,
Will (hopefully) graduate from IU in 25
Majoring in Environmental Management and Political Science

Add me on the email chain jhweisbach@gmail.com

Please title the email Tournament Round - team code aff vs team code neg. For example, "The Hoosier Invitational round 1 Tournament, Indiana CW vs Indiana FW"

Notably if I am judging a nonpolicy round, I have never debated PF or LD or anything else, so I might be less familiar with the format specific stuff, but most of the things I will write on policy will probably apply to your form as well.

Top Level: If I can not explain the argument back to you in the RFD I will probably never vote for it unless it is straight dropped. I have read policy and K literature, and am relatively comfortable judging either type of debate.

PLEASE SIGNPOST, if the argument doesn't show up in my flow I cant really vote for it. So you as debaters should try your best to ensure that my flow looks as similar to yours as possible. Everybody makes mistakes, so you should try and correct for me missing something, or getting lost by signposting

I think debate is supposed to be educational and as a judge, that is what I am looking for. I should feel like I have learned something from being in this debate round, because if I as a judge who has minimal knowledge on your topic / case / position, do not feel like learned enough to explain the deciding argument of the round back to you all, then I think it is very unlikely that you all learned something.
However fairness is also a terminal impact, that I am fine voting on.

T: Reading blocks that have no references to the round in particular are not going to get you the W. I am very willing to vote for it as long as their are aff specific warrants, and exactly why what they did was harmful is explained, and if I believe that the aff is in someway unfair.

FW: I have a very open mind when it comes to what makes an aff topical, and hate when framework debates turn into just reading blocks at each other. You will probably do well with me on framework if you do three things.
1. Tell me about what debate should be. Why is your answer to this question better than theirs? Why does your model give better outcomes on education or fairness or whatever the argument is?
2. How to judge it, I feel as though a good Role of the Ballot / Judge makes a world in rounds. I think this because I find that teams don't tend to win all of the framework; in my experience, it is much more common for one team to win a part of it while the other team wins another part of the framework; tell me what is important, and how I should look at the framework.
3. How does your model actually solve the harm you are presenting? For example, why is your model actually fair and beneficial, rather than saying that their model is unfair?
I also default to Fairness is K2 education. So if that is not what you want me to judge on PLEASE make args about it

DAs: happy to vote on whatever as long as it is well explained and FRAMED WELL. Even if you have more evidence on why the DA is true, debate is only partially about evidence, you have to also explain it and tell the story of your evidence well. Particularly the link again if I don't understand why the DA happens I'm not voting for it.

CPs: My prior is one world for the 2nr

Ks: I have read a decent amount about a variety of the more "normal" debate Ks, but probably haven't read the specific thing your K is based on and you should assume that I have not. Your K should still solve some of the aff, even if it is through a mechanism of the K. Please explain the terms of art in your K if you feel that they are important for me to understand.

K affs: Should be at least tangentially related to the topic. I have a low burden for what tangentially related is though, I feel as though if I am explaining the topic and activity of debate to someone and I can bring up your K as an example of what K debate looks like in this area its probably fine. But generally, I feel that there should be a strong link between whatever the topic is at its core, and the types of arguments that you are making and the things that you are critiquing. If I feel like your aff is something I could imagine being read on another topic, I am unlikely to vote for it. I prefer that you read a plan text, but you definitely do not have to. If you choose not to read a plan I should still feel as though your K functions as one thing that will not shift even between rounds. I am also inclined to agree more with neg arguements about planless affs being shifty.

CX: I do flow CX debate is a communication activity and this is some of the purest example of it. In addition listening to questions and answers provides real clarity, in often too vague plans and evidence.

The ideal 2nr / 2ar should basically write my ballot for me. I should basically be able to copy-paste parts / most of the winning speech into my RFD. SO consider that in prep.
I will try and judge the way that I am instructed by the teams in the round. So your 2nr/2ar should probably tell me how to judge.