Tabroom.com

Barkley Forum for High Schools

2025 — Atlanta, GA/US

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sachin Aggarwal Head-Royce High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 7:52 AM EST

durham '24 & emory '28

coach at head-royce

add: idontpostround@googlegroups.com AND breakdocs@googlegroups.com

tldr; intervention is the worst. my defaults are influenced by this. i will evaluate any and all arguments read and won’t reject any unless the opposing team (or tabroom) wins that i should do so. arguments need a warrant and implication logically tied together. they must be able to be extended and the only thing they win is my ballot.

anything else in this paradigm is just a default. some relevant ones include: new arguments in final speeches are bad, yet must be pointed out (unless it’s the 2ar). aff has burden of proof. no judge kick nor inserted rehighlightings. ncm, ci, no rvis, dtd, text of interp.

speaker points are generally dictated by the following—

1) argumentative quality: above all else, i prefer you read what you can execute most strategically. yet, there’s nothing more painful than reading “tricks” or procedurals to win just to execute them ineffectively. similarly, despite what i read in high school, certain arguments make more sense than others. framework interps that delete the entire case, most arguments asserting that obligations are entirely impossible, claims that debates can actually alter our beliefs, convoluted & unexplained logical paradoxes, and a lot more things are pretty unintuitive to me. explain and/or make them make sense.

2) strategy: efficiency/speed, judge instruction, weighing, and contextualization are very important. round vision is important; if something is dropped, tell me why i should care. all arguments should be debated to win the flow and effective ballot framing, if mishandled, can win you the debate (tell me what i care about most and whatever that means to you).

3) organization: i tend to flow by ear and essentially do not open docs. this means you should be clear. speech documents should nonetheless be high-quality and well-formatted, especially if i am asked to look at certain evidence. being prepared and starting the debate early, ending a speech early, or using limited prep will increase speaks. on the contrary, starting late = lower speaks.

if im judging pf, reference everything above + fiona hu's paradigm.

have fun & good luck!

Chansey Agler Sequoyah High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 2:58 PM EST

Updated for ’24-’25. If there’s anything not covered in here (tried to be as extensive as possible), just ask, but if it’s something like “are you good with counterplans” I might be v sad.

About: 4 years of LD in a GA HS (local first then circuit), UGA ’24, ’24 (M.Ed. if it matters to you, it probably doesn’t). Have judged on the circuit and locally since 2021. Familiar enough with the resolution to know what you’re talking about, not familiar enough to know all the intricate ptx DAs. Do whatever you do best—would rather see good theory debates than bad K debates, etc.

- Pronouns: they/she.

- Yes, I want to be on the chain (chansey.agler@gmail.com), speechdrop and fileshare on tab are fine; I won’t look at google docs, PDFs are inadvisable

- Fine w flex prep

- Pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round thx in advance; ask me for permission before recording an RFD

Speaks:

- Speed is fine if you’re clear, be extra clear (start slower) when it’s the first round of the day or of the tournament, appreciate slowing down on advocacy, interp, ROB, standard/criterion texts—more signposting is good, I usually need a few seconds to switch flows—audibly saying “onto the DA” and pausing for a second in the 1AR, for example, is helpful

- Speaks are based off of efficiency, strategy, and clarity, not arbitrariness—playing behind the scenes to try and balance historic gaps in speaks, lowering them for split 2NRs

- I typically average ~28.5 relative to the pool, would usually prefer not to disclose them immediately after the round

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

Ks, Policy: 1

Philosophy*: 2 (*not fantastic for tricks disguised as phil)

Traditional: 3

Theory: 4

Tricks: 4

TL;DR: collapse, weigh, common sense is important, read complete arguments, do more link work

Top-level/must knows:

- Will vote on most arguments, better for policy and K arguments (method debates and clash rounds are fine). Experienced w/ philosophy but LD’s execution is hit-or-miss. Theory or tricks-heavy strats need to be complete arguments and have actual warrants. Meaningful, resolvable, complete arguments are good, hail marys are inadvisable regardless of style.

- Explanation, weighing, clash, and judge instruction are crucial. Do more resolving interactions btwn things. Yes tech > truth in that I resolve rounds based on the flow, am open to a lot of args (would prefer to see what you’re good at), but truth matters in the sense that args start at zero and go up from there and I’m not abandoning all common sense, if I didn’t understand it, I can’t vote on it.

- Most judges give awful RFDs—not listening to the round, ignoring arguments made besides what they like/don't like. Trying very hard not to be like that but there is a greater range of uncertainty in my decision when I have to do more work—explaining, doing link weighing, and resolving clash mean I can echo the 2NR/2AR and avoid decisions I am unhappy with, fine with questions but aggression/postrounding are nonstarters.

- Not a fan of frivolous/‘tabula rasa’ nonsense since I think what we do is and should be meaningful, the closer an arg gets to abhorrent or contrary to debate’s intent (think “flat earth”), the likelier it is I won’t evaluate it. Will not evaluate arguments generated exclusively by AI (unless it’s a performance about AI or something ig?).

- Not voting on -isms or discriminatory args, this includes args from hate orgs (ex: the heritage foundation). Will eval impact turns like spark, wipeout, and extinction good (read: as negative util/preserving value) but I understand why many aren’t receptive to these. Not evaluating things like ‘warming good.’ Threshold for responses is always lower the worse/edging on abhorrent the arg is.

- CX matters, you must be able to explain args to win on them, CX should never be 3 min of “what was your first contention…wouldn’t you agree…”

- Independent voters can be persuasive in the age of reading off docs and just not understanding engagement, in the age of widening ideological gaps, and the age of increasing accountability. Not everything rises to the level of independent voter, but speech acts do matter.

- Accessibility is important—lmk accommodations directly if possible, most emails go to my spam (this happened in a round), misgendering/racism/other -isms in round lead to loss of speaks and/or the ballot if egregious. I take misgendering very seriously. You and your opponent have the right to point it out and make it instant DTD, even if it happened in the 2AR. Advocating for this is exhausting. If there’s an issue of similar nature, let me know in whatever way possible.

- weigh <3

Lincoln-Douglas

Policy

- Probably most comfortable judging this, fair game for most things, though I will say I prefer topic DAs (esp w/ specific links to the plan) to generic ptx, not wild about tangential extinction impacts (do we really need to read ‘extinction’ on a topic like “standardized tests?”)

- Fine with specific plans and PICs, not fantastic for either extreme of the nebel T debate

- Tag and ev quality both matter—incoherent args (tags like “No China war” followed by a long card are as bad as a card highlighted to incoherence) are incoherent (this is a massive problem in LD rn and policy args are imo most affected by this), you only get credit for what’s flowed, do more ev weighing

- I think inserting re-highlighting is fine if it’s from portions of ev already read, must be aloud if it’s a different portion even if from the same article

- I think zero risk is a thing, CX can do a lot of work here too

- Like good impact turns, ev quality is necessary, innovation makes for some interesting debates, stale impact turns like the same version of spark every round are bad

- Yes internal link weighing—contest probability, timeframe, etc., makes my ballot easier when both sides impact to extinction

- 1NC needs to do more competition work in LD, love good perm debates but 10 “perm do both” analytics aren’t it

- Judge kick seems bad, 2NRs should learn to make strategic choices, won’t not eval it but definitely receptive to “it’s arbitrary”

- Case debates are great debates, do more solvency/link turns and not just 1 min of impact D after spraying 6 off (2NRs on case are always welcome btw)

- In LD, you should still warrant util/SV in the 1AC—the 1NC should always go for an NC if this isn’t the case

- If evenly debated, ground > limits for T; Aff on CP competition, Neg on CP theory; condo good; semantic controls pragmatic

- “You get ptx” or “we want ptx” isn’t great as an explanation of models for T, other than that, good for T interps that delineate models of debate and go for topic lit/controversy, 2AR must extend case if T was the 2NR, if you’re reading “X school’s Aff is the TVA,” explain what that means

- Not very moved by tournament dates, popularity, etc. for T—popularity doesn’t make an Aff immune to T as a germane criticism, though functional limits are persuasive

- Bad for plan flaw unless the plan text is meaningfully different from real implementation (“this isn’t how that law works in practice” = fine, “US meaningless/no period” = please no)

Kritiks

- Very solid or very weak rounds based on the work you do to make it great, honestly much better for a more technical K debate though I do understand that performances are important too

- I try to be familiar with a decent variety of lit but I do not guarantee I know the intricate details of your lit base (most familiar with queer theory), you should still explain args as if I do not have a base understanding, have voted from things like psychoanalysis to a simple cap K and back, you do you if you can explain it

- Not familiar with denser critiques of IR, happy to judge these but I’m unlikely to understand it without the 1NC doing some work here

- Have devoted a lot of focus in particular to queer and trans lit—don’t go for it just to go for it, higher threshold to win it when “state bad” is your only link, these lit bases are indebted to Blackness in their resistance strategies (this seems most relevant in methods debates)

- Ks of discourse – be reasonable, policing is bad, racism and other forms of abhorrent discourse are also bad

- Non-T Affs are completely fine, just have a relevant ballot story and do ‘something’ (don’t care what that ‘something’ looks like though—very low threshold here)—I do also enjoy creative visions of affirmation and like Affs that innovate

- Presumption and case pushes are good against K affs (more than a few short analytics)—a lot of teams fall short in explaining what the Aff does, what it endorses, ballot key, etc.—doing work at these levels treats the Aff like an Aff and makes for better rounds than “fiat is good because I prefer policy debates”

- Have judged a bit of K v. K rounds, K aff v. cap K is usually straightforward but otherwise, do a lot more “turns/solves case” and work on the perm than just “root cause,” resolving work is key—the two Ks aren’t usually a criticism of the same thing so perms that demonstrate interactions or resolve “perms in a methods debate” are more convincing than 5 brief versions of “perm do both”

- Not a fan of the “perm double bind”

Independent Voters

- I tend to view these as pressing concerns that must override substance, I think debaters are oftentimes too quick to throw out “auto-drop” or “repugnant” warrants without explaining DTD implications, but I also think problematic discourse is terrible—very receptive to things like misgendering as an IVI, less to things like “this is independent” if it’s a reps turn or something that should be resolved substantively; I find that many independent voters fall short of DTD and seem more DTA—for example, “legal definitions bad” seems like DTA

- Theory args (condo, CP legitimacy, etc.) =/= independent voters, idk why these are lumped together ngl

Framework (Policy v. K)

- Policy teams that go for “ToP doesn’t explain everything, prefer particularized methods on this issue” along with “state engagement good on this issue” do much better than those that rely on generics

- Aff FW v. K: a) start resolving “weigh case” vs. “debate is about discourse” much earlier, b) “extinction o/w” is overused and avoids clash, c) I honestly don’t usually understand most “procedural fairness” args on their own and so impacting the deficit to fairness is necessary

- T-FW—a) not great for “planless” Affs that still defend the rez in LD (e.g., a Kant AC), b) state engagement being better for movements and solving case is really enjoyable, “rez is worth debating” is good if applicable, c) 1-off FW strategies that devote most of the 1NC time to answering the Aff are honestly really enjoyable because of depth of clash

Philosophy

- Familiar with analytical ethical phil, limited familiarity with continental, quicker to understand the former (if it’s like Levinas I can probably understand what you’re saying but if it’s really esoteric then you should err on the side of overexplaining esp in CX), execution in LD is hit-or-miss—I like good FW debates but bad ones hurt my head

- Explain your theory of ethical good, explain the application of Kantian ethics instead of just going “that’s coercive, can’t do it”—I’ll listen to things like “taxation always bad” if that’s the logical conclusion of your FW, but that rarely seems to be the case—I think CX is important in these debates

- Won’t hack for epistemic/ethical modesty but I also won’t disregard high risk of extinction purely bc there’s clash at the framing level

- Not huge on phil ACs that also read a util advantage or phil ACs/NCs that get super tricky

- Unlikely to vote on FWs I can’t explain back to you or that are extremely circular to the point of uselessness—performativity and constitutivism warrants are often culprits here

- I do not want to hear source Kant. If other cards are outdated and constantly need bracketing for things like gendered language, perhaps it is time for revision

- TJFs: a) I understand the necessity for them in circuit contexts, though they usually don’t make sense unless util is in play, b) most TJFs are poorly warranted, explain why analytics or carded offense are good/bad, c) phil ed loss? maybe? idk that’s for you to decide

- Impact-justified frameworks are ~~probably~~ bad

- AFC/ACC: this is debate. clash is a thing and good and args that deny clash make me sad.

Traditional LD

- I started trad and understand it, I only vote off the flow (not “who spoke better”), if you only have lay experience, just be aware that I understand the topic, debate, and a variety of styles—it doesn’t mean “read something crazy for the sake of it.” Unless definitions of words are relevant to the debate (aka topicality), just debate substance. The Aff is not bound to a “plan,” but solvency is a germane question, and you can’t just say “it’s LD.”

- The 1NC must engage with the Aff, not doing so means I’m voting Aff because the Neg has the burden of rejoinder, 1NCs are weirdly orienting themselves to very little case coverage nowadays

- I do not want to hear cases that read like an essay

- Yes I disclose, ask questions in-person

- Ev comparison, weighing, and analysis are good in these rounds—it is not enough to say “x matters,” tell me why x/y matters more, don’t just restate things, grandstanding is unhelpful

- FWs should have warrants and not be “upholding my side of the rez,” explain why util or Kant or whatever is true

-Do not read "constitutionality" as a framework. Reconsider reading something often construed to antiqueerness in front of a queer judge.

- If there’s no clash at the FW level, just concede FW and move on, two people can agree on a metric and disagree on the best action under it, I guarantee I will be happier if I see an in-depth DA + case debate in trad than bad FW debate

- Trad v. circuit: circuit teams should explain their args (esp in CX, not explaining means I’m skeptical of your understanding of the arg), simplifying is good (1-off, case for Ks and 2-3 off w/o procedurals for policy = good), not penalizing trad teams for not understanding circuit norms like disclosure, not penalizing circuit teams for playing the game (ex: if it’s a late prelim/elim and you go 5-off, more sympathetic than early prelims)

- Say the name of the card before what you cut, don’t paraphrase ev, made-up ev = auto-L, brackets that modify meaning = L

- Shenanigans like “they had no value/criterion” if they conceded FW or did something like reading a K will not make me happy (pls don’t mansplain LD to me…)

- “they were abusive” – what’s abusive, do I drop the argument or the debater, how do I rectify this, why do I care (theory >>> “this is abusive” with no warrant/impact)

- Trad debaters can respect in-round safety too, this does cost ballots (overt racism and antiqueerness has made a resurgence in locals again), will penalize this stuff even if there’s not an argument made

- No set lens on the rez (Aff should do something but idk what “something” is), debaters’ dismissal of things like Ks =/= reasons to reject on my flow, if you think Affs should debate the topic, argue they should—read T-FW and not NCs that don’t engage

- Yes, I’m fine with CPs, but most “counterplans” in lay rounds don’t make sense to me tbh—pls endorse a singular, counter-course of action w/ actual ev that the CP solves Aff offense—don’t read an abstract counter-claim—I won’t vote on CPs I don’t understand

Theory

- Have judged a reasonable amount of theory, highly dependent on execution, needs more weighing btwn standards and i/l weighing to fairness/ed—resolvability is key and otherwise I tend to defer to substance and/or presumption—deficits to fairness are rarely weighed (ex: neg flex vs. PICs stealing Aff offense)

- Better for policy theory than LD-style strategic/friv theory, make the abuse story and model clearer (condo always bad? what’s allowed?), if I can’t draw the line btwn speeches, unlikely to vote on it (10 second condo args don’t make for good 3 min 2Ars)

- DTA + reasonability are often persuasive, beating back paradigm issues in general is often persuasive

- Bad for friv and abstract theory, clear and specific interps are easier for me to eval, won’t eval stuff abt opp’s appearance or similar, use common sense, not very good for “URL theory” or “punching theory” or other things circulating rn

- Combo shells are both arbitrary and strategic against spiky affs

- I prefer that you do explicitly extend uncontested paradigm issues but that you not be annoying abt it

- Don’t use theory to shut out tough convos

- Not a fan of “must include links to circuit debater” or the like

- Lots of shells = usually unstrategic, more than 2 and I usually question your strategic decisions

- Not flowing new 2AR theory args unless the 2NR was abusive (“strike it from the flow” will suffice too)

- Have voted for RVIs in the past, not entirely opposed to voting for them per se but I think substance is usually easier to resolve given the lack of weighing or resolving done in these kinds of rounds, and RVIs are usually not well-warranted or extended

- Misdisclosure is tough, I need: a) SLOW DOWN and tell me what was ASKED FOR and what was GIVEN—I eval screenshots from both ends, b) standards that tie into this difference, c) DTD warrants (why not drop an analytic if that’s what you’re indicting?)

Disclosure

- Disclosure is good on balance but I’m not huge on disclosure theory esp when the violation gets more contrived—as of late I think reading disclosure theory is a mandate for equality over equity and I’m pretty receptive to exceptions to the rule, policy v. policy is where I am most persuaded by it and K rounds least so

- Don’t need to disclose performances or similar materials (narratives probably fall under this umbrella)

- Not voting on this at a local. Y’all haven’t figured out how to format a doc, let alone use the wiki.

- New Affs bad is not my favorite arg but I’ll hear you—go for better warrants over generics, skip “can’t engage” if you put a lot of answers on case, “new Affs justify some level of Neg abuse” >> DTD, the joke “I prepped for “it’s new”” was maybe funny once in like 2019

Tricks

- I honestly do not understand TT as much as you probably want me to if I’m in the back

- Okay-ish for things like ethical paradoxes and maybe epistemic ones (one-card “skep Ks” are a nonstarter but gettier problems can be cool), not big on strategies designed to avoid clash—not a fan of sweeping theory spikes or “disregard the flow” that are tricky in nature, much worse for theory tricks than things like paradoxes

- Warrants are key, if I can't explain it back to you based on what was said in-round, it doesn't get the ballot

- If you want paradoxes to take out a framework, you have to devote time to them

- Bad for crazy logic paradoxes, I cannot flow a million Ps and Qs or understand an equation in the context of an LD round

- Slews of analytics are hard for me to flow, slow way down if the 1AC/1NC is loaded

- I evaluate all speeches in a given round, the exceptions do not usually come from tricks

Evidence Ethics (all events)

- I'll eval both theory and ev ethics challenges, the latter stops the round and winner gets a W, loser gets low speaks, theory plays out like any other theory debate

- If it's an ev ethics challenge, everyone needs to be silent and I’m looking over everything, if coaches/debaters try and sway this after the challenge, it’s an auto-L

- For clipping: I tend to not flow off the doc—this means I need a recording and definitive proof (beyond just a line or so)

Misc Stuff

- LD Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence – I have no defaults on theory (make arguments), permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, though presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy – it is MUCH easier to convince me that presumption affirms than permissibility

- I don’t care if you sit or stand—just be clear

CONFLICTS:

All entries – Sequoyah HS (GA), Perry HS (AZ), Ivy Bridge Academy (GA), Dean Rusk MS (GA)

Elinor Agler Sequoyah High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 10:46 PM EST

Hello. In high school, I did LD debate for two years, and I highly enjoyed it I've judged on and off since 2020 (on this account and under Elinor Agler at emmettkath@gmail.com), and debate is something that I genuinely enjoy watching, and getting to judge is like all the fun of a good debate with none of the pressure. I look forward to judging future rounds. Here are my preferences so you can know going in what kind of judge I am (or if you want to strike/preference me). Email chain email: ellie.agler@outlook.com

1. Spreading is fine as long as you are clear AND your opponent agrees to spreading. If you are not clear and I cannot understand you, likely your opponent cannot understand you, and we're all going to have a bad time. If one must spread, I do appreciate case sharing with both me and opponent.

2. I can handle K's, policy debate, traditional, philosophy, and theory. Traditional and philosophy are my favorites. For K's, and policy, one ought to know their material well, be well-researched, and be non-abusive. I am not a good judge if you intend to try tricks. I don't believe tricks to be a legitimate form of debate. I have a history degree and now work in library science, so I love hearing well-researched, creative arguments. I also believe one could have the best case in the world and still lose a round if their opponent argues better. If it comes down to case vs clash, clash wins with me.

3. I appreciate when one actually clashes with their opponent. If you spend all your rebuttals talking about why your value is so great and not why your opponent is in the wrong, you aren't actually debating, you're making a persuasive speech.

3. Please roadmap 1AR and 2AR, as well as Neg R. I love off-time roadmaps. They help me flow and make everyone's lives so much easier. If you want to email chain cases, go for it. I will have my laptop, but I try to flow the old fashioned way (pen and paper for life). Off-time roadmaps also help you practice being more organized in your arguments, as well as making executive summaries.

5. I allow and encourage debaters to keep their own time. I will also keep time on a stopwatch. I do not give warnings. If you go over by more than 10-15 seconds, it means deduction from speaker points.

6. Do whatever to keep yourself comfortable during the round (sit or stand, drink, etc). Please do not chew gum while speaking.

7. I evaluate debate over case or speaking ability. Meaning if you are an excellent speaker with an amazing case, but your opponent refutes all your points, and proves that their position better fulfills the obligations established in round, opponent wins. Don't get me wrong: I love it when debaters have awesome oratory skills, and I love a good case, but this is debate, not how well you are speaking and how well you can write a position paper. Additional thing: I can tell when you have no idea what you are talking about. I dislike it when debaters "teleprompt," meaning they read from their laptop in a monotone voice for 6 or 7 minutes without looking up. Look up. Get excited. LD allows you the perfect opportunity to practice public speaking skills.

8. I cannot believe I have to say this, but be respectful of yourself and others in round. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, general jerkiness, anything like that is not okay. If you choose to pull an "ism" in round, I will be giving you lowest speaks and if we're at a local tournament I will be going and finding your coach and giving them a 15-minute lecture about why XYZ is not okay. In both debate and in life, it is important to be respectful to yourself and those around you. You never know what someone is going through.

9. I do not accept the Heritage Foundation as a valid source whatsoever. If you read Heritage Foundation as a source in round, you will get 25 speaks and an auto loss. I accept all other conservative think tanks (Cato, Hoover, Hudson, et cetera) just not Heritage.

TLDR: I am a classical LD judge by nature, and framework, clash, and proving your argument is better than the opponent's is what wins round. Strike me if you're going to pull tricks, I do not stand for them.

A note on speaker points: So lately many tournaments are subject to what I refer to as "speaker point inflation." Back in my day, speaks were usually 25-30, 25 meaning "did you roll out of bed this morning and decide to go debate for funsies?" a 26 meaning you did meh to okay, a 27 meaning you lost but did okay, a 28 meaning you lost and did well, a 29 meaning you won and have good speaking skills, and a 30 meaning you are a debate god. Nowadays, every tournament has their own judging scale. I will judge appropriate to the scale, but unless you absolutely razzle-dazzle me, I try to not go higher than a 29.5. Best round I have ever seen has been a 29.8 and 29.9. I've also noticed that one's opponent sort of affects their speaker points. In close rounds, speaks tend to be very close. I fully maintain some of my best rounds were rounds I have lost.

For PF: Plz don't scream during grand CX. I don't flow CX, so if something important happens, bring it back up. Nuclear War is a problem, but I don't view it as something that can occur as a result of every single event that happens. Clash, convince me your argument is better than your opponents.

IE: I value clear diction, clear voice, and a clear purpose while speaking. For either original speeches or POI, I value coherence as well. I believe storytelling ability is a CRUCIAL key to success in professional speaking, and this is an excellent space to practice these skills. I expect speeches to be organized. If you have a disorganized speech but excellent public speaking skills, I will weigh disorganization against speaking ability.

Hunniya Ahmad Mountain Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 2:07 PM CST

General

psa this is a work in progress and will change as a judge and debate more

they/she/he (switch it up!)

coppell '23 || wake forest '27

send docs hunniya.ahmad@gmail.com-pls pls pls make the subject they tournament, round, & year!!! + email may ab any questions after the round/ if u need advice on anything super open!

credentials because people seem to care??: debated for coppell high school 4 years as an LDer, attended NSDA NATS as a freshman in policy, qualified to TFA state 3 years consecutively + elimination rounds 2 years , qualified to TOC junior + senior year with 4 career bids + 5+ bid rounds, breaking to doubles and achieving eighth speaker my senior year. coached middle school debate for 2+ years and have taught 3+ debate camps. have experience in policy, LD, and PF, currently coaching 4 ish HS debaters a season as well give or take

dont be racist, sexist, homophobic, yada yada u down and i nuke ur speaks. if u feel unsafe in a round or need to talk about anything i am always here just shoot me an email <3

I NEED TWS FOR anything suicide related, graphic queer violence, fatness lit. Error on the side of asking me and the opponent.

Shortcuts:

1- K/LARP

2- T/THEORY

3-PHIL/TRICKS

TLDR

the more i’ve been judging the more i’ve come to the conclusion that having argument preferences seems like some level of intervention— however i think bias effects evryone often subconsciously so to be transparent these metrics go to show you the arguments i have the most experience and understanding on withbuti will and HAVE voted on any argument that’s not morally fucked up (defined above) if it has a claim warrant and impact (FROM linguistic skep, to set col, to cap good, to kant, to url theory, to US china war scenarios, etc )

tech>truth but arguments dropped need to extend a warrant and implication !!!

i tend to vote the path that is 1- the easiest route to the ballot 2- requires the least intervention and 3- outweighs which is why weighing and ballot framing is IMPORTANT-- all which is filtered by how well I understand what your going for. if you leave me to decide how Ithink the arguments in the round interact together and which to prefer you risk a decision u don’t like—> tldr weigh it under the framing metric and write my ballot for me

ask me questions! if you disagree with my decision feel free to respectfully inquire about it-just key wordrespectfully andI loveeee helping people talk to me ill work with you on anything--> post-rounding is diff from asking, maybe focus on WHY I voted a certain way instead of WHY im wrong.

Trad

i care tons about weighing and worlds analysis to help me determine the winner. organization is ur best friendi use framework to filter which offense matters- if you dont do this it comes hard to adjucate I need you to not be two ships passing in the night and do the argument interaction work for me.

if ur a circuit debater hitting a lay/trad debater and its a bid tournament go for the arguments u want to BUT ur demeanor will filter how i give speak TLDR don’t be mean.

Counterplans

explain to me how their competitive + net benefits. process counter plans, pics, advantage counterplans are all a green light

. im more likely to buy less probable impacts if there's a counterplan that solves the aff so da + cp is a pair that I respect

permutations are test of competitions but can reolsve many concerns on the cp-- they need a text and explanation beyond perm do both that gets blown up later. you should be explaining how the perm shields the link I find it highly persuasive. if ur gonna go for severance as a da to the perm impact it out or it wastes time and explicate how the links are das to the perm.I

iF UR HITTING A PIC AND THE 1ar IS ONLY DEFENSE ITS gonna be very hard to win beyond like pics bad—> offense !!!!!! matters!!!!

Disads

care so much about link analysis and the i/l chain, but other than that do ur thing. most impact turns r good except things like racism good lmao use ur judgement.

do evidence comparison it can make and break this debate, I hate outdate evidence on things that recency matter for.

weigh impacts vs the aff, weighing isn’t just impact calc in a vacuum but clear argument interaction

yes! I read queerpess, cap, security, psychoanalysis and have an understanding of set col, identity ks but will need hand holding through baudy and any way high theory stuff. organize the 2nr, tell a story, ks dont need an alt but if they have one prove solvency, framing matters as how I evaluate the k and if I evaluate the post fiat impacts of the aff- how I come to that conclusion is up to you. the more specific a link is the more likely I am to vote for you.

contrary to popular belief im not a k hack- clash of civ debates are my favorite andI do vote on extinction ow---> just win it

I need a k 2nr to be not 6 mins of reading ur backfiles but actual engagement w the 1ar these debates are most likely lost when you don't explicitly shut the door son 2ar outs and tell me where to flow ur prewritten stuff in the context of the 1ar

please for the love of god contextualize ur link 2nrs to the aff ur hitting.

when answering a k win u weigh the case I buy clash most as a warrant but also eval fairness etc, if THEY CONCEDE CASE and you go for extinction OWS I am very likely to vote for you -- k debaters answer case or shut the dooorrrr on their access to it that doesn't rely on securitization of threats (bc you concede one is real)

I hate when these debates become two passing ships in the night throwing out arguments without any interaction leaving me to pick up the mess- weigh and answer things in context and be responsive

non black pess is probably bad...., I wont vote u down automatically but if the argument comes up in the debate I do lean to say u shouldnt be reading it especially if black debaters/authors are saying so lol and ill be honest ab that predisposition

K affs

love !! but iI will not vote for u just because you read on- dont just do it for me (me having read it means my bar may be higher and so on).

i love creative counter interns of the topic and fun disads to T-- it's easier to beat T when you have a relaiton to the topic but you do you just win

dont forget about ur rob- if u lose framing u get behind !!!

what does the aff do? why do you need the ballot? why not defend the topic? are all questions that arise I expect to be answered in the debate. I won't vote for something I dont understand. performance rocks you do ur thing just justify it. contrary to popular belief- I WILL VOTE ON T- if you dont win your model.

I need to be able to tell u what the aff is in the rfd. If I cannot you WILL NOT get my ballot.

weigh why the aff or impact turns ow before t and win the rob to filter out offense

TFW

my brain has tons of thoughts.

debate is a game but that game has value- means yes fairness matters but to what extent is for you to instruct me on if ur going for fairness impact it out in the context of the education spin most 1ars give. im more persuaded by clash and education 2nrs than anything that sounds like whining to me but if ur winning on the flow you’ll get my ballot. Fairness 2nrs story should be implicated out to be more important I WILL VOTE ON FAIRNESS JUST WIN WHY PROCEDRUAL VIOLATIONS DESTORY THE GAME AND THATS THE MOST IMP or filter education. definitions may be important but you have to win they are- on this flow is a make or break for me win ur model is better for debate!!! contextualize it too the aff. often time these debates are messy because neither debater clashes with eachother beyond their pre written arguments— explain ur 2nr/2ar in CONTEXT.

also predict what the 2ar will be and tell me why its wrong, 2ar k aff ethos and weighing and collapsing can screw t debates over, I like 2nrs that tell me why everything they r ab to tell me is answered b y ur speech and how. you nEED models comparison in the 2nr and 2ar to stay ahead + sitting on arguments.

Theory

I enjoy judging this if you do it well

the more frivolous a shell is the less of a bar i have for responses so on and so forth (this means even if i don’t LIKE the theory as much if ur winning it you’ll win, however if your opponent goes for reasonability + defense i’ll fw that as long as they r winning their weighing metrics if the shell is kinda ridiculous. BUT I wont intervene-- if you win reasonability is bad then its bad)

disclosure is good at bid tournaments but if ur a novice/small school debater who doesn't know what the wiki is just say that + win reasonability. evading disclosure for competitive benefits is something I disagree with but if u win why its good got for it. non disclosure due to identity/safety concerns is a model i am willing to vote on.

for some reason this is an issue but don’t forget to like extend the voters and like connect the standards to them. esp in more intense theory rounds you need too uplayer and impact shells out in context.

I default to c/I and no rvis (but only if no one mentions anything, say otherwise and that changes)

Phil

I like following syllogisms that are very logical and organized.

I will vote on it if you win it- I can if you I make the wrong desicion it was because I was confused nd u didint explain or sit on smth well.

Tell me how this standard concession on framing means u win, tell me how you filter out their offense tell me why consequentialism doesn't matter. don’t just extend claims, extend WARRANTS-- and what they impact out to--make these debate clean and pretty

Phil v k debates r pretty fun- u win these not just by having explanatory power of how violence operates but winning ideal theory resolves violence best-- k win these debates by turning ideal theory and winning its violent

Tricks

do wtv u want but I wont vote on smth I cant explain back in the rfd so make it make sense if you win it ill vote on it (that includes "silly" args like eval, but i tend to think they lose bec they r easy to answer and typically underwraranted)

answering tirkcs-- if u think an argument doesn't have a warrant then say that-- u cant just win because you think ill intervene and do it for you. if you want me to consider weighing/filter out certain offense and be less "tech" ig then make justifictaions for why I should and that's better for the round or smth

the bar for responses for "silly" tricks (most) is on the floor (its a sliding scale)— i will fw arguments that group tricks beyond the lbl ie k debaters utilizing k links to answer tricks or a theory shell but if something is conceded and u extend a warrant and implication u win that arg

Speaks

ill be more generous on speaks if u send analytics I think its a good practice and helps accesisbility concerns for alot of people - (I decide speaks and then up it my 0.1-0.2 if you did)

be clear and I don't care how fast you are- ill say clear but also my body language is really obvious! if I look confused I am

I give speaks yes on speaking but also strategy + organization

sitting down early or using less prep is a power move and a slay- ill reward u heavily in speaks if u do it and crush the win. pls do this it makes me happy I will give u high speaks (update: finally saw this done and done well and gave my second 30 of the season so I do mean it...)

if u impress me or I like how u debate u get high speaks normally im pretty generous but normally if I think ur an elm level debater at face value and you perform well you'll get a 29 or above

NUMBER UR ARGUMENTS PLEASE

the more you split ur 2nr the less likely it is i will vote for you- ur arguments wont be fleshed out enough AT ALL this is a major ick for me!!!!!

i’ll disclose speaks if u ask

transparency-- I have adhd and may or not be on meds when I judge you depending on the day- we love clear slow down moments and organization bc it helps me tons when im not medicated!! before 930am and after 630pm are times when you need to keep this in mind--if it seems like im doing two things at once dual stimulation keeps my brain focused lol

WSD:

Barely dabbled in this event so don't know a lot about event specifics- will most likely end up judging heavily on argumentation and who is winning the overall flow- so more techy than your traditional wsd judges due to my event background- just do your thing and I'll follow along

I find refusing alot of Pois, or asking too many a little frustrating! find the happy medium. Most of my worlds schools understanding comes from watching Coppell Black debate!!. I like the affect of the later speeches but make sure they resolve any argumentative concerns- especially the four. I have a high expectations for 3s making the round clear and concise, and 2s to do a decent amount of line by line (getting all the arguments needed out there). The 1 should have emotion in their voice, and be engaging with presenting the information.

I like speeches that start with a creative introduction, I think they make the round more engaging and will boost speaks.

I love when debaters start with their offense first! makes stronger speeches

Jonathan Alston Newark Science 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 5:38 PM EST

I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

David Asafu-Adjaye Newark Science 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 6:19 AM EST

Hey y’all. I’m David and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years on the state, regional, and national level.

College Debate: rundebate@gmail.com

High School Debate:asafuadjayedavid@gmail.com

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Aaron Timmons, Christian Quiroz, Carlos Astacio, Willie Johnson, Elijah Smith in addition to a few others.

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

-Rutgers

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.

FW

I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.

Kritiks

These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.

CPs

CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.

1. No judge kick

2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.

Plans

YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.

Presumption.

Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.

LD Specific

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Eliza Avramova Westlake High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2024 at 12:36 PM CST

LC Anderson 22

UT Austin 26 - Westlake debate consultant

email for email chains:

eliza.avramova@gmail.com

ld: Tech > Truth

Policy---Best for this. cp debates are fine to an extent, but best to evaluate substance.

Theory---Would prefer if the brightline for abuse was in–round. Out of round violations are generally unverifiable, putting me as a judge in an awkward position trying to evaluate a squabble between two debaters.

Tricks---probs don't read that in front of me.

K’s---minimal knowledge. there's a chance i won’t know the literature base you are reading, but I can flow plus comprehend pretty well. Make sure that the 2NR/2AR slows down, does impact calculus and weighs between their offense and your offense. I will try my best to adjudicate and have no predisposed biases’ towards any critical argumentation, but can't guarantee a perfect eval.

phil - have read some bc of college but that being said you need to fill in the blanks for me big time

Other things:

Presumption is negative unless the 1NC introduces a counter advocacy to the 1AC, then it flips affirmative.

Competing Interps----X---------------------------Reasonability

Judgekick----------------X----Debaters Kicking

Infinite Condo----------X-----------No Condo

if you have a question about any of these ask me before round!

pf: speed is fine, cards should be well cut, bring up everything you want me to know in your speech, framing should happen in constructive or top of the rebuttal, disclosure also needs to happen in constructive, no new offensive arguments past rebuttal - offense needs to be extended in summary, your links should be coherent, if something important happens in cross, make sure to also mention it in subsequent speeches, summary and final focus should mirror each other, tech > truth but remember that one to an extent determines the other, love a line by line, defense is not sticky, extend it in every speech if you want it evaluated; for progressive arguments i will try my best to evaluate them but probs not to the extent of a cx judge so keep that in mind when running them; postround me till you understand my decision

congress: clash! warrant your arguments and weigh your impacts - comparative framework works best since there are so many arguments made in the round / internal links need to be coherent / i am open to diff types of arguments and structures / too much rehash = lower rank, but a good constructive with clash will be ranked high. make sure to be engaging (don't rely too much on reading off the pad), but remember that this is a debate event in the first place - no canned agds pls - try to find a uniqueness that works for you; sources (reputable and academic in nature) need to be cited and used always, with that being said your research is just one part, but your analysis is what matters most / good crystals will be ranked high - but it needs to go above weighing in the comparative framework --> in addition to that extend your side with new impact or evidence, win the side and debate overall. pls don't use a questioning block just to agree with a speaker, this time should be used for rebuttal. be convincing, but respectful; be active - congress is all about strategy / win the game; being aggressive (yelling and getting mean) doesn’t make you win the round - for po's: i will rank you, but you need to know rules/structure of debate and be able to move the debate along smoothly, i shouldn't need to interfere, but i will always keep a chart to keep track - if there are consistent errors i will rank you lower

feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!

have fun!!

Shannon Babu Concord Carlisle High School 3 rounds

Ayman Badawy Lake Highland Preparatory School 5 rounds

Dan Bagwell Mountain Brook High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 6:39 AM CST

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

Jayden Bai Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun August 25, 2024 at 3:18 PM EST

I debated in LD at Lexington HS (2019 - 2023) and acquired eight career bids. Now I coach circuit debaters and work at the Atlanta Urban Debate League. Email: jayden.bai@gmail.com.

TLDR: I'll vote on anything but I will intervene against exclusionary arguments.

General

Make sure to be clear. I will not vote on arguments that I didn't hear in previous speeches which means your spreading needs to be understandable. At the end of the day, debate is a persuasion game which means debaters need to be clear and articulate because that ultimately affects the tech and flow of the round.

Most familiar with pretty much any theory/phil strategy, 1AR restarts, etc. but would prefer to judge policy rounds.

My favorite debates are when the 1NC is all on case. I love impact turn 1NC's.

I love creative K affs but winning against framework means separating your specific research practice from competitive incentives. For framework debaters, the clash 2NR just seems more articulate but I have no problem voting on the fairness 2NR. Every affirmative, fundamentally, just has to show me that there is something wrong with the status quo and the negative must challenge that argument.

Honestly, any type of argument done right gets my ballot. the sillier the argument, the harder to do right, but done smoothly = higher speaker points. It's not about what your argument is it's about how you present it and how you implicate it.

Misc.

As much as I want to avoid dogmatism in my decisions, I am aware of biases that I have and I think it's better to communicate them than pretend they don't exist. However, it's a debate so if you want to change my mind I'm happy to hear your reasons why:

- Critiques of debaters' research projects/arguments are fine but when an argument implies that "my opponent is a bad person", I won't feel comfortable voting on the argument. My ballot as an educator should not be a referendum on a high school student's personal character. Extreme cases should involve the tournament director.

- I would much rather you read evidence ethics challenges as a theory argument so the violation can be debated over. If there is a challenge I will reference whatever tournament rules I should be following.

- I think open source, round reports, and cites for every single round + contact info and correct tournament names are ideal for disclosure.

- I don't think debate, like any competitive HS activity, is neutral. Different students come from different backgrounds and experiences. However, there is a level of procedural fairness that needs to be preserved in order for parts of debate to work.

Lucas Bailey Midtown High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu June 20, 2024 at 7:42 AM EST

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

What I Like

I've gotten a few notes from debaters that my paradigm is mostly about what I don't want to see, rather than what I do. In an attempt to remedy that, here is what I enjoy in a debate round.

Evidence Debate - I love when debaters actually engage with the internal warrants of their opponents evidence and arguments. Point out contradictions between pieces of evidence, expose evidence that is too specific or too general to apply, call out evidence that is just claims rather than warrants. Any engagement with evidence beyond "my opponent's evidence is wrong because my evidence is right" will greatly increase your chance of winning my ballot.

Meaningful Framework Debate - I love when debaters pick and choose their battles on framework and clearly impact the results of the framework debate to how I should evaluate impacts in the round. You will not lose my ballot solely for conceding your opponent's framework. Not all rounds need to have a framework debate, even with different values/value criteria, if those frameworks evaluate impacts in roughly the same way or if both debaters have the same impacts in the round (eg, people dying). Debaters who recognize that and focus on the areas of framework that will actually change how I judge arguments, then follow up with an explanation of what I should look for in evaluating the round based on that change will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Internal Consistency - I love when debaters commit to their positions. Many arguments, especially the more unusual philosophical arguments require commitment to a whole host of concomitant beliefs and positions. Embrace that. If someone points out that utilitarianism requires defending the interests of the majority over the minority, be willing to defend that position. If someone points out that Kantianism doesn't permit you to lie to a murderer, don't backtrack - explain it. Don't be afraid to say that extinction does not outweigh everything else. Conversely, if you argue that prediction of the future is impossible in order to answer consequentialism and then cite scientific authors to support your claims, I will be much less likely to believe your position. A debater who is committed and consistent in their ethical position will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Argument by Analogy - I love when debaters use analogies to explain or clarify their own positions, or to expose inconsistencies, absurd statements or flaws in their opponents arguments. I think analogies are underutilized as a method of analytical argumentation and debaters willing to use analogies to explain or undermine arguments have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Comparative Weighing - I love when debaters specifically compare impacts when weighing in the round. Rarely does a debater win every single argument in the round and weighing significantly assists me in making a decision when there are multiple impacts for both sides. While I like weighing arguments in the vein of "This argument outweighs all others in the round" more than no weighing at all, a more specific and nuanced analysis along the lines of "this argument outweighs that argument for these reasons" (especially when it explains the weighing in the specific context of the framework) will give a debater a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card in which case I will ask to see evidence after the round.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no action, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate. As with other arguments, I will evaluate a LARP round but will have a low-threshold to vote on evidentiary arguments, link/brink severance, and framework exclusion.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if no argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world or in debate. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts. That said, I will vote on pre-fiat Ks - a good metric for my preference is whether your link is specific to the aff's performance in this round or if it could link to any affirmative case on the topic (or any topic). If you're calling out specific parts of the affirmative performance, that's fine.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Totally fine to run. I have a slight bias towards genericist positions over specificist ones, eg "a means any" rather than "a means one".

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA because it doesn't link to the aff.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts because performance cannot be erased.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to risk of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true and the alts are often unclear. I will vote on them but run at your own risk.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments. I don't believe that disclosure as a norm is beneficial to debate and I see it used to exclude non-circuit debaters far more often than I see debaters who are genuinely unable to engage because they could not predict their opponent's arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

Jordana Bales The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 23, 2024 at 10:51 AM EST

Tell me why I should vote for you. Make sense. Explain your terms. Think of me as a relatively smart person who isn't debate-y. I'll vote for what makes sense. If I don't understand it, I can't vote for you.

The roll of the ballot is always to vote for the better debater - The one that I understand and that makes sense.

Make every argument clear and tell me why it isimportant! Why should I vote for you?

No spreading. I do not have a problem with it on principle. I just will not be able to follow your argument. Please be clear in your articulation. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. This goes for both policy and critical oriented debaters.

If your opponent misrepresents their evidence it is YOUR JOB to bring that to my attention. I rarely will call for a card.

As a judge, I am receptive to almost all arguments, but I am personally triggered by arguments centered on the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. Please refrain from running arguments around this topic in front of me.

Argument-Specific(I prefer traditional arguments)

Critical affs- very unfamiliar. Run them if you have NOTHING else, but be sure you explain yourself VERY clearly.

Neg arguments:
Disad- Explain the story/scenario of how the aff causes a specific impact and why that impact is the most important. I prefer you use traditional impact calculus in your framing.
Counterplan- Provide a competitive counterplan and explain the NET BENEFITS of why the counterplan is better than the aff
Topicality- Prove the aff is untopical and tell me why it’s important
Kritik- Unfamiliar- explain every argument clearly. I strongly advise you not to run one. If you chose to run a K, narrow the argument down to the impacts of the K.

SPECIFIC NOTE FOR POLICY DEBATE

Although I have been around policy debate for over two decades, I am still relatively inexperienced as a judge. This is a lay round. DO NOT SPREAD. Explain to me what your case is. Do not use debate jargon until you have explained it. I can only vote on what I can understand. Be logical and clear and I will vote for you. Be debate-y and fast and I may not be able to. If both teams do not follow these guidelines and I am unable to make an accurate assessment of the debate, I will make my best decision based on my limited understanding of the round.

Garrett Bishop Cypress Bay High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 1:19 PM EST

I graduated from Cypress Bay in 2020, and have coached their LD squad since.

I would like to be on the chain: garrett.bishop2577@gmail.com

I'm probably pretty good for anything.

In order:

K, LARP, existentialism, other philosophy, theory-dense positions.

> Post-Yale update: You gotta understand that it's like, K > Policy >>>>>>>> Existentialism >>>>>>>>>>> Other philosophy >>>>>>> theory-dense positions.

Yes, I'm probably good for it, but it seems like I voted twice on phil positions and suddenly everybody has me down as a phil judge

>Bronx 24:If disclosure theory is a part of your main strategy, i should not be a high pref for you. it's a true argument but oh my god im so tired of listening to it. i'm also absolutely just about never persuaded by 1ac disclosure theory.

>SUNVITE 24: I'm in the policy pool. I am not often in the policy pool. I haven't done anything with the current topic. You should presume I know nothing (I don't know anything). I'm better for the K than for policy. I love the impact turn.

My disclosure of speaks depends entirely on my mood at the time, and if you ask me after I've already closed my laptop, I will not tell you (I forget about speaks, give or take, a single second after I submit my ballot).

If you care, I'm more of a high theory guy than an identity politics guy.

If you're super fast, feel free to tell me that I should flow on paper (before the round). I recently started flowing on my computer and I'm not super fast with it yet.

I've only made one decision that I didn't entirely agree with, and I'm unlikely to make a second.

I don't care what you read, as long as you read it well. If you expect me to judge your debate based on my circuit experience, then you should probably try to meet my circuit expectations. This means I'm particularly persuaded by disclosure and paraphrasing theory. The Bronx update doesn't really apply here - it isn't yet a norm in public forum to disclose and it definitely should be, so it's above my threshold of importance in this event.

nothing is sticky

Policy

This is kind of where my heart is tbh. I'm good to go for whatever goofy argument you want to read.

Any other event (speech)

I'm a big debate guy, please treat me like a parent lol.

Old paradigm here

the big cheese

Ana Bittner The Harker School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 6:58 PM EST

College Prep (2015-2019), Wake Forest (2019-2023)

ADA 2023 Champion, CEDA 2023 Co-Champion, 2023 Copeland Panelist, NDT 2023 Quarterfinals, NDT 2022 Octafinalist, NDT 2021 Doubles

Coach at George Mason & Harker

anadebate07@gmail.com

for college policy debates:please also addmasondebatedocs@gmail.com

TLDR:

My only actual hardline stances are that I believe line-by-line is good, we should care about how we impact other people, and impact calculus wins debates.

I make decisions based on complete arguments, which require claims, warrants, and impacts/implications.

My favorite debates to judge are the ones in which teams do what they do best. I appreciate in-depth preparation and high-quality clash more than anything.

I prefer to judge debates in which the Affirmative is about the topic, and the Negative disagrees with the Affirmative's proposed change from the status quo.

I prefer not to judge a debate about an issue that would best be resolved outside the constraints of a competitive debate.

I try to flow every word said in speeches & cross-ex unless instructed otherwise.

I do not flow RVI's - I only flow complete arguments.

Framework debates:

Impacts? Fairness is an impact, but you gotta do impact calc & can't skip out on warrants. I struggle to see how clash is an external impact but am open to hearing otherwise - for me, clash seems to be, at most, a sliding scale/question of maximization - but you provide a warrant otherwise and I'll write it down. Topic education is guided by predictable limits and/or explaining why the (specific) ground you gained/lost is good/bad.

TVA vs Switch Side? I think 2NR strategy is guided by AFF strategic vision, so my preference is probably based on technical concessions and/or context of the debate.

Models vs Violation? Your call, I've judged both and evaluated each on technical bases. The AFF probably has responses to each, so I don't find one approach more true/right than the other. I'm just line-by-line oriented.

Impact turn vs Counter-interp 2AR? Your call! I only think it's strategic that you pick one or the other and full send - typically starting on the Framework flow with your one major disad to the NEG's interp and impacting it out is the start of many winning 2ARs in front of me. If you go for the counter-interp, don't expect me to fill in blanks either way if it can or cannot solve the NEG's offense. If you're going for impact turns to the NEG's model/interp, then explain why that outweighs/turns NEG offense and probably best to have defense to their interp/model as well.

The NEG can win in front of me that case ought not outweigh Topicality, but you should say that. I do not auto-let kritikal AFFs leverage the case against Topicality if the NEG has presented reasons why I shouldn't evaluate that offense; I think the AFF should answer that argument. My burden for answering this argument is rather low, which is why I tend to be less persuaded by Framework interps about the NEG not meeting the burden of rejoinder. I like debates where teams disagree with one another, so this interpretation of what debate can and/or should be isn't something that I really find compelling. That doesn't mean the AFF doesn't have to respond, but I definitely think your offense is magnified by this interpretation of debate and explaining why that's true is compelling to me. However, if this is your approach on either side, you just have to win on the technical debating level, and you'll most likely get my ballot.

AFF v K on NEG? Overly specific AFF interps are less compelling than some version of weighing the effects/justifications against the K, and they tend to link far harder to NEG offense. I'm not a 'will always weigh the case' nor a 'loves the fiat k' truther - I just like impact calculus, comparison of warrants, and explanation of any solvency claim presented.

General Debate Thoughts:

I auto-judge-kick.

Theory debates aren't fun to judge, but I understand the strategic utility on both sides. 1 reason condo is good & impact calc >> spending a certain amount of time. I don't think I'm good or bad for a competition debate - I just care about impact calculus and warrants, which can be light in these debates.

If util and/or consequentialism are wrong, you have to say how I should evaluate impacts otherwise. I don't fill in the blanks for either side. Good impact calc tends to win debates in front of me.

I am not a fantastic judge for a competition debate and tend to need you to do impact calc & internal link comparison for me because I will not fill in blanks for this debate or default one way or another. I'm also not great for a process debate. This is the one style of debate I did and coached the least.

Will vote AFF or NEG on presumption

T debates aren't my favorite to judge but Limits ---X--------------- AFF Ground

You must read the re-highlighting aloud if the other team did not read those exact words in the card. If not reading the rehighlighted words aloud, you can also read the line(s) in cross-ex or explain the implication and what the rehighlighting means for my ballot in the tag of the rehighlighting. I think debate is a communication activity, not one where I read cards on my own and independently decide. However, that doesn't mean low-quality ev constitutes a good argument.

I will let you know if I need a card doc - I probably won't. I strongly dislike judge intervention, so I aim to read every card during the debate as it is read to understand the context and completeness of every argument presented during each speech. I try to be predictable in my decision-making, given I believe debate takes a lot of work, dedication, and time, which judges ought to respect by evaluating debates technically by flowing and comparing each argument as presented. This means I also only evaluate arguments presented in speeches. Cross-ex matters, but I can not vote on arguments not also made in speeches.

I am FAR more persuaded by negative criticisms that prove why the Affirmative as presented is bad, not just nonsolvent. I tend to struggle to see how the Negative does not have to respond to Affirmative defensive claims to the K -- framing out Affirmative offense still requires technical debating.

I stop flowing when the timer goes off.

I care about debate. I don't particularly appreciate when teams read cringe and questionably ethical backfile checks designed to mess with opponents.

I think disclosure is, in nearly every case, good. I have zero tolerance for misdisclosure, lying, and shady practices designed to evade clashing with your opponent. I would certainly prefer to not a LD debate with arbitrary disclosure norms; i think these debates and theory shells are worse for novices and access issues

If high-theory kritikal arguments are your bread and butter, just please lead with implications and claims that I can break down into impact-forward arguments. I just don't know how to spell or define some of the words you say very fast, but I will evaluate every debate as objectively as possible always / nevertheless.

I've read most arguments in debate at one point or another, and I have also judged most arguments in debate at one point or another. I would not suggest prescribing ideological convictions onto me, absent what this paradigm describes. I feel as if my knowledge of the following are roughly equitable, for context: communism, international relations theories and american hegemony (its pros and cons), afropessimism, political capital, conditionality and its history in debate, political capital in congress.

I appreciate historical examples as examples / warrants for argumentation, almost as much as an explanation of their relevancy to your argument / comparison to your opponents' warrants.

Speaking:

Speed = arguments effectively communicated per minute.

Clarity >>

Speaker Points? I try to default to this table's scale

[30 = nearly impossible to get/seniors at last tournament

29.9-29.7 = fabulous & expect to be in deep elims

29.6-29.4 = excellent & elim worthy performance

29.3-29.1 = good & expect to break

29-28.7 = median

28.6-28.4 = room for improvement

28.3-28 = some hiccups & things to work on

27.9-27.6 = room to improve and there is some debate stuff to learn

27.5 -27 = there is a lot of room to grow

26.9 and below = something went pretty wrong]

LD:

Not great for LD nonsense unless you want to explain things to me with an emphasis on impact calc & judge instruction.

I do not flow phil, skep, tricks, and the like. If you do not defend some form of consequentialism, I am not your judge.

In LD, I do not believe the 1NC/AR has the burden to rejoin frivolous, ridiculous theory arguments placed in the 1AC/NC to avoid clash.

Counterplan theory is fine. Litmus test is if the argument is prevalent in the activity of policy debate, it's probably fine. Except animal wipeout.

The most TLDR:

If I cannot explain your argument to you ethically or technically, the odds are that I cannot vote for you.

RVI's & tricks are nonstarters.

Christopher Blaschak Admiral Farragut Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 18, 2024 at 5:33 PM EST

Hi, my name is Chris and I am a college student with a history of BP, LD, and PF debate in HS.

Add me to your link chain: cblaschak15@gmail.com

I’m open to voting on any argument. My explained preferences just based on the styles I'm most familiar with. If you run something outside of these, that’s cool, but you need to explain it more clearly for me to evaluate it effectively. If it’s well explained, I’m willing to vote on it. If you spread pretty fast please let me know beforehand so I can preflow. If I can’t understand I’ll yell “clear”; I will knock off speaks if done multiple times.

General Prefs:

FW/Phil 1

Theory 2

Ks 2/3

Larp 3

Tricks 3

Trad 6

Speaks: I'll start at 28.5 and adjust from there.

Trad: Simple and straightforward; this is fine, just kind of boring and tedious for me. "My opponent doesn't have a card for that" is not an argument I'll vote on; provide warrants for your arguments.

Framework: I like these. I’m familiar with most common frameworks (Kant, any Util, any libertarian like Nozick, realism/Machivellianism, Nietzsche, etc), just don’t expect me to know every niche philosopher. However please please please don't read nihilism, morality=bad FWs, death=good, etc, unless you want to start off with a low bar.

Theory: I'm fine with theory. I'll eval shells, just don't run friv or anything. Also please don't give me a CI without clash; I am not inclined to vote on the CI unless you give me warrants why it's better.

Tricks: I’m open to voting but skeptical and also not too familiar. Just please explain it to me and give me some good warrants.

Kritiks: I’m open to critical theory that actually links to the aff, please don’t pref me if you are gonna run a disorganized and sloppy K. I'm most familiar with setcol and cap K's.

LARP: Definitely a lot less boring than trad, but if you’re mainly a LARPer I wouldn’t suggest putting me up for high prefs. I will definitely still vote for LARP, though. Please go only around 80% speed, or tell me to preflow before the round.

That’s mostly it, just remember to have fun and enjoy yourself. If you have any questions, just ask me.

Chelsea A Briggs Stoneman Douglas High School 6 rounds

Jared Burke Peninsula High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 8:03 AM PST

Peninsula, Cal State Fullerton

Cal State Fullerton BW

Bakersfield BB

Previously Coached by: Shanara Reid-Brinkley, LaToya Green, Travis Cochrain, Lee Thach, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, and Parker Coon

Other people who influence my debate thoughts: Vontrez White and Jonathan Meza

Emails

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com

College: debatecsuf@gmail.com jaredburkey99@gmail.com

2024-25 Update:

IPR: 7

Energy: 14

LD Total: 75

College: Going to be coaching Cal State Fullerton more so I expect to be judging college, have a depth of topic knowledge, and be doing more research for the team.

HS: Mostly will be in LD this year, I imagine I will be judgeing policy teams a few times this year and help out with the Pen policy kids from time to time.

Cliff Notes:

1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.

2. Who controls uniqueness - that comes 1st

3. on T most times default to reasonability

4. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - I think this is most of the debates I have judged and it's probably my favorite type of debates to be in both as a debater and as a judge. I would like to implore policy teams to invest in substantive strategies this is not to say that T is not an option in these debates, but most of these critical affs defend some things that I know there is a disad to and most times 2AC just is flat-footed on the disad. 2As fail to answer PICs most times. 2ACs overinvestment on T happens a bunch and the 2NR ends up being T when it should have been the disad or the PIC. All of this is to say that T as your first option in the 2NR is probably the right one, but capitalize on 2AC mistakes

5. No plan no perm is not an argument --- win a link pls

6. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.

7. Theory debates are boring --- conditionality good --- judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality

Specifics:

K --- The lack of link debating that has occurred for the K in recent years is concerning, the popularization of exclusive-based FW has diminished the value of the link debate. That being said I understand the strategic utility of the argument, but the argument less and less convinces me. I will not default to plan focus, weigh the aff, or assume weigh the aff when each team is going for exclusive fw. This is all to say that the link argument is the predominant argument and the K of fiat as a link argument is not convincing at all. Smart 2Ns that rehighlight 1AC cards and use their link arguments to internal link turn/impact turn the aff should win 9/10 in front of me. All to say that good K debating is good case debating.

FW--- Fairness its an impact but also is an internal link to just about everything --- role of the negative as a frame for impacts with a TVA is very convincing to me - only this debate matters is not a good argument, these debates should be a question about models of debate - carded TVAs are better than non-carded TVAs and are a sure fire way to win these debates for the negative --- I would describe myself as a clash truther most times, debate is net good maximizing clash preserves the value of debate --- 2As whose strategy is to impact turn everything with a CI is much more convincing to me than attempts to use the counterinterp as defense to T, although can be persuaded by the counterinterp being defense to T

DA--- Fast DAs are more convincing, turns case arguments good, any DA is fair game as long as its debated well

CP --- Must know what the CP does with an explanation --- good for functional competition only, not the biggest fan of text and function or textual only.

T --- Boring.

LD Specific:

1. Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

4. Phil - Been convinced more and more about Phil thanks to Danielle Dosch, I would still say I am not the best for Phil

5. Tricks

Chris Castillo Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:32 AM CST

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

I rarely read evidence after debates.
Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Frasat Chaudhry Horace Greeley HS 3 rounds

Hannah Childress Valdosta High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 8:05 AM EST

Email: hechildress25@gmail.com , please include me in any email chains

A little about me, I am a Neuroscience major at Georgia Tech, I'm double minoring in Physiology and Biochemistry/Chemistry with a certificate in Cellular and Molecular Biosciences, and I'm very involved in politics and healthcare related subjects on campus. I've competed in almost every event - I debated for 8 years, went to nationals 4 times, and was finalist for national student of the year in 2024 (I'm just flexing, it's not important). I've judged every single event (PF is my personal favorite) and I've helped in coaching before. My RFD's usually go line-by-line on the ballot; for novice rds, I go more in-depth and explain ways to better the debate.

I will not accept any disrespectful language towards your opponents or judges.

Losses for me: disrespect, sexist/racist/LGBTQ+phobic/literally any discriminatory comments or language, or violence.

Don't browbeat less experienced debaters. Make this a learning experience or else you will not succeed in the round <3

LD: Summary: 1. Trad, 2. Larp, 3. K, 4. Theory (no Friv or tricks or minimizations of the resolution). I flow spread, but be clear.

FRAMEWORK!!! Framework is the most important and whoever wins framework tends to win with me. Use your contentions to back your framework. I absolute HATE how LD has become less Framework-centric and more Policy-like, use the framework and whoever wins frame wins. PROVE HOW YOURS WINS and how it links to your case.

I like impact analysis, so do what you want with that. Have some philosophy, again this is NOT Policy-JR have some philosophical standing and carry your framework throughout the case. This is a morals and values centric debate and stats are for more policy and implementation centric debates. If it resorts to a stats debate, low speaker points, but better stats win.

PF: Summary: Evidence (stats, examples, etc) heavy, impact weighing, line-by-line

I have never competed in PF, but I have worked with PFers and judged it several times (my favorite event to judge). Use your evidence as impacts and arguments, don't just read it. PF is a partner debate, rely on your partner and if they say one thing, extend it.

I prefer traditional PF. This is not Policy Jr so DO NOT ACT LIKE IT!! Stats are important, but do not overlook the importance of examples and implementation. Go line-by-line, provide evidence (can apply to multiple arguments) with specific attacks. I like warrants in case. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I will most likely weigh it. Tell me why your response matters and delinks their case. Be respectful, oftentimes in PF it can get heated very quickly, if I notice this, then low speaks. Be civil and have fun!

Policy: I do not enjoy policy, so if I am judging you in policy, I apologize. I do not know the jargon and I despise spreading, so change accordingly, and I apologize for tab.

Congress: Read a speech and actually know it (or act like you know it). This is supposed to be fun. Don't be rude, and actually get stuff done. Have some clash. For questions, please make them quicker because there isn't much time. PO's: keep track of time, make sure you allow precedence in speeches and questioning (AKA whoever raises their hand first goes).

ALL DEBATE

CLASH - this is a debate, not a tea party. I prefer contention-level impact weighing clash and line-by-line clash, but please don't resort to a definitions debate. If there is no clash, then speaker points will show that (<28). Simply saying "I have a card for this," "there's no link," or other broad arguments is not something I weigh heavily.

I will not do your work for you. If you said something in Cross Ex and don't bring it up, it is not an argument. Explain your links and impacts or else I won't. If you do not bring up any impacts, it will affect speaker points and the overall outcome of the debate.

Speaks- I judge speaks on organization, purposeful inflection, and clarity. 30-Perfect, 29-Great, 28- Good, 27-Ok, 26- Bad, 25- Disrespect/Anything off the losses for me.

Card-Calling- I count that as off-time after cross examination/cross-fire.

Spreading - If I cannot understand what you're saying because you're speaking so fast, I will take off points even if I have the case. I can flow spread, but please speak clearly, and if you don't, then I will not flow the argument. I do not think spreading is helpful in anyway other than to look like you're a "much better debater." I think speaking slower and adding emphasis and tone is more important but whatever floats your boat

Extinction/Nuke War: I will not vote on Extinction arguments without proper links (minimum of 4 cards to prove linkage).

General: have fun with the round, make unique cases and arguments. By the end of a topic, we’ve all heard the basic arguments, so please find some new ways to run a case. If it’s unique, I’ll give better speaks. Monotone is boring, use your tone and body language to aid in your speaking.

Interp/Speech: Only rule for me- SCREAMING DOES NOT EQUAL EMOTION!! If you can show emotion without screaming, you did good. Now if it's a getting louder because the piece needs to show emphasis, sounds good. (Please have some movement, it makes it look better)

Sebastian Cho Vestavia Hills High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 6:01 AM CST

vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

NDT quarterfinalist reading K arguments.

Have coached every argument at high levels.

Ask question before debate for specifics.

Avg speaks 28.5, find myself lowering speaks as unstrategic choices are made.

Tech over Truth; I find myself intervening frequently because debaters leave key issues unresolved.

If I nod, I agree, if I laugh I think ur argument is funny, could be good, could be bad.

Persuasion, evidence quality and intuition all play a role in determining who has technically won a controversy.

I am better than most of the pool for theory, but despite my reputation I am actually not very good for theory debaters. I think every theory shell is false. Theory relies on concessions to win or strategic errors - I have no problem voting for conceded arguments but properly debated, I don't think I would ever vote for theory. Condo is maybe workable. Obvious exception for Topicality.

Topicality vs K Aff - I think I lean aff in these debates in theory, but lean neg in practice: framework is just easier to execute then K aff.

Flow constructives off the doc. Flow rebuttals entirely without doc. Willing to adjust based on debater request. You should probably signal for my attention if you are extemping arguments during constructives.

Judge kick depends on mood. Would prefer you gave explicit instruction.

Your best strategy is to make me want to vote for you. I am likely influenced by extreme subconcious bias when attempting to render "technical decisions." (i.e. swayed by good ethos and rhetoric)

However, I do not have strong argumentative or ideological preferences, just would appreciate if you were thoughtful about the content and execution of the stratgies you deploy.

Cross-ex and other affective aspects such as presentation and performance are very important for both speaks and how willing I am to vote for you.

I get irritated by what I perceive to be poor strategic choices and reading parts of your script that are irrelevant.

Speaks rewarded to those who make judging enjoyable.

Debates are enjoyable when both sides answer each other arguments with specificity and adapt to the circumstances of the round.

Find skepticism more persuasive than most judges. This might be game-breaking for the neg. Unsure what to do about this problem.

I am probably more tolerant to arguments deemed morally hazardous, such as moral skepticism, nihilism, death good, trigger warnings bad and deleuze. However, I do not desire to inflict harm to debaters so will leave the option open to pause or end the round if an argument introduced may have unsafe implications.

Maanik Chotalla Brophy College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 27, 2024 at 2:00 AM MST

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/Philosophy Debate/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

Sam Church The Harker School 3 rounds

Clara Conry Hire 1 rounds

Brett Cryan Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 11, 2024 at 5:21 PM MST

email chain:

backslash309@gmail.com

add breakdocs@googlegroups.com as well

top level:

Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.

In regards to Policy vs K debate, if I were biased either direction, it's probably in favor of policy, but I don't think this matters in a technical debate where your arguments have warrants. Do with that what you will.

Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses. If an argument is introduced in a speech where no such response is valid, it carries little weight, for example: I am not going to think fairness categorically outweighs education if fairness outweighs is introduced in the 2AR.

(9/11/24) Because of this, claims start from zero and are built up through warrants. I do not want to judge tricks debates. I will abide by the above paragraph with far more scrutiny than I have in the past. Theory and phil debates are still fine, but I'll be much more hesitant to vote on blippy shells, analytic skep triggers, and other less warranted args than I have in the past.

random thoughts:

Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

In the absence of paradigm issues, I'm going to evaluate theory contextually. This means I will only grant you the logical implication of the words you say, and will not automatically grant you assumptions like drop the debater. For example, if a 1AR tells me "PICs are a voter cuz they steal the aff", this logically means that PICs are a bad argument, but doesn't explain why the neg should lose for reading it. Functionally, this means I'd default drop the argument absent any explanation. This headache can be easily avoided through warranted, extended arguments.

K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate.

I default to judgekick.

David Dosch Immaculate Heart High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 8:48 AM PST

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School.

daviddosch@gmail.com

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Aerin Engelstad Dublin High School Independent 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 2:53 PM CST

Email: aerinengelstad@gmail.com

Eagan '23, Emory '27

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Prefs shortcut:

1. Policy v Policy

2. Policy v K

3. K v K

4. Phil v K, Phil v Util, Theory

5. Weird K's, Weird Phil, Weird Tricks

Top Level:

---Tech over truth. I will vote on tricks, if you win the flow.

---I try to not be dogmatic about arguments and to avoid judge intervention as much as absolutely possible.

---I think that arguments need a warrant BUT I think that if an argument is bad, then it should be very easy for the other side to answer it.

---I agree a lot withArchan Sen, look at his paradigm for more in-depth takes.

---I default condo and judge kick. I do not vote on presumption (ABSENT a technical error), I tend to believe that a risk of offense ALWAYS exists.

---I won't evaluate out of round arguments/adhoms.

---I don't mind if you are sassy. I am sassy as well.

---For postrounding, I just ask that you be respectful. I understand if you may have saw the round a different way, but I really try my absolute best to make the decision that is most consistent with the flow and the debate that occured. I try not to "hate" any particular argument when I am judging a debate (even if I may dislike them personally), and so I would appreciate if I was offered the same respect that I offer your arguments.

---You do not need to slow down/read bad arguments against novices. I believe that novices learn through hardship, and it is good for them to see how the best debaters debate. It is how I learned and how everyone learns, even if we don't like losing so hard in the moment.

Policy---I think I have the most knowledge about these argumetns. I read them in high school and I have always enjoyed policy debates more than others. Inserting rehighlightings is good and should be done more---it lowers the barrier to entry for ev comparison and deters bad evidence. Speech times in LD are actually horrific, and so the aff should do ALL it can to even the gap. I appreciate card docs that look nice and speeches that are organized and consistent with the doc. I'll reward it with high speaks. Additionally, I really appreciate 1AR's on impact turns/case arguments that are not a dump of cards, but are specific to the line by line and warrants. I see this a lot specifically with impact turns and I think 1ARs become redundant because sometimes the aff doesn't even seem to understand what their own cards say before they read them.

T---Love these debates. Slow down on analytics and judge instruction is very important in these debates. RVI's are easily beaten because they are generally poor arguments, but they need to be beaten. Nebel T is not my strongest suit because I am not well versed in the semantics so being clear/overexplanatory would be helpful, but I do not mind the argument. I do think it probably should just be beaten by pragmatics though.

Impact turns---I love them. No personal qualms with spark or wipeout. See the "1AR card dumps" in the policy section to see more about this.

Theory---I'll evaluate it, I don't even really care about this anymore. Bad arguments should just be beaten by good arguments. If you lose the flow, then you lose. Even eval after the 1NC, if conceded, then well... You should redo that speech with your coach to not have that happen again. Condo should be in almost every 1AR as an option.

K's--- I have been very persuaded by framework and extinction outweighs, BUT I really think that negatives can/should capitalize on aff mistakes on this and very much should utilize the links to deal with the case (i.e link turns case) which I think is very persuasive. I vote for K's all the time, but I will not vote for you just because you said "racism is bad". I am much more experienced with more common K's (capitalism, settler colonialism, afropess, etc) while not so experienced with high theory K's (deleuze, baudrillard, etc).

K-affs---I loved going for T-fwrk! But, I also have voted for many a K-aff because the affirmative just beat T-fwrk. You need to answer arguments and in my opinion, should always go for fairness. Additionally, I loved going for K's against K-affs and I think that they are very persuasive.

Phil---I have spent a lot more time thinking about this in the last 2 years and have spoken to a lot more phil people about how to understand it in debate. To be clear---Please do EXTENSIVE judge instruction about how to evaluate these arguments. I also really think that the best argument against most phil teams is actually to just respond to the framework and answer it although I find Util to be very compelling.

Aidan Etkin Barrington High School 6 rounds

Douglas Evans Admiral Farragut Academy 2 rounds

Brice Ezell The Lovett School 6 rounds

Updated 2024, following Greenhill

Dr. Brice Ezell – The Lovett School, Debate Coach (he/his)

Bakersfield Christian High School, 2006-10 (LD, competed mostly in local CA tournaments and at NSDAs; broke in LD in 2009)
George Fox University, BA, 2010-2014 (WUDC, competed nationally and at Worlds twice)
University of Texas, PhD and MA, 2015-21 (involved sporadically in judging, but was not on UT's college teams; my PhD subject matter involved a lot of reading in phil/K lit, however)

Speechdrop is preferred, but if it's email do add me to the chain -- my email is brice.ezell@lovett.org

The TL;DR below should honestly suffice for most folks. PF debaters: scroll to the bottom (though plenty of my judging philosophy in the LD section aligns with my thinking for PF as well.)

TL;DR Summary of Everything in this Paradigm: In general, I will vote on whatever is most successfully warranted, weighed and impacted in the round. Arguments can have all sorts of impacts: to the fairness of the debating activity, to the possibility of nuclear war, to violating a universal ethical principle, etc. However you impact your arguments, you also need to sell me on some kind of standard by which I am to evaluate the in-round impacts. This doesn’t mean you have to use the old-school value/criterion structure, but rather that you as part of your weighing need to tell me the yardstick by which to measure all the in-round impacts.

Prefs: Though I hesitated to do this at first, as I don’t want debaters to get the sense that they have to run one kind of argument in front of me to succeed, below is how I’d categorize my preferences when it comes to LD -- listed alphabetically by section. I recognize there is value to being transparent about this as a judge, though I really try to be tabula rasa in-round as this is an activity whose practices are created by its participants. Debate is as much a creative as it is an academic activity.

I Like These and Vote on Them Regularly - Run Truly Whatever

Philosophy

Policy (LOVE plan/CP debates)

Post-fiat K debates

Skep (moral or epistemological - big fan of args involving the latter, actually)

Theory

Truth-testing

I Could Definitely Vote on these But My Threshold is Higher

Non-Topical Affs

Performance (though I stress one thing: make sure you know what the word "performative"actually means)

PICs (the closer to mutually exclusive they are the more I respect them -- not a fan of "the whole AFF except one minuscule part of it," e.g. 50 states CPs)

Pre-fiat Ks

Serious gaming

I Can't Imagine Voting On These Ever

Tricks* [see note below]

Frivolous theory (e.g. "URL theory," font sizes, etc)

*I know there may be some confusion in having tricks ranked at the bottom here and skep/truth testing in a higher level of willingness to adjudicate. To put it frankly, I’m not totally clear on what constitutes a “trick” – it’s a confusing set. If by “tricks” one means what this definition on Circuit Debater tells us, wherein a trick is an argument that’s meant to be abusive, then I will say without reservation I will vote these kinds of arguments down. As a general practice, irrespective of the style of case one runs in front of me, I reward debaters for running toward the debate, rather than trying to win on the narrowest grounds possible. Go for clash! With that in mind, I’m not clear why truth testing and skep cases *must* constitute some kind of trick or attempt to be abusive to your opponent. Truth-testing is a flavor of old-school LD, and done well is hardly abusive, certainly not in a way where an opponent couldn’t sufficiently respond to it.

Stray Things

Speed: No problem! But be especially clear with your tags and author attributions. If I have to say "clear" more than once some of your args might not end up on my flow.

Tech>Truth?: Yes. But this bears saying: when I'm listening to and flowing your arguments, they need to, at some level, make sense. So if you're running a K or otherwise philosophically inclined argument with its own jargon, explain what key terms mean and what they look like applied to the debate at hand, even if you think I know the body of literature from which you're drawing. An example: feel free to run a psychoanalysis K in front of me, but if you read some tagline that's like "The alternative is to run towards the Real," like... I'll flow it, but I don't know what that means unless your tag or card gives me some explanation of what that would look like. You shouldn't be clarifying key claims of a case only in the rebuttals. The strategy of obfuscating in the 1AC/NC and then in rebuttals being articulate in the way you should have been in the constructives will bode poorly for speaks in front of me.

Cross-x: Is binding. I flow it and think it’s one of the most important parts of the debate.

Flex-prep: I’m cool with it.

Timing: I trust debaters to keep their own time but note that I will keep time as well (a) as an extra accountability measure in case there’s a dispute, and (b) because I like to make note on my ballot of how speakers allocate their time strategically.

RVIS?: Probably not.

Speaks: Here's how I allocate speaks unless a tournament gives me a bespoke speaker point scale:

30: No notes. If I were a betting kind of person I'd bet you're going to win the tournament.

29.6 - 29.9: Near-flawless strategy and delivery. If this kind of performance is repeated, I'd expect you to get to late elims at this tournament, if not win the tournament altogether.

29.2 - 29.5: Your strategy and delivery mark you as a debater I'd expect, assuming consistent performance at this level, to get solidly far into elims.

28.8 - 29.1: I'd expect you to break based on how you executed strategy and delivery in this round, assuming consistent performance at this level.

28.4 - 28.7: I'd award in this range if I thought you'd break or be on the bubble for breaking, but there are strategic or delivery issues that I could see being an issue in other rounds.

28.0 - 28.3: This is where I start my adjudicating of a round. A debater who stays at this score level is merely "fine" -- nothing too bad, but nothing too flashy either. I would not expect a debater consistently competing at this point level to break.

27.0 - 27.9: You've got a lot of work to do, either in strategy or delivery.

26.0 - 26.9: You've got a lot of work to do in both strategy and delivery.

25: You did something profoundly offensive.

One sure way to get good speaks from me: quality on-case argumentation and engagement with the opponent's cards and tags. I too often feel that even good debaters hear the tag of the AC (e.g. "oh they're running X policy case"), and then rather than engage the substance (or maybe lack thereof) in the AC, will go only for off arguments and weighing, leaving little time for direct arguments on case. Go for your offense, of course, but show me that you're engaging your opponent's case in detail! Put most succinctly, debaters that get good speaks for me eagerly go for clash, and to me part of good clash is getting into your opponent's case and saying how and why they're wrong.

What About Public Forum? I am generally of the belief that PF should be insulated from the "circuit-ification" that's endemic to the other major debating formats. A PF round really should be viewable by all, including the mythical "average person on the street." This isn't because I'm a "PF originalist," or am against spread/circuit debate -- far from it. Rather, I just think the strictures of the form (four minute speeches max, topics that change every month) make "circuit PF" a kind of contradiction in terms. PF should be about a clearly defined and persuasively delivered (in the traditional sense) clash on a current events topic with which a parent uninitiated to debating could follow. Though PF doesn't have the value framework of LD, your weighing mechanism for my decision in the round -- these are often called "voters" or "voting issues" -- should still be clear by the time you get to the Final Focus speeches.

When it comes to theory arguments in PF: I am fine with disclosure and T arguments (funny enough, the first time I have ever voted on disclosure was in a PF round), but not really anything else. And I say this only in the context of the national circuit; if you run disclosure in PF at a local GA tournament I will be VERY predisposed to vote for your opponent.

One specific note on the rules of PF debating, since this issue has come up in some rounds for my debaters: the CON is not required to defend the status quo. Though plan texts are verboten in this format, the CON is allowed to advocate (without a specific plan-text) alternatives to the PRO advocacy. For example, on a topic like "The United States federal government should forgive all federal student loan debt," the CON is not required to defend a world with no student loan forgiveness or only the types of forgiveness that exist in the status quo; they could say, as a generalized claim, "We support some targeted means-testing style forgiveness programs, those that target historically disenfranchised groups in America." There couldn't be, however, a specific plan iterating the details of that advocacy. I'm not sure why so many people think PF would be set up to where all debates are "X or the status quo," and in any event there's certainly nothing in "the rulebook" for PF to suggest that the CON can't offer alternatives in the same generalized way that the PRO advocates for a given case.

Zain Farooqui Vestavia Hills High School 6 rounds

Eddie Fitzgerald Poly Prep Country Day School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 12:05 PM EST

I require speech docs sent for all cards. Please include me on the email chain:
edfitzi04@gmail.com

I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

OVERVIEW:

I graduated from Liberty University in the spring of 2011 after debating for 5 years. Before that I debated 1 year of LD in high school. Since then I worked as a debate coach for Timothy Christian High School in New Jersey for 6 years, traveling nationally on both the high school and college circuit. Currently I am the Director of speech and debate at Poly Prep in Brooklyn.

I view debate as a forum to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. I prefer in depth debate with developed material that you look like you have a grasp of. I will always work hard to evaluate correctly and with little intervention, especially if you are putting in hard work debating.

Learning debate from within the Liberty tradition I began by running conventional policy arguments with a proclivity to go for whatever K was in the round. However, during my final 3 years my partner and I did not defend the resolution and our 1nc looked very similar to our 1ac. Personally, I’m a believer and coach for advocating liberatory and conscious debate practices. However, there will certainly be a gap at times between my personal preferences and practices and what I vote on. I’m not going to judge from a biased perspective against policy arguments, and although tabula rasa is impossible I will try to evaluate the arguments presented with limited interference.

Ultimately, do not let any of this sway you from debating how you prefer. Doing what you think you are the best educator on will probably be your greatest option. If any of this is unclear or you have questions that I have not address below please feel free to ask me before a round. Have fun, debate confidently, and be genuine.

Last updated 1/10/2020

PAPERLESS and prep time (LD and Policy specific):

Prep time ends approximately when the speech doc is saved and you remove the jump drive / hit send of the email. An overall goal (for both paperless and traditional teams) is to be prepared to begin your speech when you say end prep.

Speaking mostly to HIGH SCHOOL students:

Everyone involved in the round should be able to have access to any read piece of evidence once it has been presented. This means that if you are reading off of a computer you are responsible for providing your opponents with either a jump of what you are going to read or a physical copy before you start your speech. We shouldn’t be unreasonably fearful of people ‘stealing’ ‘our’ evidence, as source information should always be provided, and also because it’s certainly not really ‘ours’. You may, however, respectfully require your opponents to delete anything you provided them with during the round.

SPEAKING STYLES and speaker points:

I’m certainly open to (for lack of a better word) alternative and non-traditional approaches to your speech time. Passion, ethos, and emphasis are things that are usually underutilized by most speaking styles and debaters, and should be present in both constructives and rebuttals. After all, debate is at its core a communication activity. Cross-ex is a great time to exhibit this as well as advance your arguments. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech. Being a jerk, unnecessarily rude, offensive, stealing prep, and not being helpful to the other team during cx or prep time are all things that will negatively effect your speaker points outside of the quality and delivery of your arguments.

HIGH SCHOOL LD SPECIFIC:

Yes, I am fine with speed, but that does not give you an excuse to be unclear. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech.

I have experience to evaluate theory, but certainly prefer substantive theory (T, condo, NIBs, are all examples) as opposed to frivolous theory. You should probably slow down when reading your shells if you want me to be able to write down the nuances of your argument. Due to my background in college policy there may be a few preconceptions that I have that you should be aware of. Theory is not automatically an RVI, and I probably take a little more convincing on the flow than most judges in this area. You need to explain to me why a violation has resulted in abuse that warrants either voting down the other team or rejecting a specific argument. Simply claiming one to be true is not enough work here. When answering theory, showing how the abuse can be solved by rejecting a particular argument can make the violation go away.

Conceded and dropped arguments are considered true on my flow, unless they are morally repugnant or blatantly false. An example of the latter is even if your opponent drops a theory shell, if the team clearly does not link to the violation your accusation does not make that true. Conceded arguments must still be extended, warranted, and argued, but you should focus more on their implications.

Please read the paperless / prep time and the speaking style / speaker points sections of my philosophy located above.

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC:

A quick overview statement: It seem that circuit PF is going through a growing period where it is solidifying some norms and practices. As a result of this, I will typically default to the understanding of the debaters in the round. I am also open to different interpretations as long as they are defended.

ARGUMENT SPECIFIC:

The rest of my philosophy is not specific towards ld or policy, high school or college, and it may do you benefit to read it as well, especially if some of your arguments tend to look like policy arguments.

FRAMEWORK (when run by the neg):

I think that negatives have the ability to and should engage with affirmatives that don’t defend a normative implementation of a plan. Even if the aff doesn’t defend the resolution there are still many substantive things that they will defend that provide ample ground. Although this ground might not be as predictable as your interpretation on FW calls for, it is still predictable enough to meet the threshold that you should be prepared for it.

Having said that, I think I’m one of those few sick individuals that will actually enjoy listening to framework debates as long as they are well developed on both sides. Granted, I will most likely be a harder sell than most, but I don’t think this should dissuade you from going for it if you think it is your best option. You will need to make inroads to the aff’s arguments by articulating ways traditional debate solves for their impacts. If you lose the impact turn to politics you will not win FW debates. You need to make arguments to the effect of traditional policy debate being key to a better form of politics and articulate net benefits to your interpretation from this. I think that the type of education we foster in debate far outweighs the preservation of the game in the strictest sense. That is to say that fairness claims alone are not the way to persuade me on FW. You should instead use claims of fairness to hedge against the impacts from the aff.

However, the main substance of FW debates (for both sides) should be about the competing benefits to the type of education and scholarship different traditions lead to.

For affirmatives concerning framework strategies, your greatest offense will be specific to your particular argument. I will be more easily persuaded if your aff is connected to the topic. I don’t appreciate aff’s that are written that hide their purpose or are exclusively constructed to impact turn FW. While I prefer some kind of relationship to the topic, I don’t think it is necessary. However, you do lose the ability to make an important strategic argument that other plan-less aff’s should employ, which is that your aff is important to topic education. More developed, this argument should be that your aff is necessary to topic education and that without it the debate ground that is left leads to bad forms of scholarship. That is to say that you aff is essentially topical. This argument is both inherently offensive and also provides the ability to make defensive claims against the neg’s offense.

KRITIKS:

This is the type of debate that I am most familiar with and have the largest literature base with (I was a philosophy major). However, messy and poor K debates are probably the worst. The key to winning this kind of debate is making the general link and alternative cards as specific as possible to the aff. I am not saying that the key is reading the most specific evidence (although this would be nice, however most of our authors here don’t write in the context of every affirmative), but that you need to find ways to apply the generic concepts to the specifics of the aff. Without this it is easier to be persuaded by the perm.

Teams are responsible for the discourse and performances in which then engage in given the context of the world we are situated in as well as the argument style the team engages in.

Aff’s have a wide range of arguments they can deploy, and are probably best sticking with the ones they are most comfortable with while doing a good job showing how they relate to the critique.

Concerning the perm, it is usually not enough work to simply show how the two different advocacies could work together. At this point it becomes easy to vote on the alternative as a purer form of advocacy without the risk of links. Aff’s should articulate net benefits to the perm to hedge against residual links and different DA’s to the perm itself. Case should be one of these net benefits, but aff’s need to watch out for indicts to foundational assumptions (concerning methodology, epistemology, ontology etc.) behind your impact claims.

Concerning framework: when was the last time a relatively moderate judge decided that the neg shouldn’t be able to run their K? The answer is probably a long time ago. The majority of these debates are compromised in the 1ar by allowing the K given that the aff gets to weigh their impacts after a lot of wasted time by both teams. I can hardly think of a situation where I would be persuaded to only evaluate the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option that excluded the alternative. However, I can envision certain ways that this debate goes down that convinces me to discount the impacts of the aff. In general, however, most of debate is illusory (somewhat unfortunately) and these framework questions are about what type of education is more important. If you chose to run framework with you aff you should keep these things in mind concerning your interpretation for debate.

PERFORMANCE or project verses a similar style:

These debates are some of the most important and essential ones for our community, particularly as more and more teams are participating in this form of advocacy. We need to debate and judge in light of this fact. These are also some of the most difficult debates to have. There are several reasons for this, one of the most poignant being the personal nature of these debates combined with the close relationships that most people amongst this insular community have with one another. We need to realize the value in these opportunities and the importance of preserving the pureness of our goals for the debate community. That might mean in some situations that conceding and having a conversation might be the best use of a particular debate space, and in others debating between different competing methodologies is a correct rout to go. In either case we need to realize and cherish common goals. In light of this it isn’t a bad thing to agree with large portions of your opponent’s speeches or even advocacy. Instead of reproducing the gaming paradigm of traditional debate, where competition is valued over advocacy and winning over ethics, we should instead choose to celebrate the areas of alignment we find. Conceding every round where this happens, however, is not a good idea either. This would send a message to the debate community that debate dies under this framework. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible time and place for it though.

When both teams largely agree on certain foundational framework questions efficacious debate can still happen. While making distinctions between advocacies and methodologies is essential for this kind of a debate, you should probably not manipulate and create links that are artificial. Distinctions that are made out of an in depth knowledge of the issues are far more beneficial and consistent. Traditional debate might look at these kinds of rounds as two ships passing in the night, but I think there can be a different metaphor – one where the teams are two ships starting at the recognition that the resolution and the debate community is flawed and that the round can be decided upon which team provides a better methodology and performance to get their ship further in the direction of what we should be as a community and culturally aware individuals.

I am undecided as to whether the aff should be allowed a perm and this should probably be debated out. However, I think that the aff should always have the ability to point out when a negative advocacy is the same as theirs.

THEORY / T:

Any bias I have towards theory will probably result in placing a burden on the team that reads the violation to prove that it should result in a voting issue. However, I don’t like shady stuff done only to be obnoxiously strategic. Don’t do it.

One thing that I definitely do not like is when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. This will usually call into question the solvency of the critique if the aff takes advantage of this.

I don’t think that I have a bias concerning reasonability or competing interpretations, but I will probably default to competing interpretations until the aff is shown to be reasonable and from there it is up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS / DA’s:

I am probably liberal concerning counter plan theory, and aside from the question over conditionality most other theory arguments are probably reasons to reject the cp. Aside from traditional theory answers, showing why a certain CP is justified given the specific aff is a good response.

PICS that are specific to the aff are great, however word pics should probably just be articulated as links to the K.

Uniqueness controls the link only if a particular side definitively wins it.

I generally evaluate from an offense / defense standpoint, but it doesn’t mean anything if the CP links less than the plan does to a DA if the CP still meets the threshold for triggering the link. In that world there isn’t greater offense to the CP.

Nicholas Ford Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 9:32 AM CST

hi my name is nicholas (u can and should call me nick/ nick ford) i did ld for niceville high school in nwfl my senior year on the circuit & am currently a second-year at columbia studying comparative literature; if you are planning on applying there, feel free to ask me questions about it/ the application (ik college apps are hard lol)

email: nicevilledebates@gmail.com -- email chain > speechdrop unless there's like, a lot of people in the room

*for anything EXCEPT docs, pls contact me through my personal email (nicholasaford2@gmail.com)

quick prefs:

*to clarify: these are based on how comfortable i am in evaluating these types of arguments -- i will evaluate anything, but i'm less good at evaluating certain things

k/performance - 1

theory - 1

friv theory/trix - 1/2

LARP - 3

common phil positions (kant/util) - 3

other phil - 4/5

if you have any questions email me/ reach out over fb messenger etc.

general:

just be clear -- if i can't flow the argument you probably shouldn't go for it

tech>truth, extend arguments and warrants so that i can eval them

not evaluating 30 speaks.

the way I think about safety in debate has changed over the past year. i will intervene if i believe that one or both debaters is making the round unsafe in any way, shape, or form. i believe that there is a difference between an ivi for safety (e.g., 'kant is racist, their endorsement of kant is a reason to vote them down to reject racism') and making a round unsafe (e.g., repeated misgendering, using slurs inappropriately).

i will not evaluate 'tabroom solves' for the latter.

i will evaluate 'tabroom solves' for the former.

if you feel as though a safety violation has occurred and i have not stopped the round, you need to explicitly say to me "can we stop the round, i do not feel safe" or something similar and we will proceed from there.

easy ways to get higher speaks with me:

bring me an energy drink (the brightline to an energy drink is 80mg+ caffeine; speaks are a sliding scale based on caffeine content but bringing me a bang will give you negative speaks.) **does not apply for lex

be funny/clever/do something unique and interesting

easy ways to get lower speaks with me

wasting my time

being generally unstrategic

sending files as google docs/ pdf

k/performance:

identity ks are cool; non-identity ks are cool. like technical k debate; don't like you expecting me to know your lit base. lbl>>>long overviews. extremely bored by k debaters who don't do lbl work and expect to win when they don't answer key args.

theory:

no theory is friv. answer standards. do weighing. fine for the rvi. no defaults. extend paradigm issues.

trix:

totally good for tricky rounds, but i think they can get very messy very quickly. implicate things on the flow. arguments need warrants.

LARP(policy) and lay:

fine for this, but extremely bored by lay debate. be nice to novices/ debaters going to their first circuit tournament. no i wont nuke your speaks for reading theory/k/trix against a lay/novice debater.

phil:

i never read phil so i'm significantly less familiar with these arguments. i'm probably okay for kant but tend toward over-explanation when reading less common phil positions like deleuze, heidegger, etc.

note for PF: not a pf judge. good for the kritik. maybe good for theory. great for trix (altho not sure what tricks exist in pf lmao)

Patrick Fox Loyola High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 9:45 AM CST

All chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com

and, please also add (based on event):

HSPD: dulles.policy.db8@gmail.com

HSLD: loyoladebate47@gmail.com

CPD: uhoustondebate@gmail.com

please have the email sent before start time. late starts are annoying. annoying hurts speaker points.

Dulles High School (HSPD), Loyola High School (HSLD), University of Houston (CPD) - if you are currently committed to debating at the University of Houston in the future, please conflict me. If you're interested in debating at UH, reach out.

please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are all fine.

he/him/his - do not misgender people. not negotiable.

"takes his job seriously, but not himself."

safety of debaters is my utmost concern at all times. racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. not tolerated - I am willing to act on this more than most judges. don't test me.

debated 2014-22 (HSPD Oceans - NDT/CEDA Personhood), and won little but learned lots. high school was politics disads and advantage counterplans with niche plans. college was planless affs and the K, topicality, or straight turning an advantage. i'm a 2N from D3 - this is the most important determinant of debate views in this paradigm.

every judge thinks arguments are good or bad, which makes them easier or harder to vote on, usually unconsciously. i'm trying to make it clear what i think good and bad arguments are and how to debate around that. on average, happiest in debates with lots of cards for a disad or K + case vs aff with a plan, but high-quality, well-warranted arguments + judge instruction >>> any specific positions - Kant, planless affs, process counterplans, and topicality can be vertically dense, cool debates. they can also be total slop. i'm a full time coach and i judge tons of debates, but my topic/argument knowledge won't save bad debating. i flow carefully and value "tech" over "truth", but dropped arguments are only as good as the dropped argument itself - i don't start flowing until i hear a warrant, and i find i have a higher threshold for warrants and implications than most. i take offense/defense very seriously - debating comparatively is much better than abstractions.

Wheaton's law is axiomatic - be kind, have fun. i do my best to give detailed decisions and feedback - debaters deserve no less than the best. coaches and debaters are welcome to ask questions, and i know passions run high, but i struggle to understand being angry for it's own sake - just strike me if you don't like how i judge, save us the shouting match.

"act like you've been here."

details

- evidence: Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” Richard Garner: "I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting"

- organization: good (obviously). extend parts your argument as responses to theirs. follow the order of the previous speech when you can. hard number arguments ("1NC 2", not "second/next"). subpointing good, but when overdone speeches feel disjointed, substitutes being techy for sounding techy. debating in paragraphs >>> bullet points.

- new arguments: getting out of hand. "R" in 1AR doesn't stand for constructive. at minimum, new args must be explicitly justified by new block pivots - otherwise, very good for 2NRs saying "strike it".

- inserting cards: fine if fully explained indict of card they read – new arguments or different parts of the article should be read aloud. will strike excessive insertions if told if most are nothing.

- case debates: miss them. advantages are terrible, easily link turned. solvency can be zero with smart CX and analytics. executing this well gets high speaker points.

- functional competition: good, makes sense. textual competition: silly, seems counterproductive. positional competition: upsetting. competing off of immediacy/certainty: skeptical, never assumed by literature, weird interpretation of fiat and mandates. plank to ban plan: does not make other non-competitive things competitive. intrinsicness: fine, but intrinsic perms often not actually intrinsic. voting record on all these: very even, teams fail to make the best arguments.

- process counterplans: interesting when topic and aff specific, annoying when recycled slop. insane ideas that collapse government (uncooperative fedism), misunderstand basic legal processes (US Code), and don't solve net benefit (most) can be zero with good CX. competition + intuitive deficits > arbitrary theory interps.

- state of advantage counterplan texts is bad. should matter more. evidence quality paramount. CX can make these zero.

- judge kick: only if explicitly told in a speech. however, splitting 2NR unstrategic – winning a whole counterplan > half a counterplan and half a case defense. better than most for sticking the neg with a counterplan, but needs airtime before 2AR.

- "do both shields" and "links to net benefit" insanely good, underrated, require a comeback in the meta. but, most permutations are 2AC nothingburgers, making debates late breaking - less i understand before the block = less spin 1AR gets + more lenient to 2NR. solve this with fewer, better permutations - "do both, shields link" = tagline, not argument.

- uniqueness controls link/vice versa: contextual to any given arg. extremist opinions ("no offense without uniqueness"/"don't need uniqueness") seem silly.

- impact turns: usually have totalizing uniqueness and questionable solvency. teams should invest here on top of impact debate proper.

- turns case/case turns: higher threshold than most. ideally carded, minimally thoroughly explained for specific internal links.

- impact framing: most is bad, more conceptual than concrete. "timeframe outweighs magnitude" sometimes it doesn't. why does it in this debate? "intervening actors check" who? how? comparing scenarios >>> abstractions. worse for "try or die" than most - idk why 100% impact x 2% solvency outweighs 80% link x 50% impact. specificity = everything. talk about probability more. risk matters a lot.

- the K: technical teams that read detailed evidence should take me high. performance teams can also take me - i've coached this with some success, and i'm better for you than i seem. good: link to some 1AC premise/mechanism with an impact that outweighs the net benefit to a permutation, external impact that turns/outweighs case, a competitive and solvent alternative. bad: antonio 95, "fiat illusory", etc. devil's in the details - examples, references to aff evidence, etc. delete your 2NC overview, do 8 minutes of line-by-line - you will win more.

- aff vs K: talk about the 1AC more, dump cards about the K less - debate on your turf, not theirs. if aff isn't built to link turn, don't bother. "extinction outweighs" should not be the only impact calculus (see above: impact framing). perm double bind usually ends up being dumb. real permutation and deficit > asserting the possibility of one - "it could theoretically shield the link or not solve" loses to "it does neither" + warrant.

- framework arguments: "X parts of the 1AC are best basis for rejoinder/competition because Y which means Z" = good, actually establishes a framework. “weigh the aff”/“reps first” = non-arguments, what does this mean. will not adopt a “middle ground” interp if nobody advances one – usually both incoherent and unstrategic. anything other than plan focus prob gives the negative more than you want (e.g: unsure why PIKs are bad if the negative gets “reps bad” + "plan bad"). consequently, fine with “delete plan”, but neg can win with a framework push that gives links and alt without doing so.

- clash debates: vote for topicality against planless affirmatives more often than not because in a bad debate it’s easier for the negative to win. controlling for quality, I vote for the best K and framework teams equally often - no strong ideological bent. fairness or a specific, carded skills impact >>> “clash”. impact turns and counterinterps equally winnable, both require explanation of solvency/uniqueness and framing against neg impacts + link defense. equally bad for "competition doesn't matter" and "only competition matters". language of impact calculus (“turns case/their offense”, higher risk/magnitude, uniqueness, etc) helps a lot. both sides usually subpar on how what the aff does/doesn't do implicates debates. TVA/SSD underrated as offense, overrated as defense - to win it, i need to actually know what the aff/neg link looks like, not just gesture towards it being possible.

- best rounds ever are good K v K, worst ever are bad ones. judge instruction, organization, specificity key. "turns/solves case" >>> "root cause", b/c offense >>> defense. explaining what is offense, what competes, etc (framework arguments) >>> "it's hard to evaluate pls don't" ("no plan, no perm"). aff teams benefit from "functional competition" argument vs 1NCs that spam word PICs and call it "frame subtraction". "ballot PIK" should never win against a competent aff team. Marxism should win 9/10 negative debates executed by a smart 2N. more 2NRs should press case - affs don't do anything. idk why the neg gets counterplans against planless affs - 2ACs should say this.

- critical affs with plans/"soft left" should be more common. teams that take me here do hilariously well if they answer neg arguments (the disad doesn't vanish bc "conjunctive fallacy").

- topicality: for me, more predictable/precise > “debatable” - literature determines everything, unpredictable interpretations = bad. however, risk is contextual - little more precise, super underlimiting prob not winner. hyperbole is the enemy - "even with functional limits, we lose x and they get y" >>> "there are 4 gorillion affirmatives". reasonability: about the counterinterpretation, good for offense about substance crowd-out and silly interps, bad for "good is good enough". plan in a vacuum: good check against extra/fx-topicality, less good elsewhere. extra-topicality: something i care less about than most. extremely bad for arguments about grammar/semantics.

- aff on theory: “riders” to the plan, plan being "horse-traded" - not how fiat works. counterplans that fiat actors different from the plan (includes states) - a misunderstanding of negation theory/neg fiat. will probably not drop more than the argument. neg on theory: literally everywhere else. arbitrariness objection strong. conditionality is a divine right bestowed by heavenly mandate, so i defend it with religious zeal. RVIs don't get flowed. LD-esque theory shenanigans: total non-starter.

- disclosure: good, but arbitrary standards bad. care little about anything that isn't active misclosure. new unbroken affs: good. "disclose 1NC": lol.

- LD “tricks”: disastrously bad for them. most just feel like defense with extra steps. nobody has gotten me to understand truth testing, much less like it.

- LD phil: actually pretty solid for it. well-carded, consistent positions + clear judge instruction for impact calculus = high win-rate. spamming calc indicts + a korsgaard card or two = less so. i appreciate straight turn debates. modesty is winnable, but usually a cop-out + incoherent.

- if the above is insufficiently detailed, see: Richard Garner, James Allan, J.D. Sanford (former coaches), Brett Cryan (former 2A), Holden Bukowsky, Bryce Sheffield (former teammates), Aiden Kim, Sean Wallace, (former students) and Ali Abdulla (best debate bud).

procedural notes

- pretty bad hearing damage in my left ear (tinnitus) + don’t flow off the doc. still quite good at flowing, but clarity matters a lot – 2x "clear", then I stop typing. debaters go through tags and analytics too quickly – give me pen time, or i will take pen time. you can ask to see my flow.

- terrible poker face. treat facial expressions as real-time feedback.

- i have autism. i close my eyes or put my head down during a speech if i feel overstimulated. promise i'm still flowing. i make very little eye contact. don't take it personally.

- card doc fine and good, but only cards extended in final rebuttals – including extraneous evidence is harshly penalized with speaks. big evidence enjoyer - fire cards get fire speaks, but only when i'm told.

- CX: binding and mandatory. it can get you very high or very low speaks. i flow important things. "lying by omission" is smart CX, but direct dishonesty means intervention (i.e: 1NC reads elections, "was elections read?", "no" = i am pausing CX and asking if i should scratch the flow).

- personality is good, but self-righteousness isn't really a personality trait. it's a game - have fun. aggressive posturing is most often obnoxious, dissuasive, and betrays a lack of appreciation for your opponents. this isn't to say you can't talk mess (please do, if warranted - its funny, and i care little for "decorum"), but it's inversely related to the skill gap - trolling an opponent in finals is different from bullying a post-nov in presets.

- prep time ends when the doc is sent. prep stolen while "sending it now" is getting ridiculous. if you are struggling to compile and send a doc, do Verbatim drills. i am increasingly willing to enforce this by imposing additional prep time penalties for excessive dead time while "sending the extra cards" and such.

- there is no flow clarification time – “what cards did you read?” is a CX question. “can you send a doc with the cut cards marked” is fine, “can you take out all the cards you didn’t read” means you weren't flowing, so it'll cost you CX or prep. not flowing negatively correlates with speaks. be reasonable - putting 80 case cards in the doc and reading 5, skipping around randomly, is bad form, but objecting to the general principle is telling on yourself. flow.

- related to above, if you answer a position in the doc that was skipped, you are getting a 27.5. seriously. the state of flowing is an atrocity. you should know better. flow.

- speaks: decided by me, based on quality of arguments and execution + how fun you are to judge, relative to given tournament pool. 28.5 = 3-3, 29+ = clearing + bidding, 29.5+ = top 5-10 speakers + late elims, 30 = perfect speeches, no notes. no low-point wins, generally - every bad move by a winning team correlates to a missed opportunity by the loser.

- not adjudicating the character of minors I don’t know regarding things I didn’t see.

- when debating an opponent of low experience, i will heavily reward giving younger debaters the dignity of a real debate they can still participate in (i.e: slower, fewer off, more forthcoming in CX). if you believe the best strategy against a novice is extending hidden aspec, i will assume you are too bad at debate to beat a novice on anything else, and speaks will reflect that. these debates are negatively educational and extremely annoying.

- ethics challenges: only issues that make continuing in good faith impossible are worth stopping a debate. the threshold is criminal negligence or malicious intent. evidence ethics requires an impact - omitting paragraphs mid-card that conclude neg changes the argument; leaving out an irrelevant last sentence doesn't. open to alternative solutions - i'd rather strike an incorrectly cited card than not debate. ask me if i would consider ending the round appropriate for a given issue, and i will answer honestly. clipping requires a recording to evaluate, and is an instant loss (no other way to resolve it) if it is persistent enough to alter functional speech time (criminal negligence/malicious intent, requires an impact). inexperience grants some (but minimal) leniency. ending a debate means it will not restart, all evidence will be immediately provided to me, and everyone shuts up - further attempt to sway my adjudication by debaters or coaches = instant loss. loser get an L0 and winners get a W28.5/28.4. all this is out the window if tabroom says something else.

- edebate: it still sucks. i keep my camera on as much as possible. if wifi is spotty, i will turn it off during speeches to maximize bandwidth, but always turn it back on to confirm i'm there before speeches. assume i am not present unless you see my face or hear my voice. if you start and i'm not there, you don't get to restart. low-quality microphones and audio compression means speak slower and clearer than normal.

closing thoughts

i have been told my affect presents as pretty flat or slightly negative while judging - trying to work on this - but i truly love debate, and i'm happy to be here. while i am cynical about certain aspects of the community/activity, it is still the best thing i have ever done. debate has brought me wonderful opportunities, beautiful friendships, and made me a better person, and i hope it can do the same for you. i am very lucky i found it.

take care of yourself. debaters increasingly present as exhausted and malnourished. three square meals and sleep is both more useful and better for you than overexerting yourself. people underestimate how much even mild dehydration impacts you. it's a game - not worth your well-being.

i like music. i listen to a very wide range of it. HS debaters can recommend me a song to listen to during prep or decision time - enjoyable music gives everyone in the room +0.1. music i dislike receives no penalty.

good luck! have fun!

- pat

Daniel Gallagher Hire 1 rounds

Sanjith Geevarghese Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 1:43 PM EST

Add these to the chain:

sanjith.geevarghese24 [at] montgomerybell.edu

debatemba [at} gmail.com

IPostRound [at] googlegroups.com

MBA '24, Emory '28

Debate is a technical game. I'll do my best to judge solely off the flow and avoid reading cards, unless their quality and content is explicitly called into question. I'll flow entirely off the speech, not the doc, so clarity is critical. There are no predispositions I have that can't be changed by strong argumentation. You're welcome to go for whatever arguments you desire: ASPEC, wipeout, the death k, etc.

Regardless, here are my beliefs/opinions regarding debate:

DAs:

Huge fan of econ debates where both sides are clearly explaining how their internal link interacts with the other sides offense.

CPs:

I dislike process shlop, but acknowledge that this topic isn't the best for DAs.

Competition > Theory

Your advantage CP planks have to advocate for the implementation of an actual policy. "Increase supply chain resilience' does not meet that threshold absent a card that clearly defines what that entails.

Unless instructed not to, I'll judgekick the CP.

Ks:

Fairness is an impact. General clash impacts are fine, but I'm a sucker for specific clash impacts based around 1AC scenarios.

I will not decide rounds on any call-out/reference to an event outside of the round.

I have no issue voting against kritikal arguments that aren't explained, especially given gaps in evidence.

Huge fan of impact turns vs. K affs. No link arguments should be refuted with rehighlights of their evidence to prove that they don't solve case and that they link to your framework offense.

I'm good for the K as long as it's debated technically. I'm not well-versed in complicated kritikal literature, so explain any important terms

Misc:

I am a slow flow. Go slower on analytics and be very clear.

Inserting rehighlights is fine.

I have almost zero knowledge about the IP topic.

Call me Sanjith (Sun-jith), not judge.

If you find any of the writing contained in this paradigm remotely compelling, strike me.

LD:

I have little experience here. I am not a fan of tricks. Debating in a more policy-style way is your best route to my ballot.

Colton Gilbert Little Rock Central 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 5, 2024 at 7:07 AM CST

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains at cgdebate1906@gmail.com. If it’s a policy round then ALSO includelrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,If it’s an LD round then ALSO include lrc.lddocs@gmail.com please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Judge Commitments

I’m SO sick and tired of circuit-level teams/competitors providing NON-circuit/lay judges to cover their commitment. Debaters spend a LOT of time crafting/drafting arguments and deserve to come to tournaments and have judges who will work equally as hard, when it comes to evaluating debates. If I am judging you and your school did/does NOT provide quality judging then expect me to be more arbitrary in judging debates than I would normally; if you are unwilling to provide others with a quality judge experience then I have no qualms giving bad, arbitrary, or other non-flow based decisions. IF you want me to provide you with a quality judging experience then you should populate the pool with similar-minded people. If you are unsure of what constitutes non-quality judging then see the non-comprehensive list below:

- parent judges

- lay judges

- judges who refuse to listen to certain arguments because they don’t like them (excluding tricks)

- judges who would prefer high school kids capitulate to what THEY want and not what the kids want to discuss

We as a community understand that some people cannot hire out judges and maybe only their parent is available but the lack of training that they give to those parents/certain questionable ways that they teach them to judge are still not good. In short, if you want me to be the best version of myself then provide other judges who are willing to work equally as hard.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you win my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

Nate Graziano Newark Science 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:47 PM UTC

Affiliations - Current coach at Kent Denver School, Newark Science, and Rutgers University-Newark. Current Director of Programs at the Denver Urban Debate League. Previous coach at University of Kentucky. Previous competitor in NSDA CX/Policy, NDT/CEDA, and NPTE/NPDA. Some experience judging British Parliamentary and Worlds Schools/Asian Parliamentary.

>>> Please include me on email chains - nategraziano@gmail.com <<<

TL;DR - I really like judge instruction. I'll vote for or against K 1ACs based on Framework. Clash of Civilization debates are the majority of rounds I watch. I vote frequently on dropped technical arguments, and will think more favorably of you if you play to your outs. The ballot is yours, your speaker points are mine.Your speech overview should be my RFD. Tell me what is important, why you win that, and why winning it means you get the ballot.

Note about RFDS - I give my RFDs in list order on how I end up deciding the round, in chronological order of how I resolved them. Because of this I also upload my RFD word for word with the online ballot. I keep a pretty good record of rounds I've judged so if anyone has any questions about any decision I've made on Tabroom please feel free to reach out at my email above.

NEW: Note about flowing - Prompted by recent conversations about docs/flowing. I will have both my flow and your document open on my computer during your speech. During a speech, I will only be looking at the speech document when I think you're reading internals on a piece of evidence to follow along and make my own marks on what portions/cards you've read. I also will have the speech document open during CX when debaters are referencing specific cards and I usually will reread evidence for understanding when debaters are taking prep time. All other times will be just the flow open. I will not use the document to 'correct' my flow and an argument's existence in the document is not proof it happened in the debate - if I didn't hear it, it didn't happen. If I heard something that sounded like an argument but it was otherwise incoherent, your opponent is only burdened with answering the incoherent version of the argument. I am reasonably compelled to believe that a 'thumbs down' motion and/or 'booing' may be sufficient to answer some of those incoherent arguments.

>>> Other Paradigm Thoughts <<<

1. Tech > Truth

The game of debate is lost if I intervene and weigh what I know to be "True." The ability to spin positions and make answers that fit within your side of the debate depend on a critic being objective to the content. That being said, arguments that are based in truth are typically more persuasive in the long run.

I'm very vigilant about intervening and will not make "logical conclusions" on arguments if you don't do the work to make them so. If you believe that the negative has the right to a "judge kick" if you're losing the counterplan and instead vote on the status quo in the 2NR, you need to make that explicitly clear in your speech.

More and more I've made decisions on evidence quality and the spin behind it. I like to reward knowledgeable debaters for doing research and in the event of a disputable, clashing claim I tend to default to card quality and spin.

I follow along in the speech doc when evidence is being read and make my own marks on what evidence and highlighting was read in the round.

2. Theory/Topicality/Framework

Most rounds I judge involve Framework. While I do like these debates please ensure they're clashing and not primarily block reading. If there are multiple theoretical frameworks (ex. RotB, RotJ, FW Interp) please tell me how to sort through them and if they interact. I tend to default to policy-making and evaluating consequences unless instructed otherwise.

For theory violations - I usually need more than "they did this thing and it was bad; that's a voter" for me to sign my ballot, unless it was cold conceded. If you're going for it in the 2NR/2AR, I'd say a good rule of thumb for "adequate time spent" is around 2:00, but I would almost prefer it be the whole 5:00.

In the event that both teams have multiple theoretical arguments and refuse to clash with each other, I try to resolve as much of the framework as I can on both sides. (Example - "The judge should be an anti-ethical decision maker" and "the affirmative should have to defend a topical plan" are not inherently contradicting claims until proven otherwise.)

Winning framework is not the same as winning the debate. It's possible for one team to win framework and the other to win in it.

Procedural Fairness can be both an impact and an internal link. I believe it's important to make debate as accessible of a place as possible, which means fairness can be both a justification as well as a result of good debate practices.

3. Debate is Story Telling

I'm fond of good overviews. Round vision, and understanding how to write a singular winning ballot at the end of the debate, is something I reward both on the flow and in your speaker points. To some extent, telling any argument as a chain of events with a result is the same process that we use when telling stories. Being able to implicate your argument as a clash of stories can be helpful for everyone involved.

I do not want to feel like I have to intervene to make a good decision. I will not vote on an argument that was not said or implied by one of the debaters in round. I feel best about the rounds where the overview was similar to my RFD.

4. Critical Arguments

I am familiar with most critical literature and it's history in debate. I also do a lot of topic specific research and love politics debates. Regardless of what it is, I prefer if arguments are specific, strategic, and well executed. Do not be afraid of pulling out your "off-the-wall" positions - I'll listen and vote on just about anything.

As a critic and someone who enjoys the activity, I would like to see your best strategy that you've prepared based on your opponent and their argument, rather than what you think I would like. Make the correct decision about what to read based on your opponent's weaknesses and your strengths.

I've voted for, against, and judged many debates that include narration, personal experience, and autobiographical accounts.

If you have specific questions or concerns don't hesitate to email me or ask questions prior to the beginning of the round - that includes judges, coaches, and competitors.

5. Speaker Points

I believe that the ballot is yours, but your speaker points are mine. If you won the arguments required to win the debate round, you will always receive the ballot from me regardless of my personal opinion on execution or quality. Speaker points are a way for judges to reward good speaking and argumentation, and dissuade poor practice and technique. Here are some things that I tend to reward debaters for:

- Debate Sense. When you show you understand the central points in the debate. Phrases like "they completely dropped this page" only to respond to line by line for 3 minutes annoy me. If you're behind and think you're going to lose, your speaker points will be higher if you acknowledge what you're behind on and execute your "shot" at winning.

- Clarity and organization. Numbered flows, references to authors or tags on cards, and word economy are valued highly. I also like it when you know the internals and warrants of your arguments/evidence.

- Judge instruction. I know it sounds redundant at this point, but you can quite literally just look at me and say "Nate, I know we're behind but you're about to vote on this link turn."

I will disclose speaker points after the round if you ask me. The highest speaker points I've ever given out is a 29.7. A 28.5 is my standard for a serviceable speech, while a 27.5 is the bare minimum needed to continue the debate. My average for the last 3 seasons was around a 28.8-28.9 and will typically start at this range when assigning points for the debate.

Ashima Gulati School Without Walls High School 6 rounds

Michael Harris Lynbrook HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2024 at 6:19 AM PST

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

+0.2 speaks for starting early when possible

CIRCUIT LD PARADIGM

-Have a debate about the standard.

-Come up with and articulate your own responses against your opponent's positions rather than hiding behind cards, and don't be blippy.

-Be very clear. Your spreading should be clear. Your explanations should be clear. It should be very clear in your last speech what my RFD would be if I'm voting for you. A good final speech makes me sign the ballot immediately because there is no ambiguity about how the round is breaking down.

-Start doing argument comparison as soon as possible. When responding to an argument, explain why your response is better/makes more sense than the original argument (leaving all of this work until the 2NR/the 2AR will require judge intervention on my part to resolve the debate. Also keep in mind that argument comparison is different than merely weighing impacts).

-I don't vote on disclosure theory. I don't like the concept of everyone knowing the full content of everyone else's positions in advance -- I think it leads to pre-scripted debates and has turned LD into an activity that focuses too much on evidence as opposed to analytic argument generation, which was a skill that LD used to be very good at training.

-I also don't vote on any theory or kritik that only links because of something that happened outside of the round.

-There are some concepts from policy-style debate that I plainly don't understand. Textual and functional competition, germane versus non-germane net benefits, how process cp's work... Explain yourself, and don't use jargon.

-1AR theory: if you want to be able to go for it later, you have to invest time developing it and pre-empting the 2NR. I very rarely vote on 1AR theory, not because I'm opposed to it, but because the 2AR almost always sounds new.

-I almost never read cards after the round. If you say insert rehighlighting without reading the card out loud, there is a 0% chance that the argument will have anything to do with my ballot.

Speaks: I usually give between 28 and 29.

Wyatt Hatfield Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Emilyn Hazelbrook Hire 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2024 at 10:31 AM EST

Emilyn Hazelbrook (she/her)

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

Kamiak '21, Emory '25. Debated policy for four years in high school and debated at a couple tournaments each year for my first three years of college. I judge a lot at Atlanta Urban Debate League tournaments throughout the year, but have very little topic knowledge otherwise.

I adapt to you, not the other way around. Everything below will make it easier for me to understand, weigh, and vote for your arguments, but shouldn't dissuade you from reading anything.

Tech > Truth.

Argument = claim + warrant (and + impact or reason why it matters in rebuttals). If you say "they dropped the link" and then do not explain warrants and impact out why I should vote on it, I will not vote on it.

K Affs — Your reason for not defending the resolution should be built into your 1ac. You should prioritize line by line over extensive overviews. Impact turns are more persuasive than counter-interp debating, and clash makes a bit more sense as an impact over fairness, although I will vote on either.

Topicality — I default to competing interps. Make sure to explain what debates would look like under your interp and theirs in rebuttals and read case lists.

Theory — Condo is good until you read 4+ advocacies. Everything but condo is a reason to reject the argument, and I can’t see myself voting on most procedurals unless they're egregiously mishandled. Please slow down on theory standards—you're only speaking as fast as I can flow.

Kritiks — Read very specific links and err on the side of over-explaining your thesis and alt. I'll probably weigh the 1ac impacts, but if the aff is losing that your reps/in-round actions make the world/debate worse, you're in a bad place. I am not the best for postmodernism kritiks and will likely be very confused if I have to render a decision on one.

Counterplans — I lean neg on most questions of competition, although I am really not a fan of consult cps. If you're aff, read solvency deficits specific to your aff’s mechanism and smart perms. I default to judge kick if the neg says the cp is conditional, but I also think that smart 2ns shouldn't spend time extending a losing cp.

Disadvantages — Compare the aff and DA impacts in rebuttals and read turns case arguments. Please, please specify your links to the aff, advantages, etc. I'm a big fan of almost any type of politics DAs. If you're reading any sort of DAs about the economy, please explain it to me as if I am a fifth grader :) and that goes for both the aff and the neg. But by all means, don't let that keep you from reading them!

Case — Debates where neg teams invest time into picking apart the 1ac are my favorite to judge. Impact turns, circumvention, and analytics pressing the internal links/aff mechanism are much better than generic impact defense.

Miscellaneous — High-quality historical examples, well-executed jokes, and really good CX will boost your speaker points. Suffering, violence, and death are unquestionably bad. I like debaters who make it easy for me to flow them by numbering arguments, signposting clearly, and avoiding extensive overviews or walls at the top of the flow. I dislike people who cross the line between assertive and unnecessarily rude during CX, and will factor that into speaker points. I generally don't have much of a poker face, but whatever is being expressed on my face may or may not have anything to do with the round at hand, so probably err on the side of ignoring me.

Be nice and have fun!

Margaret Hecht Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 12:15 PM EST

Margaret Hecht (She/her)

New Trier alum, Debating at Emory, Coaching for Westminster

margaretdebate@gmail.com

I know absolutely nothing about this topic.

Please time everything (prep, speeches, cx, tech time) yourselves. I am awful about timing things and will forget 99% of the time. Respect your opponents, respect me, don't swear a ton, etc. This activity should be fun.

I only look at speech docs occasionally throughout the debate (mostly to read a card I don't understand, if there's a cx over interpretation of a card, etc.). I read relevant cards at the end of the round. Try to adjust clarity accordingly.

I don't have any strong argumentative preferences. I care much more about how you debate than what you debate about. I think debates are best when people make fewer, more developed arguments. This means referencing specific lines of your evidence, line by line, extending warrants, doing good impact calc, and reading things that are well-researched rather than stuff meant to confuse your opponents. My favorite debates to judge are DA/ case debates.

I generally prefer judging policy debates because I can adjudicate them the best, but I do judge a good number of K debates and can usually keep up. I'm not great for K debates where the NEG 2NR strategy is mostly framework/ the fiat K. I've judged a few K v. K debates and found them hard to follow; if that is your strategy against planless AFFs, I may not be a very good judge for you.

Please go in line-by-line order. This means no multi-minute long overviews or 'I'll do the uniqueness debate here.' This is the easiest way to get good speaker points.

I care about evidence quality more than most people, and I will only read what's highlighted when reading cards at the end of a debate.

Things like inserting rehighlightings, judge kick, etc. are up to the debaters to debate about.

If you have any questions about my philosophy, please email me! (Or if you have any questions about Emory debate)

Chetan Hertzig Harrison 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 14, 2024 at 7:26 AM EST

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

Do not use profanity in round. I will lower speaker points if you do.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.

To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

David Huston Plano West Sr High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:45 AM CST

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:31 PM EST

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

General Thoughts

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

Policy Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samar Kibe Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2024 at 12:08 PM EST

Emory '28

For LD:

My email is samar.kibe8@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him. I do want to be on the chain.

TLDR:

Trad - 1

Policy (LARP) - 2

Ks, Theory - 3

Phil - 4

Tricks, Friv Theory - 5

The Longer Version: Hey there, I am a freshman at Emory. I have experience in PF and LD on both the local and national circuit. I am more comfortable in resolving traditional debates, but I am open to any argument, as long as you are not racist, xenophobic, or sexist in your remarks. Only conflict is the Lovett School.

Other prefs:

Not super familiar with the current topic.
DO NOT BLITZ THROUGH ANALYTICS PLS, especially in the rebuttal speeches.

Tech over truth, but my threshold for certain arguments is lower than others.

8/10 on speed. Speed is generally fine as long as it's on the doc, but I will say clear if it's incomprehensible. Slow down for analytics/anything not on the doc.

Don’t violate accommodations if they are reasonable.
I don’t disclose speaks, but I will disclose who won after the round.
Off-time roadmaps are fine but keep them short.

Trad:

Too often I find people reading non-util. fw with contentions that work with util. If there is no clash with fw., please feel free to save time and drop framing.

Clash and Signposting are key here. This is my first time judging, so please please please make sure to signpost well.

Don't just read evidence to me but make sure to provide clear warrants for what the evidence says.

Please do your best to accommodate your opponent’s preferences. If they are a trad. debater and you have a trad. case (which you should), don’t spread a 5-off on them or run some niche PIC. Again, I’ll vote off anything, but I will drop your speaks, and it will make me sad :( Browbeating less experienced debaters is bad sportsmanship.

Policy (LARP):

Poorly linked ADV/DAs to existential impacts makes for messy debates. My threshold for voting on extinction is high, so please clearly explain your link chain to me.
Evidence analysis is very important for these debates.
Please make sure the tags you read actually represent what your card is saying; don't misrepresent evidence.

Ks:

I'm a no go for performance Ks. Don't have a lot of experience with those. Feel free to run other Ks though.

Don’t assume I know the theory you are referring to, so explain your theory of power and methodology clearly, especially if you are running a fw heavy K. I am decently familiar with setcol lit. I do enjoy K debates but vague alts, poor clash, and relying on random, unexplained buzzwords makes for messy debates. Winning the ROTB is key for these debates.

K Affs:

Love K Affs (both topical and non-topical). If you’re running a non-topical Aff, be ready for T-FW. I don't lean either way when it comes to T-Fw debates

Theory:

Please only save these debates for when genuine abuse has occurred. I strongly dislike frivolous theory debates.

- On Disclosure:

I think disclosure is generally a good norm; HOWEVER, if it is clear that your opponent is not a circuit debater which may be demonstrated by them not having a wiki, I will not vote on disclosure theory.

Phil:

Not the best judge for evaluating high theory. Save your Deleuze/Levinas/Korsgaard/Baudrillard for a different judge. I’ll do my best, but again I am not great at analyzing these rounds.

Tricks: Any argument that hinges on your opponent not catching a certain argument is not my favorite. I find most tricks style arguments to silly. This being said, I am open to any line of argumentation, but I won't necessarily like it.

Speaks:

I will drop speaks for the following:

Browbeating less experienced debaters
Being rude/sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. (I will contact your coaches if necessary)
Not accommodating opponent's preferences if reasonable.

I will boost speaks for the following:

Really good case
Slowing down for Tags

Good evidence analysis/cross-applying evidence
Good Signposting
A K done really well

For PF:

Please don't run theory unless some sort of heinous abuse has occurred.
Don't spread. Speed is good but no spreading.
Signposting is great and I love brief off-time roadmaps.
Tech > Truth

Aaron Kim Hire 1 rounds

Raymond Kong Ardrey Kell High School 6 rounds

Gordon Krauss Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Guhan Krishnan Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 6 rounds

Jun Kwon Sonoma Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 31, 2024 at 3:28 AM PST

junkwon0524@gmail.com

Port of Los Angeles '24. Pomona College '28.

A product of urban debate. If you are from NAUDL or come from NAUDL-adjacent schools, reach out. I would love to help.

TL;DR

4 years of experience on the national circuit. Even split of reading K and policy affs. I went for whatever on the negative. This included the K and jargony process counterplans. I cared about winning.

I've never debated LD, but I'm good enough for LD arguments that (even remotely) resemble policy ones.

My ideal round is one in which downtime is minimal, if not zero. Debaters have their email chains set up before the round, 1AC begins right on start time, move onto cross-ex right after their speech, and send out docs promptly.

Top Level Thoughts

Tech > Truth in most instances. My truth can be incredibly different from yours. The decisions I try to produce are entirely based on what's on my flow—if I miss an argument, it is likely a communicative issue.

Everything is probabilistic. Some things are more probable than others, but don't expect me to evaluate what's more probable in the real world if you've completely lost it on the flow.

The final rebuttals should tell me where to start my decision and open with the words they want me to repeat back to them in the RFD.

Topic knowledge is close to zero.

I don't feel comfortable evaluating tricks, friv theory, and phil (including Kant) and should probably be really low or struck on your pref sheet.

Good for policy and K debate.

Other things that matter

Confusingly good for both the K and framework because these were both my 2NRs and 2ARs. I feel comfortable in these debates. Don't care if the 2NR goes for clash or fairness, and don't care if you impact turn or have a model.

Soft-left affs should realistically win every debate if you know how to debate the K and do impact calculus.

Bad for counterplan competition debates that take 2-3 minutes of your 2NR. Good for DAs that make sense.

You should pref me high if your primary strategy is the K. Lower than judges who coach K teams and actively read the literature, but higher than everyone who claims to be "tabula rasa, middle ground" judges for the K. They're really not middle ground and you know it.

Allowing inserts of re-highlights lowers the barrier for calling out bad evidence, which is objectively good. I also just don't care about evidence quality that much compared to most other judges. I will assume the contents of a card are almost always true, and absent a flagging of the poor evidence, I'll assume truth when writing my RFD. When bad evidence is called out, I'll read it to see who's telling the truth.

I find post-rounding to be useless because it usually is just for an ego boost to compensate for a loss. This is not to say I won't condone it, but rather, you should find something better to do with your time and conserve your energy because me changing my mind after the round will do nothing for you on Tab.

My ballot probably has little power to adjudicate issues that occurred outside of the round. I'll use my ballot to punish unethical statements and evidence in rounds. Decisions involving anything beyond an in-round performance probably happen above my pay grade.

Eva Lamberson Hawken 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 3, 2024 at 8:27 AM EST

EMORY - i'm getting over being quite sick and my brain is not up to 100% so please try to slow down a little bit and keep things clear; you can still go for whatever but maybe take it easy on nailbombs/extemped tricks/super dense anything etc etc but i promise i'll try my best no matter what and will reward clarity with much higher speaks than usual to make up for it :)

30 SPEAKS IS DEAD AND YOU HAVE KILLED IT - search "30 speaks" in the rant doc for specifics

i have (not so) recently shortened this paradigm cuz it was getting really ranty - if you would like to see my thoughts on specific arguments, feel free to look at my rant doc

Intro

I’m Eva (they/them) - i prefer to be called Eva over judge but say whatever you're used to/makes you comfortable. I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating - I currently coach at Hawken. I primarily coach traditional debate, but have qualed kids to the TOC and my kids are very all over the place with what they read, so I've coached basically every style

Email: evathelamberson@gmail.com put me on the chain but speechdrop is better :) i think docs are a good practice even for lay debaters and i would prefer if you send analytics

Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds

TL;DR FOR PREFS i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the rant doc if you're interested in my specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously

i believe debate is a game and it's not my job to tell you how to play it; i will be happiest when you are debating the way you enjoy the most and are best at

i consider myself a fairly flexible judge and try not to be biased toward any particular style - hacking is one of the worst things a judge can do, other than just not paying attention. i enjoy clash debates where each debater is going for their favorite or most comfortable strategy. i try to make the decision that operates the most logically under the paradigm/framing that has been most robustly defended throughout the round - if a round feels difficult to resolve I will lean towards arguments that I feel make the most sense, are the easiest to vote on, have the most instruction on them, etc. my strongest preference is against doing work for you - non-applied implications, explanations, etc. are things i will not do for you

IF YOUR ROUND HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR VBI AT ANY TOURNAMENT you can contact me with questions or concerns regardless of who recorded it - i can not upload it, change the visibility, etc.

accessibility:

round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, i would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.

DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND, i'm a germaphobe.if there are covid/illness precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.) i'll always have masks on me if you want

Rose Larson Lake Highland Preparatory School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 3, 2024 at 1:42 AM CST

Add me to the chain. My email is roselarsondebate @ gmail . If I'm judging LD, please add lhpsdebate @ gmail as well.

Assistant Coach at Homestead 2020-2021

Head Coach at Homestead 2021-2022

Currently Assistant Coach at Lake Highland Prep

Debated College Policy for a year at the University of West Georgia

Currently College Policy at the University of Kansas

CEDA Octofinalist x1, CEDA Quarterfinalist x1, NDT Double Octofinalist x1

UPDATE:

I will flow on paper with my computer closed. If I do not have paper and cannot borrow it, I will flow on my computer and will not have the speech doc open. I will not attempt to reconstruct my flow from the speech doc. I will attempt to flow in a line-by-line format, but may flow pages top-down if the content of the debate warrants it (e.g. debates where one team or both do not do the majority of their debating on the line by line).

GENERAL:

I've judged too many debates to care what you read. I've coached and judged every style, and feel comfortable evaluating anything read in any high school LD, Policy, or PF debate. Yes, this includes planless affs, yes this includes framework, yes, this includes tricks, yes, this includes death good. I do not care. DON'T OVERADAPT, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine. I will evaluate each debate exclusively based on the words on the flow, where dropped arguments are true and the qualifications for being an argument are claim, warrant, and implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. I will hold a strict line on claim-warrant-implication, and will flat out refuse to vote on words on the flow that do not reach this standard.

I do not treat arguments as "silly" or "not engaging with the aff" because they are not an aff-specific disadvantage. I don't share the attitudes of judges who treat process counterplans, skep/determinism, broad critiques with non-specific links, or impact turns like spark as second-tier arguments because they link to other affirmatives. The more generic an argument is, the easier it may be to beat on specificity, but I am not particularly sympathetic to "this is generic, ignore it."

ARGUMENT THOUGHTS:

I'm increasingly unpersuaded by "topicality" arguments that don't base the violation off of the words in the resolution. (Read: Great for "this resolution excludes subsets because {x} word means {y} thing". Bad for "you can't specify because then there's a lot of affs" absent defining words in the resolution to that effect).

Neutral in T-Framework debates, equally good for impact turn as counterinterp strategies, skew slightly towards fairness but totally fine with clash. I will evaluate the differences between the aff's model and the negative's model unless someone forwards an alternative model for how I should think about these debates. In my experience, framework debates are often won or lost on the case, on both sides.

Arguments I don't like but will vote on: epistemic modesty, frivolous theory, Mollow

Arguments I don't like and won't vote on: racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist positions, theory based on debaters' appearance or dress, eval

Arguments I like and want to see more of: circumvention, skepticism and determinism, specific impact turns, normative justifications for utilitarianism > "extinction outweighs", psychoanalysis, the cap K against policy affs, carded TVAs, advantage counterplans

You will lose .1 speaker point every time you ask a flow clarification question outside of CX time, unless I also did not flow what was said, and if that's the case, don't worry about it, because I won't be evaluating it.

Especially in LD, my strong preference is that if one debater is a traditional debater that their opponent make an effort to participate in a way that's accessible for that debater. I would much rather judge a full traditional debate than a circuit debater going for shells or kritiks against an opponent who isn't familiar with that style. If you do this, you will be rewarded with higher speaker points. If you don't, I will likely give low point wins to technical victories that exploit the unfamiliarity of traditional debaters to get easy wins.

Happy to answer other questions pre round or by email.

Mina Lee Greenhill School 2 rounds

Dylan Liu Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 2:51 AM PST

Include me on the chain: dylanyliu3@gmail.com

I competed for Brentwood in LD on the circuit from 2017 to 2021, competing for Emory in policy, 25'. He/Him.

I value the work and effort that goes into preparing and attending a debate tournament. I am excited to judge your round and value both my and your time!

Here's my judging stats.

For nats, lay, pf:

Ignore everything below. Debate is a game of persuasion: a] i'm influenced by winning arguments, b] i'm influenced by influential speakers. Lay/pf debate is an exercise in accessibility, strategic choices, efficiency, and judge adaptation. Think of me as a debater roleplaying as a parent judge and you'll have a good time.

Cross-ex is a speech with limited time constraints; you can ask silly questions during prep but I won't flow them or think about them.

Cordiality is good and important. Stealing prep is bad and I'll obliterate your points.

For LD/CX:

I don't feel that I have robust ideological views about debate, and I find that most paradigms ultimately become a lecture about how people think debate works and why you should debate that way in front of them. I am certainly unqualified to explain what particular T argument is the most compelling and why, that being said, I think you should debate how you want to debate, and I will evaluate the round to the best of my ability as the debaters have told me to. I do have some 'warnings' that you may find germane to how I make my decisions usually.

I am likely bad for pomo and tricks and will vote for it only if there is a very compelling explanation in the rebuttals that tell me what it is I'm voting for exactly and why that means you win. I don't feel particularly comfortable voting for positions that I couldn't explain back to you.

I tend to think debate is good because of clash, otherwise it's not debate.

I dislike blips. I tend to think that a winning argument requires an investment of time, and would prefer to vote on the core of the round.

i will bump up both debaters' speaker points if the 1ac begins at the round start time.

I think in round violence against people in the room can be a compelling ballot - I think there's a sliding scale of when I'm obligated to intervene and I will gladly end it shamelessly and seemingly arbitrarily, especially for children.

Clipping and other evidence violations is a tab question; I will actively listen for clipping and am open to recordings or proof that someone else is clipping.

Please don't read win 30 in front of me

idk what zero and one hundred mean.

Lucas Lobo Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 11, 2024 at 8:38 AM EST

I debate at Emory and I used to debate at Calvert Hall.

Yes, email chain:lcsrlobo@gmail.com.

Must Read:
1. I have very little knowledge about the IP topic. Please do not assume I know any acronyms, legalese, or community concensus on a given argument.
2. I've been a 2A as many years as I've been a 2N and I've thought about the K as much as policy arguments. The following is a general set of ways I view debate that can VERY easily be modified depending on quality of arguments and quality of debating. Overadapting almost always hurts more than it helps.
3. Tech > truth on most everything that isn’t objectively false or clearly problematic.
4. I really don’t want to vote for dropped, arbitrary theory arguments. Expect low speaks if this is the case.
5. If you introduce an ethics violation you must stake the debate on it.

A few things I've noticed about how I evaluate debates:
1. I really enjoy when my decision is easy (I think almost all judges do). Consolidating in the 2NR/2AR, clear judge instruction, "even if" statements, and efficient time allocation will all result in a quicker decision with higher speaks.
2. My threshold for what constitutes a warrant has gotten far higher. Cards highlighted to say nothing, shallow explanation, and shadow extensions of your arguments without answering the LBL will probably cause me to allow new arguments.
3. I give out a fair amount of low-point wins. In terms of my decision, I care about the arguments made more than how good you sound when explaining them.

T: persuaded by reasonability when impact/internal link differentials are tiny, less receptive when big. “Good is good enough” alone never made much sense. Include caselists, do impact comparison, and answer defensive arguments contextual to your interp.

CPs: No judge kick unless told to. Links less is usually unpersuasive, sufficiency framing usually is. Condo is probably fine.

DAs: Relative risk precedes and determines turns case. Cards aren’t necessary if logical defense beats a DA, but I’d prefer ev if you have it. Love the politics DA.

Ks on the Neg: I find myself voting for the team that best compartmentalizes the moving parts of the debate. Having alt solves, impact outweighs, or links turn case claims are very helpful. I am unpersuaded to one-sentence 'role of the judge' and 'role of the ballot' arguments other than deciding who did the better debating and submitting a decision to tabroom, respectively. These arguments are often better explained as pieces of framework offense.

Ks on the Aff: Anything can be an impact (aff or neg) depending on impact explanation, comparison, turns case, and solves case. Extremely persuaded by SSD and TVA when contextualized to AFF offense. If equally debated, I'm better for the impact turn approach vs. counter-interp. A 2NR that spells out a clear limits/ground case against the counter-interp will probably lead me to believe it does not solve NEG offense.

Nick Loew The Harker School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 4:40 AM EST

Nick Loew - GMU'24 - 4x NDT qualifier, 1x NDT Doubles

nickloew14@gmail.com

masondebatedocs@gmail.com [College ONLY Please]

You should read whatever arguments you are most comfortable with and want to go for. None of my opinions about debate are so significant that they overdetermine deciding who won based on the individual debate in front of me.

Tech > Truth. Complete arguments require warrants to substantiate them.

T vs Plans- I enjoy well-researched and substantive topicality debates. On the other hand I dislike contrived and unpredictable interpretations that are arbitrary in nature. (T LPR on the HS immigration topic > T substantial on the college alliances topic).

T vs K Affs - I almost always was on the neg going for T in these debates. In front of me the aff is best set up for victory by presenting a counterinterpretation that seeks to solve the negs offense alongside impact turns to the negs model, although of course you can also win with impact turns alone. For me I will say the latter is more difficult as I struggle to vote aff when there is no counterinterp extended in the 2AR to solve some amount of limits/ground.

CPs - I enjoy specific CP strategies that include topic/aff specific evidence. In competition debates I likely lean affirmative when there is relatively equal debating and the neg has presented a CP that generically competes off of certainty or immediacy.

Ks - I like Ks with links to the plan and alternatives that attempt to solve the links impact compared to Ks that rely entirely on framework strategies. That being said, I have still voted for positions that were solely critiques of plan-focus or fiat for example. Overall, I think I’m alright for most critical positions on the neg.

Theory - Often I find myself deciding that conditionality is good.

If you have any specific questions feel free to email me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln Douglas:

I strongly believe in affirmative disclosure.

Theory: I am mostly unfavorable towards/dislike one sentence theory arguments that seem and are arbitrary in nature. Furthermore, I am unlikely to believe that most theory arguments aside from condo are reasons to reject the debater (ex: solvency advocate theory/states theory/agent CPs etc… is not a reason to reject the team).

Please attempt to be clear. I have found this to be a problem more often in LD likely because of the short speech times.

FAQ: (Copied from Jasmine Stidham's paradigm)

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you. Theory thoughts above.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments however I do not judge many phil debates. You may need to do some policy translation/over-explanation however so I understand exactly what you're saying.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: Avoid reading evidence from debate blogs. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. T whole-rez generally is fine.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'aspec' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. I am annoyed by strategies that rely on your opponent dropping analytics that weren't sent in the document.

Q: RVIs? No 1AR theory?

A: Nope.

Greg Malis Isidore Newman School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 4:37 PM CST

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I am a frequent tournament administrator (e.g., LD at Greenhill and Apple Valley, Speech at Glenbrooks, Emory, Stanford, and Berkeley). I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. I don't know trends and norms nearly as well as I used to when I was coaching high school debate. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, Affs should defend the resolution and propose action that solves a problem. The Neg should defend the status quo or propose a competitive alternative. HOW debaters choose to do that are up to the debaters to decide. Any team may choose to question the method or framework chosen by the opposing team. Although I have the experience with Affs who read topical plans, I will not reject an Aff team simply because those don't do that.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other, then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. There are some topics where a plan may actually be reasonable/necessary to contextually the topic. And even if the aff doesn't read a plan per se, examples of what it means to affirm are often helpful. Whether it's fair for an aff to have a fiat power over a specific plan is subject to debate. However, "plans bad because this is LD, not policy" is a really bad argument as to why plans are bad in LD.

Brian Manuel Edgemont Junior-Senior High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:08 PM EST

Chairman, National Debate Coaches Association & Director of Debate, Edgemont Junior-Senior High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: I prefer to use share.tabroom.com (if the tournament isn't using that, please request my email at the beginning of the round).

January 2025 Update:

1. After reflecting on Anthony Trufanov’s article,"Judges Should Disclose If They Are Flowing the Doc", I believe it is important to be transparent about how I process information as a judge. I will flow debates using a computer and Verbatim's flow spreadsheet, aiming to follow line-by-line as closely as debaters adhere to this structure. While I will be part of the document chain, I will not flow from the speech documents during the debate. The only situation where I would open and scrutinize documents during a round is if ethical issues such as evidence falsification or clipping are raised by the opposing team. I will not record debates or reference recordings if others are recording. My flow will be based entirely on what I hear during the round and not reconstructed from speech documents.

2. Debate is fundamentally an oral communication activity, and the reliance on written forms of communication post-COVID has disrupted this balance. As Gordon Mitchell explains in his article,"ORALITY MASQUERADE: WHY JUDGES SHOULD TRY NOT CALLING FOR CARDS", “the written/oral balance is out of kilter.” To help restore this balance, I will not inspect evidence after the debate unless there is a direct and contested issue involving evidence evaluated through claim-warrant-impact analysis. Mitchell argues that the phrase “our cards are better, read them after the round” should evolve into “our cards are better because of x, y, and z,” rewarding debaters who justify evidence orally. This ensures arguments are understood and weighed based on how effectively they are communicated during the debate, rather than relying on post-round evidence inspection.

3. Every argument must include a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Warrantless claims are insufficient, and impactless arguments hold no weight. Debaters should hold their opponents accountable for presenting complete arguments by identifying and challenging them when claims lack warrants or impacts. Arguments without these components are incomplete and should not be considered in the round.

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."

Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love it when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.

Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.

Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!

Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.

Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited but must follow the rules.

I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.

Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta then you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, miscited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact-check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element, the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any single set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments from the participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and use it to get judges who will automatically check-in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. It's not about who wrote the best constructive only. It's about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result, I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is brian.manuel@uky.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered. Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate Facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era where students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasize the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must prove their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations, I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negative burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love to debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also, why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2-year-old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Sukhi and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability, not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; it's what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - it's rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This means they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your lifelong friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

An additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or it's won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and fewer sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. It's called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, a strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but it's unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely affected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full-time coach. Debate is my full-time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with, and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging, my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard-working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being run every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

William Mathison Colleyville Heritage High School 3 rounds

Add me to your email chain - colleyvilledebatedocs@gmail.comOR add me on your speech drop.

My name is William Mathison. I'm the coach at Colleyville Heritage High School. It's my second year coaching at Colleyville. I have no debate experience as a competitor. Because of this fact; the less jargon you use, the better. I understand the basics but don't be surprised if I ask you what ____ means because I am still getting used to the debate jargon. Point is, just because I don't understand it right away doesn't mean it's bad. I try to be open minded, even if I don't understand the wording of something right away,

If you spread make sure to add me to your SpeechDrop or email chain. I can flow the 1AC or 1NC off of the doc but if I can't understand you during any rebuttal speech and don't slow down at 'Clear', you'll definitely lose speaker points and there's a good chance I'll miss it on my flow.

I'm the most familiar with PF and LD since that's what I've judged the most of. I've judged IE's before as well.

Preferences for LD (in this order)

FW Debates -I do enjoy a good FW debate. At the very least you need to weigh yours against your opponent's, but if you want my vote oftentimes you'll need to tell me why yours is to be preferred or it's a prereq, etc.

CP/DA/Advantages - I'll definitely evaluate these as long as there's some strategic net benefit to the CP.

T, Theory - If you can explain it for a middle schooler, then I'll be just fine. Otherwise, there's a chance I will not evaluate it either from a lack of understanding or because it's abusive.

Non-T Affs - It's my opinion that the resolution is as stated for good reason and there's a lot of benefits to gain from remaining topical, such as the educational value of the topic. If you decide to run a non-topical affirmative, I believe it does need to have some semblance of relevancy to the topic. That might seem like a backwards way of thinking but I think there's more value to gain from having some sort of link to the topic. This does not mean I'm going to vote them down immediately, it just means I'm less likely to vote on them if I don't see any shred of relevancy.

Kritiks -This is pref'd lower simply because I have not read the literature on the most common K's and don't feel entirely comfortable evaluating these. I'm open to hearing the argument but if I have to vote on it that could be tricky for both of us. I certainly doubt my ability to provide feedback on them as well. Definitely simplify K FW.

Friv Theory, Spikes, Tricks -I simply have not heard enough of these, I don't understand them well enough, and have not been apart of enough discussions to feel confident enough to vote on these, so run them at your own risk. I try to be open minded in general, but if I simply don't understand something I don't feel as though I can vote for it. Don't be afraid to ask me about something specific, but also don't be totally shocked if you run these and lose. I will not vote on Eval.

Speaker Points for LD and PF

30: Perfection

29-29.9: Great with a couple notes

28-28.9: Good but needs some work

27-27.9: Needs significant work

26.9 or less: offensive comments or other in-round abuse took place

Raleigh Maxwell Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 7:20 AM CST

Raleigh Maxwell

MBA Debate '24

Emory Debate '28

Editor at Policy Debate Central

He/him

Email Chain

raleighdebate@gmail.com

debatemba@gmail.com

IPostRound@googlegroups.com

Flowing Disclosure

I flow on computer straight down. I generally transcribe as much as I can, unless speed or clarity prevent me. I read along and do not flow the 1AC. My primary source of information is your voice. I flow with the doc up, although I rarely scroll through it. I don't flow CP or perm texts but usually read along in the doc when they are being read.

Paradigm

First and foremost, I'm a 2A at heart. Every fiber in my body exudes the predispotions of a 2A. I do, however, attempt to judge debates in the most technical manner possible. I'll vote on dropped theory arguments (if they are clearly flagged as a voting issue), spark, wipeout, the death K, and even CPs that require the "butterfly effect" card to establish competition. As a fair warning, don't expect good speaks if these arguments are your primary strategy.

Topicality: Good for limits offense on the IP topic if you can find a workable definition. Decent topic knowledge about T interps.

Counterplans: Good for almost anything. I don't like generic process garbage, so I'll be aff-leaning on competition. There are plenty of generic CPs on the IP topic. Condo's probably good.

Disads: I love a good DA and case 2NR, but I do realize those might be untenable on this topic.

Kritiks: I am not your best judge for kritiks but will vote for the team who presents a better story to me. Ballot solvency is important for models debates.

Kritikal Affirmatives: Fairness is an impact but a very small one. Big fan of the Ballot PIK. I was a 2A in high school and rarely extended T-USFG, so err on the side of over-explaining things on both the aff and neg.

Case: Teams do not know how to write affirmatives coherently. Exploit it. Especially on the IP topic.

Speaker Points

+.1 for thorough and organized wiki disclosure. Let me know after the round that you open source, or I will not award the bonus.

+.1 for debating entirely off of your paper flow in the 2NR or 2AR. Ineligible for people who flow on their computer and for 1Ns/1As.

Ways to get higher speaker points:

1. Organization: stay organized on the flow and on speech docs.

2. Clarity: self-explanatory.

3. Efficiency: clear, quick arguments will be rewarded.

4. Research: it is incredibly easy to tell who has cut the cards in a debate round.

Pet Peeves

AFF (acronym) < Aff (shortened word)

Seepee < counterplan

Judge < Raleigh

Rehighlighting

The norm of "inserting rehighlightings" has proliferated across the high school debate community, so it is worth explaining my thoughts on the practice. I do believe you are allowed to insert rehighlights for text that has already been introduced in the round, either highlighted or unighlighted, underlined or un-underlined. You do, however, have to read text that is from other portions of an article and not merely "insert" it. To me, this standard represents the only reasonable way to evaluate inserted rehighlightings. That being said, I'll vote on an illegitimate inserted rehighlight if it's not contested by the other team on theory grounds.

Ethics

Entirely agree with Truf's guidelines to ethics issues in debate rounds.

Other Notes

If you would like the round to be recorded and posted on YouTube (either unlisted or listed on Policy Debate Central), please let me know.

Also, if you want Emory Debate stickers, let me know.

LD

I've never judged LD. Do with that what you will. I struggle to understand how the format is not incredibly neg-biased, so I will not be lenient on new arguments in the NR. Bad for phil/tricks/etc.

David Mogadati DuPont Manual High School / Youth Performing Arts School 6 rounds

Eshan Momin Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 5:40 AM EST

Alpharetta MT '23, Emory '27

Email

eshansmomin@gmail.com

---email title should provide useful information. Ex. Tournament---Round #---Team A v. Team B.

TLDR

---adopted from Anthony Trufanov, Tim Ellis, Jordan Di

—-if you have no idea who I am, literally read all policy arguments my senior year, found the quickest and smallest way to get to nuclear war on the aff while going for every cheaty courts, international fiat, let's fiat X DA in thing possible: https://opencaselist.com/hspolicy22/Alpharetta/MoTh

---debating and judge instruction matter way more than personal preferences.

---generally good: more cards, predictability, conditionality, judge kick.

Top Level

---tech > truth

---I will flow and vote on things said in the debate. Ideological considerations are irrelevant and I will value judge instruction more than anything

---asking for what cards were read is CX

---stop hiding ASPEC or other dumb stuff. You'll lose speaker points.

---flowing is great---if I can tell you are not at least sufficiently, it will not go so well.

---condo is good, if a new aff, go crazy

---don't say buzzwords and I am not as comfortable with these arguments---does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation

---specific > backfile.

---have links to the plan > links about reps

---do case debating

---good framework debating and links don't usually need an alternative

---competing interpretations > reasonability.

vagueness in any form is almost always not a voting issue but can implicate AFF solvency.

---better interpretations and more cards are always good

---impact comparison will heavily shape my decision

---DA/CP---love them, most comfortable with these debates

---default is judge kick. theory is an uphill battle and winning that condo is bad is an uphill battle

---solvency deficits need impacts tied to the ADVs, 1ar and 2ar consistency is crucial here

---intrinsic perms are fine, but they need a justification like textual legitimacy

---pretty NEG on most theory---competition probably decides if it's legit

---framing pages are mostly silly. Ks of things the NEG has said > “but the DA has internal links.”

---I'm down for politics DAs in most variations---please explain what is going on for UQ

---impact turns are fun BUT plz make them coherent

---good impact calc will be rewarded and is always good

Others

---not voting for death good

---stealing prep, clipping cards = auto L

---"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

Cody Morrow Colleyville Heritage High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 9:24 AM CST

Updating in progress, January 2025.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put both emails on the chain.

codydb8@gmail.com (different email than years past)

colleyvilledebatedocs@gmail.com

I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourselves. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Ending cx early and turning that time into prep time is not a thing in front of me. You have either 8 or 10 minutes of prep time, use it judiciously. Please, do not prep when time is not running. I do not consider e-mailing documents/chains as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.

I enjoy all kinds of debates. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.

Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.

If the first thing you do on counterplans is read 3 or 4 permutations and a theory argument at top speed then you know I won't be able to flow all of the distinctions. Why not separate every other analytical argument with an evidenced argument or what if you slowed down just a tad.... I am a great flow, it is just analytical arguments aren't supposed to be read at top speed stacked on top of each other. Same on K's F/w then numerous Perm's all at top speed stacked on top of each other is silly and not realistic for judges to get all of the distinctions/standards.

GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!

LD January 21, 2025

No tricks, A few clarifications... As long as you are clear you can debate at any pace you choose. Any style is fine, although if you are both advancing different approaches then it is incumbent upon each of you to compare and contrast the two approaches and demonstrate why I should prioritize/default to your approach. If you only read cards without some explanation and application, do not expect me to read your evidence and apply the arguments in the evidence for you. Be nice to each other. I pay attention during cx. I will say clearer once or twice and then it is up to you if you are going to choose to read clearly. If you are unclear, you can look at me and you will be able to see that there is an issue. I might not have my pen in my hand or I could look annoyed both of which are clues. I keep a comprehensive flow and my flow will play a key role in my decision. With that being said, being the fastest in the round in no way means that you will win my ballot. Concise well explained arguments with compelling warrants will surely affect the way I resolve who wins, an argument advanced in one place on the flow can surely apply to other arguments, however the debater should at least reference where those arguments are relevant and why. Dropped arguments are true arguments. Please, be nice to each other. GOOD LUCK!!!

LD Paradigm from May 1, 2022
I will update this more by May 22, 2022

I am not going to dictate the way in which you debate. I hope this will serve as a guide for the type of arguments and presentation related issues that I tend to hear and vote on. I competed in LD in the early 1990's and was somewhat successful. From 1995 until present I have primarily coached policy debate and judged CX rounds, but please don't assume that I prefer policy based arguments or prefer/accept CX presentation styles. I expect to hear clearly every single word you say during speeches. This does not mean that you have to go slow but it does mean incomprehensibility is unacceptable. If you are unclear I will reduce your speaker points accordingly. Going faster is fine, but remember this is LD Debate.

Despite coaching and judging policy debate the majority of time every year I still judge 50+ LD rounds and 30+ extemp. rounds. I have judged 35+ LD rounds on the 2022 spring UIL LD Topic so I am very familiar with the arguments and positions related to the topic.

I am very comfortable judging and evaluating value/criteria focused debates. I have also judged many LD rounds that are more focused on evidence and impacts in the round including arguments such as DA's/CP's/K's. I am not here to dictate how you choose to debate, but it is very important that each of you compare and contrast the arguments you are advancing and the related arguments that your opponent is advancing. It is important that each of you respond to your opponents arguments as well as extend your own positions. If someone drops an argument it does not mean you have won debate. If an argument is dropped then you still need to extend the conceded argument and elucidate why that argument/position means you should win the round. In most debates both sides will be ahead on different arguments and it is your responsibility to explain why the arguments you are ahead on come first/turns/disproves/outweighs the argument(s) your opponent is ahead on or extending. Please be nice to each other. Flowing is very important so that you ensure you understand your opponents arguments and organizationally see where and in what order arguments occur or are presented. Flowing will ensure that you don't drop arguments or forget where you have made your own arguments. I do for the most part evaluate arguments from the perspective that tech comes before truth (dropped arguments are true arguments), however in LD that is not always true. It is possible that your arguments might outweigh or come before the dropped argument or that you can articulate why arguments on other parts of the flow answer the conceded argument. I pay attention to cross-examinations so please take them seriously. CONGRATULATIONS for making it to state!!! Each of you should be proud of yourselves! Please, be nice in debates and treat everyone with respect just as I promise to be nice to each of you and do my absolute best to be predictable and fair in my decision making. GOOD LUCK!

Ashley Murphy La Salle College High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:34 AM EST

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab/equity side of tournaments than judging. I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate. I prefer a round where you are reading two or three off and doing more work on warranting the arguments out than in a round with 10 off and extending something blippy into the 2NR.

Generally Tech>Truth but I appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That said, debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

General Stuff:

I'm good with speed and will say clear if I am not. That said, even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

LD/CX Specific:

I have a fairly extensive background in most critical lit; however, I think a lot of tech/prog debaters lose me when they are sloppy about:

Not doing enough work on the link debate (why does this aff link to the K? What's internal link to your solvency?)
Saying random debate jargon without context and assuming I am going to follow (I find it vaguely amusing when people just yell "they dropped indexicals!" but generally I don't know what to do with that on my ballot unless you tell me more).

I will care and pay attention in round and have judged a bit on Jan/Feb already, but I promise you that I have thought about this topic less than you have, so keep that in mind when figuring out your time allocation.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com (though speechdrop is easier)

Jacob Nails Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 2:14 PM CST

My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com

Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

LD Paradigm

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Michi Okahata Hire 2 rounds

Curtis Ortega Isidore Newman School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 9:29 AM PST

0. General:

chain for policy/general questions

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

chain for ld (pls add both)

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Coaching: Isidore Newman, Coppell, IVA High

Conflicts: Marlborough and a few LAMDL teams.

Debate Shoutouts: Deven Cooper, Dayvon Love, Diego "Jay-Z" Flores, Erika Linares, Geo Liriano, Jaysyn Green, Daniel Medina, Destiny Popoca, Lauren Willard, Cameron Ward, Isai Ortega, Andres Marquez, Elvis Pineda, J-Beatz, Dorian Gurrola, Aless Escobar, Jean Kim, Gavie Torres, Clare Bradley, and all of #LAMDLGANG.

"IR topics are cool bc we learn abt the world and stuff" - E.C. Powers, Wyoming Debate 5/22/23.

1. Pref Guide:

General: Currently entering my junior year and currently debate for CSULB (2 years of NDT-CEDA debate, 3 1/2 of LAMDL Debate) and have about 2 years of circuit judging experience.

Judging Style: I judge based what's on the flow, and the flow only. Judge intervention is silly and I try not to do it unless I absolutely need to fill in the gaps. Offense/Defense paradigm is how I evaluate debates, and will vote for the team that did the better debating unless told otherwise. Dropped args are true args, but need to be impacted out. No judge kick, make your own decisions and for the love of god start the round on time. Speaks will reflect all of these instances.

There are little predispositions that I have about debate that cannot be changed by good debating. Any endorsement of violence/racism/homophobia/transphobia is an auto-L + nuked speaker points. Ev-ethics includes shifty citational practices/ev misconstruction or clipping. All ethics challenges stop the debate with no room for continuation. In most scenarios I'm not looking at the doc, which means you should probably have a recording of the speech as proof.

I care about evidence quality far less than most judges. In most instances, substantive debating overrides bad debating with assertion of (X) piece of evidence or (X) author, however I prefer both a good combination of both. I care more about line by line, 3rd/4th level testing, and in-depth clash as opposed to just "how good evidence is". If I wanted to read evidence, I would read a book. I judge debates to see debaters debate out arguments, and reading evidence as a starting point for an RFD when not contested seems paradoxical to the activity.

I do not yell clear during C.I.A. level ear-torturing tactics. Clarity is important, and if you are unclear, the decision and speaks will reflect such. If you ask me about an argument that you "made" that didn't have the effect on a decision you thought it did, it's because you either a. did not explain it well enough to make it that way or b. it was absolutely incoherent and I did not hear or understand it.

LD Specific: Do what you want, everything else applies from above applies.

2. Random/Misc:

Good Speaks Guide: Please do not delay the round/lallygag around, be excessively rude to your opponents, or endorses/argue for any isms. If you start the round on time, set up the email chain before I get into the room, and be generally funny/charismatic, you will get good speaks.

Song Challenge: I usually start speaks at 28.5 and move up/down depending on performance. On a softer note, I usually will listen to music while I write my RFD. Most times, I already have decided a winner after the 2AR has ended, but I always go over my flow/notes one last time before I write or submit my ballot. I love listening to new music, and I listen to every genre imaginable. That being said, I love to hear the tunes y'all have been jamming to recently. To encourage such behavior, debaters have an opportunity to garner extra speaks based on their music suggestions. Each team is allowed to give me one song to listen to while I write my RFD. It cannot be a song I've heard before. If I like the song, you will receive a +.1 to your speaker points. If I don't like it, you won't receive any extra, but I also won't redact any from your original score.

Advice/Help: If you are from LAMDL, debate for a UDL or public school without coaching, I'm willing to help with advice or questions y'all may have.

Jacob Palmer Durham Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu May 23, 2024 at 10:38 AM EST

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I did 4 years of policy at Emory. I also did 4 years of LD at Durham and have coached at Durham since I graduated. I mostly judge LD but occasionally find myself in a PF or Policy pool, so most of this paradigm is targeted at LDers. Regardless of the event I am judging though, I will do my best to adapt to you and evaluate the round solely off the flow. TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. If you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate you will do well. I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity.

Specifics

Policy – Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. The 2nr in LD is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or sandbagging cards that should've been in the 1nc, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr should just be in the 1nc.

T – Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be very sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. You need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than some other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find most TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Cap and other kritiks can also be good. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love phil debates. I think these debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

Rodrigo Paramo Greenhill School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 9:12 AM CST

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13.

[current/past affiliations:

i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell. if your opponent indicates you are going too fast for them, you should adjust. i am comfortable with debaters "slow"ing their opponents speech in good faith to increase the value of the debate. i prefer a negative strategy constructed of fewer, robustly developed positions to one with many under-developed ones.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

8 things to know:

Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.
take seriously my role as a classroom teacher - will be comfortable giving decisions like "i was uncomfortable voting for ___ even though it was technically won" - the blank could be filled with skepticism, death good, etc.
Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.
please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.
i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

The following practices will significantly lower your speaker points in front of me:

any argument that i should evaluate the debate prior to the end of the 2ar

flow clarification questions
spreading or otherwise engaging in circuit norms that exclude less-experienced debaters from meaningfully participating in the debate round
reading through theory/topicality blocks at high speeds
mis-citing a piece of evidence by only reading one name on a piece with two authors, shortening a last name, etc.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page
IR/econ heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.
Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (i will not vote for shells where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is difficult for me to comprehend)

Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature
affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Ryan Parimi American Heritage Broward HS 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 8:22 AM EST

Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum Paradigm

Email: ryan.parimi@gmail.com

About me

UGA law student
I coach/teach college, high school, and middle school debate (LD, PF, WS, Parli)
I've taught summer debate camps at Yale, Drew, U. of Washington, and even one way out in Jakarta, Indonesia

My debate philosophy

Although I enjoy some progressive arguments, my debate philosophy still centers on clear argumentation and persuasive speech. I want you to try to win me—not only win arguments in a vacuum. I try to award speaker points accordingly. If a tournament doesn't allow low-point wins, I will say in the RFD that I would've given a low-point win with x points.
I generally vote on the flow. Tech over truth (within reason).
I like aspects of both traditional and progressive debate. I wish the traditional community wouldn't let its fear of everything turning into policy keep it from adopting some helpful circuit norms, and I wish the progressive community would stop trying to convince itself that a total departure from traditional debate turns the activity into anything but an esoteric, nonsensical game with no real-life application or educational value.

Speed

Prioritize clarity. Spreading is lame, but I won't vote you down solely because you chose to spread. If you spread, please be good at it. Bad spreading will 100% tank your speaker points. Email me your case or give me a printed copy before the round if you plan on spreading.

Evidence

I know the evidence rules, and I have no problem deciding a round on a legitimate evidence violation.

------

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

In general

I love LD.
Please remember that you need to make your attacks on your opponent's case in the rebuttal portion of NC (if neg) or 1AR (if aff). NR or 2AR = too late. I have to disregard those as new arguments.
Don't forget fiat exists. Fine with you arguing to what extent.
Counterplans are fine.

Framework

I enjoy a good framework debate.
Traditional and modern frameworks are fine. Just make whatever you’re using clear. I know my philosophers pretty well...don't try to BS me on Kant or Rawls or something. I will know. That being said, I believe it's on the debaters to call each other out. I'm going to flow it even if it's a little painful to listen to (unless it's crazy).

Kritiks and Theory

A well-developed K could certainly convince me. I'm familiar with the critical theories behind most Ks.
Theory arguments are fine when there's actual abuse--clearly explain the norm and the violation. Don't waste my time with arguments like "he didn't put his contact info on the debate wiki so drop him."
For me, K and theory are above substance. I'm fine with you arguing about that though, and you're especially welcome to argue whether K > theory.
I hate disclo and will not vote on it with one exception: if you didn't disclose and you're spreading so fast that flowing is nearly impossible, I will give you the L if your opponent runs disclo (unless they're also spreading and didn't disclose).
Condos are a little sus but I don't have a strong view on them.

Examples of cases that would be great for my taste

Traditional case that demonstrates a deep understanding of the philosophy behind its framework
Cap K that links reasonably to the resolution, argued in a more traditional style
Tech case that restores my faith in humanity by making semi-reasonable arguments and doesn't force me to flow 10 subpoints of copy-paste garbage from the debate wiki

------

PUBLIC FORUM:

In general

Did you know that PF is the only debate event that explicitly mentions lay judges in its description? Indeed, "Students who do Public Forum must be prepared to debate in front of judges without any formal debate training. Being able to persuade a range of judges is a central component to this event."
^That means I prefer you lean more traditional in this event. I will not, however, vote you down solely because you went more progressive.

Kritiks and Theory

In general, I'm skeptical of Ks and theory in PF.
Still open to theory when there's actual abuse--clearly explain the norm and the violation.

Plans/Advocacy

Just going to remind you of the rule: "In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions."
I'm really not in the mood to hear a CX round given this rule + time limits that don't work.
I'll assume basic fiat for pro.

Weighing

Please give a clear metric(s) to weigh arguments with AND weigh your arguments against your opponents'. Don't expect me to weigh for you.

Evidence

Not sure what it is about PF, but it seems to have uniquely bad evidence in terms of source quality and questionable cutting. If you did good research and cut cards ethically, you're already making me happy.
I don't want us to spend more time asking for cards than actually debating. I know most of you have never judged, but trust me, it's mind-numbing to sit for 5 minutes after every single speech and watch you drag your feet pulling up 10 cards when only one card is relevant. Please call for cards sparingly.

------

OTHER STUFF:

Chinese rap enjoyer. Flip phone believer. Manual transmission user.
I follow NSDA rules whenever questions that the rules address come up. I follow tradition for pretty much anything else. If you have questions about specific preferences, just ask before the round.

Chan Park Hire 5 rounds

Sanghoon Park King High School 3 rounds

Divya Pathak Edgemont Junior-Senior High School 2 rounds

Bella Piekut Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:30 PM CST

maine east '21. emory '25.

put me on the chain: bellapiekutdebate@gmail.com

tldr:

- little to no topic knowledge.

- time yourself. i will forget. i'm not perfect.

- send analytics. if you're good, you don't have to win because they drop things.

- online debate is hard, but please try to be timely and efficient. i'd appreciate if you have your camera on, but i understand that's not possible for everyone. make sure you're clear. if my camera is off, make sure i'm there and ready for the speech.

- i don't like reading through card docs, but will if i have to or am told to. spin matters. i often find that my decision tends to differ from other judges because of this. evidence quality matters, but if neither team tells me what is wrong with the other team's evidence or why their evidence is good, I will not make that determination myself. there is a debate to be had about the quality of evidence, and I view it as interventionist to decide that myself.

- stolen from dani roytburg: "this is the only belief i hold that i allow to determine my ballot: i exclusively evaluate the arguments in a debate and on my flow. the only time where i might see myself making decisions about things debaters don't say occurs with either abysmally little clash or near-perfect debating on both sides."

- nothing pissed me off more as a debater than seeing paradigms that say "specific strategies = speaks boosted." yes, in-depth, specific strategies are valuable and will probably make the debate easier for the neg, but are impossible to prep against every aff for many teams, especially with the proliferation of new affs at end of the year tournaments. what matters most is your ability to contextualize whatever you're going for to the affirmative. that's something that not many teams do well, and should also be rewarded!

- i won't hesitate to stop the round if anything racist/homophobic/sexist/etc happens. please please please be nice and don't be arrogant or problematic. there's a difference between standing your ground and laughing at the other team's arguments.

ks:

- stolen from margaret hecht: "i am admittedly not the best judge for critical arguments. my issue isn't ideological, rather a lack of experience and research. i have no preferences for what you read, relation to the topic, etc., and will do my best to judge these debates, but please don't assume that i know the implication of historical examples and/or have a deep understanding of the literature base." run what you want and if you win the flow, i'll vote for you. that being said, pretend i don't know anything about it. explain it without buzzwords. stay away from long overviews. clash.

- you probably need an alt absent winning framework or strong case turns arguments. make sure the alt solves the links.

- weighing the plan is probably good, but i'll try to be objective about it. i find i vote aff most often when the neg doesn't articulate clearly what the world of their interpretation looks like or have sufficient defense against the aff's impacts.

- on the aff: going for impact turns/heg good/cap good/etc and extinction outweighs has a special place in my heart. or go for the perm, also a fan, just stick to a strat. you're not going to win no link against cap when you have an economy advantage.

k affs:

- never been in a k v k debate [other than going for the cap k which barely counts]. not sure if i'm confident making the correct decision [expect for cap or the other policy basics]. do what you want with this information.

- go for a da! even if it's heg! just clearly articulate the link. i'm more inclined to lean neg on the link debate if the aff clearly doesn't do anything.

- fairness is an impact and probably the best one, but the neg needs to explain it in a way that makes it one. also a fan of clash style impacts. other impacts will probably be not strategic and unpersuasive in front of me. tvas and ssd are not always necessary but usually are helpful. explain how it solves the aff's offense, don't just repeat it accesses their literature. case lists are very helpful, but make sure they're contextualized to the aff's interpretation.

- on the aff, i usually find impact turns most convincing. i tend to view limits/predictability/ground/etc as linear impacts, so going for defense isn't the best strat in front of me, but if it's done well you can totally win. I tend to vote neg when ssd or the tva is mishandled and there's not enough defense extended to the negative's impact or IL.

- i have little topic knowledge, so explain what your interpretation is to me like i'm a child. that being said, I've been thrown into a couple of t debates with little topic knowledge and found that the only real times this hinders me is in predictability debates when both teams insist their cards have topic experts without doing any comparisons or when each team spews case lists without explaining what those affirmatives are. i don't know what "new triers aff" is. explain.

- limits are very compelling, but predictability is probably the best impact. aff ground can totally win you the debate, but you have to do the work to make sure it outweighs whatever the neg's impact is. aff ground is most compelling when there's a structural reason the neg's interpretation makes it impossible to be aff [for example, no solvency deficits to agent cps or infinite pics existing] and when the aff is able to quantify and compare the magnitude of the ground lost to the magnitude of affs included under their interpretation. just saying you lose core of the topic affs means nothing and will ensure a negative ballot.

- like practically every judge, i default to competing interpretations, but mainly because people don't go for reasonability right. if you can do it, do it. contextualize your offense to the neg's interpretation. extend enough defense so that your interpretation is reasonable.

theory:

- don't spread through your blocks, clash!

- absent being dropped, the only reason to reject the team is probably condo. make sure to have clear offense, impact comparisons, and inroads to the other team's offense no matter which side of this debate you're on!

cps:

- cps that compete off of certainty or immediacy make me sad, but i understand they're necessary and have went for plenty myself.

- perm texts!!! write them!!! still, slow down in competition debates. i've been on both sides of these debates, but still get confused.

- sufficiency framing means practically nothing. spend your time explaining why there's no impact to the solvency deficit instead.

das:

- winning turns case is nice, but it's not always necessary [i also don't know why some people give it so much weight]. i would invest time on it if you're behind on case and need to mitigate it.

- don't forget about impact calc. i used to blow it off, but judging has made me realize that it's a lifesaver in close debates.

- i love a good politics debate, but storytelling and evidence quality will make or break it. for the aff, often times, I've found the weakest part of the DA and the part teams aren't prepared to defend is the internal link. although i understand the impulse to go for non-unique or thumpers, which are often strategic, don't be afraid to diversify your 2ar options.

- not much else to say. das are cool.

Don Pierce Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 3:32 PM CST

Please put me on the email chain: donpierce2025@gmail.com and debatemba@gmail.com.

Tech > Truth

Recently, I have become generally more K oriented, but I have made both policy and K arguments, so I have some knowledge in both areas. I will do my best to follow along to any argument that is made. That being said, if the argument has not been explained to the point where I would feel comfortable explaining why I am voting for it at the end of the round, I am not going to vote on it. Explain acronyms.

My ballot generally will start with framing/impact calc and/or framework, where you should be comparing/debating out both which sides framing is better and what that means for my ballot. This sets a threshold for what I should look for on the other pages and minimizes intervention. I can be convinced to build offense from the bottom up, meaning I consider each level of offense as a yes/no question and then consider who access more offense at the end of that chain and then do framing/framework/impact calc, but that is not my default.

Policy

The most important things:

Theory---I will be fine if you want to go for theory but please slow down on it especially if you don't send analytics in the speech doc. Outside of conditionality, I generally don’t think theory arguments are reasons to reject the team, and it would be difficult to persuade me to vote on it.

Ks---you can read Ks in front of me but do not use excessive jargon or just assume that I understand the underlying theory. The framework debate is often ignored or not fleshed out, which means I generally have to give the aff their plan and the k their links.

K affs---I have read both policy affs and K affs, so you should run what you want to run in front of me. The focus of these debates need to be on clashing and comparing the two sides. Avoiding excessive jargon and using many examples will be the most useful. I generally think procedural fairness is an impact, but I can be persuaded away from it, like most things.

Other things:

CPs---they are great. If you say judge kick and say I could in the 2nr, you should do that impact calc/framing for both a ballot with the cp + da and da + case defense. Generally speaking, I think the literature determines which counterplans are legitimate and which aren’t, but I can be persuaded that against that

DAs---also great. DA plus case is an underrated strategy vs bad affs.

Ts---a good T debate is really fun to listen to, but it requires a lot of judge instruction in order to not intervene.

I have no background in PF. My policy paradigm will help shed light on what I have the best background on, content wise, but ultimately, I am fairly open to anything. Given my lack of background in the activity, I will need more explanation on arguments/acronyms that are isolated to the activity.

I flow closely and track argument consistency throughout the round. If the argument you are going for is brand new in your last speech, I will be very skeptical of it.

Bob Portnoy Calhoun High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 12, 2024 at 8:02 AM EST

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are counterproductive. It's much more helpful to pay attention, and react, to your opponent's arguments than to be writing your next speech during the round.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence. Please do not present evidence from biased sources, e.g., don't quote from Osama bin Laden or Fox "News."

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate public-policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points because this is not only easier to follow but also better for you. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track. When refuting an argument, don't waste time by repeating it extensively and thereby reinforcing it.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, not using all of your time (particularly during speeches but also during questioning) answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time (or after the round has ended), or asserting without specificity that "We won everything" or "They dropped everything," etc. Also, avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

Questioning. If you want to improve as a debater--at any level--the biggest bang for your buck is to prepare effective questions. Yes, that means having a list of sequential questions prepared in advance, based on anticipated arguments; you can clash by selecting from among these as well as developing additional questions in round.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF primarily and judge L-D predominantly. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor AP courses such as History and ELA as well as SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. (I try not to judge Policy because I still value persuasive delivery; exchanging cases is no substitute for that.) Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s three-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Do not waste my time, and try to extend yours, by overindulging in asking for evidence.

--I'm not a fan of "frontloading," and it makes no sense whatsoever to do so in the 2AC when your side is the first to speak.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

--I flow crossfire and highly value pointed, yes/no-type questions; if your opponent is giving a speech rather than asking a question, you may politely interrupt.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum. The trite pain/pleasure quote is seldom on point and time better spent elsewhere.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions. In fact, quite the contrary.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

--Leave plenty of time (e.g., 2 1/2 minutes or more) in the Neg Constructive for refutation; not doing this is the biggest reason why Negs lose in L-D. Likewise, I'm not a fan of "frontloading" in the 1AR anyway, and do so at your peril unless you leave plenty of time (e.g., 2 1/2 minutes or more) in that speech for refutation.

--I flow crossfire and highly value pointed, yes/no-type questions; if your opponent is giving a speech rather than asking a question, you may politely interrupt.

--Even though you are not required to present a formal, detailed plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

Congress--

--I worked on Capitol Hill for two summers, once for a Senator and once for a Congressman, when oratorical skills were valued. Please treat the event with respect.

--A good Congress speech is like a mini-Extemp speech: hook; organize and number your reasons; use qualified evidence (quotes, data) in support; circle back to hook.

--Clash is critical, as in any form of debate; unless yours is the sponsorship speech, refer to previous speakers.

--I keep track not only of speeches but also of questions, especially strong ones.

--Do not try to curtail debate prematurely; give others the opportunity to speak.

Demarcus Powell Grapevine High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2024 at 12:49 PM CST

Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm

Only send speech docs to Powell.demarcus@gmail.com

ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.

About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I taught and coached at Greenhill School from 2018 to 2022. I am now the head coach at Grapevine High School. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.

Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.

Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.

Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!

Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.

Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.

Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.

Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.

Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.

Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.

Adhitya Ravikumar Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 21, 2024 at 1:57 AM CST

hello :)

Add me to the chain: adhitya.ravikumar@gmail.com

Two years of policy at emory

Three years of ld at southlake carroll

I run policy args but that doesn't really translate to strong argumentative preferences.

No opinion here is really that strong and I wouldn't change how you debate over it honestly.

This paradigm is largely for LD.

LAST SECOND PHIL THING BC I FORGOT LOL;;;; I'm only familiar with util and kant stuff everything else I can probably keep up with if you like explain it.

T: Like it, but I know almost nothing about the topic sans its wording. You should probably explain stuff more. I default competing interps but reasonability is personally pretty convincing when explained correctly.

CPs: Condo is probably good but am wayyyyy more willing to vote on condo bad in LD given time skew. Process CPs are probably not great for debate but I get their utility and will vote on them. Competing off certainty/immediacy <<<<<<< competing off anything else. I default no judge kick. If you're aff---perm do both must be explained in the 1ar otherwise I will probably not vote on it.

DAs: Impact weighing is cool. Magnitude is meh. TF is solid for close debates. Probability is great. Turns case/DA is goated.

Theory: If you run random shells I'll vote on them but you're biggest barrier will probably be reasonability. If the 2AR goes for a shell that was new in the 1ar, I hold a fairly high standard for 2AR explanation/debating.

K Affs: Will vote on them. The impact turn to fairness/clash generally seems more strategic than proposing a counterinterp, though that's definitely not a hard and fast rule. Will vote on fairness as an impact.

Ks: I like em and think they're cool. IDK any pomo things so slow down on tags and explain what's going on. K debates live and die by the link and if you're going for the fiat K I'm far more likely to believe your FW offense if you have a strong link.

Elijah Reisman Monta Vista High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 24, 2024 at 11:28 AM EST

Cypress Bay High School 2020

Emory University 2024

Note for the 2025 Barkley Forum Tournament: I have not done debate-oriented research for this topic, so I likely will not be the most familiar with your arguments before the debate begins. I am judging LD at this tournament, so take a look at that portion of my paradigm.

hielijah@gmail.com

TLDR: I primary focused in high school policy debate on reading CPs, DAs, and Affs with plans, but I will vote on whatever. Speaker points explanation is at the bottom of the paradigm if you are here for that. I enjoy pretty much any debate, so don't let my paradigm influence what arguments you make. Just have a good time, and put effort in. Please add me to the email chain before the round starts. If you have any questions just ask before the round

Note:for those re highlighting opponent evidence. Please read the re highlighted evidence rather than inserting it.

DA's: Impact comparison is super important. I've always thought that politics DA's are usually pretty bad, but if you are bringing the heat with the politics cards on the neg, or can point out the flaws in your average politics DA during the round I will be extra happy.

CP's: I am not a huge fan of the average consult counter plan in past years, but given the shallow DA ground on this topic I am more tolerant of them than I usually would be.

CP Theory: If you want to go for theory go for it, if you can stop the flow from being messy that would be nice.

Ks: Do whatever you like, not a huge fan of long overviews. I am not super convinced by plan focused style arguments, but I can be convinced otherwise.

T: Do whatever. As of now I have not judged any rounds on cjr and have not cut many cards for the topic either. Do with that information as you will.

planless affs: Go for it, just do impact calc when going for and answering T. K v K debates I'm down to watch, but will need clear link explanation during the debate.

Tech vs Truth: Tech over truth, but if something is untrue it is easier to answer.

Speaker Points: Generally I will try to conform to tournament norms and community norms

LD Notes:

Quick pref help: (LARP>K>Trad>Theory>Phil>Tricks)

Most of stuff from policy paradigm applies.

Not a huge fan of tricks, spikes, or rvi's but if you win on them I'll vote for them. It is essentialthat you articulate why your argument is correct and why that means you win the debate for these arguments.

For those who have a strategy that involves making many quick theory arguments, it is important that these arguments are complete arguments and not just blips. If they are merely blips, I will likely have hold you to a higher threshold in explaining those arguments later in the debate, and will give the opponent more leeway in justifying new responses to those arguments.

PF Notes:

Do whatever you want.

Joe Rhee The Awty International School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 13, 2024 at 7:26 AM EST

LD: please add my email AND breakdocs@googlegroups.com. please do not add me to a speechdrop. read this section and the must reads.

tech over truth applies much less here than in CX just bc i've only judged 2 circuit LD tournaments. treat me like a parent who can understand spreading in that I probably don't know what you're talking about if the argument doesn't exist in policy (i barely understand kant and skep), so the bar for a complete argument is that you must overexplain it. very bad for theory (fine for condo and the like), disclosure (unless they just lied), and tricks. good for critiques with developed framework interps in the NC. good for T vs K affs and vice versa. good for policy stuff. meh for phil. in general, less arguments, more strategic decisions.

stop asking for marked copies and a million questions about which cards were and weren't read.

policy: read below.

update 9/27/24: i am vaguely familiar with IPR because I have been less involved this season. explain acronyms and "topic consensus".

update 4/30/24: a more detailed judging record (including arguments read) is here, poached from David McDermott.

must reads:

joe, not judge. i'm not that old. yes, email chain. joerhee779@gmail.com
email subject should be include tournament, round, teams, and codes. ex: 2021 TOC - Round 4 - Mitty AP (Aff) vs Little Rock GR (Neg)
safety and integrity are prior. do not touch each other, me, or anyone's property, say slurs, misgender, etc. outside help is prohibited. each debater must give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal, unless there's a maverick situation that has been pre-approved. speech times are non-negotiable. do not clip. clipping = misrepresenting evidence. if you skip a word on accident, don't worry. if you skip a sentence, several words, or even paragraphs, in more than one card, i will be less forgiving. these are an auto-L and lowest speaks possible.
send out the 1AC and be ready to give it at start time. deleting analytics and excessive downtime between the email being sent out will incur prep.
communication first. pausing for pen time, not spreading through blocks like they're cards, and being clear when reading cards is imperative. rehighlightings that explain warrants beyond the tag should be read.

me:

little rock central '22, vanderbilt '26. human and organizational development major, data science minor. you can ask about vandy if you want after a decision has been made or through email.
read basically everything in high school as a 2A and 2N. did two tournaments in college. did the toc once. broke there. qualed twice. read about 55-60% K/45-40% policy args. I research more Ks and K answers than anything else.i judge about 40% policy v. policy, 35% policy v. K, and 25% K v. K debates (adjusted for varsity debates alone). i am probably ideal for an impact turn or policy v. K debate, but am confident i can evaluate anything.
i agree most with Debnil Sur.

argument evaluation:

tech over truth. arguments must have a claim, warrant, and implication. i must be able to explain what i flowed to the other team, not agree with it. worse warrants should be (and are) easier to beat. yes, you can win death/war/warming good, no condo, racism outweighs T, fairness is an impact, etc. however, if i didn't hear/understand the argument (including clarity), i won't vote on it, so hide arguments at your own risk. explaining the importance of dropped arguments 1-3 is more important than extending dropped argument 4. if i can't resolve the debate using tech alone, something has gone horribly wrong.
i will not judge personal character. i lack the resources and willpower to discuss debaters' personal lives. barring a debater saying we ought to openly hate entire groups of people online on a publicly accessible website (screenshots are not evidence), i am unwilling to vote on minors' actions. if someone says something that could be problematic, i will likely correct it after the fact, not drop the debater. you are free to make this a link argument or voting issue, but i will evaluate it like any other argument.
evidence quality matters and is under-debated. a good analytic can beat a bad card, but no cards decreases the chance of a win. evidence comparison is underutilized, but if no one mentions it in the debate, i will not make it part of my decision, nor insert my personal opinion on the evidence unless someone only says "read it after the round" .
i am very expressive. if i don't like an argument, it will show, but i have still voted for teams i made faces at.
debaters work hard, so i will not give a lazy decision. if you disagree post-round, please explain why and i will walk through my reasoning with you.

specific arguments:

Ks: framework is important, and i will only vote on an interp introduced in the debate. i do miss when debaters went for other tricks than the fiat K like link turns case or impact calc, but i'll evaluate the flow technically. in K v. K debates, unsure why framework and impact calculus suddenly disappears and why "no perms in a method debate" is a truism.
K affs: vs. T, choose either a counter interp or impact turn strategy. i am ok with fairness, clash, or education when actually explained. TVAs are usually meh unless the aff is close to the topic. SSD is slightly better but may link to DAs. impact turns like heg/cap/state good are fine. i vote aff when the neg drops DAs to T or can't explain their impact. i vote neg when the aff drops tricks like the ballot pik or subjectivity defense.
T: offense-defense. reasonability doesn't make sense without a counter-interp. thoughts on theory are essentially the same, except that because they lack evidence, most claims like aff and neg bias are usually unwarranted.
CPs: a. solvency deficits must be real, otherwise write a better aff. b. most theory objections would be better phrased as competition, though i'm 50/50 on the legitimacy of most counterplans. c. i've heard enough competition debates to know what's happening. d. not sure why people aren't reading more advantage counterplans.
DAs/case: many DAs and affs are fake, especially the internal link. presumption/zero risk is possible, but is a high bar. 2As - during the 2AC please actually explain line-by-line warrants. half the time it is incomprehensible. 2Ns - exploit 2A posturing and bad evidence quality. read more than just impact d. impact and straight turns are fun, but stay organized.

speaks:

speaker point inflation is terrorism. i will use a wider range than the average judge. more stats are in the judging record linked above.

below 27.0 - reserved for ethics violations.

27.0 - 0.0 percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.5 - 17th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28.0 - 33rd percentile speaker at the tournament.

28.5 - 50th percentile speaker at the tournament.

29.0 - 67th percentile speaker at the tournament.

29.5 - 83rd percentile speaker at the tournament.

30 - 100th percentile speaker at the tournament.

this is the baseline based on speeches. how to get higher or lower:

1. good CX. "tag team" cx is fine, but if one debater is taking every question, speaks will suffer. don't ask a bunch of questions like "what cards did you read" or "can you explain the aff". hard limit is 2 before speaks start dropping.

2. humor, kindness, and demeanor. don't have to be nice all the time because i get debate's competitive and tensions are high, but making a good joke, being generally respectful to others and making debate a better place are all great.

Daniel Rivero Christopher Columbus High School 3 rounds

Bodhi Rosen Westwood 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 14, 2024 at 5:33 AM CST

Hello there! My name is Bodhi (Bo-Dee) Rosen -- I did LD debate during the '23-'24 season and got four bids.

Email: rosenbodhi@gmail.com and breakdocs@googlegroups.com — I'll try to keep this paradigm as short as possible for pre-round convenience. If you have any additional questions, feel free to email me before the round.

***I am a first-year out; thus, my judging skills are still very amateur.

Link to my case list: If you want to see what arguments I am extensively familiar with, https://opencaselist.com/hsld23/JamesBowie/BoRo

Defaults:

Competing Interps, No RVI, Comparative Worlds, Util, Epistemic Certainty.

Argument Preference:

Simply put, I have no preference for what you read as long as the argument is sufficiently warranted.

Phil---Yes (I love an excellent Phil debate), Real warrants germane to the Phil > analytic Phil brain-rot with tons of warrants unrelated to the frwk. I will love you if you decide to just take the k up on the link debate instead of going for 1AR restart mumbo jumbo.

K---Yes, I should be able to decipher the K given 1AC/1NC articulation. Also real evidence >>>.

Policy---Of course, Yes intrisicness, condo, pics, but I'm open and willing to buy theoretical objections. I think Lokis wager applies to 2NR evidence, that being if the evidence is used in a response setting against something where it’s needed, e.g, an answer to a poll or a 1AR impact turn then it’s ok, however I’ve seen a decent amount of debaters read entirely new impact and booster evidence in the 2NR which I almost never will evaluate.

Theory/T---Yes, I default to T>Theory, but I'm a blank slate in these debates. Also, -- Actual shells with warranting > “condo is a voter: strat skew, time skew, dispo solves” (aka non-substantiated warrants). Out of round violations are icky, but disclosure is usually an in round issue. Creative counter interps are awesome. 1AR shells in the 2AR should mainly be weighing focus not response focused insofar as the neg doesn’t have a 3NR.

Tricks---Yes, but my willingness to vote on it/give decent speaks is scaled to how much the argument was read to avoid clash. Tricks vs. Tricks and technical rounds are fun. But a Novice/Policy debater vs Eval is pretty sad. Speaking of eval -- lets play a game. If you go for eval, I'll flip a coin and if it lands on heads then you auto L25, tails - the round goes on. I preserve the right to do this since eval indicts my ability to judge the round at all.

Trad/Lay---Yes, but if you pref me high be prepared for the above arguments.

Speaks:

It's hard to have any objective metric for speaks. All I can say is debate as best you can, avoiding clash/winning off your opponent's inexperience instead of the quality of your debating may not warrant the highest speaks. To clarify -- I believe in Tech>Truth to the fullest extent, however: if you either (a) cant just go for substance, or (b) cant give a clean and super quick speech to end the debate earlier, then I calculate this as a lack of technical skill.

I will grant speaks boost to debaters who bring personality into the round, i.e humor or creative ways of spinning your arguments.

Won't grant speaks boosts or 30 speaks spikes, sorry.

Serena Rupp Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 12:51 AM CST

Emory 26, Lawrence Free State 22

serenajosephinerupp@gmail.com

I am extremely tech > truth, which frames the rest of my thoughts about debate. Every time I judge this paradigm gets shorter because my predispositions are weak and irrelevant to the vast majority of debates.

Only non-negotiables:

1. No death good.

2. I won't vote on things that happen outside of the round. I'm 20 years old and so unqualified to mediate high schoolers' interpersonal conflicts.

Absolutely love T debates when debaters do impact comparison. Competing interpretations > reasonability.

Truthfully, I think that predictable limits are the gold standard. Limits for the sake of limits are bad. The most legally precise definition isn't necessarily the best one for debate. That being said, just debate.

Ks:

I am comfortable judging Ks like cap, set col, antiblackness, security, etc. I know basically nothing about postmodernism/poststructuralism/high theory.

My predisposition is that teams should get to weigh their aff and that framework interps that entirely exclude Ks are unpersuasive.

K affs:

In a close T debate, I’m a bit better for the neg. This is an issue with experience more so than bias. I’ve basically always been on that side of the debate, so I can subconsciously fill in more gaps when both teams lack judge instruction. With that said, I am so flow-oriented that this rarely matters. I’m just going to vote for the team that wins more of their impact and explains why it outweighs. Fairness is an impact so long as you can explain it as one. I don’t have a strong preference between clash and fairness. If you’re neg, I’m on par better for T than the K because that’s where my experience lies.

DAs:

Obviously great. Smart turns case explanation = good speaks.

CPs:

Functional and textual competition is the gold standard. Default to judge kick.

Theory:

Conditionality is the only reason to reject the team. I'm a 2N and personally believe that condo is good, but quality of debating matters most. The aff needs to clearly explain an impact prior to the 2AR, or else I’m very sympathetic to the neg. Please do line by line.

Hargunn Sandhu Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 12:24 PM EST

Alpharetta 21. Emory 25.

Email chain: hargunn.sandhu03@gmail.com

Note:

I have ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE. Explain acronyms and don't assume I know the limits/consensus on T.

General:

1. Tech > Truth. Better debating can easily overcome any of the preferences I have below. Judge instruction is key, especially in the final rebuttals.

2. Good debating requires quality evidence; strong logical explanation, and contextualization.

3. Online debate: please slow down and enunciate more than you normally would. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. Sending analytics might be useful in case internet cuts out. Try to keep your camera on at least during speeches and CX.

4. Racism, sexism, discrimination, or any other problematic actions will result in an L and the lowest speaks.

5. Clipping = L and lowest speaks. If you accuse someone of clipping you must have evidence, if you fail to prove they clipped then you get an L.

Specifics:

1. K:

a. K Affs: Clash > Fairness > Education/Skills. I'm more inclined to vote on t usfg/framework since I have mostly been on this side of the debate. Heg good, cap good, etc are all good 2nr options. However, I do think the aff can win with impact turns to the negative's model. Good K affs have a connection to the topic and a clear offense/defense mechanism in the 1AC.

b. Ks: Leaning towards aff gets to weigh the plan. Who cares if fiat isn't real. Specific links, pulling quotes from the 1AC, and in-depth explanation at every level are very important. Avoid large overviews. Turns case/root cause/alt solves > fw 2nrs. Extinction ow/impact turn > permutation 2ars.

2. CPs/DAs:

a. CPs: Cool. If undebated, I'll judge kick the CP. I might be a little more receptive to intrinsic perms than most.

b. DAs: Turns case is crucial. Politics DAs are good, spin is important. 0% risk is a thing, but hard to get to.

3. Theory:

a. Conditionality: Good. Worth noting that I think aff teams rarely capitalize on neg teams' poor defense of condo.

b. International CP and Ctrl + f word PICs are bad assuming even debating. Neg leaning on most other theory.

4. T - Assuming even debating, competing interps > reasonability. Precise, contextual evidence is key to winning these debates, for both the aff and the neg, but especially the aff if there's a substantial limits differential. Read cards. Both sides should be clashing over their visions of the topic and the impacts to it.

5. Case: Not a fan of framing pages. Impact Turns are fantastic. Good case debating is underutilized. Presumption is possible.

6. Misc:

- Speaks: I'm prolly a little above average giving them out. Specific strategies are good. It always helps to make the round fun. Quality evidence is good. If you opensource, let me know, + .1

- Insert perm texts

- I'm usually not expressive, and anything I do express is usually not your fault.

- Things I prolly won't vote on: ASPEC, death good, and out of round issues

Gorav Sangal Research Triangle High School 3 rounds

Ayo Sanneh Hire 2 rounds

***Thanks for W.in for being the reason I'm here (still in debate)!!

****Also now that I am judging, I'd like to comment on a few things that I've seen on paradigms that have caused me to rethink some things. My junior year of high school, at a natcirc tournament I saw a paradigm that asked debaters to meow for the judge for 30 speaks. This forever changed my outlook on judging, relationship to the ballot and genuinely made me step away from debate for a bit. Please judges do not abuse your power, the meowing thing was strange and everyday I ask myself what possibly could've been the motivation for that. If you're asking kids to get you food for higher speaks, I'd like you to consider how that's pretty classist considering you have to buy the food and many debaters do not have spare money at tournaments and additionally that if you're judging highschoolers, you're at least somewhat grown and should get your own food instead of asking for bribes. I remember seeing other really strange paradigms but I'm struggling to remember them, just to any judge that's reading this: recognize your power in round and at least try not to abuse it.

Hey y'all, My name is Ayo Sanneh (they/them) and I debate for the Emory University on the college policy circuit. When I was in highschool I debated on the Texas and national circuits and did LD.

Emory '28

Dulles HS '24

Please add me to the email chain!! ayosannehdebate@gmail.com

I read mostly kritical arguments like Anti-Blackness, Black Fem, Orientalism, Ableism etc, I'll buy most Ks if there's a clear, thought out theory of power and the links are legible. This doesn't mean that the links have to be literal words from the 1AC, however when asked about them I expect that you'd be able to articulate them. This is a rushed paradigm that I'll have to update very soon so here's what you should pref me for each style of debate. These are for both policy and LD.

4----Tricks

4----Phil/Niche psychoanalytical Ks (heavy on the niche)

3-----Policy (as in the focus of the debate not event)

3-----Silly Theory

2------TFW

1-K

Here is a little bit of elaboration for the ratings. Please do not put me in a position to judge a tricks or phil debate. I won't be able to resolve the offense and you and I will both be tired and frustrated by the end of the round lol. This is moreso for tricks heavy debates, I'm fine for phil but really not the best judge for it. I think the last sentence also applies to policy, again I'm good to flow and resolve the debate but I'm really not the best judge for it. Next, if you're reading shoe theory against someone who's being serious, I'm wondering what you're doing in debate. Some of the frivolous theory is so nonsensical that it borders on offensive like girl please try to have some forethought and think about what the implication of the arguments you're reading are. I think I'm pretty good for TFW and great for Ks.

In-Round Violence/Expectations

1. If you misgender someone in round you need to apologize (an apologize that's more substantive than 'okay sorry' or anything dismissive like that). If there's no apology given or if it happens multiple times, I will vote for the person being misgendered if they make it a point in their speech. Literally anything that explains what happened and why I should vote against them. I don't think you need to stake the round on it. I actually don't understand how misgendering happens so frequently in debates, no one is holding your computer hostage and forcing you to refer to your opponent in a gendered manner or at all. If you'd like to refer to them and don't know their pronouns that's totally fine and you can always use their side/speech name i.e. 'the 1AR failed to do this'.

2. Please don't dismiss the actual literature used in the round. I hit a t-shell at a debate camp once that said "the literature in the 1AC NEVER EVEN SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN"...............girl open your eyes and gain some perspect and/or be so fr. Just be sensitive, the literature people are reading probably wasn't made strictly for debate esp K literature. Remember that even though you might be competitively incentivized to read it due to the debater you're going against/round/topic, they did not have the same motivations to write it and were talking about real life people.

3. If you want extra speaks please mention a fact abt the real housewives of atlanta.

4. I don't mind eating but if you're on an online tournament just remember to turn off your mic so its not ASMR for everyone else in the room.

5. Debate can be stressful, so just remember although I am judging I'm not actually judging or criticizing you in a non constructive way. Please try to enjoy at least aspects of what you're doing and remember to be respectful!!!

6. When it comes to Non-Black Pess or people reading arguments 'that don't apply to them' I don't mind. There are plenty of Women & Gender Sexuality Professors who are cishet men or Antiblackness authors that are non-Black. The issue comes when its extremely obvious when the literature its being used purely for competition. I'm giving the side-eye to people who read gory descriptions or use "so X group of people don't matter???" in response to a genuine arg or cx questions. Respect the literature and read it. I promise you as a person who's been on both sides of this debate is 10x better when everyone has read about what they're talking about. If arguments are made about how the literature is being deployed disingenuously I'm more than open to listening.

7. I'm good w speed just try to make sure things are on the doc and slow down on analytics and/or put them in the doc clearly or send them after.

8. I'm probably good to read disclo bad in front of, but if you don't disclose just have disclo answers ready before you walk into the debate. I don't mean wiki dislo, I mean email chain. I actually think wiki disclo in LD is read terribly and I don't understand the point if someone is disclosing to you in person or over email. That being said, if you want to defend the violation on not email disclosing, I'll listen just be sure to answer their clash and education impacts because what they're saying is probably true. This is not to say that clash and education impacts can't be outweighed or answered in another way.

9. If you want to discuss the decision after the round I'll be glad to do so but if it turns to aggressive post rounding, I'm just gonna ask you to send an email to me with your coach attached and leave the room.

10. Lastly, I'm good for small school arguments as well. I transferred to Dulles, a bigger school, in April of my junior year and before that it was pretty rough in terms of getting access to tournaments, being an independent etc. If you make a sensible argument about it in the round that a ballot can at least attempt to resolve I'll vote on it.

Melissa Schmidt Dunwoody High

Stephen Scopa American Heritage Broward HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 5:15 AM EST

I coach at American Heritage and have been coaching privately for 6 years now. My email for speech docs is: Stevescopa23@gmail.com .

General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.

- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such.

Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced.

T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. Otherwise should be fine.

T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times.

Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and warren. The more specific the links the better.

Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.

Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.

Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:

1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well

6) Successfully going for an RVI

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time - win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

Jared Shirts Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed May 15, 2024 at 2:19 PM PST

Jared Shirts (he/him)

Gunn '22

Emory '26

Email Chain - Put me on the email chain. My email is jshirtsdebate@gmail.com.

BFHS - I solely did policy debate in high school. I know nothing about LD tricks, and would prefer to judge like a policy debate. However, I'm happy to judge however you debate.

Background - I did four years of policy at Gunn High School as a 1A/2N. I ran primarily policy strategies on both the aff and the neg during my time in high school. I now debate at Emory University. I reached TOC quarterfinals in 2022.

Lay Debate Tourneys - I love lay debate. If this is a CFL League tourney or NSDA, I'm happy to judge as a parent judge. If there is a lay judge on the panel, adapt to them, not to me.

General Thoughts - I've been told I'm not very expressive during debates. This doesn't mean I think your arguments are bad---I just typically don't make facial expressions during speeches. Judge instruction is everything. Don't over-adapt to anything below, my preferences will always be overcome by effective debating. Just debate your strengths, and I'll try not to let my predispositions shape my view of your arguments.

T - A case list is necessary. I default to competing interpretations. Don't assume I know the topic intricacies.

DA - Like them. Impact calculus is critical.

CP - Don't speed through analytic blocks on competition debates - explanation is critical. I'll judge kick if you tell me to.

Theory - Slow down on theory debating. I lean aff on international and multi-actor fiat. I lean neg on every other theory violation, and heavily neg when against new affs. Numerical interpretations for # of condo are arbitrary - condo is either good or bad.

Case - Love case strategies. DA Case 2NRs are severely underutilized, and strategies that rely on case pushes in the 2NR will be rewarded with speaks. Presumption exists, although it relies on either exceptional case debating or severe technical concessions.

K's - I have at least a basic understanding of most K literature. Historical examples and in-depth explanations are very valuable. Not a fan of giant overviews.

K Affs - Go for it. I typically went for FW against K affs. Fairness can be an impact if explained well, but it's a debate to be had.

Framing - I ran soft left affs most of high school, so I'm receptive to framing pages. Framing pages based on risk analysis and serial policy failure are significantly more persuasive to me than "structural violence first always" framing.

Speaks - Average debate will be around 28.8. Above 29.1 means I think you deserve to break, below 28 means there is something that needs to be improved upon.

Misc - Many of my thoughts on debate are influenced byWill Halverson and Evan Alexis. Natural Vikram Valame references will boost your speaks.

Elijah Smith St. Luke's School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 8:09 AM EST

elijahjdsmith AT gmail.com

I like judging debates where students rise to the occasion—high-level debates. Who doesn’t? I also respect debaters who are polite but confident in their ability to win. You can press the other team, but let’s be mature about it.

The passive-aggressive way debaters hold their phone timer up or tell me that their opponent went 3-4 seconds "over" time is something I’m not a fan of. I’m also not a fan of the correction of prep time by 1-2 seconds—“you actually used 25, not 23 seconds.” The constant tension of “are they stealing prep?” in every interaction makes debate so awful. I promise that 2 seconds didn’t lose you the debate. No judge has ever said, “Jeez, I was gonna vote for you, but that half-sentence at the timer was just so well-developed I can’t.” Just win.

I understand that not every debate is going to be the TOC Finals. But rise. Act like you’re here to get to finals. Give 100% every round. I’ve written dozens of long paradigms that students ignore. This is really my one inflexible requirement across events. We spend too much time doing this to just participate. Compete.

Fewer arguments and one excellent card with a slow conversation are better than 50 bad cards. I won’t reconstruct debates to find answers. I prefer a structured NSDA 2AR to a blitz of random stuff.

You can ask questions after a debate. If you’re asking why I didn’t vote on the thing you spent 3 seconds of your speech on, you’ve answered your own question. My RFD will be less about the line-by-line and more about what you can do or know next time.

Policy, PF, LD thoughts below

Policy Nov 24

condo after 4 off

explaining the function of cards in the 2AC is the best way to get ahead of the block and to make your card dump seem responsive.

yes, process cp but need a lot of explanation.

K 2NC- don't rant. Structure, warrants for turns case, line by line.

education>fair but i've voted on both.

reasons and warrants.

LD- October 24

-No tricks/friv theory
-complete arguments.
-will give a 27 for being unclear. do speaking drills before the round. slow down.
-condo can be bad after the 3rd off.
-good policy + K is great
-traditional is great

-basic phil is fine.

-if you call your argument a trick it is nonsense. 20 speaks

education > fairness but i've voted on both.

PF debate:

Any evidence you plan to read in a debate I'm judging should be sent before the speech. If I want to verify that your evidence exists, I will look at it. I will reduce your speaker points if you don't do this.

Treat me like someone who doesn't know anything about debate. This is a speaking activity. Speak well, be persuasive, and convince me you are correct.

I don't want to hear any technical debates, theory, or anything that is not about the topic.

Eloise So Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 6:14 AM PST

Lowell '23

Emory '27

(she/her)

Please add lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain for policy, and eloiseso@gmail.com for LD

LD: I have learned I am not good for tricks, philosophy or theory. I did policy in high school, now do policy in college, and have only judged a couple rounds of this event.

It's helpful if chains are titled: Tournament Round # --- Team Code [AFF] v Team Code [NEG]

2024-25 IP Rights: I have next to no topic knowledge ---err on the side of over explanation, I have judged few rounds on this topic.

TLDR: Debate is a game and is played to win. Tech outweighs truth. Judge instruction rules all and should be the first sentence of your 2NR or 2AR.

I debated at Lowell High School in San Francisco, and as a result almost all my thoughts are very similar to Debnil Sur's. During this time, I debated on the national circuit as well as our local circuit (which was much more lay). I now debate in college at Emory University.

Any confusion about my paradigm or how I judge can be resolved by reading Debnil Sur's, Jessie Satovsky's, or Taylor Tsan's, as all of my thoughts about debate are the shoplifted, trickle-downed version of theirs.

Conditionality is most probably good. I went for the K on the neg sometimes in high school and also read many off policy strategies - as a result, I am pretty much cool to judge many things (absent pomo-esque, niche Ks, and a KvK debate, in which I may be quite confused and not give the most thorough decision).
I think I am better for "bad" neg strategies than many. In this category, I think people would put things like process counterplan/competition debates, K tricks, word PICs, etc - I think that these debates can be fun and interesting.
Getting called judge icks me out — Eloise is fine!
I really dislike debaters being condescending in round — I don’t think it makes you seem smarter, and it makes the round unbearable to debate in and judge. That being said, I understand that it’s a competitive activity and emotions can run high, but for everyone’s sake, please be respectful. What you take away from debate will not be crushing freshman with 10 off, but your teammate ditching you at NSDA for a week to go home early, or your friends getting roasted in an RFD and laughing about it for months after.

GGSA/Lay

I am totally down for a fast circuit style round, BUT if both teams do not want a fast round that's totally fine — lay debate is a good skill to cultivate and learn. I think judge adaptation and learning to read panels is good, so adapt however YOU think is best. I will most likely decide the debate on a technical level, because I don't think there's any more objective way for myself to evaluate a round with the background I have. At the end of the day, it is an activity in convincing a judge (or winning the panel), and this is the best way that I think you can get my ballot.

Miscellaneous

Read anything you want. If an argument is truly bad, do not instruct me to reject it, but instead just beat it. I do not understand judges who will claim to be tech over truth and then have predispositions against arguments that inform their decision.

I flow on computer. That being said, I am not the fastest typer, and have found that speeding through theory blocks, or having no distinction between pages will not be in your favor.

Clipping allegations must be recorded.

An evidence ethics issue becomes an issue if you have contacted the team and they have ignored your correction. Else, I will probably not be swayed by your challenge.

LD: I have learned I am not good for tricks, philosophy or theory. I did policy in high school, now do policy in college, and have only judged a couple rounds of this event.

Ike Song Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 17, 2024 at 12:41 PM EST

Emory ST (reluctantly)

Qualifications:

2024 The Ziggy Online Hosted by Wayne State Semi-finalist

Please add:

ikelovesdebate@gmail.com

debatebtbc@gmail.com

Debate is difficult. I'll do my best to respect the hard work of debaters and try my best to solely evaluate the arguments presented.

To be clear, I don't necessarily want to judge wipeout. In fact, I'd rather not. However, I think it's unfair to arbitrarily exclude arguments based on vibes; warming good, planless affirmatives, and the topic DA all hold equal argumentative weight. 'Truer' arguments are easier to win, not because I'll lower the bar for them, but because they'll often be supported by stronger and less easily-refutable justifications (which you still need to make).

The exception to this is arguments that make the round unsafe. You should be nice; debate is meant to be fun. At the end of the day, it's night. There is nothing serious enough to warrant unprompted meanness.

I like theory debates. 'Condo bad' is simultaneously untrue and underutilized.

Defaults overcome by saying anything about it in round:

Inserting re-highlightings is fine.

Yes judge kick.

Presumption goes in the direction that makes sense. If no aff offense, vote neg. If no deficit, an intact aff advantage, but no neg offense, vote aff.

Things:

Call me Ike, not judge, please.

IP knowledge is low-to-serviceable. I've cut a few affs and Process CPs, but don't have anything beyond basic understanding of rudimentary legal concepts.

Teams must identify arguments as new. The exception to this is the 2AR, as there is no 3NR.

The warrants of dropped arguments don't need to be re-explained.

I probably won't read much evidence. It's up to the debaters to explain and spin their evidence; absent thorough evidence comparison that requires me to read cards, my interpretation of evidence quality shouldn't matter.

I am wrong sometimes. Please talk to me and ask questions if you disagree. I'll admit I'm wrong if you're right.

Have fun!

Casey Stevens Waring School 3 rounds

Preston Stolte Winston Churchill HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 25, 2024 at 5:07 AM CST

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

email: s.stolte33@gmail.com

**prep time stops when the email is sent, stop stealing prep**

Updates 24-25 (more recent towards top)

-I did not spend my summer looking at IPR evidence or cases coming out of camp. Like zero. Do not assume based on past knowledge that I know what the acronyms you are using or what your plan does. You should be explaining things as you would to any other judge who did not work a summer camp/does not know the topic well

-maybe this is really "get off my lawn" of me, but the correlation between teams who under-highlight evidence and who are incomprehensibly unclear is becoming increasingly frustrating to me. It won't necessarily lose you the debate, but surely these practices don't help anyone

-LD living wage: See above ^ It feels like almost every "give a living wage to XYZ worker" aff has some 'creatively' highlighted ev that more often than not indicates a lack of competitive wages, but not lack of living wages

_________________________________________________________________

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do best and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates: No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. See above statement about highlighting, but it's hard to buy an argument when the card read supporting it consists of like 3 disparately highlighted sentences and no warrants read. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate. Things you can do to fix this: pen time on theory args, numbering responses, not making a bunch of blippy analytical arguments back-to-back-to-back.

-Inserting evidence/CP text/perms: you have to say the words for me to consider it an argument

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates. I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that K debate has stagnated to the point where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

FOR LD PREFS (may be useful-ish for policy folks)

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters.

3) I'll be honest, if you're going to read 10 blippy theory args/spikes, I'm already having a bad time

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) If you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you (read phil tricks/justifications to not answer neg offense). I'll try my best, but I often find myself struggling to find a reason why the aff/neg case has offense to vote on. I don't offhandedly know what words like 'permissiblity' or 'skep' mean and honestly everytime someone describes them to me they sound like nonsense and no one can actually articulate why they result in any sort of offense for the team reading them

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can *seriously* be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range 28.4-28.5 average; 28.6-28.7 should have a chance to clear; 28.8-28.9 pretty good but some strategic blunders; 29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

Andy Stowers Forest Berkeley Carroll School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 17, 2024 at 3:35 PM EST

anthony "andy" stowers forest (he/any)

I do anti-trafficking research and judge debate.

Emory-specific: I usually judge PF. Spreading is fine, tricks are fine. I vote on flow unless arguments are rooted explicitly in bigotry. Bigotry isn't an argument, so I don't consider it one. Feel free to check w/ me before round with specific questions.

General

Please don't be a jerk to your opponents.
My yarmulke and pale skin are not an excuse to make negative comments about Arabs, immigrants, Muslims, OR ANYONE ELSE. These comments are disturbing, insulting to those I love, and tremendously distracting from legitimate rational arguments.
I want to be on the email chain, please ask for my email in round.
Mostly tech judge, but tbh more of my policy expertise is in direct policy advocacy and consulting work, so I probably care a little more about face validity than your average tech judge. I also like K for this reason.
Stand to speak or sit to speak, I truly don't care: I'm here to listen to a good debate and I'd prefer y'all debate in the way that's most comfortable for you
If you think I'm not flowing during cross, you're correct

Technical preferences

I don't love extinction impacts, though I understand that they're often warranted. HOWEVER, please be aware that if both of you choose extinction as your main impact, absent other clear voters, if you tell me both sides have extinction impacts then I'll probably vote for the extinction scenario that takes everyone out more quickly or with less suffering. You've been warned.
I'm fine with speed as long as you're fine with speed: sometimes students simply are not at the level of skill to be spreading as quickly as they are and I strongly encourage you to respect your own skill level in making this assessment.
On that note, don't spread unless you're going to share your case doc.
SIGNPOST. if you are doing your case with speed, please slow down for just your contention labels so I can tell very clearly when you are moving between points and whether I have missed something.
Winning rounds isn't just about having smart arguments, but about being able to explain them in a convincing manner to somebody (the judge) who has had less time than you have with the source material (your case). There's a great quote from BJ Novak about making television that imo applies to debate, I'm paraphrasing tho bc I can't find the original: "you can't just say that the problem was your audience because they were too stupid to understand your script. That's your audience, that's who this is for, if they didn't get it then you didn't write it well enough."
My goal is to be able to cleanly vote off of flow in rounds: you can make this easier for me by presenting your arguments in the same order or as close to it each time. You can also make this easier for me clearly signposting.
For some reason, it's not en vogue to clearly define terms in the resolution, specify framework, or specify a weighing mechanism...if you do these things, you have a better chance at winning my vote

Spencer Swickle American Heritage Broward HS 2 rounds

Jim Sydnor The Altamont School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 7:43 PM UTC

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org

Former policy debater in HS and College (2012). I judge a lot of LD and PF because of my local area, but primarily influenced by this policy background. I'm familiar with plans, CP's, K's, planless Affs, T, theory, but I'm less familiar with more well known arguments in LD like high phil debates. I am open to most arguments, but unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD.

Speed is usually fine at 7/10 but need to be clear. Debate is a communication-based activity and my hearing is not as great as it was a decade ago. Sending speech docs is not a substitute. I will say clear twice and reserve the right to not flow arguments I can't understand even if they are in the doc.

===LD Notes===

-CP: I default sufficiency framing and will judge kick unless told otherwise. Would rather hear args about solvency deficit, perm, and issues with NB than rely on theory to answer.

-K: Most of my debate career and graduate work was spent in this literature base, but you shouldn't assume I know your specific lit or that I am willing to fill in explanatory gaps when making a decision. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links, even if your actual link evidence is making more sweeping claims. I'm interested in what the alternative resolves and what it means for my in-round decision-making if you win framework.

-K Affs: Generally believe the Aff has to advance some testable method beyond "res is bad, reject the res." More interested 1ACs whose engagement with the res already features nuanced, built-in answers to common neg args as opposed to overly relying on generic preempts.

- T vs K Affs-- Much more persuaded by clash, skills, topic education, and trickier offensive reasons for why the model is good than fairness. I generally believe most standards on T are internal links that the Aff is probably impact turning. Best 2NRs on T will still neutralize case and any theory of power arguments that help with the disads to T/exclusion.

-Theory : Not my favorite debate but I know it can be important/strategic. Go a little slower on this if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I don't care for disclosure and wiki procedurals unless Aff won’t disclose the aff when asked before round. As for friv theory, I have never voted on it, and it usually results in low speaks, so proceed with caution.

-Phil : You should assume I know 0 of the things necessary for you to win this debate and that you have to do additional groundwork/translation to make this a viable option. I've only seen a few phil debates and my common issue as a judge is that I need a clear articulation of what the offensive reason for the ballot is or clear link to presumption and thus direction and meaning of presumption. I don't mind saying "I didn't get it, so I didn't vote on it" even if subpoints are dropped

Ahsan Tahirkheli Hire 1 rounds

Patrick Tapia Coppell High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri August 30, 2024 at 2:51 AM PST

Debate experience:

I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a policy debater for USC (NDT). Was away from debate for about 15 years, but the over last 5 years, I've been frequently judging PF and LD rounds (with several TOC-bid tournaments the last couple of years for LD). Haven't judged too many CX rounds recently, but am comfortable with both trad and kritik argumentation. I'm a bit of a dinosaur in this activity, and I do prioritize evaluating the quality of your evidence over just relying on blippy arguments from your doc, and I usually rely on evidence quality as a crucial tie breaker if you don't provide good judge instruction that aligns with my logical thought processes.

Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com

Preferences (LD):

Policy / LARP: 1

K Args: 2

Phil: 3

Tricks: strike

More details:

Policy / LARP:

I am most familiar with these positions. Run what you want on Aff and Neg.

Kritiks:

I am reasonably familiar with most generics (setcol, cap, afropess) and a few postmodernist positions, but it might be safe to assume that I may not be as familiar with the literature base as you might be.

K Affs:

I have tended to vote close to 50/50 for and against K affs, so I tend to be fairly open-minded about these positions, but I am more persuaded when you can articulate a clear and compelling reason as to why you need my ballot. However, I also enjoy a good framework debate that's clearly contextualized for the aff (and the round) rather than something mechanically just read from premade blocks.

Phil / Tricks:

I am less familiar with phil arguments other than more mainstream positions like Kant. I shouldn't be your preference for these rounds. Save tricks for Halloween.

Speaker Points:

I tend to be reasonably generous and won't give anything below a 28.5 in a bid tournament. If I think you're strong enough to break, I won't give you less than a 29.5. I won't disclose speaker points, however.

Nigel Taylor-Ward Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:21 AM CST

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

Chris Theis Marlborough School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 8:50 AM PST

Affiliation: Marlborough (CA), Apple Valley (MN)

Past: Peninsula (CA), Lexington (MA)

Email: ctheis09@gmail.com — but I prefer to use speechdrop.net

Big Picture

I like substantive and engaging debates focused on the topic's core controversies. While I greatly appreciate creative strategy, I prefer deeply warranted arguments backed by solid evidence to absurd arguments made for purely tactical reasons.

I find the tech or truth construction to be reductive — both matter. I will try to evaluate claims through a more-or-less Bayesian lens. This means my knowledge of the world establishes a baseline for the plausibility of claims, and those priors are updated by the arguments made in a debate. This doesn’t mean I’ll intervene based on my preexisting beliefs; instead, it will take much more to win that 2+2=5 than to prove that grass is green.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" — Carl Sagan

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" — Christopher Hitchens

Default Paradigm

I default to viewing resolutions as normative statements that divide ground, but I’m open to arguments in favor of alternative paradigms. In general, I believe the affirmative should defend a topical policy action that's a shift from the status quo. The negative burden is generally to defend the desirability of the status quo or competitive advocacy.

Affirmatives should advocate a clearly delineated plan or advocacy, which can be the resolution itself. The aff's advocacy text is the basis for negative competition and links, and as such, it must contain any information the aff feels is relevant to those discussions. Affs cannot refuse to specify or answer questions regarding elements of their advocacy and then later make permutations or no-link arguments that depend on those elements. "Normal means" claims can be an exception but require evidence that the feature in question is assumed. Proof that some possible version of the aff could include such a feature is insufficient. Refusal to answer direct questions about a particular element of the advocacy will likely take "normal means" claims off the table.

I prefer policy/stock arguments, but I’m certainly open to critical or philosophical positions and vote for them often.

If you refer to your arguments as “tricks,” it’s a good sign that I’m not the best judge for you. Debaters should, whenever possible, advance the best arguments at their disposal. Calling your argument a "trick" implies its value lies in surprise or deception, not quality.

Note: an odd topic construction could alter these priors, but I'll do my best to make that known here if that's the case.

Topicality

Generally, affirmatives should be topical. I have and will vote for non-topical positions, but the burden is on the aff to justify why the topicality constraint shouldn't apply to them.

Topicality is a question of whether the features of the plan/advocacy itself being a good idea proves the resolution. This means I will look unfavorably on a position that is effects topical, extra-topical, or related to the topic but doesn't in and of itself prove the resolution.

In topicality debates, both semantics and pragmatic justifications are essential. However, interpretations must be "semantically eligible" before I evaluate pragmatic advantages. Pragmatic advantages are relevant in deciding between plausible interpretations of the words in the resolution; pragmatics can't make those words mean something they don't. I will err aff if topicality is a close call.

Theory Defaults

Affs nearly always must disclose 30 min before start time, and both debaters should disclose which AC they will read before elim flips.

Affirmatives should usually be topical.

Plans are good, but they need to be consistent with the wording of the topic.

Extra T is probably bad

Severance is bad

Intrinsicness is usually bad, but I'm open to intrinsic perms in response to process cps

Conditionality is OK

PICs are OK

Alt agent fiat is probably bad

Competing interpretations>reasonability, usually

Probably no RVIs

Almost certainly no RVIs on Topicality

I don't like arguments that place artificial constraints on paradigm issues based on the speech in which they are presented.

No inserting evidence. Re-highlights should be read aloud.

Kritiks

I am open to Ks and vote on them frequently. That said, I’m not intimately familiar with every critical literature base. So, clear explanation, framing, and argument interaction are essential. Likewise, the more material your impacts and alternative are, the better. Again, the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof. It will take more to convince me of the strongest claims of psychoanalysis than that capitalism results in exploitation.

Establishing clear links that generate offense is necessary. Too often, Ks try to turn fundamentally defensive claims into offense via jargon and obfuscation. A claim that the aff can’t or doesn't solve some impact is not necessarily a claim the aff is a bad idea.

It's essential that I understand the alternative and how it resolves the harms of the Kritik. I won't vote for an advocacy that I can't confidently articulate.

Arguments I will not vote for

An argument that has no normative implications, except in situations where the debater develops and wins an argument that changes my default assumptions.

Skep.

A strategy that purposely attempts to wash the debate to trigger permissibility/presumption.

A contingent framework/advocacy that is "triggered" in a later speech.

Any argument that asks me to evaluate the debate after a speech that isn't the 2AR.

Arguments/Practices I will immediately drop you for

Mis-disclosing/disclosure games. I believe a few emerging practices cross the line into mis-disclosure and intentional deception, they will result in a loss:

Hiding/adding theory arguments or tricks to the AC without including them in the doc that's disclosed pre-round and/or the doc sent out in the debate. This is intentional deception.
Disclosing AC cards that you don't intend to read. It's intentional deception that sucks up prep time and skews NC strategy. It's understandable if it's a card or two, but I routinely see debaters disclosing 10+ cards they don't read.

Clipping. (There is an emerging practice of including long descriptive tags in the docs sent out during debates but only reading truncated versions. I consider this clipping adjacent. By sending analytics, you're representing that they were read in the round.)

Any argument that concludes that every action is permissible.

Any argument that creates a hostile environment for either myself, the other debater, or anyone watching the debate.

Any argument that explicitly argues that something we all agree is awful (genocide, rape, etc.) is a good thing. This must be an argument THAT THE DEBATER AGREES implies horrible things are ok. If the other debater wins an argument that your framework justifies something terrible, but it is contested, then it may count as a reason not to accept your framework, but it will not be a reason to drop you on its own.

Public Forum

I only judge PF a few times a year, mostly at camp. Arguments are arguments regardless of the format, so most of my typical paradigm applies. The big caveat is that I strongly prefer teams read actual cards instead of paraphrasing evidence. I understand that there are differences of opinion, so I won't discount paraphrasing entirely, but I'll have a lower bar for indicts. Also, I'm not reading ten full articles at the end of the debate, so I'd appreciate it if you could prepare the paraphrased portions in advance.

Tyler Thur The Harker School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 4:44 AM EST

*Updated November 2023*

CONTACT INFORMATION

Email: thurt11@gmail.com

LD NOTE

I've been in debate for fifteen years as a competitor, judge, and coach. In that time, I've almost exclusively done policy debate (I think I've judged <10 LD rounds ever). That's to say, judging LD at the Glenbrooks will be a bit different for me.

I don't think you'll need to dramatically adjust how you debate. In fact, I'd prefer to judge you in your best style/approach/form. Relatedly, I don't think I'm particularly ideological, and I'm like not a bus driver or parent who has been dropped into the judge pool. That said, be aware of my still-developing topic knowledge, norms of LD, and theory. I will do my best to resolve the debate before me. That said, folks should know that I'll likely have many idiosyncracies of someone who has basically always been in policy debate.

PF NOTE

Much of what is said about LD is true here too. Some thoughts on evidence that I stole from Greg Achten:

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION

I debated for four years at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Go Packers/Brewers/Bucks! In college, I debated for four years at Michigan State University, earning three first-round bids and a semifinals appearance at the NDT.

Currently, I work on the non-debate side of Michigan State, doing education data analysis, program evaluation, and professional development. On the side, I coach for Georgetown University. I still love debate, but it is no longer my day job. Given that, I'm not a content expert on this topic like some of your other judges might be.

More generally, any given debate can get in-depth quickly, so you should be careful with acronyms/intricacies if you think that your strategy is really innovative or requires a deep understanding of your specific mechanism. Teams sometimes get so deep in the weeds researching their business that they forget to provide a basic explanation for the argument's context/history/background. Instead, they jump into the most advanced part of the topic. If something is creative, that's an issue because it's likely the judge's first time hearing it.

Everyone says it and almost no one means it, but I think that you should debate what you care about/what interests you/what you're good at doing. In other words, put me in the "big-tent" camp. All of the stuff below is too long and shouldn't impact your debating (maybe besides the meta issues section). It really is just my thoughts (vs. a standard), and is only included to offer insight into how I see debate.

META ISSUES/ABBREVIATED PHILOSOPHY/STRIKE CARD ESSENTIAL

1. Assuming equal debating (HUGE assumption), I'm *really* bad for the K on the neg/as planless aff. I find myself constantly struggling with questions in decision-time like: Does the neg ACTUALLY have a link to the plan's MECHANISM or even their SPECIFIC representations? What is the alternative? How does that advocacy change the extremely sweeping and entrenched problems identified in the 1NC/2NC impact evidence? If it's so effective, why doesn't it overcome the links to the plan? If the alt is just about scholarship/ethics/some -ology, how does that compare to material suffering outlined by the 1AC? This year, some of these biases are accentuated by the "disarm" and negative state action planks of the topic. On the affirmative, I think there are many creative ways to critically defend the idea of ending nuclear weapons (especially by the "United States" rather than the "United States federal government"). On the negative, I have hitherto been unimpressed with the Ks of "disarm" (like the ACTUAL "We end the nukes and dismantle them because they risk horrific US first use/nukes are bad" disarm) I've seen.

In the end, when I vote negative for Ks or affirmative for planless affs, it's generally because the losing team dropped a techy ballot like ethics first, serial policy failure, or "we're a PIK." Do you, don't overadapt, and feel confident that I approach every debate with the intention of deciding the question of "who did the better debating?" REGARDLESS of the subject of the debate. Relatedly, know that I'm excited to have the chance to evaluate your arguments (even if it's really late and I'd rather not be judging at all in the abstract) basically no matter what you say. Instead, I would take my above biases as things to keep an eye out for from your opponents/come up with novel responses to/overcover/etc.

2. College debate made me more oriented to tech than truth. In my experience as a debater and judge, ignorance of tech resulted in a callous dismissal of arguments as “bad” and increased judge intervention to determine what is “correct” instead of what was debated in the round and executed more effectively. That said, truth is a huge bonus, and being on the right side makes your task of being technically proficient easier because you can let logic/evidence speak a little for you.

3. I care about evidence quality - to an extent. Debate is a communicative activity, and I'm not going to re-read broad swaths of evidence to ensure that your opponents read a card on all their claims. To be clear, I do think that part of my role in judging is comparing evidence *when it's contested and through the lens with which it was challenged.* Put concretely, if your 2NR says "all their evidence is trash and doesn't say anything" or is silent on evidence comparison, I'm not gonna be doing you any favors and looking at the speech doc. I'm certainly not going to be reading un-underlined text in 1AC/1NC cards without explicit direction of what I'm looking for. Instead, if you're like "Their no prolif cards are all before Kishida and only talk about means vs. motive," I'm happy to read a pile of cards, looking to assess their quality on those two grounds. If that sounds time-consuming for your final rebuttals, it is. You should create time by condensing the debate down to the core issues/places of evidentiary disagreement.

4. Every round could use more calculus and comparisons. The most obvious example of this thesis is with impact calc, but I think there is a laundry list of other examples like considering relative risk, quality of evidence, and author qualifications. As a format, any of these comparisons should have a reason why your argument is preferable, a reason why that frame is important, and a reason why your opponent’s argument is poor/viewed through a poor lens. In the context of impact calc, this framework means saying that your impact outweighs on timeframe, that timeframe is important, and that while your opponent’s impact might have a large magnitude, I should ignore that frame of decision-making. Engaging your opponents’ arguments on a deeper level and resolving debates is the easiest way to get good points. Beyond that, making a decision is functionally comparing each team’s stance/evidence quality/technical ability on a few nexus questions, so if you’re doing this work for me you will probably like my decision a lot more.

5. I hold debaters to a high standard for making an argument. Any claim should be supported with a warrant, evidence, and impact on my decision. Use early speeches to get ahead on important questions. For instance, I won’t dismiss something like “Perm do Both,” but I think the argument would be bolstered by a reason why the perm is preferable in the 2AC (i.e. how it interacts with the net benefits) instead of saving those arguments for the 1AR/2AR. By the way, you should consider this point my way out in post-rounds where you're like "but I said X...It was right here!" For me, if something is important enough to win/lose a debate, you should spend a significant amount of time there, connect, and make sure your claim is *completely* and *thoughtfully* warranted.

6. All debates have technical mistakes, but not all technical mistakes are equal or irreversible. Given those assumptions, the best rebuttals recognize flaws and make “even if” statements/explain why losing an argument does not mean they lose the debate. I think debaters fold too often on mistakes. Just because you dropped a theory argument doesn’t mean you cannot cross-apply an argument from another theory argument, politics, or T to win.

7. I'm a bad judge for yes/no arguments like "presumption," "links to the net benefit absolutely," or "zero risk of X." I think the best debaters work in the grey areas.

8. Things people don't do enough:

a) Start with the title for their 1NC off case positions (i.e. first off states)

b) Give links labels (i.e. our "docket crowdout link" or "our bipart link")

c) Explain what their plan actually does - For instance (in college), what nuclear forces do you disarm? Who does it? What is the mechanism? I've decided that if the aff is vague to an egregious extent, I'll be super easy on the negative with DA links and CP competition. Aff vagueness is also a link to circumvention and explains why fiat doesn't solve definitional non-compliance. I will say, I'd rather lacking aff clarity (e.g. when aff's include resolutional language in their plan and say "plan text in a vacuum") be resolved by PICs/topic DAs than by T. I don't think that the negative gets to fully define the plan or have some weird positional competition vision for T even if I think 2As frequently dance around what they do. Punish affs for ambiguity and lazy plan writing for the purposes of T on substance!

d) Call out new arguments - I don't have sympathy if you *wish* you said no impact in the 2AC. There are times that I wish it existed, but there isn't and can't be a 3AC. I will say that for mostly pragmatic reasons, I'm not to the point of reviewing every new 1AR argument. I'll protect the 2NR for the 2AR, but you have to do the work before that.

9. Random (likely to change) topic thoughts:

a) Both sides are likely to get to some risk of Russia and/or China nuke war. The best 2Ns/2As will dehomogenize these impacts based on scenarios for escalation and their internal links.

b) Be careful your UQ CP doesn't overwhelm the link to your DA. Sometimes the neg goes a bit too far. I do love a good UQ CP though!

c) This is a rare topic where I'm less interested in process stuff! Who would've thought?

d) Debated equally, I'm 60/40 that we should include NFU subsets and "disarm" actions that fall short of "elimination/abolition." I get the evidence is good. I'd just abstractly rather have these arguments as affs than PICs/would prefer a bit more than the smallest topic since single payer.

GENERIC DISPOSITIONS

Planless affirmatives – The affirmative would ideally have a plan that defends action by the United States (least important). The affirmative should have a direct tie to the topic. In the context of the college resolution, this means you would have a defense of decreasing nukes/their role (pretty important). The affirmative MUST defend the implementation of said "plan" - whatever it is (MOST important). While I will NOT immediately vote negative on T or “Framework” as a procedural issue, if you don’t defend instrumental implementation of a topical plan *rooted in the resolutional question*, you will be in a tough spot. I’m especially good for T/Framework if the affirmative dodges case turns and debates over the question if nukes are good or bad. In particular, I am persuaded by arguments about why these affirmatives are unpredictable, under-limit the topic, and create a bad heuristic for problem-solving. Short version is that you can do you and there is always a chance I’ll vote for you, but I’m probably not an ordinal one for teams that don’t want to engage the resolutional question.

I do want to say that at tournaments with relaxed prefs, I will do my absolute best to keep an open mind about these assumptions. That shouldn't be read as "Thur says he's open to our planless aff - let's move him up to push down 'policy' people." It should be read as if I come up at one of these tournaments, you might as well do what you're most comfortable with/what you've practiced the most instead of over-adapting.

Critiques—Honestly, just read the first point in the "meta issues" section. I understand neolib/deterrence/security pretty well because they were a big part of my major. If you want to push against my confusion on the K (as a concept), you need to have specific links to the plan’s actions, authors, or representations. Again, trying to be honest, if you're itching to say Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, death good, etc., I'm not your guy. On framework, the affirmative will almost surely be able to weigh their 1AC (unless they totally airball), and I'm pretty hesitant to place reps/scholarship/epistemology before material reality. One other thing - substitute out buzzwords and tags for explanation. Merely saying "libidinal economy" or "structural antagonism" without some evidence and explanation isn't a win condition.

In terms of being affirmative against these arguments, I think that too often teams lose sight of the easy ballots and/or tricks. The 1AR and 2AR need to “un-checklist” those arguments. In terms of disproving the critique, I think I’m pretty good for alternative fails/case outweighs or the permutation with a defense of pragmatism or reformism. Of those 2 - I'm best for "your alt does nothing...we have an aff..."

Case- I’m a huge fan. With that, I think that it’s very helpful for the neg (obviously?). I believe that no matter what argument you plan to go for, (excluding T/theory) case should be in some part of the 2nr. In the context of the critique, you can use case arguments to prove that the threats of the 1AC are flawed or constructed, that there are alternative causes to the affirmative that only the alternative solves, or that the impacts of the affirmative are miniscule and the K outweighs. For CPs, even if you lose a solvency deficit, you can still win because the net benefit outweighs the defended affirmative. Going for case defense to the advantage that you think the CP solves the least forces me to drop you twice as I have to decide the CP doesn’t solve AND that the case impact outweighs your net-benefit. That seems like a pretty good spot to be in.

CP- My favorite ones are specific to the 1AC with case turns as net benefits. Aside from that, I think that I am more inclined than most to vote aff on the perm when there is a trivial/mitigated net benefit vs. a smallish solvency deficit, but in the end I would hope you would tell me what to value first. I had a big section written up on theory, and I decided it's too round-dependent to list out. I still think that more than 2 conditional positions is SUPER risky, functional > textual competition, competition is dictated by mandates and not outcomes (i.e. CPs that are designed to spur follow-on are very strategic), judge kick is good, consult/condition/delay/threaten generally suck, and interpretations matter A LOT.

Topicality- People have started flagging violations based on things not in the plan (solvency lines, advocate considerations, aff tags, 2ac arguments, etc.). This is a bad way to understand T debates. The affirmative defines the plan, positional competition is bad, plan text in a vacuum makes sense, and the way to beat teams that include resolutional language in the plan is on PICs not T.

I default to reasonability, but I can be convinced that Competing Interpretations is a decent model. The negative does not need actual abuse, but they do need to win why their potential abuse is likely as opposed to just theoretical. That is, I'll be less persuaded by a 25-item case list than a really good explanation of a few devastating new affirmatives they allow. If I were to pick only one standard to go for, it would be predictable limits. They shape all pre-round research that guides in-round clash and ensure that debates are dialogues instead of monologues. Finally, as a framing point, I generally think bigger topics = better.

SPEAKER POINTS

They're totally broken...

I'll try to follow the below scale based on where points have been somewhat recently.

29.4 to 29.7 – Speaker Award - 1 to 10

29.2 to 29.3 – Speaker Award - 11 to 25

28.9 to 29.1 – Should break/Have a chance

28.4 to 28.8 – Outside chance at breaking to .500

28 to 28.3 – Not breaking, sub-.500

27 to 27.9 – Keep working

Below 26 – Something said/done warranting a post-round conversation with coaches

Elizabeth Thurow Auburn 6 rounds

Aaron Timmons Greenhill School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri August 16, 2024 at 12:00 AM CST

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team - Coach World Champions 2023

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – January 2025

Please put me on the email chain –timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge) I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom, which is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events.) I am still actively coaching and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 –Debate is a communication activity– I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.”

Speech > speech doc.

2 –Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency”– aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 –Evidence is important- In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 –Online Debating– We have had several years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire for it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 –Disclosure is good (on balance)– I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 –Zero risk is a possibility– There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 –My role as a judge- I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 –Debate the case– It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 –Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier– While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 –Cross-examination matters– Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 -Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging)- You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move. Counterplans that have multiple planks are fine but solvency cards for those planks to the level you might expect an affirmative to have solvency cards/explanations seems fair to me.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

I am unlikely to vote on “decide the debate after X speech” arguments.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve?

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

Cindi Timmons Greenhill School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 10:26 AM CST

I have been involved with debate as a participant, judge, school coach, national team coach, and UDL Executive Director. I have coached multiple state and national championships in the following events: Congress, LD, Policy, and World Schools Debate; Extemporaneous and Impromptu Speaking; and Prose/Poetry/Program of Oral Interpretation. I coached the 2023 WSDC World Champions as well.

I believe that speech and debate provides transformative life skills and that my role in the round is adjudicator/educator.

All speeches should be communicative in delivery, persuasive in style, and adhere to ethical standards in every aspect. Respect should be displayed to all involved, at all times.

In a competitive space, your role as a speaker/performer is to persuade me that your arguments/reasoning/evidence/performance is more compelling than the other competitors in the round. I will endeavor to base my decision on what happens IN the round and what I write on my flow, but I don't leave my brain at the door. Act accordingly.

I currently judge more WS rounds than anything else. WSDC/NSDA/TSDA norms should be adhered to. Speaking should be conversational as regards speed/style. Refutation may be line-by-line or utilize grouping, but you need to be clear where you are on the flow. Weighing is key. Stick to the heart of the motion and avoid the extremes. Unless the motion is US-specific you should provide international examples. Make it clear what your side of the debate looks like: what does the world of the Prop look like? the Opp? Framing/definitions/models should be fair and in the middle of the motion. Stakeholders should be clear; put a face on the motion.

A good debate round is a thing of beauty; respect your craft, the event, and your fellow competitors.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

While I have had students succeed at all levels of Lincoln-Douglas Debate, including national and state championships, I have spent the past twelve years focused on developing WS Debate.

In reviewing several apparently common and contemporary LD practices, I will share the following preferences:

I wil be flowing on paper and will not be looking at speech docs or materials shared via email chains. If I don’t hear you or understand you I cannot flow that material and it won’t be considered in my decision.
I believe that all debate events are communication events and that persuasive delivery, which includes eye contact, vocal variation, and a speed that allows the judge to process material AS IT’S BEING DELIVERED, NOT READ AFTERWARDS, are essential.
I will probably not look at any cards after the round unless there is reason to suspect that something is being misused or that the evidence has been challenged, in which case I would most likely stop the round and make a decision at that point.
I believe in decorum in the round and will give lower points for boorish behavior. Penalites may be severe. Similarly, arguments that are based on marginalizing others will get no traction with me and will be penalized.
I prefer to hear rounds about the resolution. I don’t want to hear arguments about debate theory unless there is some unique reason for doing so. I don’t know what that reason would be.
I prefer debaters to engage with the material the other team has brought to the table. I expect negatives to adapt to the affirmative case UNLESS the affirmative has done something so far outside the bounds of what could be anticipated through thoroughly researching the topic area that the negative has no other option than to punt. I anticipate those occurrences to be rare.
I believe that morality exists. Claiming it doesn’t in a two minute argument won’t change my mind.
Critical arguments would need to be tailored to the resolution/round in order to be given full consideration.
Dropped arguments do not necessarily result in a loss unless there is an explanation as to why they matter. Prioritizing and comparing arguments is good strategy in any debate format. Make good choices - in life and in argument selection.
Debate offers participants transformative life skills and is the most beneficial academic activitivy I know of other than reading. I’m in this round because I believe in its importance.

Adam Torson Marlborough School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 6:48 AM PST

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

Long Tran Dunwoody High 3 rounds None

Parker Traxler The Kinkaid School 3 rounds

Logan Viera Hire 4 rounds

Kristopher Wallen Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 7, 2024 at 4:12 PM EST

Emory Debate. wallenkrisedu@gmail.com

Hey debate person, it's Kris [he/him]. My sparknote thoughts are below. If you have questions or want a longer version feel free to reach out. Good luck, have fun, and I hope you're having a great day [and/or a great tournament]!

General. I liked the K as a debater but also went for policy arguments. That's irrelevant though, as I will vote on nearly any position if executed well, regardless of my personal opinion. Limit time-wasting, I'm a feedback chatterbox. I enjoy seeing debaters express their personalities in round, whether humor or intensity. Kindness is cool. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. Don't clip. Don't cheat. I don't evaluate out-of-round occurrences. Give me a music rec!

K (on the Aff). Have an explicit defense of what is being endorsed and ideally take a stance on the resolution. Be clear and consistent about how your method/performance is solvent. Presumption is a thing, don't blow it off. Framework debates are always better with contextualization over generic blocks. If Negative, always consider the viability of non-T positions before the 2NR. It's frustrating to vote down a team massively ahead on another position because they chose to go for T. For KvK debates, the Negative should establish what aspect of the 1AC is mutually exclusive with the K, and the harms to that aspect. I am highly receptive to rejecting the perm and PIKs. Pointing out Affirmative shiftiness or academic inconsistency raises my receptiveness.

K (on the Neg). Specificity is key, either with evidence (ideally) or contextualization. I do not arbitrarily generate middle-ground framework interpretations. 2NRs should collapse around one or two of the K's tricks/win conditions. 1ARs/2ARs should impact turn or go for the perm, and leverage 1AC specificity. Performative contradictions as a reason to sever reps confuse me if the Negative agrees the debate is a referendum on the 1AC's desirability.

CP. Establish competition clearly for process CPs. Default to conditionality good. Tell me to judge kick (or if I shouldn't).

DA. Logical take-outs to more frivolous DAs are underutilized. More evidence indicts.

T. Limited topic knowledge. Default to competing interpretations.

For LD: Not the best for tricks. LD can suffer from block speedreading and blippy analytics. I prefer in-depth engagement.

Leigh Walters Little Rock Central 4 rounds

Bin Wang The Village High School 3 rounds

Lydia Wang ADL 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 7:41 AM CST

Email Chain: vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

Inquiries: lydiawang327@gmail.com - I do not check this one during tournaments, so please do not send email chains here.

Sammamish '23, University of Houston '25

Coaching: Kinkaid & Vanguard Debate

Top level:

Shortcut---Policy/Theory/K>Phil>Tricks

Callouts, Ad homs, screenshots = auto loss. I am not here to evaluate the character of the debaters in the round, just the arguments that are made. If there is an issue with safety in the round, you should contact your coach. This doesn't mean no disclosure theory, screenshots here are fine if you also forward the email chain to me/ link to wiki.

Explain the rehighlighting if it is important---debate is a communicative activity, if you say "insert rehighlighting" with no explanation of the evidence, it will not end up on my flow.

---There are only speech time, cx time, and prep time, there is no such thing as flow clarification time---this is either prep or CX.

Policy:

- Default judge kick unless it's contested.

- Condo is good, Dispo does not mean you can set whatever condition you want, it means the NEG can't kick it if the AFF has straight turned the net benefit.

- Love a good politics debate - better for spin on evidence here than most others.

Planless AFFs:

- Prefer AFFs that clearly defend and commits to a concrete action/advocacy out of the 1AC.

- It will be hard to convince me that framework is "psychological violence".

Ks:

- Should prove that the plan is a bad idea.

- Prefer Ks that are functionally DA+CP that turns and solves case, but am also fine for framework Ks when done well.

- Uninterested in listening to super long overviews that don't serve any strategic purpose.

LD:

- Strike me if you plan on spreading through 30 lines of analytics the same way you spread through a card, if you are unflowable I will just flow in my head. (People seem to be ignoring this recently, slow down on analytics or you will get 27 speaks.)

- "Debate is hard" is not a real warrant for theory. Default DTD, No RVIs, and Competing Interps on theory. I actually enjoy a good theory debate but the second it becomes affirming harder vs negating harder I will be sad.

- Evidence matters---I will not follow along during your speech but will look at evidence that is debated out in the round. Good research will be awarded with good speaker points.

- Been judging alot of phil rounds recently, I'm not good for these debates so err on the side of more judge instruction.

- Please chill on 2NR card spam, it is called a rebuttal for a reason. You get new cards to answer new 1AR arguments, and nothing more. There is no 2NC in LD.

- If your argument relies on your opponent dropping it for you to be able to win on it, then I probably will not like it - Clash is necessary for good debates. I do not vote on: Eval after 1AC/1NC, 30 Speaks theory, "I'm the GCB", No AFF/NEG analytics,

Tinghan Wang Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 6:00 AM EST

add me to the email chain: tcwang674523@gmail.com

pronouns: any

currently debate CX for Emory! did pretty much every event in HS, so if I'm judging you for anything that ain't LD, ask before round for paradigm. if there starts to be spreading in BQ I will be very sad

Novice Paradigm (MSDL)

whether y'all want an email chain is up to y'all; but if there is one, add me!

please don't run tech-y args on the novie topic; past that, if both opponents are fine with it and have explicitly agreed to a prog round, let me know and I'm fine with that

signpost, please! yes I want an offtime roadmap, yes I want card extensions, yes I want line-by-line. I want to know what your arg is responding to, and what arg that is - that means I expect numbered responses (if you have multiple), and should sound something like 'i have three responses against my opp's C3,' first, blah, second, blah, third, etc. and I want to hear 'moving on to the aff case' or 'addressing their first fw justification' so I know where you are.
I'll eval impacts through your FW if you win it, but that also means winning FW doesn't win you the round - you need to win that your biggest impact will happen under that FW as well. this means if you lose FW, you should still weigh your impacts under the winning FW.
weigh, weigh, weigh! winning a single argument, and then using that to weigh really well, can win you the round even if you drop everything else. now, I'm not suggesting you do that - please don't, but good weighing can save a bad case. but make sure you're not weighing in a vacuum - when you weigh, I need to know why/how you're more probable/have greater magnitude/are faster/etc., and what you're faster than. ex. for the CD topic, you can't just say 'CD outweighs because it's faster;' you need to 1) extend the warrants, i.e. CD is faster because it puts pressure on the government and 2) compare to something else, i.e. legal venues.
make sure you win the argument you're weighing! that means I need to hear a full argument w/ warrants and impact in the 2AR/2NR, you can't just give me a tagline of a card - explain what the card says.
interact with actual links!!! tell me HOW and WHY your opp's reasoning is flawed, don't just tell me it won't happen/you outweigh. of course, if you actually do outweigh, that's fine, but too often people miscalculate the strength of their offence. be careful!
arguments used in the 2AR/2NR MUST have been in the AR/NR - I will not vote on it otherwise. I have judged several rounds where excellent defence is brought up, but it's in the last speech, so I hafta ignore it, and you just wasted speech time. that also means if you forget to extend offence in the AR, you CANNOT weigh that argument in the 2AR. ***on that note, if your opp does it, call them!! that is sufficient defence in most cases.
ask questions in cross - oftentimes it turns into a 'debate' of sorts where you're just stating things at one-another. biggest pet peeve is not asking questions - or making statements, and then asking 'do you agree'. the aff cx is aff's to dictate, and vice versa for neg, so feel free to cut off your opp./point out they're not answering the question - that is YOUR TIME as the questioner. do it politely, but it really irks me when someone just goes on and on while not addressing the question.

NatCirc

Quick Prefs:

(love love love proper trad debate! pref me high for that)

1 - LARP, common Ks

1/2 - T (it can get messy sometimes. . .please don't make it messy)

2 - theory, idpol & pomo Ks, narrative, easy phil (Kant, Ripstein, Rawls)

4/5 - multiple offs where I'm not told which one should come first (or messy debates in general)

5 - dense phil (if you read dense phil and spread I WILL NOT be able to keep up)

will eval K-affs like any other case - FW/ROJ/ROB controls how it'll go

ONLINE DEBATE - if my camera is off, I am NOT READY. do NOT start w/o verbal or visual confirmation.

Defaults:

(soft preferences, easily changed in round)

1. Theory - yes RVIs; DTD for accessibility only; fairness doesn't exist; inclusion controls internal link to education, education is impact; disclosure probs bad; will be hard to convince me it's actively good against stock/generics/identity; 2+ condo questionable

2. Topicality is generally good

3. Flow - (magnitude + scope) x probability = weight, reversibility/timeframe are tiebreakers; won't judge-kick CPs; truth determines degree of techness

4. Misc. - flex prep okay; trigger warning good (actually this might be a hard default); CX is binding (also might be hard default)

The one hard-set rule I do have is that I WILL NOT vote off of stuff that doesn't happen in round/30 min before round. Which means it's not a good idea to run call-out affs. There is a .01% chance you can convince me otherwise, but if it's that egregious I'm probs gonna redirect you to tab and let them sort it out.

1. LARP is probably the most understandable to me if only because I ran it. Go for the CP, but too often the DA isn't actually a DA: make sure your opponent can't perm it, otherwise I will be very sad and you probably will be too. Perms are fine, but make sure you explain how it competes. Quick note on CPs: if you run multiple conditional CPs I will have a much lower threshold for responses. Consult CPs feel abusive, but I will buy them if opp. doesn't say anything. PICs probs bad; convince me otherwise and I'll buy it. Plan text not necessary so long as I know what your advocacy is. Spec is greatly appreciated when the resolution has words like 'substantially'.

2. Ks/K-affs were read on me a bunch, so I understand the basic premise. That said, I know very little topic literature on any of them. I do believe there should be some link to the resolution, but if it's not pointed out by either debater I will assume it's not necessary. If it's a shifty K-aff, use CX to pin it down; personally, I feel a flexible aff is a legitimate strategy and not worth intervention. Could be convinced otherwise.

3. Theory, please use only if there is abuse in the round. My threshold for responses to friv theory will be very very low.

4. Dense phil is very confusing for me. If you're reading something intuitive, like libertarianism, go for it I guess, but otherwise explain it very very slowly & clearly. I reserve the right to drop/kick anything I don't understand.

5. Tricks are fine if it's a chill round//your opponent is okay w/ it, but it's up to you to make sure. If your opp. reads theory on you for trix, I'm probs gonna buy the theory. I'm probs not gonna buy 'Aff dropped point b under u/v pt 7 haha gg vote Neg'. That said, if they go completely unresponded to I will be very very sad. Blanket responses are okay. Neither debater will get high speaks if the round is won off trix.

Miscellaneous:

1. Docs should be ready to go the moment it hits start time - the longer you make me wait, the lower the speaks drop. Starting round early >>> also my biggest pet peeve is unnecessarily long off-time roadmaps. it should be like five seconds; do the play-by-play in your speech and keep it to which flows I need in front of me

2. Overexplain! Assume I know nothing, 'cause I probs know nothing. Burden is on the debater; if I don't understand, I'm out. Same goes for spreading. Online formats don't give me a way to warn you, so err on the 'judge-is-dumb' side. NatCir, please send speech docs.

3. Crystallisation/weighing can only help you! The easier you make my decision, the higher your speaker points. I'm happy, you're happy, let's all be happy!

I'm always happy to discuss round after with y'all! If we're flighted and you're flight one, shoot me an email (time crunch, sorry), but otherwise I'm fine w/ (respectful) postrounding.

Good luck, you'll do great!

Jonathan Waters Lassiter High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 2:36 PM EST

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Relevant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm okay with almost any argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well-warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in-depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks who value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross-Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in the crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross-ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com

Ava Wegmann-Gatarz Immaculate Heart High School 6 rounds

Nathan Weimar Lake Highland Preparatory School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 20, 2024 at 1:11 PM EST

Hi my name's Nate,

I'd prefer if you just call me Nate, but "judge" is fine too.

Iowa City West '23

University of Iowa '26

My email is weimarnate@gmail.com

I did LD on the national circuit. I acquired 9 career bids to the TOC in LD, made Quarters of the TOC my junior year and Doubles my senior year. Any speed is fine.

I now do college policy debate at Iowa, I'm fine for any arguments, I will vote off of the flow.

If you are a novice read whatever arguments you want I will be able to evaluate them. Please make sure to extend arguments, and respond to important things.

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant and impact. I will vote for any style, the following is just a preference of what I'm most familiar with, I will not hack against you or hurt your speaks because of what style you debate. (The only args I won't evaluate/I will drop you for reading is saying something like racism good)

I enjoy creative and strategic positions. Speaks are based on strategy/technical skill.

I will evaluate arguments such as death good.

I will not vote on "evaluate the debate after X speech arguments" because they break the round and I don't think I could coherently explain how I evaluate the extension of an argument (e.g. "this arg was extended into the 2NR and dropped by the 1AR) in a speech that I did not evaluate (assuming I evaluate the round after the 1NC).

Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth

Prefs:

Tricks-1

Phil-1

Theory-1

Ks-2

LARP-3

LARP

I don't LARP very much but LARP is pretty straight forward so I'll be able to evaluate a LARP round. If you're going to have a dense larp debate there's probably better judges for you to pref, but just because I'm your judge doesn't mean you can't larp.

Tricks

Tricks can be good and bad. 100% tech>truth. I will listen to anything with a warrant. If you read a variation of condo logic please understand conditional logic. If you actively bamboozle (this does not mean overwhelm with blips) someone you will get high speaks. There is a difference between making tricky arguments in the sense of you fooling your opponent and just spamming arguments like "no neg analytics" in the underview. I'll vote for both, but the former will receive much higher speaks.

I read a decent amount of Ks in high school and only read Ks in college. I'm open to whatever type of critique you want to read. In high school I read some disability studies and existentialism-esque (e.g. Nietzsche and Camus) literature, in college I've read disability studies, setcol, trans studies, and psychoanalysis. This is not an excuse to under-explain if you are reading one of these lit bases. Please hint at a floating PIK in the 1NC.

I'm probably a much better judge for Ks then when I was in high school, feel free to pref me relatively highly if you're a K debater.

Theory

I will listen to all theory shells no matter how frivolous. I default to drop the argument on shells read on specific arguments and drop the debater on shells read on entire positions, no RVIs, and competing interps. To clarify, these are only my defaults if literally zero arguments are made, e.g. you read a whole shell but don't read paradigm issues. Please read paradigm issues, because if you don't I'll tank your speaks. If you read paradigm issues, and your opponent agrees to them or explicitly reads them again in one of their shells I will use those. So, if the AC and NC read shells with, dtd, no rvis, and competing interps, then the 2NR can't stand up and go for yes RVIs.

Phil

Phil is probably what I like to watch the most. I think the NC AC strategy is very strategic and will give you good speaks if you execute it well. Hijacks and preclusive arguments are cool. If you think your framework is super complicated for some reason just explain it well but I'll probably be able to evaluate a phil debate. Please weigh in the framework debate because that makes it a lot easier to evaluate. I default epistemic confidence.

Defaults

Truth Testing

Presumption and permissibility negate.

See theory section for theory defaults.

Metatheory>Theory=T>K

I default to strength of link weighing between different theory shells on the same layer, but would highly prefer you make weighing arguments between shells. E.g. "1NC theory>1AR theory", "T>Theory", "Spec shells outweigh everything" etc.

Note on hitting a trad debater/novice:

Do whatever you want, I'm not going to tank your speaks for like, spreading, reading theory or something. I also won't hurt your speaks if you just have a phil or larp debate with them, any approach is fine. The only thing is don't try to embarrass or make fun of them. You deserve to win if you did the better debating but you don't need to insult them or something like that.

Note on Post Rounding: Please do it if you think I intervened. I can take it, feel free to let me hear it if you think I've wronged you. You deserve to get angry at me if I robbed you of a win (which is not my goal just to clarify).

You need to extend things in every speech even if your opponent didn't contest them in later speeches. E.g. your 2ar can't be 3 minutes answering T and not extend any substantive offense.

Speaks

Things that will hurt your speaks:

1. Reading no framework in the AC.

2. Doing no line by line (unless just blitzing overview arguments was strategic in the situation, which is conceptually possible).

3. Ending cross ex like a minute early.

4. Being rude or way overconfident.

5. You're clearly just reading off a doc that someone else wrote.

6. Making the round really messy (especially when there was a clean way to win).

Things that will boost your speaks:

1. Clearly knowing the arguments you're reading. E.g. being able to explain your framework really well in cross.

2. Weighing and just making the round generally easier to evaluate.

3. Doing what you want to do and just executing it well.

4. Being funny.

29.7-30: You will break and make it deep out-rounds. OR you did something really creative or interesting, like made the 2AR impossible because your 2NR was so good.

29.4-29.7: You'll probably break and could win a few out-rounds.

29-29.4: You'll probably break.

28.7-29: You'll probably be on the bubble.

28.4-28.7:You'll probably go 3-3 or maybe break.

27.8-28.4: You did a little worse than average.

Vontrez White Harvard-Westlake School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 6, 2024 at 11:12 AM PST

he/him/they/them

wvontrez@gmail.com

For college debate, use this email: debatecsuf@gmail.com

CSUF 22

Coach @ Harvard Westlake and CSUF

--------------------------------------

For College: My debate paradigm is tailored to LD (I judge that the most). Most of the stuff below applies, with the caveat of having philosophy at a "1/2" and trix at "2/3". I think the time structure and topic wording of LD make it more viable/interesting for that format, but in college policy, I'd probably be more inclined to vote on a utilitarian framing than a deontological one. I'll read the evidence after the round and would appreciate judge instruction. No ideological leaning for K or policy. Dropped arguments = true arguments. Explain acronyms. I'd like to intervene as little as possible and don't wanna evaluate out of round stuff

--------------------------------------

Pref shortcut:

Policy - 1/2

K - 1

K Aff/ Performance - 2

Philosophy - 1/2

Trix - 2/3

T - 3/4

Theory - 3/4

--------------------------------------

I did policy debate for 4 years at Downtown Magnets (shout out LAMDL) and 4 years at Cal State Fullerton. I debated mostly truthy performance debates and one-off K strats in high school and debated the K in a very technical way in college. Currently coach flex teams in LD.

I would say my debate influences are Jared Burke, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Jonathan Meza, Anthony Joseph, Travis Cochran, Toya Green, and Scotty P.

TLDR: I will vote for anything, as long as it's impacted out. The list of preferences is based on my comfort with the argument. Fine with speech drop or email chain.

--------------------------------------

General

I think debate is a game that can have heavy implications on life and influence a lot of things

Tech > Truth, unless the Tech is violent (racism good, sexism good, etc.)

Good for all speeds, but clarity is a must

Judging a trad debate would be pretty funny

My favorite neg strategies are "NC, AC", the 1 off critique, a good da/cp debate

Like creative affs (policy, phil, and k)

--------------------------------------

Theory

Disclosure is good unless proven otherwise

Yes competing interps, lean no RVIs (not hard rule), DTD

Shells need an interp, violation, standards, voter

Need a good abuse story/how does my ballot set norms? Why does my ballot matter? How does this implicate future debates?

I think condo is good

1AR restarts are risky but I'd be pleasantly surprised if executed well

--------------------------------------

Policy

Absurd internal link chains should be questioned

Default util

No zero-risk

Uniqueness controls the link

Impact turns are good

Perms are tests of competition, not new advocacies

Yes judge kick

Will read evidence if told to do so

Quality ev > Card dump of bad ev

Usually default reasonability on T

--------------------------------------

I have a reading background in several critical literature bases. I am most read in anti-capitalist theory, afro pessimism, fugitive black studies, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. For the sake of the debate, assume I know nothing and explain your K

Winning theory of power important

Perm solves the link of omission

Specific link > state bad link

Affs should weigh the aff vs. the K, negs should tell me why this isn't possible OR deal with affs impacts

Extinction outweighs debate probably good here

Soft left affs with a good link turn are persuasive for me

--------------------------------------

K Affs

I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic. Affs that don't defend any portion of the resolution need a heavy defense of doing so otherwise T is pretty persuasive (imapct turn it)

I try not to have a leaning into T-FW debates, but I find myself often voting negative. Similar to Theory/T, I would love to hear about the affirmative's model of debate compared to the negative's. Impact turns to their model are awesome but there is a higher bar if I don't know what your model is.

Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

Fairness is an impact. Clash is important. Education matters

KvK debates are super interesting, but I hate when they become the Oppression Olympics. Perms are encouraged. Links of omission are not. Contextualize links to the affirmative and clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

Lean yes on perms in KvK/method debates

Performances should be used offensively. I will flow your poems/videos/whatever, just have a defense of it and utilize it to win

--------------------------------------

Phil

I find these debates fun to judge, but debaters should still err on the side of over explanation (especially if its dense)

Epistemic confidence

I don't care what phil you read, but I would probably enjoy seeing something I've never judged before

Weighing matters here still, especially between competing frameworks and meta-ethics

--------------------------------------

Trix

Sure, all I ask is that the trick has a warrant (even if it's hidden). If executed poorly, I will probably nuke speaks. If I miss the warrant for your trix and it's not in the doc, unlucky

I will evaluate the debate after the end of the 2AR (non-negotiable)

--------------------------------------

Speaker Points

Pretty much summed up here

If you make a joke about Jared Burke, +.1 speaker point

Coralynn Yang Hire 1 rounds

Jack Young Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 30, 2024 at 10:14 AM EST

Coach at MBA. Debater at Emory.

jackyoungpqw@gmail.com .

debatemba@gmail.com .

IPostRound@googlegroups.com.

Please add all to chains.

I have no topic knowledge.

I attempt to judge technically. This means I attempt to remove any predispositions about argument or evidence validity, and am willing to vote on any genre of argument. “True” arguments win because they are easier to prove and harder to refute. My paradigm contains my thoughts on debate, but most debaters are best-served doing what they are most confident in.

When judging, I don’t look at the chain besides the 1AC. Typically, I don’t read evidence unless it’s necessary, and have a lower bar for a ‘warrant’ than average. I usually decide quicker than most.

BECAUSE I DON’T LOOK AT THE DOC, CLARITY AND ORGANIZATION MATTERS!

If you find any of the writing contained in this paradigm remotely compelling, strike me.

Top: My favorite type of debater maintains a strong strategic 'vision' of the debate. This is to say, they understand interactions between arguments, weaknesses in the opponent's strategy, and minimize their loss conditions. They are, of course, technical, but debate is ultimately a game of persuasion and strategy. It's easy to identify a dropped argument. What usually settles the debate is understanding strategic themes more than the opponent.

Impact Calculus: Is, in most cases, mediocre and non-consequential. Many debaters simply say the words -- "magnitude," "timeframe," "probability" -- without nuance or strategic vision. In most debates, both teams claim extinction. It seems clear to me in these cases, the probabilistic likelihood of preventing it matters the most. Timeframe, if debated, can break closer ties, make a 40-60 debate 50-50. I am much more of a fan of "strategic" calculus -- that is to say, turns case, iterations between sheets, try or die style arguments.

T: I enjoy it more than the average judge. Slightly neg-biased, probably. Fan of limits and competing interpretations. Annoyed with the cult of the vacuum. Predictability matters, but teams should provide the standard for how I should interpret reasonability (e.g., plain meaning, legal definitions, etc.).

K Affs: Not fantastic, not the worst. I judge these technically, but believe in the desirability of a limited and predictable topic. Most aff offense in these debates is counterintuitive to me. I am fine for both "this round" fairness 1NCs and "models" clash/fairness 1NCs, but slightly more deferential to presumption + fairness than clash. Affirmative teams that have topic-specific offense, as well as debate technically, have success in front of me.

Ks: I have no strong opinions on framework here. I do believe in the desirability of the permutation, and think affs should be able to leverage the benefits of the plan. That being said, I think affirmative interpretations of framework that exclude vast swaths of Ks to be similarly unpersuasive. I think Ks can serve both an important strategic and educational function. I would much rather prefer to judge a K with disads to the permutation and a solvent alternative than a pure framework debate. Perfcon is a fantastic defensive argument against framework in many cases.

CPs: Conditionality maximialist, competition minimalist. I dislike almost every process counterplan. Just know when extending one that you are always at risk of losing on competition. I am much more pro-intrinsicness than pro-“do counterplan.” I am much more pro-permutation than pro-“no process CPs.” I default not to “offense/defense,” which is just “any risk perm doesn’t solve means we win,” and much more (this position seems obvious) “winning a perm zeroes the counterplan.”

There is an advantage counterplan issue. Nonsensical, vague mandates are increasingly popular. If going for an advantage counterplan, please help me stay organized.

I think condo bad is a useful 1AR argument, but I’m pro condo. Both the 1NC and 2AC have the same amount of time, and most counter plans are tragically bad or process.

IPR topic: Hate it. 40% of offcase positions have thus far been process counterplans. I hate it so much.

Kumail Zaidi Walt Whitman 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 18, 2024 at 10:24 PM EST

Georgetown'24

Oak Hall'20

komi.zaidi@gmail.com

Updates

I feel like in most debates I'm judging coaches blocks regurgitated by kids off a laptop. If you give your rebuttals entirely off paper without a laptop in your face the whole time, and give a good speech, I will be giving an egregious, ungodly, criminal boost to speaks.

Things to Keep Top of Mind

1] Strategy is King --- My ideological predispositions have become more viscous over time as I’ve gained familiarity with a variety of different styles of debate, literature, and argumentation. From high school through my short stint in college debate, I've read and researched arguments on all sides of the kritikal/policy spectrum. At this point, I have much more appreciation for strategy over style of argumentation. What this means is that you should read whatever argument you think will give you the highest chance of winning the debate. This is perhaps the most important takeaway from my paradigm. In some debates, that option might be T-FW vs a K aff, in another it could be process counterplan, psychoanalysis, Moten, a floating PIK, China heg good, or theory. The point is, I don’t particularly care what flavor of argument you read. What I care about is execution and strategic choice. I cannot stress this enough, it frustrates me more than anything when debaters try to "adapt" based on (often flawed) assumptions about how you think I feel about arguments. Do what you're good at, debate is a game for debaters.

2] Speaker Points --- Debate is a game of rhetoricians. Winning the room is how you get decisive wins, high speaker points, and perform like a top debater.(Tasteful) Pettiness gets you speaker points. But being a bum certainly won't.

3] "Instead of focusing only on extending and answering arguments, it would behoove debaters to begin their final rebuttals by clarifying what the comparative RFD for the Aff/Neg should be,identifying the key questions to be resolved in the debate, and then going through the process of resolving them. You can think of this asproviding me a roadmap for how I should approach adjudicating the debate once it ends."

4] Folks have been incredibly unclear over the past few years. I strongly believe that debate is an oral/rhetorical game as much as it is technical. If your strategy relies on reading a slew of analytics while simultaneously slurring every other word in an attempt to make up for a grave lack of speaking drills, I will be displeased and you will be too after the decision.

5] Dropped argument is a true argument. HOWEVER, an argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. You must also explain the implications of an argument/how it relates to the rest of the pieces in the debate. New implications to extended arguments are fair game for new responses.

K Aff vs Fwk

I've thought far too much about both sides of this debate and don't particularly have a proclivity one way or another. I genuinely enjoy both sides of the debate and especially love new spins on arguments rather than a regurgitation of blocks.

K affs: I'm fine for anything, whether that be impact turns, counter-models, re-defining words etc. Please just think through the strategy beforehand its shocking how many 2ACs to framework are lazily slapped together these days. There's so much room for creativity in terms of what topical affirmation/negation looks like which is underutilized these days. If you put the requisite amount of thought into the construction of your K aff, I'm probably good for you. If your approach to framework relies on an impact turn, I would like to see some work definitively closing the door on why it is good/beneficial to abandon ANY notion of stasis etc in debate. Or at least have some mechanism of resolving your offense.

Framework: Go for whatever flavor of framework/impact scenario you want. Articulating a clear impact scenario is critical. A lot of debaters tend to spend sooo much time explaining why fairness/clash/competition etc matter, but remarkably little time explaining WHY the affs model/orientation to debate is unfair/bad. Framework teams very let the aff get away with murder in terms of shallow impact turns or nonsensical counterinterps, and I think a lot of that could be resolved rather easily. A lot of my recent thought's on what good framework debating looks like has been influenced by many conversations (and arguments) with Tyler Thur and BK, so do refer to those paradigms for additional insights.

Stealing this line from BK's paradigm as I think it's instructive: "I find "fairness" unpersuasive as a terminal impact. However, this is primarily a function of Negatives explaining it poorly, because I am extremely compelled by the argument that an axiomatic precondition for debate to operate is that the Affirmative must meet their burden of proof arising from the resolution, and that until they do so there is no logical basis for the Negative having any burden of rejoinder. All of which is to say: definitely feel free to go for fairness, BUT please take care to explain why it logically precedes everything else, AND to explicitly no-link the Aff's various lines of offense, rather than just making assertions about "procedural fairness."

For K teams --- the flipside of this is that I am extremely compelled by hyper-specific impact turns to the negs articulation of concepts like fairness in a world where they have not done the proper explanatory work for the fairness impact.

Misc Other Thoughts

1] Impact turns in general are heavily underutilized in case debating. Extinction good, heg good, Interventions good, AI development bad, take your pick. High quality evidence is essential.

2] Fine for CP competition debates

3] Heavily persuaded by reasonability style arguments on frivolous theory (LD).

4] Fine for Phil - I find myself quite enjoying phil vs policy/K debates.

Login to Tabroom

Barkley Forum for High Schools

2025 — Atlanta, GA/US

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

Judges