UCONN BA in Political Sciences

QVCC Associate's Degree in Human Services and General Studies

Keiser U MSE in Teaching and Learning

Policy Debate Background:

Attended NU’s NHSI of Speech in 1981, TOC in 1982. Judged at Northern Virginia District NFL qualifiers in late 80s. Judged at Bronx-Science, Edison, Wake Forest tournaments in early 90s. Judged at DDI summer camp 1992. Attended UVM’s Policy Debate Teacher/Coach’s Workshop in 2004 and UVM’s Workshop Debate Across the Curriculum in 2009. Judged at UVM's summer debate camp tournaments those years. Judged at Yale U. policy debate division at HS Invitationals in 2004, 2009, and 2012. Judged at UDL Nationals in 2013. Judging at 2023-2024 Springboard Series NSDA policy debates.

Given my home state of Connecticut’s lack of a policy debate division I am overjoyed to be able to participate in the policy debate community on-line. It is an honor to judge policy debates and I feel strongly in the education policy debaters receive from debating their rounds.

For negative arguments I must say I like Disadvantages a lot. Labeling and tagging the parts of the DA is important such as for example:

A. Uniqueness: - Economy is good now.

B. Link/Brink/Threshold/Internal Links:

Patents give companies monopoly power over drugs and increases drug prices

leads to Inflation/wage/price spiral/interest rate hikes etc.

C. Impact: Economic crash leading to global war.

For affirmative arguments I appreciate turning the disadvantage.

It is important to reestablish your affirmative ground in the round in the rebuttals by extending the case harms/advantages once you take out or turn the negative arguments.

Advantage Counterplans in my opinion need to solve the case harms presented by the affirmative and not stray to far from the harms presented by the affirmative.

T and critiques are okay along with debate theory arguments. Lean toward policy making paradigm.

Please provide a roadmap of arguments at the beginning of speeches. Signposting and numbering are appreciated. Do not be afraid to persuade by slowing down to emphasize more important points such as weighing arguments and impact calculus. Never underestimate the power of clarity by slowing down and varying speed. Policy debate is fun!

ONLINE: you must send docs. I am asking that you don’t spread. It’s hard to hear over the computer.

General

Add me to all email chains: colebrown131@gmail.com. My pronouns are he/him or they/them. Please let me know if you need anything or have questions at any time. Tag team CX is fine. You should time yourself and ideally your opponents to ensure fairness.

Spreading and Evidence

I've had a lot of questions about these things so I'm going to split them off into their own paragraph. I don't mind spreading, but I have ADHD which makes writing down from hearing difficult. It's also been four years since I've regularly flowed policy debate. I will not penalize you for going as fast as you want, but I may not be able to flow your analytics or taglines that are being spread (speaking fast is always fine). You are fine spreading through the constructives on shared docs as all I'm listening for is to make sure it matches the doc. Please feel free to ask about this at any point in the round. I prefer quality over quantity and I don't buy blippy/unwarranted extensionsso there's a significant disadvantage to going at a pace that would make it difficult for me to write this down anyways.

I strongly prefer that evidence be shared with me and your opponent(s). NLD and PF are exempted, and if you can't please let me know. For elimination rounds of any kind, this isn't optional.

NO FRIVOLOUS THEORY OR ANYTHING ELSE TO GAME ROUNDS.I love theory and tricks, but I won't be legalistic about voting on them if I don't feel like they're in good faith. Don't be put off by this I'm just tired of having to vote down teams for reading 10+ theory args.

I only listen to CX to hold you accountable and to potentially gain context on something I'm confused about. If you want it to be flowed you need to say it in a speech.

Policy

I have competed in policy for four years so I am okay with you running whatever you want (as long as it is professional/functional). Overviews/underviews and clear signposting are important. All evidence introduced must be on docs shared.

I am very willing to vote on any theory argument, but I will also just ignore theory obviously run as time skews especially, but not only, if the opponent points that out. Ts, FW, and properly created CPs are too rare. DAs, Ks, and K affs are fine. Weighing of impacts directly is absolutely critical to winning rounds. I have nothing against nuclear war impacts, but if you're conceding the probability of an extinction impact while weighing it against your own policy impacts, you've done something wrong (this is just an example).

LD

I haven't competed in LD but I've been judging it this year. I am fine with whatever you run, as long as it is professional and functional. Read the policy section if you are debating progressive. I appreciate a good framework round but I am frustrated when both sides use the same value and fail to notice this. Clash is important. If you don't specifically weigh impacts I'm going to struggle to make decisions especially when the framework debate is moot or not helpful in evaluating the round.

PF

I am a policy debater so I will primarily weigh your arguments as expressed, without reference to the quality of the presentation. Debating on the flow and fully fleshing out your arguments are important to me.

Pronouns- any pronouns are fine, he/him If you have specific pronouns let them be known before the round, if you dont respect someones pronouns your speaks will be as low as they can be, i get the occasional mispeak but if its obvious you dont give a crap your speaks will be trash.

Email-nathan.hernandez2213@gmail.com (spam my email and I will be very upset)

put me on the chain pls

Background- Debated 4 years for Guymon high school in Oklahoma (now a student-athlete at Rogers State, no college debate) under the GOAT and now NSDA hall of fame coach Michael Patterson. 2021 and 2022 policy state champ made state FEX finals a few times and won some IE events a few times at state and qualified to NSDA nationals.

side note-this is a dying activity much to my sadness, so if you are facing someone who is much less experienced than you don't be a jerk and just destroy them, help them learn and be nice and slow down a bit I'm sure a senior team doesn't need 8 off to handle a novice team, crap like this is what drives people away from the activity.

TLDR; tab ras

As far as policy and all debate really goes I try to approach every round with tabula rasa so just have fun and run whatever you normally run as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, or anything hateful, i will not hesitate to vote down any team that participates in card clipping, "ism", plagiarism, i don't care how much you are winning the flow

Policy-spreading- is fine just send a doc copy

Ks- are fine but dont expect me to know your Lit base, was a huge cap/setcol/bioP/anthro debater in HS so i know them pretty well, i understand most Ks but dont expect me to understand your super complex Baudi K so please explain your warrants and your lit base

DA- is cool more specific the better. I get generic links are easy but its always smart to go with more specific links they make the debate way more interesting to judge. Also idk why people are starting to feel like they can run a 2 card long DA and that somehow covers it, i get the strategy for it but its just annoying.

theory- is cool not really a huge voter but I mean if you're winning it I will. Run whatever theory you want as long as it is not problematic (most theory debates are pretty trash but im down to be proven wrong), I prob wont vote on your RVI unless there is some fr abuse.

CPs- are cool i really really enjoy specific ones, i think PICs are kind of lazy and will be down to vote on PIC theory but its never ran it so wahtev. I always love a good CP comp debate, please make the status of your CP known or ask, trust me. I was a big CP debater my senior year so i love those guys. PLEASE HAVE A SOLVENCY ADVOCATE

T- is dope aswell make sure to extend and go for standards they are underutilized. When answering T a counter def or we meet is a good idea, probably the best idea but you cant just run that, if you drop standards you basically lose the round.

Case- is underutilized and can make or break a round i love a good case debate. SOOO much room for good clash on the flow if you use case correctly which makes the best rounds. Also pls pls pls do line by line on case, i hate having to jump around my flow. Ill do my best to put it where i think it goes but if it ends up on the wrong thing, sorry...

Speaks- are determined on how clean your line by lines are and spreading and overall behavior in the round and overall debate skill. It's not that deep bro.

random-i was a 1a/1n all through highschool and more tech>truth judge unless it just gets ridiculous with the hyper tagging. will ask for a card to be shown if i think it can deterime a round or was highly contesed throughout the debate.

Args i 9/10 wont vote-stuff that happened outside of a round, links by their schools (idc if they are a christian school), debate is a game.

args i will vote you down for running-death good (seriously..why), racism or any ism good, name calling, reverse racism.

overall just have fun be nice and enjoy yourselves. Funny jokes in your speech will be rewarded with better speaks i dont think debate should be a monolouge of zombies, crack the occasional joke trust me ill laugh even if i really dont find it funny.

i prefer if you have your cams on when speaking or doing CX/crossfire.

LD/PF-Never done it but i know the gist of it, alot of my policy paradigm applies except in PF it seems as though spreading is bad but i wont stop you. Send the docs still please and im sorry if i confuse the times with policy but ill do my best to give a good RFD and decision. Im cool with whatever LD tricks are ive judged a few rounds of both debates so i can evaluate it decently well probs not high level deabtes tho.

Sarah Lawrence '25, Caddo Magnet High '21, she/her, yes I want to be on the email chain-- ejarlawrence@gmail.com

Top-Level: I prefer a fast, technical debate and default to evaluating debates as a policymaker, but can be persuaded otherwise. Don't overadapt - debate is a game, and winning your arguments is what matters. I like to reward good evidence, but I won't be reading every card after the round unless it is flagged or a close debate and good evidence is not an excuse for unwarranted debating/little explanation.

T vs policy affs: I don't enjoy close definitions debates. T debates where the interpretation becomes clear only in CX of the 2NC or later will be very hard to reward with my ballot. I understand that good T debates happen (T-LPR on immigration comes to mind) but if the topic doesnt have easily understandable, legally precise definitions based in government literature (CJR comes to mind) I'm going to err towards reasonability more than anyone I know. Plan text in a vaccum probably sucks, but if you can't articulate a clear alternative you probably can't win. Predictability probably outweighs debatability.

T vs K affs: Debate is probably a game, but probably also more than that, and neither team's offense is likely truly reliant on winning this anyway. Fairness is probably an impact, but it is frequently pretty small. Neg teams that clearly explain what the aff's interpretation justifies (ie. internal link debating) and why that's bad are more likely to win my ballot. Aff teams that come up with a counter-interp that attempts to solve for some limits/predictability seem more instinctively reasonable to me than those who try to impact turn things I think are probably good like predictability, but either strategy is fine.

Counterplans/Theory: Theory other than conditionality/perfcon is probably not a voter. On a truth level, I think being neg in a world without massive conditionality and theoretical abuse is impossible on lots of hs topics. Given that, I'm actually fairly familiar with and interested in hearing good condo debating- competing interps means if you have something explainable and not arbitrary (infinite condo, infinite dispo, no condo) and can articulate some standards I won't hack for anyone. Default to judge kick, but can be convinced not to, counterplans should probably be textually and functionally competitive, I'd love to hear a real debate on positional competition but I'm not optimistic.

Disads: Uniqueness matters, and determines offense on the link level, but win the link too. No politics disad is true, but some politics disads are more true than others. These were my favorite arguments to cut and go for, and interesting scenarios that are closer to the truth or strategic will be rewarded with speaks. I'm of the somewhat controversial opinion they make for good education and the less controversial one lots of topics are unworkable for the neg without them, so don't go for intrinsicness/floortime DAs bad theory.

Impact Turns: Nothing much to say here, other than a reassurance I will not check out on something I find unpersuasive in real life (any of the war good debates, spark, wipeout). If you can't beat it, update your blocks.

Impact Framing/Soft Left Impacts: I default to utilitarian consequentialism, and have a strong bias in favor of that as a way to evaluate impacts. If you want to present another way to evaluate impacts, PLEASE tell me what it means for my ballot and how I evaluate it. "Overweight probability" is fine for the 1AC, but by the 1AR I should know if that means I ONLY evaluate probability/disregard probabilities under 1%/don't evaluate magnitudes of infinity. Anything else means you're going to get my super arbitrary and probably fairly utilitarian impulse. I would love if whoever's advocating for ex risks would do the same, but I have a better handle on what your deal means for the ballot, so I don't need as much help. "Util Bad" without an alternative is very unpersuasive - BUT a fleshed out alternative can be very strategic.

K vs Policy Affs: I vote neg most often in these debates when the neg can lose framework but win case takeouts or an impact to the K that outweighs and turns the aff. I vote neg somewhat often in these debates when the aff does a bad job explaining the internal links of their FW interp or answering negative impacts (which is still pretty often). For security type Ks, it seems like some people think they can convince me sweeping IR theories or other impacts are false with all the knowledge of a high schooler. Read a card, or I will assume the aff's 3 cards on China Revisionist/cyber war real are true and the K is false.

Brief tangent ahead: If you think the above statement re: the security K does not apply to you because you have a fun way to get around this by saying "it doesn't matter if the K is false because we shouldn't just use Truth to determine whether statements are good to say", I think you're probably wrong. You're critiquing a theory of how we should evaluate the merits of Saying Stuff (traditionally Truth, for whatever value we can determine it) without providing an alternative. So, provide an alternative way for me to determine the merits of Saying Stuff or you're liable to get my frustration and fairly arbitrary decisionmaking on whether you've met the very high burden required to win this. I've judged like four debates now which revolved around this specific issue and enjoyed evaluating none of them. Aff teams when faced with this should ask a basic question like "how do we determine what statements are good outside of their ability to explain the world" please. First person I see do this will get very good speaker points. TLDR: treat your epistemological debates like util good/bad debates and I will enjoy listening to them. Don't and face the consequences.

K vs K affs: I've now judged a few of these debates, and have found when the aff goes for the perm they're very likely to get my ballot absent basically losing the thesis of the affirmative (which has happened). This means I don't think "the aff doesn't get perms in a method debate" is a nonstarter. Other than that, my background in the literature is not strong, so if your link relies on a nuanced debate in the literature, I'm going to need a lot of explanation.

Miscellaneous: These are unsorted feelings I have about debate somewhere between the preferences expressed above and non-negotiables below.

For online debate: Debaters should endeavor to keep their cameras on for their speeches as much as possible. I find that I'm able to pay much more attention to cx and give better speaker comments. Judging online is hard and staring at four blank screens makes it harder.

I am becoming somewhat annoyed with CX of the 1NC/2AC that starts with "did you read X" or "what cards from the doc did you not read" and will minorly (.1, .2 if it's egregious) reduce your speaks if you do this. I am MORE annoyed if you try to make this happen outside of speech or prep time. 2As, have your 1A flow the 1NC to catch these things. 2Ns, same for your 1Ns. If the speaker is particularly unclear or the doc is particularly disorganized, this goes away.

At my baseline, I think about the world in a more truth over tech way. My judging strategy and process is optimized to eliminate this bias, as I think its not a good way to evaluate debate rounds, but I am not perfect. You have been warned.

I am gay. I am not a good judge for queerness arguments. This isn't a "you read it you lose/i will deck speaks" situation, but you have been warned its a harder sell than anything else mentioned

For LD/PF: I have judged very little of either of these events; I have knowledge of the content of the topic but not any of its conventions. I understand the burden for warranted arguments (especially theory) is lower in LD than in policy - I'm reluctant to make debaters entirely transform their style, so I won't necessarily apply my standard for argument depth, but if the one team argues another has insufficiently extended an argument, I will be very receptive to that.

Non-negotiables:

In high school policy debate, both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, 3 minutes for CX, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says. CX is binding. There is one winner and one loser. I will flow. I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab so that they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate on.

You have to read rehighlightings, you can't just insert them. If I or the other team notice you clipping or engaging in another ethics violation prohibited by tournament rules and it is found to be legitimate, it's an auto-loss and I will give the lowest speaks that I can give.

It'll be hard to offend me but don't say any slurs or engage in harmful behavior against anyone else including racism, sexism, homophobia, intentionally misgendering someone, etc. I see pretty much all arguments as fair game but when that becomes personally harmful for other people, then it's crossed a line. I've thankfully never seen something like this happen in a debate that I've been in but it'd be naive to act like it's never happened. The line for what is and is not personally harmful to someone is obviously very arbitrary but that applies to almost all things in debate, so I think it's fair to say that it is also up to the judge's discretion for when the line has been crossed.

I have 30 years of experience in the government sector. I expect professional and courteous conduct. If I cannot understand what you are saying (i.e. spreading), I will have a hard time judging you. I wish all competitors Good Luck!

I don't flow CX so bring up anything you want on the flow in following speeches.

If a question is presented before CX time expires an answer can be provided.

Avoid circular debate, if you see mass repetition, summarize key points and move on.

Try to minimize flow hopping.

Make sure you sign post. If you don't tell me where to put content on the flow it may not get on the flow.

Extend arguments and impacts, don't just extend author's names. Example, don't say: "Extend the Locke Card" Do say, "In Locke, extend the impact of the social contract..."

Explaining impacts and why they matter is crucial.

Decorum matters.

Spread at the peril of your speaker points and ballot decision.

If speech time ends wrap up final thought, there is not a grace period in debate.

I am a traditionalist, LD should revolve around the V and VC debate, policy should address stock issues, etc.

Call Africa a Country and lose.

I try to keep an open mind but arguments must be feasible. Global extinction, nuclear war, etc default to slippery slope fallacies for me unless you can really show a direct and likely path specific to resolution.

Ask me for final paradigm to open possibility of getting perfect speaker points.

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Online Debate Update

If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.

DA/CP:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

K:

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Productive CX

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
  • Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
  • Being really boring
  • Being rude

PF Specific

• I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
• If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
• Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
• In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
• Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

• 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
• Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
• Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

Thais (T.C.) Perez

CSSH'22/Wake'26

Coach @ Quarry Lane

Add to chain:

tcperezdeb8@gmail.com

debate@student.quarrylane.org

I evaluate debates through an offense/defense paradigm. I would consider myself pretty flow centric because I often forget things that were said in speeches otherwise, and it helps me determine how offensive/defensive arguments interact with the rest of the flow. I flow straight down, which means doing line-by-line is the best way to ensure everything you are saying gets written down. Cross-examination is a speech that I listen to intently and flow on a separate sheet; if you refer to moments from the cross-ex during speeches I will look back at that flow so take advantage of cross-ex moments to communicate to me, not the other team. I take a while for decisions, but this is mostly because I have a decision already written and spend time playing devil’s advocate to ensure that I made the correct choice. Sometimes, after this, the decision will change, but the vast majority of the time, it will not.

I can be convinced that many, if not most, arguments are true when judging a debate. Even if it is not true that “ASPEC causes extinction,” if technical debating deems that it does, then I am willing to vote for it. If you cannot prove that ASPEC does not cause extinction, you do not deserve to win the debate. That being said, this requires a warrant and an impact. I am unpersuaded by standalone claims without reasons behind them. This does not necessarily mean you need cards to support your claims, but it does mean that you need to justify what you are saying with some form of logic and explanation.

Before debating in college, I thought my ideas about debate would never change. However, I now understand that I am improving along with this activity, and my thoughts about debate will never be static. I believe that it is important to note that most of the ideas that follow are subject to change as I continue to learn from the activity and the rest of the debate community.

Plan affs:

I prefer it when “turns the case” arguments are substantiated with cards, especially if it is a non-impact turns the case argument [link turns the case/internal link turns the case/etc]. I think the politics disad is one of the more educational arguments in debate when written properly, even if it is not “real-world.”

In plan aff vs K debates, I will almost always look at the framework debate first, then the terminal impact debate. I will resolve the framework debate one way or the other. I find it frustrating and anti-educational when judges unjustifiably say things like “the framework debate was a wash” or “I didn’t know how to evaluate framework, so I weighed the aff and gave the neg links.” Aff teams should not underestimate the power of a well-explained alt solves the case argument.

Non-Plan affs:

Negative teams are always burdened with rejoinder, regardless of whether or not the affirmative reads a plan. Saying otherwise is callous and anti-educational. This is one of my views that will not change.

I do not have thoughts on whether or not clash/education/fairness are impacts or internal links. I do not have an impact preference on framework; proving to me that the ballot can solve your offense is the best way to win.

If you are reading a framework interpretation in a K v. K debate, explain why your method is best to solve or turn the other team’s offense.

Try to ensure that you have offensive reasons for why the perm does not shield the link. It will make your life and my life much easier.

Misc:

I find that debaters often attempt to adapt to their judges by reading a strategy that they are not as prepared for and is often not well-executed. In order to debate as best you can, read the arguments that you are most prepared to defend.

Plan/Aff vagueness is so obnoxious. Don't avoid explaining the mechanism or function of the aff, normal means, or how the theory you endorse interacts with the material. If the other team doesn't know what your aff does, neither will I which means I am likely to limit the scope of solvency to cross-examination and to what solvency evidence says.

I will default to competing interpretations on topicality. An offense/defense paradigm means that the affirmative must have an offensive reason why their interpretation is better than the negative’s. If reasonability is introduced, the affirmative must have justifications for why sufficiency [“good is good enough”] is a better metric for these debates and set clear standards for what reasonability looks like under their model.

I will by default judge kick conditional off case positions. I enjoy plan-specific PICs.

Gregory Quick: ggquick@gmail.com | He/They

TLDR:Debate should be about having fun and learning. Debate what you want but nothing matters to me until you explain why it should.

Round Framing:

"My ideal round is one where both teams are cordial and having fun. I think too often we attach our self-worth to the activity. My favorite thing about debate is the people I've met along the way. I hope that the trophies and placements at the end of the tournaments don't hurt our ability to appreciate the genius of ourselves and the people next to us. If any part of my paradigm limits your ability to enjoy the round, please let me know." - Melekh Akintola

My Weird Judge Things:

• Tag Team Cross Ex means you have to tag your teammate in. I think it increases camaraderie and decreases teammates fighting for speaking in CX. To not do this will subtract -.5 pts from both teammate's scores.
• Both teams can agree to do a 'Challenge Round' where I will not backfill using the documents to fill in holes in your speech and depend entirely on your clarity of communication to flow. Both teams will receive a +1 pts to their scores for doing this.
• If you ask for a marked copy of the opponent's speech before CX, and DO NOT reference it throughout the rest of the debate I will be sad. This should not discourage you from asking, but instead I hope it forces you to consider what they didn't read. You should make it obvious why what they didn't read mattered, and prevent them from getting away with reading ~1/3 of the words. Sometimes it won't matter, sometimes it will. If you attempt to explain I won't decrease speaks, but if no attempt is made I will hit you with a -.2.
• Banter is allowed/encouraged, we are all humans (I hope), and being able to make me relate to you is a key networking skill that is underdeveloped post-Covid. When you are meeting debaters and judges from across the country, finding common ground or small jokes before speeches is a good way to build rapport. Do not be disrespectful to anyone but yourself. If you cannot have non-elicitory small talk then it would be better to focus on the round and being respectful.

Speaker Point Scale: (What does the # speaker points actually mean):

25 - I physically cringed at something you said. Not sure I've given this out.

26 - I don't want you to do something you did in the round again. IE: bad organization, giving up large amounts of speaking time, being rude to the other team.

27 - You are a decent speaker, but you can improve on your persuasiveness. You need to make The Point of your speech more apparent, and specifically highlight why you believe that I should vote for you.

28 - I think you clearly explained to me your position and were a good participant in the round. You have some areas to improve on to become the best debater you can be, such as; signposting within arguments, fully warranting out your arguments, and explaining how the the points you are winning affect the rest of the flow and round.

29 - Great debating, might have missed some of my specific requests or I believe that there are some areas that you could improve in to make your speech smoother, more efficient, or make some better arguments.

30 - Fantastic debating, hitting major points with clarity and efficiency, requires meeting best practices listed below. I attempt to limit awarding 29.7+ to 1 debater/team in a tournament.

Best Practices:

• Explain the warrants behind the tag when you extend them.
• Use prep time until you have clicked save. If it takes >1m to attach and send the email, you should count that as prep time.
• Look at the judge during your speech, and face them during CX.
• Say "Next!" between cards.
• Also, number your arguments and use your opponents' argument's number when replying in Line-By-Line. (You should still explain what arg you are referencing ie: "They say the economy is strong, our williams 1922 card shows that the economy is really weak in the horse market!!!"
• I think you should send analytics to the other team in your doc. If it is typed it for your speech and you are reading it then you should give it to the opposing team. Also means you should probably fill in the "[Insert Specific]" portions of your varsity's block. To do so will give you a +.5.

Why? See the conclusion in https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1044670.pdf.

• De-escalating CX when it gets very heated, but still pushing the opponent on key points of the debate. It is key to use CX to develop common ground assumptions that your evidence makes different conclusions on and REFERENCING those answers in the next speech.
• Be a good person outside of the competitive debate round, don't be a gremlin.

I will use these best practices as benchmarks for evaluating your speech and your speaker points. This is a non-inclusive list, but these are areas that I think most of the debaters can specifically improve on when I judge.

Debater Experience:

I debated policy debate for 4 years at Eagan High School in Minnesota and also debated 4 years in NFA-LD at UNL, and dabbled in NDT-CEDA. I was mostly a CP+DA debater, a functional limit of parts of the NFA-LD circuit, but I've gone for plenty of K's and ran a K Aff with some success.

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate?

I think that my role as a judge is to evaluate the round. In the history of judging I find evaluator/policymaker/educator/games playing to be some of the best philosophical roles of the judge. Most teams don't explain how the Judge's perspective affects how I should evaluate the impacts, which would be really good analysis to make.

Overall Practices:

- Don't take excessive time to email the documents, if emails are taking forever just make it obvious you aren't stealing prep.

- I will say clear a few times during your speech if I am not able to understand your words, but I don't want to keep interrupting you. That means it is up to you to make sure that I'm flowing your arguments, especially in the rebuttals. I will put my pen in the air to communicate that I am not following your speech, so you should take a step back and re-evaluate what you are saying.

- I will read important evidence the debaters point out to read after the round, but I will read the article as a whole and not just read your highlighting of it. I will not use the unhighlighted portions for your benefit, only to your detriment. If you want parts of the card to be evaluated, you should read them. When specifying that I should read a card of the opponent's, you explain what I'm specifically looking for if you want me to understand the request.

Predispositions:

Topicality:

Topical affirmatives are probably good, but see more details on untopical affs below. I like a good T flow but most debates don't access the level of depth to fully explain their interpretation of affirmative/negative ground. Compare standards, and analyze which interpretation/definition has the best access to the standards that both teams put forward.

You need to explain what im voting for, most people are shallow with their explanations. I will reward unique & comprehensible standards/criteria with +.5 pts. (Non-unique: Ground, Limits, etc.)

I default to competing interpretations, but that can be changed based on the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I do like non-abusive theoretical arguments that actually explain what debate practices should, or should not, exist. Being specific on your interpretation, violation, how you are measuring 'good' practices, and explain how meeting your 'good practice' would make debate better.

Increasing the amount of different theories perceptually decreases the persuasiveness of each theory.

Untopical Affirmative Rounds:

I find that this can be some of the most interesting rounds as it immediately gets to underlying reasons that debate is good. This is winnable by both sides, but you must outline the specific reasons that you think I should vote for you (Aff or Neg) at the end of the debate. I will be voting for teams that paint the best vision of what my vote does or what I'm voting for.

I ran Anthropocene Horror at a couple of NDT-CEDA tournaments I went to, and have even voted for a violin K aff that was beautiful. I will not be the preferred judge for K affs, as I will not be as well versed in the specific literature, but am open to new education and perspectives brought into this key space.

In these rounds, I will default to as tabula rosa as I can be, but unless teams fill in the entire line of reasoning from coming into the round to receiving the ballot, judge intervention is inevitable. My tabula rosa means that I am an empty computer that speaks English poorly, has access to Google to fact-check general knowledge and statistics, and may have a heart.

CP's:

I was mainly a CP+DA debater myself, so I have gone for quite a lot of different CPs.

In most CP rounds, it is crucial to compare your solvency vs the risk of the link. It is also beneficial to explain even if statements and explain the internal links to solving each impact.

Competition Theory is underutilized by the affirmative. Explaining your vision of what competition means and why certain actions are not a trade-off with the affirmative is an interesting argument that I have not heard much.

I find multiple plank counter plans ugly, especially when they are massive (literally >3 planks). I have not seen theory on this, but I imagine a well-run theory on conditional planks in a CP bad would probably be pretty persuasive in front of me.

DA's:

Fully explaining the story of the DA should happen in every negative speech it is extended. Re-reading tags and author names is not "explaining the story".

Reading cards straight down on the DA without including them in your explanation is gross.

Both teams should deal with the timeframe of the impacts of the DA versus the timeframe of the Aff. Lots of affirmatives solve the impacts of the DA even without a link turn. This analysis is mostly analytics but deals with the realities from cards both teams.

Other Random Thoughts (as if this isn't long enough):

Even if statements are your friend.

If you cannot defend underlying assumptions about debate. Like; why is debate good or what is debate for, don't expect to win theory or topicality arguments. Put real thought into your arguments.

I don’t consider myself an interventionist, but I won’t support your 5-minute 2NR from a 1-card 1NC Offcase when it's barely extended and forgotten in the 1NR. Applies to Ks, CPs, DAs, and Theory. Affirmatives get the same treatment when the 2AR goes for the 1-sentence 2AC arg, or the 2AR goes hard on the :10s condo bad.

Emphasize key arguments, and do good evidence comparison throughout the debate. Qualifications are important and you should back up your author's claims.

Argument Structure (For Extensions):

When extending your arguments, make sure that you fully explain:

Topicality: Definition (Interpretation of Topicality), Violation, Standards, Voters.

The A2 K Aff version of Framework/Gamework should be similar but more robust.

Disadvantages: Uniqueness (Inherency in MN Novice Packet????), Link, Internal Link, and Impact

Aff's Advantages: Status quo, Impact, Solvency

Kritik's: Link, Impact, Alt

Counter-Plan's: Your Counter Plan text, Solvency for Aff's impacts.

gwrevaredebate@gmail.com

Put me on the chain.

He/them.

KU debate.

My job is to adjudicate the debate with minimal intervention. Optimal debate involves organization, impact calc, judge instruction, line-by-line, and evidence comparison. Few things that I've listed below are immutable, and my attitude towards most positions can be reversed by persuasive debating. Do your thing.

10 minutes before start time:

---Please label offcase in the 1NC.

---Send me a card doc. I care about evidence quality and will assign much more weight to cards highlighted to form sentences.

---I am a clarity hawk and will verbally clear you if your words turn into mush.

---Generally, neg-ish on theory.

---I don't think inserting rehighlightings is legitimate, but I'll evaluate them if no one says anything about it.

---I flow CX. "What cards did you read?" is a CX question. "Where did you mark this card?" is not.

---Don't cut undergrads or high schoolers. I'll evaluate these cards as analytics.

---Lenient with new 1AR arguments if and only if the 1NC is big or a position changes substantially in the block.

---I don't want to hear my name in speeches.

---I will not vote on things that happened outside of the debate.

Please do not:

---re-read constructive blocks in rebuttals

---spread your blocks at full speed

---demand a 30

Longer version:

Here are my general leanings:

1---Tech over truth. Impartiality is a virtue. My role is to adjudicate the debate with minimal intervention. I am flow-centric and will vote for arguments I think are bad.

2---DAs: The more they clash with the affirmative, the better.

You don't NEED to read a uniqueness card in the 1NC, but the 2A can simply observe that your DA has no uniqueness claim and card dump in the 1AR after you read the cards needed to form a complete argument.

3---Kritiks.

I am good for technical K debaters.

You are most likely to be successful if you develop 2-4 diverse links rather than overwhelming them with slop. Reading links to the plan, drawing lines from the 1AC, and articulating turns case analysis will substantially increase your speaks and likelihood of winning.

Please do not use rhetoric in your tags or blocks that isn't in your literature base.

I am least experienced with method debates. My only requirement is that you negate the desirability of something in the 1AC---I am extremely skeptical of negative strategies that generate offense off of omission.

4---Topicality: My thoughts here are mostly conventional, except:

---A little more aff-leaning than most. T is not like any other argument because it crowds out substance.

---I probably value ground over limits. Bounded topics are only good if they give the neg something to say (it is very possible to have a tightly limited topic that impoverishes the neg of meaningful offense). Strong generics also help functionally narrow the scope of viable affirmatives.

---Reasonability is often misconstrued as "vote aff if the judge personally determines our plan is reasonable" (to be clear, I do this on purpose when I'm neg). Reasonability is: "vote aff is our interp allows a year of sustainable debates" (Soper 24).

It requires you have a C/I that you meet.

5---Counterplans:

Comparative solvency advocates are the gold standard.

Your process counterplan should compete off at least one thing that isn't certainty, immediacy, or "normal means."

I am highly inclined to judge competition by mandate. Spill-up or spillover arguments do not render a CP non-competitive.

PICing out of something in the plantext is good.

6---Case: No aff solves. The fact neg teams are often reluctant to prove that is a critical mistake.

Soft-left affs: Framing debates are frequently superficial. Good framing debates (oxymoron) involve comparison of your model of ethics---the advantages and disadvantages to each.

7---Planless or kritikal affirmatives:

I'll vote for you. Your best angle against topicality involves a C/I, a defense of a clearly-articulated model of debate, and one to three central points of well-impacted offense.

I consider K affs that defend impact-turnable positions more persuasive on T.

Topicality is not a "reverse-voting issue" if the neg kicks it.

8---Framework: Go for whichever impact you prefer, though my personal take is that skills impacts are inferior to fairness standards. I find presumption compelling.

T could be different from framework, but any conceptual distinction between the two seems difficult to maintain given their colloquial interchangeability.

9---CX: I flow it. Weaponize CX to lower the threshold for CP solvency, stick the aff to debating impact turns, etc.

10---I will reward speaker points for evidence and warrant comparison, ethos, not lying, and being funny.

11---Clipping, claiming to have read cards you didn't, etc---will guarantee a loss. I'm not a stickler about certain things; accidentally skipping a word or two happens sometimes. That is distinct from bypassing entire lines or passages. That is premeditated cheating, which will not be tolerated.

Have fun. Judging is a privilege.

Hey! I'm Lizzy (she/her) & I'm about to be your judge!!

Please put me on the email chain: lizzysabel@gmail.com

4 years of high school debate at Eagan High School (MN) & now I'm a coach there. I've been judging for 9ish years now. I'm a University of St. Thomas Alumni (Roll Toms), and I double majored in Political Science and Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies.

My main goal is for you to have fun, get better at debate, & maintain a safe environment for all debaters.

TLDR: do what you're going to do; my job as a judge is not to police your arguments, it's to evaluate the round presented to me.

----- FYI -----

*Clarity over speed. I will be flowing on paper (most likely stolen from you lol) and voting based on what is on my flow. It is a valuable skill to read your judge, and to do that you need to look at them. Go as fast as you want just make sure you're clear and I'm writing down what you say. That being said, I generally prefer a mid-speed/slower debate with depth of argumentation. If you are unclear, I will say "clear."

*If you want me to think something, you must say it. I try my best to not intervene on any issue and decide the round entirely based on what the debaters do/say in round. I will not make arguments for you that aren't on MY flow.

*Clearly label your arguments. Organize your speeches, label positions, signpost, use short tags, and identify arguments that you are responding to (ex. "off the no link").

*Write my ballot for me. Every judge you have wants an easy decision. In your rebuttal overviews tell me exactly why you are winning this debate (ideally paired with some killer impact analysis).

*I care most about how the affirmative's proposed action will affect people. Explain to me how your impacts affect the material conditions of people's lives and why your impacts are more important than your opponents' (ex. timeframe, probability, magnitude comparisons).

*I tend to be skeptical of extinction & nuclear war impacts. If you do have those impacts, pls have a good internal link chain. I'm more favorable to impacts like racism, sexism, ableism, poverty, anti-Blackness, homophobia, sexual violence, etc. But, I still enjoy impacts like climate change, resource wars, etc.

*My speaker points are generally high (my guess is an average of 28.5). I will reward well-executed strategies, clever concessions, insightful case debate, good cx questions, technical skills, and being respectful to your opponents. You will lose speaker points if you're not flowing (2N's I'm looking at you lol). I love a good joke, pun, tasteful use of slang, and/or pop culture references in a debate :) pls make me laugh

*Tag Team CX is chill, just BE RESPECTFUL. If you want to waste your 3 min of free prep by asking a bunch of questions for your partner, go off, I don't care. Don't get it twisted though, I won't let you take your cross ex for prep; if you don't have any questions, your cx time ends. I will time prep & speeches along with you, but you must keep your own time too. Don't steal prep, it's annoying and unfair. I fear that I did it all of the time, so I know all of your little tricks haha and I will call you out on it.

*"Tech over Truth." I generally proscribe to this. Line by line is a lost art.

*If you claim in-round abuse, you need proof. I'm literally begging you.

*You need to respond to case (and have CLASH). It's very hard to win as the neg after conceding the entire aff. Cross applications from other flows are chill, but not nearly enough.

*You must properly kick out of off case/advantages.

----- Specific Argument Breakdown -----

T: Topicality is a default voter, but I’m persuadable and have voted for non-topical and non-policy advocacy statements many times. My favorite argument as a debater was T, so I generally have a higher threshold for what needs to be said on the flow (for both sides). I generally believe that jurisdiction is a sufficient reason to vote (why is nobody going for this anymore smh). RVIs are dumb... unless there is (once again) proof of abuse in round. SPEC debates are not interesting to me, but I will listen.

FW: This is just a glorified T debate. Switch-side isn't a great offensive argument, but I will vote on it if I'm forced lol. I think the neg should have a TVA to make their FW viable. I just need teams to tell me what debates look like under their model.

I tend to abide by the principle that debate is a game meant to improve the education and public speaking of its participants, but I am open to a wide variety of differing interpretations of the activity so long as they are well-substantiated. Without the presence of super-ceding frameworks, I generally default to a humanitarian-utilitarian policymaker.

Theory: I think condo can be good, but can be convinced otherwise if there is in round abuse. I will probably reject the argument and not the team, unless given a good reason to. PIKs/PICs are fine, but I will probably favor a reasonable perm explanation.

Ks: I'm familiar with critical literature. I'm less familiar with high theory than I am with traditional Ks (Neolib/Cap, Security, etc), identity-based Ks, and other structuralism Ks. I greatly prefer specific links and specific evidence when I can get it, but vote without specific links when I must. I'm generally not convinced by a link of omission.

I deeply respect the hustle of a 2/3 card K, but you better flesh it out well enough in the block if it will be in the 2NR. Please tell me what the world of the alt looks like!!! Ks function like vague DAs to me, but with an alt that usually makes no sense. If you don't want to put in the work to articulate an alternative, commit to the bit & run your K like a DA (with some FW on why that should be legit).

DAs: Do whatever you want, just please read all parts of the DA or you will lose this argument (unx, link, intl, impact). Note: impact preferences above in point 4.

CP: Most CPs on this topic are not competitive. Just ~please~ have a net benefit. Multiple planks are almost always abusive.

Stock Issues: Inherency is a part of the affs burden of proof and definitely a voter. More people should exploit that.

Performance: I'm down for it! Very cool when done well. You need theory to back yourself up. Explain everything very in-depth and clearly articulate why it matters more than the topic, FW, and/or T.

Baltimore City College (BCC) 23’

Morehouse 27’

RKS 22'

[he/him]

TOC [K] debater w/ 3 bids! (Dont ask my record though lol)

Email is - plzreadcomics@gmail.com

I'll keep this short!

• Im more K leaning (not an autovote) but I am willing to vote policy if the argument persuades me(which is the way I evaluate all rounds) which means... Debate how you want!

• To reiterate the last point, persuasion is key!!! i shouldn't be piecing your speeches together for ya, so tell your story!

• Dont let the last two rebuttals be two ships passing in the night!

• Not a great judge AT ALL for HIGH theory debates

• PLEASE have fun! Boring debates are bad for yall as debaters cause why spend a weekend doing something you’re not interested in?

• OBVIOUSLY... no racism, homophobia, religous attacks, identity attacks... dont be a d!ck okay?

• If you have any questions- lmk in round, shoot me an email, yknow allat good stuff

I am a junior attending Pembroke Hill, and this is my third year of policy debate and second year of congressional debate.

Add me to any email chains you make: cwood25@pembrokehill.org

Tl;dr

Idc what you do or don't read, just make it make sense

Tech > truth, although I do value truth almost the same

LOVE impact calculus and at least touch on stock issues

I like analytics and smart re-highlighting of cards the opposition used

Not a huge fan of spreading-- if you do make sure you have either email chain/speechdrop

Make sure i can understand you when you talk

BE NICE in cx

Pls flow-- it's obvious when you don't

NEG:

Make sure that you spend enough time debating on case, don't just forget it in favor of off case

Don't make a ton of arguments just to kick most of them, that's a waste of my time and your time

AFF:

KNOW YOUR AFF, don't get tripped up on simple questions about your case

I don't really like K affs but you do you ill put aside my bias if you do a good job debating

Make sure your advantages outweigh and win the stock issues

Policy Specific:

T:

t’s are fine with me, i can enjoy the debate if its done correctly and if the framework isn't widely out there and i will vote on it if the AFF is clearly untopical (or if you just argue it better than the other team)

NEG: you rlly need to prove to me why your interpretation is correct and better, have good violations

Don't waste your time reading it if your just gonna kick it tho

DA:

Personally i love DA’s they make a ton of sense to me

don't just be reading non-specific and generic just to put one in, if your gonna read one make it case-specific and intentional

CP:

CP’s are fine, but I won't JUST vote on the CP

Not a juge fan of PIC cp’s, but if you do a good job debating it i will consider

Condo cps are fine, i hate consult and delay cps

also don’t really like generic cps, if your gonna do one make it case specific or at least have good link

Idc if you kick it

K’s:

Not a huge fan, i don't have a lot of experience with them

Although I lean more towards traditional debate if their is clear clash and the thesis of the argument is clear i will vote on it

Easier to win me over using other debate strats

Earning Speaker Points:

Overall being a nice person

Tbh if you actually look like you want to be there

Eye contact (esp in the last speeches)

Good analytics

Losing Speaker Points:

Being rude or mean during a round

Any comments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc

Stealing prep (although I am usually pretty lenient with this)

About Me

she/they

Broken Arrow HS ‘19 (LD 4 years)

Mo State '23 (NDT/CEDA + NFA LD 3 years)

Grad Student @ Wichita State

Assistant Coach @ Lawrence Free State

Conflicts: Pembroke Hill, Maize South, Missouri State, Wichita State

yes email chain: lilwood010@gmail.com

Overview

These are just my random thoughts about debate collected into one place. If you do what you do well, you will be fine. I am down for almost anything.

yes open cx - yes you can sit during cx - yes flex prep

!!:) please send out analytics :)!!

Please provide trigger warnings if there is graphic descriptions of violence against fem ppl included in your arguments

Policy

K Affs/Ks

I prefer K affs that are related to the topic OR the debate space. I enjoy watching performance K affs that incorporate parts of the topic.

I believe fairness (procedurally or structurally) is not an impact. I believe it is an internal link.

I love a good TVA.

I believe perf con is bad.

I'm starting to believe I prefer movements / material alternatives over reject / thought project alternatives. I find myself easily persuaded by arguments that alternatives lack the means to resolve the links and impacts. I like when alternatives are specific in what they accomplish in the block.

I LOVE perm debates. I am a sucker for creative perms that are specific to the alternative. If you execute this strategy correctly, you will be rewarded.

CP

I think condo is good to an extent. The extent is up for debate.

I default to judge kick.

T

I LOVE T!

In round abuse should be present, but I also believe that setting a precedent for the community might be more important.

I think grounds and limits are both good arguments, but I find I am more persuaded by limits. Going for either is fine.

Misc.

I LOVE ptx.

Impact turn debates are super fun.

NFA LD

NFA LD has some norms that are different than policy so I will try to establish my thoughts on some of those in here.

yes spreading - yes disclose - yes email chain - (sigh) yes speech drop

Disclosure

TLDR: nondisclosure has to actually inhibit your pre round prep.

Will vote on disclosure theory IF it's egregious. I think empty wikis are probably bad after attending 2 tournaments. I think if every aff they've ever read is uploaded, even if not every round is, zeroes the impact. I think not disclosing an aff 15 minutes prior to the round is probably bad if no wiki entries or multiple affs on the wiki.

Condo

Kicking planks + judge kick = probably bad

Other Thoughts

Stop being scared to put offense across the pages in the 1ar.

Bad DAs can be beat with analytics and impact D.

Update your ptx UQ cards.

Call out people's crappy case cards.

Cut better case cards.

I hate underviews.