I have been a policy debater for 2 years at Excel High School. 

Do's 

I am a big fan of impact analysis, real world examples and analogies .

I am somewhat okay with Ks, I understand them. 

Don't 

I will not vote on theory

I am not a fan of spreading. I want to hear the arguments articulated with analysis. 

Kritiks

I've mainly run kitiks throughout my highschool debate career and I am somewhat familiar with literature by Deleuze, Foucault, Nietzsche, Lacan, and Baudrillard. This doesn't really mean that anyone will be able to get away with a ballot through shoddy analysis. If you have little clue what you're talking about, then I will likely notice. Good and specific analysis will be rewarded. 

DAs

I haven't read a disad in a very long time, but they are still fine and I will vote on them if they are explained well enough. 

Counterplans

I have a higher threshold for these, especially if they are very blatantly abusive. The neg has to make sure that the cp is competitive.

T/theory

Firstly, make sure that you don't speed through blocks so I can get everything down. Secondly, the impacts to the argument need to be clearly articulated so I can vote on it, so explain why the argument is a voter instead of simply asserting that it is. 

So here is the page in which I put my paradigms. I am a pretty open minded judge and would go for any type of argument as long as you, as a debater, can prove it with analytics and evidence. That being said I do not vote for T arguments unless it is a very strong T argument and it is obvious that the topic that is being discussed is completely out of left field. Other than that run any argument you wish to run. I also like critical AFFs. A lot.

I used to read these in High School all the time, I hated it when it was too long. So I will try to make this short and descriptive.

About me: I am born and raised in Newark NJ, the biggest inner city in New Jersey. I grew up with K debate and hated it. Slowly K debate grew on me. I do also enjoy policymaking, but I hate politicians. I think good ideas should be discussed and debate helps us explore those ideas. I think debate becomes problematic once we rely on vague explanations and lying to win.

Debated in middle school for 3 years and debated for Technology High School for 4 years. I debated in college for about 2 years, and I judge on and off. I have about a decade of involvement in the Debate space.

I enjoy critiques but I also incorporated theory in practice through political organizing for 3 years. I have strong opinions of armchair Marxists and intellectuals who are counter-revolutionary.

I think Debate is a mess, and I wonder if it is helpful when it is so detached from reality. Regardless if it is a critique or a policy action. Both worlds have their limitations. Debate is good because it teaches us things, but I think that education goes backward eventually.

I currently work as a Medical Case Manager for a non-profit.

Preferences

Please just run what you believe in, as long as you debate well, I will vote for it. Don't try to run a k just because I like them. If you cannot run it well, especially with my big opinions, I will NOT vote on it....

Theory: I will not vote on Theory unless there are voters. I do not enjoy theory, but I will vote on it IF you can use the round as an example of abuse. I need empirical evidence while you are debating.

I hate vague alternatives. But I also don't think vague and hypothetical policymaking will change anything.

I like specifics but do not run ASPEC.

Answer your arguments. If you don't answer them I will have to vote on it if they explain it well.

Finally, Analysis analysis analysis! You can tell me to vote on something but I need a detailed reason.

I will never vote on an ethics challenge.

I will not vote aff on presumption, that makes no sense. Aff changes the status quo. Aff passes a policy. Negative advocates for the SQ if there is no K or CP.

Please put me on the email chain tbuttge1@binghamton.edu

I am a coach at Binghamton, where I debated for four years. I qualified to the NDT a few times, and have now been coaching Bing for three years.

My primary debate interests are disability studies, semiocap, various post modernism(Foucault, Delueze, etc), but I'm pretty familiar with most K literature currently in circulation.

I mostly judge K v K debates, but vote for framework a decent amount when its presented to me(I'll talk about why in a bit)

K v K

Aff's being able to articulate solvency/framing for the ballot is important to me. I'm not great for affs that are simply theories of power that explain why the status quo is bad. Being able to explain the aff's relationship to debate and why your pedagogy is good goes a long way in beating back presumption.

Neg teams need to focus on constructing the alt in a way that is as distinct from the aff as possible, and honestly with me in the back you can get away with simply a reject alt or something more like framework style argument instead of articulating aff solvency. My point here is to say, don't let the perm be an easy way out.

also please call out floating pics, it feels bad voting neg when the aff team doesn't realize how unfair the winning argument was.

Clash Debates

A big thing I have noticed when I judge these debates is that because each team will inevitably have offense, which team has better defense in the form of the TVA or the Counter Interpretation is often a deciding factor for me. Aff teams need to make sure they don't brush off the TVA in particular as I think it can mitigate a lot of the aff's offense when done right.

Am fine if the aff wants to just impact turn the neg's offense as well, just make sure you are dedicating a lot of time to this and not taking the fact that I will likely agree with you personally for granted.

Fairness is not too persuasive to me as an impact but I will vote for it if you win the argument. I think skills, education, dogma etc are better impacts though and you'll probably have better success with those.

When policy teams are aff, both sides should prioritize winning the framework argument as to whether or not the aff gets to weigh the plan. Also in these debates, the neg needs to focus on impact calc and explaining what solvency means in context of my ballot. Otherwise you risk losing to the try or die framing of the affirmative.

Lexington High School ‘16

University of Chicago ‘20

Edited: September 2016

michong3@gmail.com I would love to answer your questions!

OVERVIEW

• My role as a judge is to decide between two courses of action; these can be policies, affirmations, or anything else, but you must explain why it is an action.
• My view of the debate/the debaters is guided by specificity. Well-tailored arguments, evident in-depth research and preparation, and flexible responses to your opponents’ arguments are rewarded with higher speaker points and a higher probability of victory.
• Tech over truth. There is value in being organized and being thorough. Refuting a ridiculous argument is not rocket science.
• Presumption goes towards the least change.
• I judged 10-15 debates on the topic at the NDI this summer so I am not an expert on the technicalities and lingo of the topic.
• I will drop your points if you do not flow the 2NR or 2AR (it is permissible if you are preparing for those speeches).
• I have no poker face.

SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS

It should go without saying that many of my preferences can and will be overridden by the specific course of a debate.

DAs/Impact Turns

• I love these. But I will also vote for zero risk of an advantage so please do not forget to address the case. If there can be zero risk of a DA, there can also be zero risk of an adv.
• Disads and advs with logical inconsistencies or atrocious evidence quality can and should be beaten with analytics. Unfortunately, I often find myself voting neg because the 1AC is simply worse than whatever offcase the neg extends. When preparing, you should assess your argument on a truth level and on an evidentiary level.
• Disads have uniqueness, links, internal links, and impacts—all of which require evidence.
• Impact turns are great. These are my favorite debates because they are evidence-centered and require detailed work in evidence analysis and comparison.

Counterplans

• As a former 2N, I tend to default neg on CP theory. I think counterplans should have solvency advocates. It is up to you, the aff or neg, to define solvency advocate. My default is that an uncontested 1AC solvency advocate determines the threshold for solvency advocates.
• Please explain what the counterplan does and how that solves the aff. I am always interested in framing ideas that go beyond “necessary vs sufficient”.
• I will not judge-kick the CP unless you explain why that is a good idea

Kritiks

• I am familiar with authors in the vein of D and G, IR theory, capitalism and questions of race and identity.
• If I don’t understand you, I will not vote for you. Please contextualize the kritik to the aff and avoid jargon.
• I find kritik debates difficult to judge when I don’t understand how proving/disproving a certain theoretical component of the kritik changes the way I evaluate the aff.
• Structural violence as an umbrella term is not an impact. Be diligent and explain the actual situations and peoples your author describes.

Topicality

• I find strong, well-researched definitions persuasive. You should demonstrate an understanding of the topic literature and the terms its authors choose to use.
• Articulate specific impacts and internal links (wow, like a disad?). I know it’s tough to draw a line between nebulous and specific theory impacts so specificity and examples are your best friends here. What type of knowledge does their interpretation exclude and why is that knowledge important? Why should I prefer research skills over advocacy skills and how do you access research skills better than the other team?
• For affs, winning reasonability means winning that your interpretation is good enough for the topic. You cannot reasonably meet an interpretation. Please double-check that you meet your own interpretation.

Non-Traditional (Non-Plan Text) Affirmatives

• I have spent a lot of time as a TA and a mentor and I believe resolutely in the educational value of debate. Arguments about improving the way we debate are more persuasive to me than arguments about why we should demolish debate.
• These advocacies should be related to the resolution in some way.
• I think framework can be a specific indict of a non-topical advocacy and my default is to believe that debating the resolution has specific and significant merits.
• I often vote aff on FW debates because the neg lacks specific impacts and impact comparison with the aff. I read both an exports aff and a faciality aff my senior year--I have been on both sides of the clash of civilizations debate.

Theory

• I will default to rejected the argument, not the team unless the theoretical issue is conditionality.
• I have no problem with an unlimited number of conditional advocacies as long as you can justify each one. E.g. Reading an advantage CP and a process CP is good because we need to test the internal links and the mechanism of the plan.
• Treat this like you would a CP, DA. (What net benefit does your interpretation access that the other team’s doesn’t? Do you have an internal link to your impact?)
• I will be grumpy if there is no LBL in these debates and I am left to sort out huge paragraph extensions by myself.
• Conditionality means I can kick the CP/Alt for you unless otherwise specified in the debate

Clipping

Clipping is defined as representing that you have read 3 or more words of evidence than you actually read. Evidence must be both verbally and physically marked during your speech. It is punishable with a loss and 0 speaker points for the offender. A false accusation is punishable with a loss and 0 speaker points for both debaters from the accusing team. In the event of an accusation, I will inform both teams of the possible consequences. The accusing team will have one opportunity to withdraw their allegation. If the accusation is not withdrawn, I will then decide, to the best of my ability, whether intentional clipping occurred, using all available resources (video recordings, audio recordings, speech documents). It is the burden of the accuser to provide these resources.

Lexington High School '16

4 years policy debate

Card clipping/cross-reading:

Clipping is defined as representing that you have read 5 or more words of evidence than you actually read.  Evidence must be both verbally and physically marked during your speech.  It is punishable with a loss and 0 speaker points for the offender.  A false accusation is punishable with a loss and 0 speaker points for both debaters from the accusing team.  In the event of an accusation, I will inform both teams of the possible consequences.  The accusing team will have one opportunity to withdraw their allegation.  If the accusation is not withdrawn, I will then decide, to the best of my ability, whether intentional clipping occurred, using all available resources (including legal video recordings, legal audio recordings, and marked speech documents, not including time tests).  Considering that this is a novice division at a regional tournament, I will only penalize teams if I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the clipping was intentional.  These guidelines would be overriden by any official tournament rules.

Did debate for four years with Stuyvesant HS. Have been lightly involved with the community since then but not as versed with the topic as most. Ran a lot of bougie K args (read: Baudrillard), generally familiar with most Ks but not well-read when it comes to the literature. Don't expect me to know authors by name, don't drop jargon like ressentiment or undercommons without context and explanation. I like all types of negs and affs, but props if you run a solid policy aff as I don't get to hear them too often. Also props for creative/novel (not nonsensical/ridiculous) arguments in general. Traditional FW tends to be a boring debate for everyone - if you can make the case that their specific aff is egregious, fine.

The most important thing for me is that both teams make developed arguments that directly interact. This tends not to happen when teams yell at each other during CX, interrupt the other team's speeches, etc. I have no problem giving poor speaker points to someone who I think disrupted the community of the round by inappropriately going off the handle. At the same time, it is a debate, not a discussion, and I appreciate teams who are clearly passionate about and motivated by their arguments.

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L.

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 9/18/22

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.

With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.

With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional or policy. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.

I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.

All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.

Policy

Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

Last updated Sep 2020

Lexington High School '15, Dartmouth College '19

Add me to the chain: daehyun97(at)gmail.com

Debated 4 years in high school and 2 years in college, mostly on the national circuit. I’m probably not familiar with the topic, but feel free to check with me.

I read a variety of arguments when I debated. Dabbled in all sorts of K arguments but am most familiar with critiques of racism, capitalism, and security.

In clash of civs debates my voting record is pretty even - I do prefer T-USFG to framework, though.

Ask me if you have any questions about ideology / specific things you want to do.

Dae is pronounced as “day” not “die” or “judge”

People to make fun of: Conor Cameron (priority), Pirzada Ahmad, JJ Kim, Jeremy Rivera

Lexington High School (MA), Class of 2015

University of California-Berkeley (CA), Class of 2019

Affiliations: Lexington High School, Wayzata High School, St. Vincent De Paul

National Circuit -- Debated 4 years, Coached 1 year

Feb 2016 (Update): Have not judged on the HS topic yet. The Berkeley tournament will be my first. Flashing counts as prep. Include me (nk [DOT] nikhilkrishnan [AT] gmail.com) on the email chain. Tabula rasa.

Debate about whatever you are good at (or feel like) debating. Do not change your argumentation style or content based on your perception of me. I think debate should be about the debaters, and thus I try to remove myself from whatever biases I might have and evaluate the debate solely on what the debaters quarreled about. I am a good judge for well-researched/prepared, confident, and persuasive students (in that order). I evaluate arguments logically unless given a different framework. I loved cross-ex back in high school, and I will reward a fantastic cross-ex with speaker points. Debate is an activity with a research/preparation aspect and a presentation aspect, and good debaters cannot exist without good strategies and good ethos. Strategies could range from a full-fledged case debate to a topic specific criticism to a mechanism counterplan/disad to a methodology debate, etc. Ethos includes your clarity, speed, intonation, and overall your in-round persona. Own the room. I will vote for any argument that isn't morally reprehensive (e.g. discrimination/oppression good). Accidental discursive blunders should be followed with an apology, but can still be losing if furtherly criticized. Ones that demonstrate mal-intent are flagrant voting issues.

Topicality is solely a game of execution. Whoever wins the technical battle (w/ decent evidence) oftentimes wins the debate.

Counterplans with a solid solvency advocate and ones that are grounded in the literature base are good. If you wish, run whatever cheating counterplans you want, but be prepared to have a robust theoretical defense.

Disads can have zero risk. Evidence quality and comparison really matter in close debates. Have nuanced impact/internal link debates. The better the link story the better (most of the time link controls the direction of uniqueness). Theory debates on politics are boring.

Kritiks are won and lost in framework. I read quite a bit of critical literature back in high school, and even though I have probably dabbled in your choice of philosopher, please give me a consistent explanation of your argument from the get-go. These debates are either hit or miss.

Alternative and/or non-traditional forms of evidence/presentation are welcome. Affirmative sets the focus of the debate (unless the Negative snatches it back).

I do not vote on theory a lot (partly because I rarely debated it). That being said, a large portion of the time that I will consider voting on theory is when there is a well-articulated and impacted reason why the opposing team's strategy/decisions have put you at an insurmountable disadvantage. The other times theory is often only enough reason to reject the argument. Do not think of theory as the last resort to win an otherwise unwinnable debate. Presumption resides with the team that advocates the least change of the status quo.

Quality over quantity. I do not call cards often (often because I'm on the email chain), and thus I would prefer a great explanation of evidence than having to interpret it myself. Remember claim/warrant/impact and evidence comparison. When considering truth vs. tech, I often find myself on leaning to the side of tech (whatever tech really means). Learning to package arguments will make you a more successful and efficient debater.

Clipping is a breach of academic integrity. I will vote against the team who clipped and assign them 0 speaker points if sufficient cause/admissible evidence is proven. Debate is an intellectual activity that mirrors real academic and industrial encounters, so the violators will have to face the harshest of consequences. Most of the time intent does not matter; it is your responsibility as a debater to take authority of your presentation.

Tufts University '20
- 3 years parliamentary debate (APDA, USBP)
- 2 years ethics bowl (APPE; USA #2, 2020).

Lexington High School '16
- 4 years policy debate (NatCir)
- some public forum (MSDL)

Summary

If it's not on my flow in the final rebuttal, I'm not voting for it. I will NOT follow along on speech docs. Speed is OK, but clarity is key. All argumentation is the debaters' responsibility to make coherent in the final rebuttals.

Harmful / intentionally disrespectful conduct will tank speaker points.

Run what you do best and please ask any other questions you have before the round!

Background

Most of my high school affirmatives had traditional policy mechanisms. I have some experience with "identity" and Continental criticism in debate, esp. on the neg. I have researched affect and political philosophy. I am not involved in topic research; please don't assume acronym familiarity.

I debated policy in high school in the early 2000s.  During that time, I debated on both my regional circuit and the national circuit.

Stylistic preferences (in order of preference)

1. Speed and Clarity - I'm usually okay with speed if you are clear.  I won't flow it if I can't understand it.  It will be very apparent to everyone if I am not flowing, so make sure that you look up occasionally to evaluate the situation.  In all my years of judging, I've never encountered anyone that was too fast, only people who are unclear.
2. Evidence vs. Analysis - Good evidence makes for a good debate round, but good analysis makes for a great debate round.  I want to hear true, substantive clash about the warrants of the evidence, not just low-level clash on the claims level.
3. Clear Signposting - If I can't easily figure out where to put your particular argument on the flow, then it might not appear on the flow.  In particular, I HATE it when teams just read off prepared blocks without some attempt at matching up where their arguments interact with their opponents' arguments.  I've been known to give really low speaks for teams who do this.  Be warned.

Argument Preferences (in order of favorability)

1. Kritiks - I love kritiks, because I think that they represent how the debate space provides challenges that allows high schoolers to think beyond the norm of what is offered in school.  As an educator, I really admire students who try to grapple with difficult academic content.  That being said, the bar for me to vote negative on a Kritik is really high.  A few specifics:
• No Links of Omission - I rarely vote for links of omission, unless the specific warrants for why the affirmative's omission is intrinsic to the argument.  Even so, the bar to prove that is really high.
• Intervention - There are a few instances where I will intervene if the prevailing moral philosophy behind the K is something I find offensive.  Ks predicated on racist/sexist ideology will usually be rejected without much explanation.
• Hanlon's Razor - A recent aphorism that basically says: "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance."  I like to assume the best about people, and that leaks into my judging.  You don't have to prove intentionality in your link analysis, necessarily, but it helps your case.
• Try to stay germane to the topic.  You COULD just run Cap Bad every round, but there so much more interesting stuff out there. 
2. Counterplans - Not much to say here... CPs are fun?  I do believe that CPs really kind of operate as opportunity-cost disadvantages, but if you offer differing theory, I am more than willing to entertain that.  
3. Disadvantages - I have just one thing to say here: Risk.  The shorter the linkage between plan action and terminal impact, the higher the risk.  And risk, for me, is an undervalued analysis in policy debate.  I hate the "try-or-die" argument, as it attempts to short-circuit risk analysis through intellectually dishonest analysis.
4. T and Theory - I don't really have fun listening to these.  I'll vote on them.  Making a T argument against a clearly topical case might be a good tactical decision, but I think it cheapens the game of debate.  Honestly, we're all here to win, but we're all here to receive an education.  I'd rather receive an educational experience by hearing good debate on the actual substantive parts of the topic than hear 5 minutes of ASPEC in the 2NR.  I don't really vote on potential abuse.

Experience

Dartmouth 20', Lexington 16', debated policy 4 years at each.

Rounds judged on Antitrust: 0, Cards Cut: 0.

duncan.s.mccallum@gmail.com on the chain please.

he/him/his

General

Policy argument background. I try hard to evaluate debates objectively and be content neutral. I consider myself fairly well read and interested in many subjects. Therefore my process of evaluation, rather than my comprehension, of your arguments is more likely to be impacted by my background and biases.

I find myself to be less interventionist than the average judge. I am willing to take the implications of "bad" arguments at face value until disproven.

Strong preference for well researched strategies and evidently knowledgeable debaters. The closer arguments are to the "literature"/academia the happier I am.

Kritiks

Enjoy good versions of these debates, strongly dislike bad ones. The difference between the two is specificity.

Unwarranted overviews and explanation do not get very far with me.

Good K debating is good case debating. Aff inclusive kritiks are underrated.

Planless affs

Struggle the most with comparing impacts. Neg leaning on kritik competition. Generally frustrated with trend towards proliferation of 1ACs which are 6-7 minutes of T preempts. I'm quite receptive to strategies meant to exploit resulting inconsistencies.

T-USFG: I believe that there is too much ground (not too little) under aff interpretations. This means limits and procedural fairness are compelling arguments. Affirmative turns are compelling and should be mitigated by case debating. Strategies premised around interesting counter-interpretations are compelling but rare. Most counter-interpretations provide little defense. Topicality is a better argument than framework. TVAs are rarely necessary as I seldom find the exact content of the 1AC uniquely important. See: Turner, John.

Topicality (v plan)

I enjoy thinking about topicality. A strong interpretation must be a predictable limit. Neg ground standards are not persuasive. Overlimiting interpretations are rare. Arbitrary interpretations are common. 2As do with that as you will. I favor arguments backed by good cards. Lean towards competing interpretations.

Very willing to vote on specification arguments.

Disads

More receptive than most to smart analytics. Zero risk is a unicorn. Low risk strongly mitigates impact comparison and implication. But, that stuff is still very important when done concisely. Most turns case and impact calc arguments require only a couple seconds to defeat.

Average judge for politics DAs.

CPs/Theory

The stronger the grounding of the CP in topic literature the more theoretically legitimate it tends to be.

Very receptive to theory arguments excluding multi-actor fiat, not-a-policy fiat, and uniform-50-state fiat.

'Reject the argument not the team' is persuasive in most instances. Arguments about what is justified rather than what happened in the round are much stronger.

I have the typical 2A's frustration with CPs consisting of 5+ planks. I'm not sure quite what to do with it but I'm annoyed.

Conditionality: probably good. Interpretations that restrict conditionality to a specific number in the 1NC are arbitrary to some degree – I find dispositionality more persuasive. I don't think there is much controversy around defining that term, but still extrapolate your interpretation. Against 2NC planks or amendments. No opinion on judge kick.

Misc

Evidence comparison is quite important. I care a lot about quals. I am inclined to strongly discount unqualified evidence and inclined to strongly prefer extremely qualified evidence. Identifying and communicating the qualifications of a particular author is the responsibility of the debaters.

You cannot insert evidence into a debate. You must read it unless it's an image that can't be read easily (e.g. chart, map).

How to get good speaks -

Hard numbering. This is very near and dear to my heart. Eschewing line by line is a great way to get bad speaks.

I find my favorite debaters are genial, well read, and very confident. The most important thing is to demonstrate preparation with execution.

Bold decision making.

Debating the case.

Jokes. Don't worry too much about content. Recommended subjects: Dartmouth debate, Boston sports, NBA, soccer, Twitter, pop culture, ridiculous metaphors (see Estrada, Joseph; Tambe, Raam).

You will get bad speaker points if you are unclear.

I debated for Lexington High School for 4 years as a 2N and now I am a freshman debater at UC Berkeley. I love debate and the intellectual inquiry that goes into succeeding in a debate round.

In terms of arguments, I am open to listening to most arguments. I don't necessarily lean aff or neg on any policy arguments, including theory violations- I will vote for whomever does the better debating. I go for all sorts of arguments including kritiks, impact turns, disads, and counterplans so I have no argumentative biases.

However, against affs that don't defend a plan text, I exclusively go for topicality. Although I am open to listening to your critical aff, the neg should feel comfortable going for topicality or framework. 

Feel free to ask many any questions before the round. 

Good Luck!

My experience is in participating in and coaching high school extemp and public forum debate

I strongly prefer slower, articulate speaking to spreading

I strongly prefer clear signposting of evidence and major points

I strongly prefer that competitors stand during speeches and crossfire

It's cool frfr. I'll judge your round. Don't be a racist or w/e and make your arguments well.

-See Devon Schley's Paradigm, we're basically the same person but I like Afropess less-

last updated: january 2020

edgemont class of 2015

binghamton class of 2019

my email is tennisxu@gmail.com -- pls add me to the email chain

tl;dr - do whatever you want. don't be offensive. content is much less important than execution (clear explanation and example debating). line by line is important and makes it a lot easier for me to decide debates

that being said, i have a few random thoughts about debate

- i'm 51/49 against framework (ie i'd vote aff in a tie) but my bias is SUPER easily overcome by good debating. all framework impacts are kinda boring tbh, but the neg needs to do a better job figuring out what the 1ar messed up instead of blindly going for the impact they like the most or they perceive as the best. clearly the claim that decisonmaking skills solve extinction is less convincing than an impact based around competitive equity, but the flow/individual debate should decide the truth claims of those things. what's the point of the 5 new f/w impact / tricks you read in the 2nc if you just never go for them... case defense / solvency presumptiony case arguments are also super valuable -- the aff winning a meta level thesis claim makes it hard for you to weigh offense since the aff can just impact turn things at a terminal level. why do portable skills matter if we just use them to advance imperialism / antiblackness / capitalism?

- 2nc k extensions often suffer from a lack of flow-ability that frustrates me greatly. please try to organize your speech in a constructed manner that revolves around answering the 2ac -- simply saying "go to the link debate" or "go to the impact debate" does not help me in where i should put these things. i will be a much happier camper if you put those things on individual 2ac arguments (ie put the link debate in the perm debate, put the impact debate on some impact defense).

- line by line makes a lot of sense to organize the debate and generally just makes me happy, but i find a lot of the times the more "technical" team will get caught up in extending a bunch of conceded arguments but don't answer an overarching impact outweighs / framing argument the other team advances. even if certain arguments aren't answered, how does that interact with their offense / framing of the debate?

- counterplan theory - very much case-by-case basis - i think that a neg pic that shows that they did their research (cutting 1ac ev, reading lit that directly responds to the 1ac solvency advocate) that is responded to by "pics bad" by the aff is utterly unconvincing - however, reading the most generic counterplan on the rez and saying that we have a card about "surveillance" brings out my inner 2a and leads me to sympathize with the aff

- defense is very good and needs to be used more

- aff needs to put pressure on the block/neg - given the advent of rampant conditionality and other factors, a 2ac that just plays defense on everything the neg says is a ticket to failure - the aff needs to control the direction of the debate using strategically placed 2ac offense (addons, theory arguments, straight turns etc) or the block will run over the aff with new cards and 13 minutes

- haven't judged a debate on this rez so please explain common acronyms and things others might take as granted esp when going for T -- not sure how my time away from the activity has changed my perspectives on potentially common things but ya it's been a little under a year since i've judged a debate

- avid melee player so if you like the game talk to me about mango and ill give you some speaker points. my hands are also getting the work from melee so my ability to flow has definitely decayed -- be cognizant of your speed pls

Lexington '15

Vanderbilt '19 (did not debate at Vanderbilt)

Don't be offensive (no racism/sexism/ableism/etc good obviously)

You need to flow.

Debated more on the policy side, but I'm good with any well-executed argument.