About Me

Hello, I am a student in the Pembroke Hill School, Class of '26. This is my second year doing Policy Debate (and OO). I have debated UBI in PFD as a Middle Schooler and NATO as a CX Novice

Add me to the email chain: mamin26@pembrokehill.org (Speechdrop is preferred). Always disclose evidence.

TL;DR

• Read at a conversational speed, and please don't spread

• Tech > Truth, but I still really like truth args

• Show me why your impacts are more probable and more existential, and how you solve it (Impact Calc!!)

• For Policy: Win on the stock issues

• Give me lots of judge instruction

• Provide me with multiple reasons/alleyways that show why you deserve my ballot

• Be nice to your partner and opponents in round, especially in cross-examination

• I will try my best to make the vote for the deserved team and give comments for everyone in the ballot

General

• I will listen to any arg, but I prefer Policy args over K args.

• Go at a conversational speed, or if you want to speak fast, please don't spread- especially if your opponents would not be able to understand you. You will be risking my ballot if you read too fast.

• Provide some judge instruction and tell me why you deserve my vote.

• I really like impact debates, but I must be convinced that there are strong links.

• I love passionate rounds, but if someone is clearly being rude to another debater, I may consider voting against that person.

AFF/PRO

• Show me that you know your case

• Demonstrate why the squo is bad and how you can solve.

• Make sure your case/advantages outweigh.

• Policy specific: Make sure you win all of the stock issues.

NEG/CON

• Demonstrate to me why the squo is fine, or (specifically for Policy) show me how your CP or K solves AFF harms.

• Explain to me how you have won at least one major argument (or stock issue for Policy) in the round.

I will Dock Speaker Points if a debater is:

• Stealing prep time. I may be more lenient if it's for obvious difficulties.

• Sliming during final speeches (I have been flowing the round, I'll know when someone's lying).

• Interrupting or not letting your opponent speak during cross-examination.

• Being rude or mean, as well as laughing at an opponent.

• Saying inappropriate things that would be hurtful to groups of people. Like being an -ist or -phobic.

Speaker Point Boosters:

• Know your speech- Make sure you can adequately answer questions during cross-examination, and don't speak just to waste time.

• Organize your speech docs and give me a roadmap before time starts

• Mentioning specific warrants in your evidence

• Using evidence from earlier speeches to respond

• Using cross-examination to show a contradiction in their case.

• Providing judge instructions

• Making eye contact with the judge

• Being nice.

• Smile! This is your time to shine.

Policy

T Debate

• I will not vote for a T, but I might if an AFF is clearly outside of the resolution.

• Reasonability args will be heavily considered in a T debate. However, the NEG can probably argue against that adequately and convince me otherwise.

• If the NEG runs a T and the AFF drops it, then I may vote NEG just on the T.

K's, K AFFs, FW, and Theory

• Policy debate over K args.

• If you want to run K, I would like lots of judge instruction. Otherwise, I will lose you.

• I will weigh the K to the AFF, unless I am convinced otherwise.

• I don't prefer K AFFs, but I'll tolerate them.

• FW args are fine, but don't be outrageous about it.

• Theory args are good. If you can prove to me that your opponents' args are ruining the spirit of debate (education, fairness, etc.), I'm all for it. However, it's not something that I will vote for exclusively.

DA

• Good Link > Good Impact. If there is a weak link, then I can't even consider the impact.

• Prove to me that the DA truly links to the plan, then we can talk impact.

• UQ is important to prove, but I do ultimately believe that the DA must prove that the plan leads to a serious impact

• I don't mind terminal impacts. Again, it heavily depends on strong links.

• Ultimately, if you can win on impact calc on the case (with a HEAVY emphasis on Probability and Magnitude), I will vote for you.

CP

• PICs are fair game, but I do feel like the AFF can provide solid theory args to attack them, so that's an exciting back-and-forth for me.

• I am fine with condo, but AFF generic args can easily convince me not to vote for it. Again, I don't mind it too much. Whoever wins on fairness & education will win the condo good/bad debate. If you do condo, go for at least or 3 args.

• I agree that CPs are subject to fiat, but the AFF can convince me otherwise, especially if they're up against a multi-actor fiat.

• For NEG to win CP, they MUST win on Solvency Deficit and that the CP doesn't link to the net-benefit.

Case

• I go under the philosophy that 1AC cards are some of the best cards that are used in a debate round. I would love it if some of those cards could be used here and there in later speeches.

• I am cool with re-highlightings, and I will read them.

PFD

• I have a year of experience in middle school, so I'm not the most experienced.

• No counterplans for CON, even if it sounds like PRO is making a plan.

• Whoever wins on the FW debate and fits within that FW should have no problem winning.

• Explain your voting issues in the final speeches, and why you have access to those voting issues.

• Besides that, I will likely judge the round like I would for Policy, so please bear with me.

LD

• I have no experience in this event.

• I will judge the round like I would for Policy, as well (that includes my stance on K's, CP's, and case args).

• Show me why your opponent's case leads to worse impacts and why your case solves, and you'll likely win.

Overall

If you can demonstrate proper debate technique and display why your side will make or is making the world a better place, I will vote for you. Looking forward to a fun round!

- Current Forensics Coach at Pembroke Hill, I competed in IE events throughout high school and college.

- Flay-lay judge. Will flow a bit to follow both sides of the argument.

- Moderate speed preference. If you're going to speak faster, just be sure to speak clearly

- Policy- will vote strongly on issues of topicality and relevance to the debate.

Please add me to the email chain for all evidence: ndunn26@pembrokehill.org

IMPORTANT THINGS:

I would prefer it if you send theory and analytics as well, especially if you are going for it in final speeches.

Prep time: Please don’t steal prep time. If you stop prep, please stop typing and whispering. That is what prep is for. This goes for both teams regardless of whose prep time it is.

PLEASE DO NOT CARD DUMP. I WILL GIVE YOU LOW SPEAKS! IT IS SO BORING. GIVE ME ANALYTICS. EXPLAIN STUFF. I will give you high speaks if your explain everything and give me judge instructions.

If you want high speaks:

Read impact turns, theory, impact calculus, funny kritiks (that are extremely well explained), and judge instruction.

Less important things:

I am a high school debater with 2 years of experience. I did one year of public forum debate in middle school and 1 year of policy debate.

You can call me judge if you want. Your honor also works.

Dropped arguments: If a team brings back an argument that they dropped, all the other team has to say is “they dropped it already so they can’t bring it back up. Don’t listen to them”. If you don’t say that, I might evaluate it. Depends on how well you extend the argument.

This is a quick summary especially if I am judging Public Forum or Lincoln-Douglas. Make what ever arguments you want as long as there is no hate involved. As long as you explain the argument thourougly, your good. Just explain why your arguments are better than your opponents and why you should win the debate.

THE FOLLOWING IS FOR POLICY DEBATE:

I am alright with all arguments as long as there is no hate involved toward specific groups of people. Run wipeout, spark, etc if you want.

I will give you better speaks if you read a good impact turn. :)

Kritiks: If you run a K, please be slow and explain your arguments thoroughly. Tell me a story. Don't expect card dumping with no explanations to be effective.

Theory: If you can adequately explain why your opponents link, I will consider voting for it. However, if you just say something like Condo Bad with no explanation and move on, I won’t vote for it UNLESS the opponents drop it. If your opponents read theory as a voter and you drop it…sorry. Not sorry:)

Please fully extend your arguments and read enough information to have a complete argument.

Impact calculus: Impact calculus is what will make a difference between winning and losing a debate. Explain WHY you should win the debate.

Clipping: If you clip, you lose. Obviously, accidentally skipping one word is fine but a whole card is a whole different story.

Stock issues: I believe that it is the obligation of the aff to uphold all 7 stock issues: Disadvantages, Advantages, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Significance. I will vote neg on one of these if you can explain to me why the aff failed to uphold one of these. If you want to run T as an RVI, go ahead. I’ll think its funny but unless the neg drops it, don’t have high hopes.

Have a good debate! Good luck!

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.