Cal Invitational UC Berkeley
2025 — Berkeley, CA/US
Varsity LD Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI've debated for 3 years at Aragon High School.
Shortcut:
1- literally everything(phil, theory, tricks, K)
Top Level:
Go for whatever you want just make sure to explain it. I have debated in every way you can think of I have had pretty much any debate out there. People that have influenced my views in debate a lot are Jarvis Xie, Abhinav Sinha, Yesh Rao, and Jane Lichtman which means paradigmatically my views are pretty similar.
durham '24 & emory '28
coach at head-royce
add: idontpostround@googlegroups.com AND breakdocs@googlegroups.com
intervention is the worst. mydefaults 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: i prefer well executed, strategic arguments. i do not like hearing "tricky" arguments run ineffectively. i also prefer arguments that make sense. framework interps that delete the entire case, most arguments asserting that obligations are entirely impossible, claims that individual rounds actually alter our beliefs, convoluted & under-explained logical paradoxes, and many 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. have round vision! if something is dropped, tell me why i care. effective ballot framing can win you the debate (that means: tell me what i care about most, 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. give an order and signpost. speech documents should nonetheless be high-quality and well-formatted, especially if i am asked to look at certain evidence. being prepared by starting early, ending a speech early, or using limited prep will increase speaks.
if im judging pf, reference everything above + fiona hu's paradigm.
have fun & good luck!
Adarsh Agrawal: Affiliated with Lynbrook HS.
If you are sharing documents, kindly do the needful and include the following addresses:
If you have a question for me, don't include the second email. I only check the first.
-------
Update – Cal:
I haven't thought about debate for a bit which has changed how I interpret rounds. Please slow down for day 1 and the first/last rounds of days 2/3. Speed is irrelevant if I can't flow/understand any of that speed. I submit decisions and they are irreversible, even if you are right that you blipped through a certain argument in the postround.
Some thoughts on how I evaluate rounds are below. If you have limited time, please read the sections related to the type of arguments that you expect to read, the miscellaneous section, and the procedural section.
You can always ask me to clarify what I mean with any of the numbers below.
---Miscellaneous---
1 – For full disclosure, I'm inconsistent as a judge regarding decision quality/correctness. I'm not entirely sure why. Do with that what you will.
2 – Arguments should justify their consequences, even if they are dropped.
Along these lines, I think that smart analytics can beat most medium to bad positions. Unless a card is a methodologically sound study of a certain issue or presents factual events, they're just claims made by a person who isn't you which can be refuted like any other argument. You always can argue that a person is more qualified than a high school student or a different person, but I won't take it for granted.
3 – Debates are needlessly overcomplicated. People extend arguments that might be related to their win condition but don't exactly help them get there, which makes the debate more messy and increases the chance I get confused as a judge. Going for a few arguments and spending more time explaining your win condition and why you meet it is better than leaving me to my own devices.
---Critiques---
4 – Evidence is performative in K debates. Most K cards don't have much more than rhetoric and conjecture. Less cards and more explanation of why the other side is bad is crucial, especially in a time-constrained format like LD.
5 – I am probably not ideal for Ks that don't prove the aff is a bad idea.
Example: For a topic that mandates the aff to use a market-based instrument, "K – Market-based Instruments Bad" for
"policy" reasons paired with something mirroring a counterplan or a framework argument about political imaginaries is something I'd enjoy judging and should be considered "good" for.
"K – Afropessimism/Setcol" is something I'd evaluate if the 2NR invests enough time in framework to make the implementation of the affirmative irrelevant and the link proves that something the affirmative did was uniquely bad, even if it isn't related to plan implementation.
"K – Communication Bad" or just going for ontology without a link with a structural criticism is not ideal because they don't prove the aff has done something uniquely bad. The "state bad" link falls into this category when explained poorly. Obviously, I'll still evaluate these and try to construct a fair RFD, but I just don't think that these are particularly compelling arguments.
6 – I think judges give fiated alternatives too much leeway in explaining what they do in the 2NR and CX. The text of the alternative and the attached piece of evidence should say what the alternative does. Saying a haiku is a detailed proposal of how the US is taken over by militant groups in the 2NR is laughable. Just go for framework...
Note: I am a big fan of policy alternatives. I am skeptical of alternatives that fiat third-party actors absent solid warranting. I won't pretend that the aff dropping a sentence about some historical movement means that the alt now somehow solves all the advantages absent an actual explanation for why movements can solve the case. That explanation should ideally be in the 1NC but if it's in the 2NR for the first time, I'll give the 2AR new answers.
7 – Don't interpret the above as "bad for the K." I more often vote for the K than against it, but that's mostly because K debaters tend to win framework and the link. I am best for debaters who treat the K as a technical tool like any other argument.
8 – I enjoy K v. K debates. Please pref me for these. I am fair game for artificial competition or other arguments that try to reduce the aff bias in these debates. I am a big fan of spamming positions against K affs because it never seems like the aff has thought about debating things other than framework or the cap K enough.
9 – I am neutral-ish in K v. Framework debates. I am much better for an impact turn than a nebulous counter-interpretation that tries to resolve negative offense. I don't think negative teams emphasize enough how counter-interpretations link to their content-inclusion DAs.
---Policy---
10 – Please have a higher bar for arguments. Cards say maybe 0.5% of what they are being spun to say. Plan texts are just resolution salad instead of descriptions of the aff. DAs get basic facts about the plan wrong. All I ask is that you read arguments that make sense.
11 – Counterplans should be real. "The United States should deter China" or "The United States should increase its energy independence" is akin to saying "The United States should end racism." Low-effort counterplans can be answered with low-effort responses.
12 – I think zero risk is possible if your opponent wins sufficient structural or scenario-specific claims for why your scenario or impact will not happen.
---T/Theory---
13 – PTIV seems a little silly to me. It requires interpreting the words in the plan for T and substance in distinct ways. The only world in which PTIV makes sense is if you truly do meet the interpretation. Otherwise, it seems like it only helps the neg.
Example: Aff defends Congress. The other two branches do not have the authority to implement the aff. Neg reads "T–No Congress." Aff reads PTIV. The neg concedes that the plan should be interpreted as the semantic sum of its parts and wins their definition proving that the plan text necessarily excludes Congress. There's now a presumption argument alongside T because the plan is impossible if the neg wins. If the aff wins their definition, then they beat T anyway and didn't need to read PTIV.
14 – For the following, you can argue I should interpret these concepts differently. These are just defaults.
Reasonability: "You should artificially grant me a we meet for the shell if I win sufficient defense to the shell for the violation/our model." Just going for reasonability without winning internal link defense makes no sense.
RVIs: "If I prove that I meet or have a better model than a shell, you should interpret that as offense against the other team." RVIs do not apply to arguments that aren't theory (since you can just generate offense via turns). You can win an RVI if you meet a shell or prove that the violation is good, which doesn't necessarily require an explicit counter-interpretation (I default to "We defend the violation" unless specified otherwise when you respond to a shell).
IVIs: "My opponent should lose for an unethical practice." I am unsure why I should hold these to a lower bar than paragraph theory in justifying the DTD portion of the argument, so please make sure to include a justification for DTD when you initially read the IVI.
---LD-isms---
15 – I am bad for substantive phil debates. I would much rather judge tricks than a straight ref of a moral framework I don't understand. I barely understand how hijacks work even outside of debates. I will not give a coherent RFD.
16 – I'm okay for truth-testing apriori debates given that you're straightforward about it. Lying in CX or hiding arguments in ways that are borderline evidence ethics violations will make me want to give you a 25. I think that these are good exercises in flowing/critical thinking/argument generation, but only when read in a classy way.
17 – I can somewhat evaluate arguments relying on presumption & permissibility, but please ensure everything is warranted to justify the implication you're giving it.
---Procedural---
18 – Please send out cards you expect to read before the speech. The practice of sending out cards after the 1AR/2NR when they could have reasonably been sent before the speech seems a little unethical and always ends up wasting time.
19 – You can always ask about cards that were marked (the entirety of the highlighting was not read) before CX. Send out a marked doc if you mark more than 3 cards. You don't need to delete cards that weren't read from a marked doc. I will delete 0.25 speaker points for every flow clarification question that's asked outside CX or prep that isn't about cards that were partially read. Cards that weren't read aren't "marked." Please ask about these in CX or prep. A doc that deletes the unread cards should be made during someone's prep or CX time.
20 – I will boost speaks for being (tastefully) funny. Please don't be mean.
21 – I'm pretty expressive as a judge. Please be funny. I'll appreciate LeBron/Draymond glaze or Nico Harrison/Rudy Gobert slander.
22 – I will kindly increase the points for debaters if rounds are timely (i.e. starting kindly at the posted start time or as soon as I am ready, whichever is later, and kindly ensuring we minimize wasted time during debates).
If you can't beat the argument, you generally deserve to lose.
(I'll never insert the reading of an argument I happen to know into the debate for you. This practice always irritated me when certain people did or encouraged this. I'm not supposed to make arguments, you are.)
Very tech over truth. However, the less intuitive an argument is, the more you have to do to explain why it matters and why you win.
Generally I'm fine with anything, but I place a strong emphasis on clarity and explanation. If an argument is dropped or mishandled, explain what it is and how it effects the outcome of the round. The more doors you close in final rebuttals, the better your chances are of winning my ballot.
Order in Which To Pref Me:
- Planless Aff v Topicality
- K v K
- Plan v K
- Policy v Policy (Despite having experience in this, I don't believe I do enough traditional research to be the best judge)
Final Notes:
- I'm more inclined to vote on theory arguments than the average judge. This just means I think I'm less biased against these arguments than others. If someone won most of the substance but lost on condo or dropped vague alts I would not hesitate to drop the debater(s).
- Clarity > Speed
- Impact Comparison and Solvency Mechanisms matter
- I'm super attentive to the flow, and I strive to minimize judge intervention.
- I've voted on arguments I don't believe in plenty of times.
- I have zero issues voting on suspect impact turn arguments if they are won.
- Clarity is more Important than Speed
- In Clash of civs debates, it helps to say what debate looks like in relation to an interpretation of the topic.
- In Clash of civs debates, impact turning t requires either an explanation of what my ballot or what counter model of debate can do.
- In clash of civs debates, neg loses when there is a poor articulation of an impact or effort to neutralize aff offense. Aff loses when there is poor explanation of an alternative model of debate or how the ballot changes what we do.
- In K v K debates, presumption is under utilized --- the less you link the less you probably solve. The neg needs to explain clear distinctions between the aff's tactic and/or theorizations and what the alt does or does not do.
- In K v K debates, I welcome debates on other procedurals like aff condo bad, vagueness, and various spec arguments that are designed to at least limit what the aff does and secure link to neg positions.
- In K v Policy aff debates, the neg needs to nullify the aff's offense. Use an alt solvency, framework, root cause, or impact framing argument depending on what your skillset is.
- In K v Policy aff debates, the aff needs to win that talking about the aff or that the hypothetical implementation of the aff does something important that we can't have if I vote neg.
- In K v Policy aff debates, the aff can win a permutation, though it is probably dependent on the design of the argument. Pay close attention to the link arguments and anything else that creates or forces competition.
- In K v Policy aff debates, I find teams are racing towards the middle and are fearful of impact turning link arguments (state good, heg good, cap good, managerialism good). If you are good at this I say debate at your skillset.
- I will not initially judge kick, but if you make a good argument for why I should I probably will do so.
- No need for too much hostility and confrontation.
- I would rather not judge debates about things that didn't happen in the debate.
Background: I have coached at USC, Damien, Loyola, and now I do K research for MSU. It's worth mentioning that unlike most people who say they are flex, I actually was. I was part of an NDT Elims team that only went for Ks (post structuralism, Ableism, Set Col, Opacity) (UNLV AK) and an NDT Elims team that was primarily about policy arguments (UNLV AW). If I'm in the back, you have a wide range of options.
Talk slow, don’t use jargon, keep it simple and focus on conveying your arguments. Try to talk to me as much as you can, act as if you're teaching me about the subject, don't merely read your case/flow. No need to send me any documents. I don't respect arguments that catastrophize or claim that everyone will die unless you have very strong reasoning and evidence, all of which is articulated.
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
For Berkeley: if you read and go for tricks (well) you will get 30s
The most important thing in round is weighing - pls start breaking the clash down and explicitly telling me how and why you win the round. Slow down in rebuttal speeches - I'll clear you twice and then stop flowing
General:
Email:Add taha.amir575@gmail.com
Defaults: I default to Drop the Argument, Competing Interps, and Yes RVIS - that can be changed with a word. (However please at least somewhat warrant your paradigm issues). I default to Util and the ROTB is “To vote for the better debater” unless otherwise said in round. Presumption/Permissibility flows neg. If I have to presume on value topics I will flip a coin and whoever wins the coinflip I vote for. If you think there's no offense in the round please make even one presumption warrant, I'll buy it.
General Thoughts on Debate:I think debate is a game and any argument and strategy is on the table as long as it is warranted. I will always be tech > truth. Although I prefer certain norms, nothing is absolute in the debate and if you want to change something about my paradigm - just warrant it.
Speed:Speak as fast as you want, but always send a doc with all your evidence prior to your speech. Slow down on analytics. I was a pretty fast debater so if I can usually follow along.
Substance:You need to extend your arguments in the summary and final focus, but my bar for a sufficient extension is pretty low. I like the debate to focus on clash, so good, intricate weighing is the best way to win my ballot. I loved reading extinction impacts, and my favorite debates was doing smart link weighing in extinction v. extinction debates. You should write your ballot for me, tell me exactly where to vote and why 'X' weighing on 'Y' argument means you specifically win the round. Some thoughts I have about regular substance debates:
-
Turns aren't defense, if you want me to vote for one, explain why your link is better than theirs.
-
Impact turns/DA's in rebuttal are pretty underutilized and also good, I'll vote for dedev, spark, etc.
-
Do not leave anything up for intervention - If you have mitigation on your case but are winning the weighing debate or vice versa, explain in speech why you should be winning the debate as a whole, i.e. why is the mitigation more important or why is the weighing more important.
-
I think it's sometimes strategic for teams to concede what they are clearly losing instead of bluffing their way out of it - it makes comparisons between arguments a lot easier and clearly delineates the flow a lot better. No one is falling for your rhetoric so just save it.
Theory:Theory is apriori but I'll vote for X comes first arguments (even substance). I think full text disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and I’m neutral towards open source. I won’t hack for anything, however. The shell needs to be extended in every speech, but don't read the shell word for word (only the interp). Weigh the net benefit against the standards, there's almost no weighing in theory debates and it makes them hard to evaluate. That includes Meta theory: Meta theory comes before theory naturally but there needs to be a basic warrant why in the speech. Friv theory is fine, do what you need to win. I don’t have any preconceived notions nor any ‘higher thresholds’ for any stupid theory arguments - debate is a game so I’ll evaluate it like any other (However simple arguments are easier to understand and naturally require less explanation). Education and Fairness aren't voters until you tell me why. Can be as simple as "only portable skill of debate" or "sways the evaluation of the ballot"
K/K Aff:My thoughts on the K/K Aff. Your K needs a link, impact, an alt, and usually, a Role of the ballot. K affs need an advocacy if they're not advocating for the resolution. If that advocacy isn’t topical, T is a very good strategy against K affs, and I think its true. That doesn’t mean I’m not perceptive to K affs, just that if you hit one, read T. Even if you lose the link, if you win the ROTB you can win the round pretty easily by making a lot of claims about attempting to link into the ROTB or you're the only risk of linking into the ROTB. Explain your jargon-y high theory phil/k arguments, im probably not familiar with it and cross is a good time to explain it since I'll be listening in. I can't vote for what I don't know (but I'm familiar with common K args like cap, security, etc). This includes the nuanced arguments of basic philosophers like Kant (I don’t know what a ‘categorical imperative is.’
Tricks: They're really funny and I love running them. Go ahead and read them. However, Most tricks that deny the resolution on a truth level need a truth testing framework along with them or I won't vote on them. Always send docs and delineate the tricks within the docs, if its a bunch of text in a block I won't flow.
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.
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.
I debated for Dougherty Valley High School in LD in California, and later debated APDA for Penn (studied philosophy) and BP for Trinity College Dublin. My views on debate and paradigm were influenced byArjun Tambe (from who I took parts of this paradigm) and Kavin Kumaravel, so you should check out their paradigms.
Add me on the email chain: vikramb03@gmail.com
General
-
I want the debate space to be safe for all participants– if there’s anything I can do as a judge to help with that, please let me know, either before the round or by emailing me.
-
Good with speed (I will yell slow or clear if I can’t understand)
- Don't clip cards
Defaults - not preferences you can change them if you make the argument
- Offense/defense
-
Comp worlds
-
Judge kick good
-
Argument quality matters, not just the extent to which an argument is answered. Bad arguments are less likely to be true, and dropped arguments aren’t 100% true. Similarly, framework is impact calculus – it makes certain impacts more or less important, not the only impacts that matter.
-
I love smart cross-apps and you don't need to do much work to justify why you get to c/a things from one flow to another
-
I think Terminal defense exists
DISCLOSURE
-
If you open-source with highlighting, and have correct cites in the cite box, and show me before the RFD (after the 2AR), I will increase your speaks by 0.2
T/THEORY
-
have good evidence with an intent to define and exclude, offensive/defensive caselists, etc.
-
I won’t evaluate the debate before the 2ar even if a theory spike is dropped
-
Default competing interps
-
A good theory debate (i.e. going for it) justifies the risk of offense versus the risk of ‘over-punishment’ by voting on theory.
- I don't love trix
KRITIKS
-
ideally my threshold for a good kritik is one that is as tailored to the aff as the aff is
-
good K debate=having impacts for your links, having links to the plan (not necessary but recommended), knowing how the alt works, not being evasive in CX, not relying on framework to win you the round, doing impact calc and explaining why the K outweighs the case, not just saying util bad, and answering the case
-
I love when the aff/neg makes a smart double turn based on the underpinnings of the lit base
- ROB/ROJ is an empty term– you can answer the framing question without saying that exact phrase/having a counter ROB
-
My threshold for voting on the K becomes substantially lower when alt solves case is explained
FRAMEWORK
-
I find framework very convincing, especially movements, but also fairness.
-
Have a good TVA
K AFFS
-
My favorite type of K aff is one that critically examines the topic and critiques in the 1ac why the topic is insufficient, as opposed to K affs that critique debate as a whole and affs that aren’t a critique of any system but only a counter-methodology.
-
I dislike ‘tricky’ K answers to FW, like “limits is a prison” or having 5 CIs like “your def plus our aff”.
-
K affs have a higher burden of defending everything in the aff– this includes pics of parts of their philosophy and word pics
Aff team loses .1 for every minute late the round starts. The 1AC should start on time, regardless of whether the neg is ready and set up on time.
I'm not a fan of small talk.
Emails for chain:
lasadebatedocs@googlegroups.com (do not put this email on chain if LD)
Name the email chain with the format “Tournament name---Round---Aff team XX v Neg team XX”.
Freshmen at University of Michigan. Debated at LASA for 6 years.
Philosophy:
I appreciate that debaters spend hundreds of hours preparing for tournaments and make significant financial sacrifices to be here. I believe debate is a game, and judges have a moral imperative to fairly evaluate debates. When judges make decisions that don't accurately and impartially reflect the debating done in the round they do a profound disservice to the activity and disrespect all 4 debaters in the round. Personal beliefs, moral guilt, or social considerations should never affect the outcome of a debate, and they will not factor into my decisions. I would rather vote for my worst enemy going for my least favorite argument against my best friend if I thought they had won technically, then render a decision that did not reflect who did the better debating.
This is not to say I think I'm a perfect or even very good judge. As a debater, I tried to avoid preferring first year outs due to their inexperience and frequent inconsistency. It would be egotistical to try and promise my judging may not suffer from those flaws. I can, however, promise that I will try my hardest to judge debates impartially and dilligently. I know that the worst decisions debaters receive are felt viscerally and intensely. The idea of unjustly inflicting that feeling onto someone is frightening.
I encourage you to post round me or any other judge in order to better understand the decision or attempt to demonstrate why a decision is incorrect. The state of judging is an existential threat to the activity, and lazy, unobjective, and incompetent judges should be willing to incur public shaming as a cost to the dishonor they do onto debates.
Non-negotiables:
---Constructives are 8 minutes, Rebuttals are 5 minutes. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. Each debater gives 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. I will only flow words said by the person giving the speech.
---Ethics challenges require stopping the debate. I won’t vote on evidence ethics against cards that have previously been read unless you can show that you made a good-faith attempt to notify your opponents before the debate. I prefer injunctions that are less severe then making a team lose, like striking the card or argument. Clipping = L
---Debate is a communication activity. I flow the speech, not the doc. I usually flow on excel. I may check the doc for clipping a few times during each speech, but I often don't open the doc. I do not read tags or analytics in the doc, since it is impossible to segregate the information I'm receiving from the speech from the information I'm receiving from the doc. When I review evidence after the debate, I put it into invisibility mode to avoid accidently reading non-highlighted parts of cards. If evidence comparison occurs, I'll look at cards in context.
---Tell me how to write the ballot. Do not tell me how to assign speaker points. Since the W or L reflect who won technically, I view speakerpoints as being a sort of market-correction that can reward practices besides technical victory (although technical debating is certainly a factor). Examples: research quality, clarity, innovativeness, humor, organization, knowledgeableness, minimization of dead time, personality, strategy, CX skills
---I will not vote for an argument that’s new in the 2AR under any circumstance. An argument is new if my understanding of it changes from the 1AR to the 2AR.
---Tech over truth. Arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact for them to matter. If I can’t explain an argument to the other team after the debate I won’t vote for it. Truth effects tech because bad arguments can be more easily beaten.
---If you have a choice between winning the debate in 5 minutes and winning the debate in 30 seconds, I would much rather you win in 30. Winning without using full speech time will be heavily rewarded with speaks. Also, +0.1 for every 1 minutes of prep you do not take.
---I will only say "clear" in the case that your spreading on cards is approaching an ethics violation. Clarity of tags and analytics won't cause me to say "clear" since I think it would be interventionist to prompt debaters to make their speech more flowable.
Pre-dispositions (can be overturned easily if you win them technically):
---I believe the affirmative has the "burden of proof," or a task of proving the resolution is true, and the neg has the "burden of rejoinder," prompting it to disprove the affirmative. It is not-obvious to me why affirmatives that don't advocate for (or at least in the direction of) the resolution have met this burden of proof. I do not know why an affirmative being true or good merits an aff ballot if it does not meet the burden of proof of the resolution. Since the burden of proof precedes the burden of rejoinder, I am not sure why such affirmatives justify negation either. Further, in cases where the presented 1AC negates the resolution, I could easily be persuaded that I have a jurisdictional obligation to vote neg.
---This spiel is NOT to say I would not vote for a planless affirmative (see tech over truth above) but to disclose my predisposition. I think the best arguments on framework favor the neg and many presumption-style arguments are persuasive.
---I default to judge kick until told otherwise.
---I am not a fan of "inserting" rehighlighted evidence. If you do, you have to explain the lines that go your way for me to look at it, to the point that it may just be faster for you to read the rehighlight. I don't look closely at "inserted" charts that aren't explained, unless you read words in the chart.
---Theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. "X is a voting issue" requires a warrant to be a reason to reject the team.
---I’ll read evidence, but my evaluations of evidence can be easily overcome with evidence comparison.
---Presumption flips neg unless a the neg forwards a counterplan.
---Debates a game and fairness is an impact.
---I do not find glee at the thought of judging anti-intellectual arguments like extreme impact turns, but if you can't beat them you deserve to lose. I won't hesitate to vote on bad arguments if you win them.
---Since the 2NC is a constructive, new arguments can be legitimately introduced. Since the 1NR and 1AR are rebuttals, new arguments cannot be legitimately introduced. This includes counterplans, impacts, theory, and t violations.
LD-Specific:
---I'm unfamiliar with LD-specific terminology, so your arguments will be more persuasive to me if you explain using terms I would know. For example, assume I don't know what a "hijack" means but I do understand what to do with "Our moral philosophy link turns/solves the benefits of theirs."
---I am also not necessarily familiar with norms related to when new arguments can be legitimately introduced. I will use my best judgement but you might have to do a little bit more in terms of explaining why something new should be disallowed in the 1AR and NR.
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
for college policy debates: please also add masondebatedocs@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 am most excited about judging case vs disad debates. Debates not about the effects of the plan are less persuasive, less educational, and less engaging to me in almost every way.
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 think about debates in terms of strategic moves and argument function --- explaining arguments on that meta level is the most compelling and understandable to me, especially in debates with complex legislative nuance and/or critical theories.
I do not flow RVI's - I only flow complete arguments.
I refuse to vote on disclosure or other norm based theory arguments unless a) it is entirely conceded b) i witnessed MISdisclosure with an intent to lie or cheat --- anything else is not worthwhile for anyone's time. New AFFs are good.
Framework debates:
My least favorite debates, but I judge them the most
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 being required to meet 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. You should still answer the links if going for framework or at least say why the case outweighs or solves the links.
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'm not great for competition debates; I don't like evaluating scripts read at each other with minimal impacts and direct engagement on the line by line.
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.
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 explication 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 nor know how to evaluate phil, skep, tricks, and the like. If you do not defend some form of consequentialism, I am most likely 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.
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.
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.
Ilan Boguslavsky (he/him)
Head-Royce '24
UC Berkeley '28
hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com (policy only)
My old paradigm was far too long and redundant. As I’ve judged more, I’ve realized I have almost no opinions about arguments as long as they are technically won. Read whatever you want. I read primarily K arguments in high school and now read solely policy arguments/framework in college, I’ll know what you are talking about. Teams that are able to effectively summarize the round and write my ballot at the top of the rebuttals will generally receive higher speaker scores. I flow on excel, I have the speech docs open during the 1AC and 1NC to look for clipping but I will not open any subsequent documents.
I default to judge kick until contested.
I default to reject the argument not the team on theory besides condo.
Inserting rehighlightings can be debated out.
Tell me if you want to stake the round on an ethics violation and I will stop the round, otherwise debate it out.
I'll strike new 2AR arguments off my flow.
shawnee mission south '23, university of southern california ‘27
if you ask for a marked copy when less than 3 cards were marked and/ or have to clarify what ev was read without taking cx or prep, your speaks ceiling is a 27.
the round should start on time. the amount of stalling and general lack of timeliness has become egregious recently.
all you need to know:
if tricks/ phil - no.
if anything else - yes.
clarity is key. flowing is fundamental.
misc:
judge instruction wins debates. evidence quality matters. smart analytics can beat bad cards.
"if i win ontology i auto win a link" thats not how that works.
affs should respond to the resolution. what that looks like is up for debate, and i am truly impartial about whether or not it entails reading a plan text.
you will lose for clipping. the other team does not need to call it out. #communicationactivity.
Lowell 23' Berkeley 27'
Email:
lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains and tournaments.
Parli / PF at the bottom.
TLDR: Speed is fine but clarity > speed. Prefer a policy debate instead of a K v K debate.
Background: Hi, I'm Michael. I was a 2A/1N at Lowell High School. Jenny Liu carried me as my 2N/1A partner, with both of us under the watchful eye of the Mr. Debnil Sur.
Circuit:
Topicality: Sure. I evaluate T through competing interpretations. Reasonability is not a real argument ... unless it's dropped ...
K Affs: Limited experience. Too often in these debates there is not clear warranting / impacting of things like fairness, clash etc. The team with the better high level storytelling and clearer explanation of arguments that matter will pick up my ballot.
Neg K: Framework Ks are awesome! Ks with an alt are cool too, but it seems that the alt never gets developed or explained sufficiently to overcome the status quo. Affirmatives that exploit this and negatives that explain why this doesn't matter (dropped, floating pics, having an actual alt that overcomes the links) will have a stronger chance of picking up my ballot.
CP: No familiarity with the IP topic --- err on the side of over explanation. Would love to see a case specific cp with a decent solvency advocate, +0.2 speaks if you have a case specific cp with a rehighlighted piece of their ev that says your plan solves (and the rehighlighting actually says what you want it to say).
DA: Sure, I'll vote on them if your ahead, generic links are bad but it doesn't matter if the 1AR drops them, explain why your impact outweighs / make smart turns case arguments. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad DAs can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.
Case: More likely to be convinced by smart analytics and evidence rehighlightings than impact defense alone. Warrant comparison is so important -- make the 2AR actually have to spend time on the case page pls!!
CX: I flow it so use it to poke holes and get concessions. Don't be rude, cutting people off is fine but do it in a polite way. Open CX is cool.
Condo: More sympathetic to the AFF then typical. Would much prefer to judge a well warranted and high clash 4-off debate than a 11-off 1NC where the 2AC gets like 4 arguments on every flow at best.
+0.1 if you follow @lowellpolicyheg on insta, tell me before the round!!
+0.1 for your team if you title one of your docs "lay-debate-is-not-dead".
+0.2 if you make a funny joke about Debnil, Jessie, Taylor, Taytum, Eloise, Win, or Jenny (the seven of them have taught me everything I know about debate so you can look at their paradigms if you really want to understand where I am coming from as a judge).
Policy (Lay / GGSA):
Circuit's fine if both teams agree to do so, throughout my career there have been too many circuit teams that agree to a lay debate and then run 10 off -- it's not cool.
Ethos matters! Looking at me instead of your computer can get you a long way especially when writing my ballot in the 2nr or 2ar.
Case in a lay debate setting: Honestly totally go for case with me, I have a pretty high threshold that the aff has to pass, if you can prove to me beyond the preponderance of the evidence that the aff can't solve or access their impacts I'll vote for you. Use their ev against them. If you are going for just case in the 2nr say at the top "Russell Brand would vote on stock issues so you should too" it will remind me that GGSA is a lay tournament so I can pull the trigger on solvency, plus it will boost your speaks 0.1
Parli
Ethos > logos; I'm sorry but if your doing parli I have 0 respect for your ev so I vote on your rhetoric and delivery of arguments.
That said make your arguments logical not going to vote on something insanely stupid just because you said it well.
Dropped arguments are true, but you need to explain what that dropped argument means / how it should shape the rest of the debate.
Perms are a test of competition, running one in 2a does not lock you into it for the VI.
I'll strike new arguments but call a POO the first time they make one, I'll say taken into account and be strictly looking for new arguments through out the rest of the VI. That said if your wrong I'll be very sad so make sure your right that it's new.
+0.1 if you follow @lowellpolicyheg on insta, tell me before the round.
+0.1 if you make a joke about anyone who's done Lowell parli
PF
I've never debated in PF and have limited experience judging this event! Explicit judge instruction and impact calc will go a long way for me, especially in the final rebuttals.
general
graduated: northland christian hs '20; ut austin '22 (ba); texas law '24 (jd)
experience: competed 4 yrs hs ld local/nat circuit; consistent ld/pf/cx coach and judge since competing
chain email: austindebatedocs@gmail.com (speechdrop.net/file share preferred)
tldr: intervention bad
____________________________________________________________________________________________
misc.
- all claims need a warrant with a threshold of "bc" (or something similar) bc although warrants are infinitely regressive, voting on a warrantless claim requires an out-of-round justification (it's more interventionist)
- i don't assume conceded arguments/anything true absent justification bc it's logically incoherent to do so
- spreading, flex prep, joint cross, sitting, cameras off, and/or most anything else is fine bc idk y not
- i don't clear unless asked bc it's interventionist
____________________________________________________________________________________________
p/p
- by default i presume in favor of whichever advocacy is closest to squo bc i need a reason to deviate from it; i don't assume permissibility flips either way bc by default no debater has the burden to prove a binding ethic
- no extended fw/paradigm issue and i'll likely vote on p/p absent an uplayer/downlayer bc the debate becomes irresolvable otherwise (for cx i'll assume util/x first bc that seems to be the norm)
- if the p/p debate is irresolvable (i.e. one debater wins permissibility and one debater wins presumption but no one says which comes first, both debaters win a reason they get presumption, both debaters defend squo), i'll flip a virtual coin (aff heads, neg tails) bc that's least interventionist
____________________________________________________________________________________________
pref shortcuts (by % confidence in ability to adjudicate):
theory/t/tricks: 95-100% (depending on density/speed; flowing several blip-y tricks gets weird sometimes)
larp: 85-100% (depending on density/speed; i'm unfamiliar w some cx nuances but learning)
phil/high theory/k: 100%
____________________________________________________________________________________________
speaks
- based on strategy and evaluated on a scale from 0-100% then converted to a "normal" speaks range (locals 28-30, nat circuit 27-30) bc idk a more objective way to eval (these are always on some level arbitrary)
- will grant a speaks spike bc no reason not to (and i prefer to bc it's less interventionist); subject to ballot constraints like "no ties" bc i can't give double 30s on a no ties ballot
Hey, I'm Kabir. I did LD in high school and now am an assistant coach some of the time
Put me on the chain: 24kabirb@alumni.harker.org
My goal is to be as unbiased as possible. I have predispositions and think some arguments are truer than others, but I will do my best to keep those opinions out of the debate. With the exception of a few arguments that are flagged at the top of this paradigm, I will vote on anything and you should not overadapt.
I will not vote on:
- Arguments that are explicitly racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted
- Arguments that require me to evaluate the identity of a debater (i.e. vote for me, give me higher speaks, or change theory norms for me because I am x identity)
- Arguments for why you should get higher speaks as the rules of debate only make sense for arguments your opponent has an incentive to answer
- Arguments to evaluate after x speech that are made in the same speech it is asking me to end evaluation after, as it is impossible for your opponent to respond without creating a paradox
Other than that, everything is fair game. The rest of this paradigm will explain how I evaluate debates, and I'll only mention specific arguments to the extent that my overall thoughts about debate affect those arguments.
1. Be clear and slower than you think you need to be. This is easily the most important thing on my paradigm. A majority of debaters I've judged so far have either been too fast or too unclear on analytics. I will call clear or slow twice and then I really will stop flowing. I will not flow off the doc, and I very often will not even have it open. I've noticed some debaters seem to think that if an analytic/tag becomes sufficiently long they can blaze through it at the same speed that they would go through a card (I find this happens most often in phil and T debates). Don't do this -- just because you send analytics does not mean I will backflow them.
2. All arguments must have a warrant, and I have a relatively high threshold for what constitutes a warrant. The test I use is: if your opponent responded by asserting the opposite of your claim, would I be able to decide who's right without intervention? If the answer is no, the argument did not have a warrant to begin with. Some examples of arguments I believe do not have warrants as they are commonly read (to be clear, I don't have a problem with these arguments, these specific versions just happen to be good examples)
i. "conditionality is a voter: spreads out the 1ar and forces us to debate ourselves. Dispo solves -- they can kick if we perm." "spreads out the 1ar" and "forces us to debate ourselves" lack both a warrant and an impact, and "dispo solves--they can kick if we perm" is an explanation of your standard of dispo, not an explanation of how it solves.
ii. "one grain of sand falling creates no noise, but a thousand does, therefore the world is paradoxical." This is a non-sequitur and "the world is paradoxical" does not have an implication.
iii. "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater -- anything else is arbitrary and self-serving." These are assertions.
3. I will not evaluate new arguments in the 2nr/2ar (that aren't responding to 1ar arguments) and I will not evaluate arguments if my understanding of them changes between the initial and final speeches. I know this seems obvious but there are a few instances in which I deviate from the circuit norms.
a. Floating PIKs -- it is beyond me why these are distinguished from any other brand new argument. If I did not understand the alt to include the process of the aff in the 1nc, and the 2nr says it does, then my understanding of the alt has significantly changed between speeches, so I won't evaluate it. I don't think it’s the aff's burden to figure out what the alt does in CX -- if I don't understand it, then I don't expect the 1ar to either.
b. New cards in the 2nr -- I'm not against them in general, but I think they should only be read to respond to claims in the 1ar, not to make brand-new arguments. For example: if the neg reads a disad and the 1ar makes a uniqueness argument, the 2nr can read cards responding to the specific uniqueness claims/examples of the 1ar, but cannot read seven new cards making totally new arguments for uniqueness.
4. I will not read evidence after the round unless there's a specific disagreement on what a piece of evidence says. If one side characterizes a piece of evidence as saying something, and the other side concedes it, I will assume that evidence does say that thing. Conversely, it's your job to tell me what your evidence says -- I will not read it just because you tell me it's really great.
a. If you read new evidence in the 2nr/2ar, you should either: put all the warrants you want flowed in the tag, or read through the card slowly enough that I can flow the body of the card. If you do neither of these things, then I'll have the claim/tagline flowed, but not the warrants, and I won't read it after the round to figure out what the warrants are.
5. Err on the side of simplicity when possible. I don't hate big words, but I do think that some arguments are made more convoluted than they need to be in order to confuse your opponent and allow you to insist some arguments were "dropped" when in reality they weren't present in the first speech to begin with. If you do this, you run the risk of confusing me as well, and I will probably give your opponent a lot of leeway in responding to it.
6. CX is binding and mandatory. You should answer all questions if they are relevant to the round (obviously what is and isn't relevant is kind of your choice), and you should not go back on your answers in later speeches.
7. Getting a doc with cards that were marked early is not prep, getting a doc with cards that were entirely skipped is prep.
8. I view speaks as my estimate of how good you are at debate based only on the round I judged. Choosing high-clash strategies, not reading off a doc in your final speech, debating on the line-by-line instead of through overviews, demonstrating general knowledge, using CX well, and being clear and flowable will all boost your speaks.
9. Random defaults (I have no opinions either way on these, I only use them when neither side establishes paradigm issues): drop the argument (except shells where dta either necessitates dtd or doesn't make sense), yes judge kick, competing interps, comparative worlds
I debated in Policy for around 6 years and my background is mostly K args, but dont be afraid to run policy, I’m cool with both. I currently coach Speech and LD for Leigh High School.
Keep me on the chain por favor – coachcarlos408@gmail.com
- one thing about Email threads, please create them ASAP! and before the round starts preferably if you have everyone's contact info. Also, please name the email's subject line like the following
- Year, Tournament Name, Round Number, Flight _, Start Time, Aff - School Name/Code, Neg - School Name/Code
If you have any questions for after the round or just need some help feel free to email, I’ll try to get back
general -
- I will distribute speaker points based off the accumulated performance from y’all, I like hearing arguments more if you truly believe in what you’re saying, especially debating Kritiks, be funny tho I’ll probably laugh, try to have fun and be the chill ones, try not to be toxic and even more so do not be violent, no -isms
- I will try to keep up on the flow but do not hyper-spread through theory blocks or any block for that matter, I will most likely not catch it
- be chill with each other but you can be aggressive if thats just your style, try not to trigger anxiety though in other debaters if you’re going too far
———- some more specifics ———-
I run and prefer Kritikal arguments, I am more comfortable listening to Settler Colonialism, Afro-Pessimism and Marxist literature, but that does not mean you can just spew jargon and hope to win, explain what your theories mean and your arguments, it will go a long way for your speaker points as well
Speaking of, i will be in the range of 27.5 - 29.9 for speaker points, I will try to be objective as possible but you do you, if you can do that well the speaker awards will come too
On T/FW, please make sure that your standards are specific to the round and are clearly spoken, I am substantially less convinced if you do not argue how that specific aff loses you ground and/or justifies a bad model of debate, but I will not vote it down for no reason, argue why those skills are good to solve the aff or provide a good model that sustains KvK debate in a better way than the aff justifies. Just don’t try to read your generic 2NC blocks, it gets more obvious the longer the debate goes on, do it well.
On Counterplans, try to have a net benefit, be smart with it, try not to have a million planks, having a solvency advocate is cool too, not much here.
Disads - do your link work as usual, I will vote on who does the better impact framing, just make sure you still got that link :) p.s for affs, just dont leave it at the end of the 2AC with a 2 second “they dont link isn’t it obvious”, please explain your answers and divide up time strategically
on K’s, I love good 2NC/1NR link stories, try not to just extend some evidence and answer 2AC args, evaluate why your links implicate the aff and how their specific aff makes something problematic. I dont mind a 2NC only the K with no cards, just make sure you’re not reading prewritten blocks, please be as specific as possible
Please stick to your arguments and embody them, just tell me what to evaluate at the end of the debate, I will very much appreciate if you can tell me how that happens, be revolutionary if you want to, I would probably enjoy the debate more.
[UPDATE FOR CPS LD 24']
1. I am very open to any and all styles of argumentation [including Lay], but I have the experience and preference to evaluate higher level K and Procedural Debate. I will ask that you withhold debating Pomo and Tricks in front of me, I will not be as valuable to you if that is your core literature/argument base.
2. I will tolerate evidence read in the rebuttals, but don't read whole new offcases or advantages in them either.
3. I can judge kick but warrant it out, do not rely on single sentence explanations so be ready to commit to the argument.
4. Include judge instruction in your Rebuttal Speeches, remember this is a game of persuasion, not just spreading.
[UPDATE FOR Berkeley LD 24']
- I'm fine with spreading, send out debate docs and have the email thread ready if you're aff. [coachcarlos408@gmail.com]
Hello everyone, my name is Anthony (he/him). I’m a 2nd year NPDA competitor, formerly Irvine Valley College and currently Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley. I believe debate is exceptionally rewarding and important, so I hope you find value in your experience. Have fun and be respectful! Part of this activity is judge adaptation, if any of my preferences below are not clear, ask me questions.
Cheating: Don’t do it. Apparently, this is a thing, if it happens, I’ll be detrimental. (Copy-pasting, in-round internet use, etc.)
Speed: I cannot keep up with the fastest spreaders, but feel free to push the limits. If I call slow or clear, then slow down or speak clearly. It’s in your best interest that I am able to keep up with your arguments.
Theory: I enjoy theory debate. Signpost, make good arguments,
Case/DA: Case debate is welcomed. I prefer policy rounds, defending a plan, etc. Again, signpost and make good arguments. Terminalize your impacts, collapse, then tell me how and why you win.
Kritiks/Aff-K’s: I am most inexperienced with K debate. I will not vote you down if this is your strategy but do so carefully. Here are some suggestions if you wish to run K’s and be successful: I have not read your lit base so explain it clearly. I will do my best to judge K rounds, as a competitor, clear explanations of dense arguments will significantly increase your probability of success.
How to Win: Weigh, Weigh, Weigh. By your rebuttal speech’s you must know where you are winning and where you are not, collapse arguments and weigh. If you think you are winning the whole debate, you’re probably wrong, collapse and weigh. I will vote on flow in terms of how you tell me to weigh the round. There will not be a risk of judge intervention if you just tell me what to do and why (weighing).
Mira Loma HS '22 | UC Berkeley '26
Email: holden.carrillo@berkeley.edu
In high school I competed in PF for 3 years, mostly on the national circuit, and had an average career. I've competed in NPDA in college for 3 years, winning NPTE and a few other tournaments. I coached LD at James Logan and parli at Campolindo last year, and currently coach parli at Piedmont.
Public Forum
TL;DR: I'm a few years removed from the circuit so be aware that I may be unaware of newer norms. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and good weighing are musts. Respond to everything in 2nd rebuttal. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round, and I'll do my best to adapt to you.
Front-Half:
- Speed: Add me to the email chain. I'd like docs sent in the first four speeches, even if you're going slow. If you send a doc, any speed is fine. If you don't, don't go faster than 300 wpm, anything under shouldn't be an issue.
- Evidence: While I paraphrased in HS, I'm not super proud of it. While I'm not a huge stickler for paraphrasing/reading cards, paraphrasing is a bad norm and I'm down to vote for paraphrasing theory if it's run correctly and won.
- Cross: I'll probably be half listening to cross, so I'll never vote off of anything here unless it's said in speech. However, cross is binding, just make sure someone mentions it in a speech. If both teams agree, we can skip any crossfire and have 1 minute of prep as a substitute.
- Rebuttal: 2nd rebuttal must frontline everything, not just turns. Advantages/disads are fine, 4 minutes is 4 minutes, but my threshold for responses will increase if you implicate them to their case. Blippy responses are tolerable but gross, I'd like it if you weighed your turns and your evidence when you introduce it.
Back-Half:
- Extensions: My threshold for extensions are very very very low. I think that extensions are a silly concept and uneducational (especially in PF). As long as you talk about the argument, it's considered extended. However, this doesn't mean that you can be blippy in the front half, and this doesn't mean that defense is sticky. Unless your opponents completely dropped their argument, dropped defense still needs to be mentioned at least briefly in summary.
- Weighing: Be as creative as you want, I hate judges that don't evaluate certain weighing mechanisms like probability and SOL. If 2 weighing mechanisms are brought up and both are equally responded to without any metaweighing, I'll default to whoever weighs first. If nobody weighs then I'll default to SOL (please don't make me do this).
- Final Focus: I know this is cliche, but the best way to win my ballot is by writing it for me. You're best off specifically explaining why your path to the ballot is cleaner than theirs rather than focusing on minuscule parts of the flow.
Progressive Debate:
- Theory: I'm probably a bit better at evaluating theory debates than LARP ones. I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team. For accessibility reasons, if no paradigm issues are read, I'll default to DTA (when applicable), reasonability, and RVIs.
- Kritiks: Anything should be fine, but while I had a few K rounds in PF, most of my K experience comes from parli (i.e. I still don't know if proper alts outside of "vote neg" are allowed in PF, a lot of rules around K's are cloudy for me). There's a lot of literature I'm not familiar with, so please take CX to explain this stuff especially if it's pomo.
- Tricks: I'm a fan of them, don't know why there's so much stigma around them. With that being said, if you're hitting an unexperienced team, my threshold for responses are low, but feel free to run tricks.
Also, uplayer your prefiat offense. Please. Not enough teams do this in PF and it makes my ballot hard.
Other:
- I presume the team that lost the coin flip unless given a warrant otherwise. If there's no flip I'll presume the 1st speaking team
- Big fan of TKO's
- Big fan of content warnings
- Big fan of tag-teaming
- Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped. On this note, please do not run afropess if you are nonblack.
Speaker Points:
Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:
- + 1 for disclosing on the wiki (show proof before the round)
- + 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
- + 0.5 for a Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
- + 0.1 for every CX skipped
- + 0.1 for every swear word
- - 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
- Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, CC good, wipeout, or any other fun impact turn
- Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
- Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without any prep time
- Instant 30's if you weigh/respond to their case for at least 30 seconds in 2nd constructive
If I'm missing anything specific, feel free to ask me any questions before the round!
Parliamentary
TL;DR: Most of my parli experience is on the college level, so I might be unaware of specific norms in HS Parli. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and weighing will take you a long way. Overall, I'm cool with anything and chill with most things that go in round. Here’s a bunch of random thoughts abt parli:
Case: Love it, I'm a case debater primarily. Please please please please please terminalize your impacts. For some reason some HS parli teams struggle with this. Tell me why your impact matters, go the extra step during prep. I'm a sucker for squirrelly arguments and impact turns, you can be weird. Go for turns. Please weigh, I mean it. The earlier you weigh, the higher my threshold for responses are. If 2 weighing mechanisms are equally competing with no metaweighing, I'll default to the first one read. If there’s no weighing, I will have to intervene to the least responded argument, then the highest magnitude impact (pls do not make me do this). Skim through my PF paradigm to see detailed opinions on case, but to put it briefly I’m pretty simple and cool with
Theory: I’m probably the most comfortable with my decisions here, run whatever. MG theory is good, but will listen to warrants otherwise. I probably won’t vote for theory out of the block/PMR unless it’s a super violent violation. I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team. RVI’s can be chill! In college they’re frowned upon, but I will absolutely evaluate a good RVI debate. Defaults: CI's > reasonability, DTA > DTD, text > spirit, potential abuse > actual abuse (but as with all defaults, win an argument on the flow and my mind changes).
Kritiks: I’m cool with them, but also there’s probably a lot of lit I haven’t read. From competing, I’m most familiar with any kind of cap, semiocap, Buddhism, and Foucault, any kind of K with a good link should be fine tho as long as you explain it. While it’s not necessary, try not to take the easy way out, write some non-generic links! For FW, I find myself aligning with materialism > epistemology > ontology, but I haven’t judged enough K rounds to determine how biased this makes me. I feel a lot more comfortable judging K’s vs. case/T-FW/dumps than K v K debates (while I really don’t care what you run, that’s where I’ll feel most confident with my decision).
Other:
- If you take away one part of my paradigm it's this: I have a very low threshold for MO responses to the aff. I believe that all neg responses to case should be in the LOC, and while I'll evaluate responses read in the MO, I usually find myself erring aff.
- Speed is cool (top speed like 250-275 depending on how clear you are), but if I say slow and you don't slow then I'll stop flowing.
- Extensions are silly. While I do have a threshold for extending, that threshold is very low so the only time it would be a good idea to call out your opponents on their extending is if it's literally nonexistent.
- I'll evaluate any cheaty CP unless someone runs a shell telling me it's bad.
- If you're gonna perm something, respond to the perm spikes!!! Perms are a test of competition, not advocacy.
- Tricks are good, but my threshold for responses are low, especially if you're hitting a less experienced team.
- Condo's good, but you can convince me that condo's bad.
- Presume neg until I'm told otherwise
- Big fan of content warnings
- Big fan of tag-teaming
- Not a big fan of discrimination/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped. On this note, please do not run afropess if you are nonblack.
- Collapse. Please.
- Flex is binding but needs to be brought up during speech for me to evaluate it.
- Repeat your texts or say them slowly please!
Speaker Points:
Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:
- + 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
- + 0.5 for each Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
- + 0.1 for every swear word
- - 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
- Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, or any other fun impact turn
- Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
- Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without flex (if applicable)
As I'm writing this, I feel like I'm missing something, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round!
For LD/Policy:
I have literally zero policy experience and limited LD experience. I know enough to be a decent enough judge, but may be unaware with specific norms on the circuit. Check my parli paradigm for my general thoughts on things!
Quick Prefs:
1 - LARP
1 - Theory
3 - Tricks
3 - K v. Case/T-FW
4 - K v. K
5 (Strike) - Phil
About me:
contact info: joseph438@hotmail.com
I am a parent judge, this is my first tournament judging so please be respectful and patient with me.
Keep the debate simple. Have fun!
Chris Coovert,
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 27 years
Coached CX: 17: years
Coached PF: 21 years
Competed in LD: 4 years
Competed in NPDA: 2 years
LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know.
I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why, based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another paradigm being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.
As far as specific arguments go.
1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments if the aff is affirming the entire resolution. In a round where the affirmative runs a plan, T becomes more relevant.
2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. I especially hate AFC, and must/must not run plans, or arguments of this nature.
3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.
4. You need to keep sight of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.
5. I am not going to vote on disclosure theory. I am more likely for an RVI against the person who ran disclosure. There is no obligation to disclose.
Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. Please adjust your speed accordingly. I will not keep repeating myself and will eventually just stop flowing.
Updates for Berkeley 2025
- I am finding that in most of my rounds debaters are extremely unclear. I am not going to read your speech doc for you. I will be on the email chain, but I'm only looking if there are disputes. Your job is to make the arguments. If. I can't understand you, that's on you. This means you probably need to go slower than you think.
- I would be ecstatic to see someone read a non util framework.
- If it is a policy rounds, please do evidence comparison.
- If you run a case that use a framework that is not util or critical on aff, you will get higher speaker points.
Public Forum Paradigm
I want to see clear arguments with warrants to back them up. I am ultimately going to vote on the arguments in the round not speaking ability. That said, speaking persuasively will never hurt you and might make your arguments seems stronger. Please do not lie about evidence or take it out of context. I know enough about most topics that I will know if you are misrepresenting evidence or simply making stuff up.
Coppell DR
"Tech over truth. I do not share the sensibilities of judges who proclaim to be technical and then carve out an exception for death good, wipeout, or planless affirmatives. The only situation in which I will not vote on an argument is when forced to by the Tabroom.
This applies to everything. You do not get a blank check because your opponents’ arguments are “trolls” or “science fiction.” Whether something could be “read identically on a previous topic” has no bearing on whether it rejoins the affirmative. It is my experience and firm belief that the vast majority of judges who describe arguments in such a fashion are dangerously incapable of answering them.
With that in mind, I will decide the debate based on the flow and nothing else."
Hi,
My name is Li Ding. I am a parent judge. I have two years of experience LD debate. Here is a list of preferences in debate, hope you have a fun experience in debating:
1) Don't speak too fast, this helps me better understand your arguments.
2) Be respectful to your opponents. Everyone wants to win but be respect to your opponents.
3) My judge primarily based on the framework and how you support the framework. If your arguments don't link well to the framework, you probably will not get my vote.
4) It's better to have a strong evidence and clear logic to back your arguments.
Happy debating!
tl;dr: I'm a flow Parliamentary judge, good with speed. If you make my job of evaluating easier by collapsing and covering the flow, then you'll get my ballot. open to Ks but running one doesn't automatically win you my ballot.i usually give oral feedback after the round.
Quick Bio: Hello! My name is Renée Diop and I'm a high school debate coach, tutor, judge, and former competitor. I championed the California High School Speech Association State Championship in Parliamentary Debate in 2022, and now pass on my recent knowledge of the game to current high school students. If you’re interested in parli debate tutoring,email me at dioprenee@gmail.com.
CASE:
Both sides: Definitions need to come out of the first 2 constructive speeches, no backtracking and redefining halfway through the round. For the love of Allah (SWT), collapse collapse collapse.
Aff: I want a killer MG; a good PMR won't win me over if the MG was trash. Kill the flow and leave Neg with zero outs and I'll give you a cookie. For the PMR the best you can do for me is reframe the round and contextualize it under your weighing mechanism, but most of the time my mind is already made up before then.
Neg: LOC needs to hard carry right out the gate. Open to PICs and counter-definitions as long as they come from the LOC and nowhere else; LOR should be preempting, wiping the flow clean so I can vote without even having to listen to the PMR.
THEORY:
Overall: Open to friv T, just don't read off 10 standards and be a douche about it. Keep it cute and fun. Collapse on 1 voters/impact, don't be messy and make me do all the work to evaluate several different layers. Anything that makes me do more work is something to avoid doing. Tell me T > Ks and T > case, but give legitimate reasons for why.
Ks Bad T: Not a fan of it. I love a good K, what can I say. Unless you can present me with some new and unique standards, I believe that Ks specifically grant access to minority debaters, and generalizing all Ks as being "bad" by default is a red flag for me. The only other circumstance I would vote for them is if your opponents are being blatantly inaccessible by spreading you out of the round, being ivory tower, etc.
Framework or Disclosure T: Now this is reasonable. I'll vote for this if you're smart about it. If not, my default is to accept Aff Ks so take this opportunity if it arises.
KRITIKS:
Overall: Cool with Aff Ks as long as you disclose during prep. I did gender, queer, necro-capitalism, anti-blackness, settler colonialism, and marx Ks in high school so if your K aligns with any of those then go for it, BUT ALSO I'M OPEN TO ALL KS!Be accessible or your K has no impact! This means 1) Don't spread your opponents out of the round. Slow when they ask you to. 2) Give definitions for the hella obscure words your literature references. I'm no parent judge, but I also don't have a PhD in English. I'm cool Ks as long as you can translate it to the common vernacular.
Framework: I should know exactly what your thesis is by the end of the FW. Don't wait until the alternative to clearly explain your ideas. Tell me how to evaluate pre vs. post fiat impacts, tell me K > Case, and give me a role of the ballot.
Links: Quality > quantity. No link means no K, so choose them wisely. I want claim, evidence, reasoning like a sophomore year Honors English class. Don't just say, "Our opps did this so they're linking into the K!" actually explain it and justify it with evidence.
Alternative: Not huge on revolutionary/utopian alts, I find them to be no different than post-fiat arguments in most circumstances. If your K has in-round, debate-space solvency then I'll love and cherish you till the ends of the earth <3.
K vs. K rounds: You're so cool if you do this. Love the inevitably high amounts of clash these rounds produce. Just make sure there are proper re-links and that your alternative solves/is a prerequisite to solving theirs.
Thank you for reading & good luck! Hmu after any round to ask a question, get advice, want me to teach you debate, or literally anything else. Email me at dioprenee@gmail.com.
Hey! I'm Manank. Lynbrook '24. Cal '28. Did LD for 4 years, trad for 1, circuit for 3 but comfortable evaluating pretty much any type of debate.
Email chain: doshimanank@gmail.com
tldr: if spreading, start at 70%, not a huge fan of phil or tricks or disclosure theory and will probably not understand or vote on those, and don't assume I understand kritiks.
Update: Haven't been involved in debate for the past few months so start slow. I also have no idea about anything about the topic (like literally nothing) so please explain!!!
Trad LD/PF
I've got a good amount of experience, tech > truth. do your thing, don't spread there's a reason why pf is different than policy and trad ld is different than circuit ld. Most of these rounds come down to who does better weighing so weigh!!!
Progressive/Circuit LD
Quick pref sheet:
Theory/T - 1
Soft Left Affs & non-extinction impact larp debate - 1
LARP - 2
Wacky/Different but understandable arguments: (friv theory, wipeout, etc.) - 2
Kritiks - 3
Phil - 5
Tricks (like eval, tt, that stuff) - Strike
General Debate Thoughts: Genuinely don't know why 2nr needs to collapse cuz its job is to make the 2ar impossible. However, I believe that collapsing can be strategic so you do you. Be nice. Don't be offensive. I'm not the best flower but if you're clear and not incredibly fast you'll be fine. Clipping is an L only if your opponent stakes the round on it and there is evidence. Weigh + good evidence comparison is a must (and gets you good speaks). Have fun!
LARP/Policy: I can evaluate larp just fine. CP competition needs to be explained very well. Comparative weighing is highly appreciated. There is a thing called 0% risk, soft left affs and Ks should use this more vs extinction.
Theory/T: Most of my theory knowledge comes from Michael Harris.
Default to DTD on T, CIs, no RVIs, dta on cp theory except condo.
I'm cool with RVI's if warranted and explained well
Went for this a ton every year so pretty comfortable
Do standard weighing and voter weighing
Probably not gonna vote on disclosure/wiki theory
Friv theory is fine with me, if you use reasonability well to answer friv shells, then you will likely get good speaks.
Kritiks/K Affs: Not great for these but if you can explain why extinction doesn't o/w and hijack the aff, then should be fine. I need a ton of explanation though because most K's just sound like a bunch of jargon ngl. Probably bad for identity K's, probably fine for cap, security, ir k's. I'm pretty bad for K affs because I believe there is a resolution for a reason. If you're able to answer T-FW well, then go for it but I am persuaded by T-fw a lot.
Phil: Most phil debates tend to just be blippy analytics, don't do that if you want to read phil in front of me. I'm still probably bad for substantive phil debates.
Tricks: No pls. Blippy args with terrible warrants are bad.
How to get good speaks:
make debate ez to eval pls (aka be clear and simplify the debate round in the last speech)
be funny! I primarily did debate just to have fun and learned a ton along the way.
be smart + strategic
good impact calc + evidence comparison
No docbotted 2nr/2ar pls
From Soohyuk Yoon's paradigm: Give a good 2nr or 2ar off paper = +0.5 speak boost, Handshake after round = +0.3
My paradigm is as follows:
1. I vote based off of what happens in the round, or more accurately, what happens according to my flow. If you want me to vote on an argument, it has to make it to my flow, and for an argument to do so, stay organized, sign post, and tag. It’s your job to be clear on what your specific response is, not my job to decipher what your tag line is or what you’re responding to.
2. While I am an alumni debater with a Policy, LD, and Parli background, I am very much AGAINST speed talking. You don’t need speed to spread, you just need to be an efficient and effective communicator.
POI: if I put my pen down during your speech, it’s an indication that your either are not communicating effectively (ie. not clear, organized, signposting, or tagging) or you are over time.
3. I suspend my own personal beliefs and simply follow the arguments for the duration of a round. You only need to make strong arguments and impact well to convince me. Don’t assume I agree with you and then cut your argument (link, warrant, and/or impact) short as a result.
4. I love structure in debate (arguments, cases, format, strategy, etc.) and have enjoyed framework debates in the past. As long as you make it clear why your argument matters both to your side and the resolution, I’ll vote on it. If you and your opponents fail to do so, the argument will not affect the RFD or I will have to insert my own opinion into the round to vote on it.
5. A consistent lack of impacting arguments to the resolution, turns the round into a “two ships passing in the night” experience rather than a high contrast debate round. When this happens, I am forced to insert my own opinion to choose a winner - which I very much don’t like doing.
6. Be professional and respectful. A lack of either of these makes your credibility drop significantly.
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.
Ethan Farrell (he/him)
Clear, Confident, and based in truth rather than tech.
No spreading is allowed. I want to clearly understand both sides, in order to do that you must not prioritize speed, rather than accuracy.
I highly encourage both sides to time themselves. Going overtime will affect your score.
Golden Rule — Treat others the way you want to be treated. (treat the opponent and judge with respect.)
Clear Summary of the resolution (main point and counterpoint)
You guys worked very hard to be here, and you should take pride in that.
Have fun, and please be nice to me
I judge many different formats, see the bottom of my paradigm for more details of my specific judging preferences in different formats. I debated for five years in NPDA and three years in NFA-LD, and I've judged HS policy, parli, LD, and PF. I love good weighing/layering - tell me where to vote and why you are winning - I am less likely to vote for you if you make me do work. I enjoy technical/progressive/circuit-style debates and I'm cool with speed - I don't evaluate your delivery style. I love theory and T and I'll vote on anything.
Please include me on the email chain if there is one. a.fishman2249@gmail.com
Also, speechdrop.net is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.
CARDED DEBATE: Please send the texts of interps, plans, counterplans, and unusually long or complicated counterinterps in the speech doc or the Zoom chat.
TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I prefer policy and kritikal debate to traditional fact and value debate and don't believe in the trichotomy (though I do vote on it lol), please read a plan or other stable advocacy text if you can. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. Don't make arguments in POI's - only use them for clarification. If you are a spectator, be neutral - do not applaud, heckle, knock on desks, or glare at the other team. I will kick any disruptive spectators out and also protect the right of both teams to decline spectators.
TL:DR for High School LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways. Tricks/aprioris/paradoxes are cool but I prefer you put them in the doc to be inclusive to your opponents
TL:DR for IPDA: I judge it just like parli. I don't believe in the IPDA rules and I refuse to evaluate your delivery. Try to win the debate on the flow, and don't treat it like a speech/IE event. I will vote on theory and K's in IPDA just as eagerly as in any other event. Also PLEASE strike the fact topics if there are any, I'm terrible at judging fact rounds. I will give high speaks to anyone who interprets a fact topic as policy. I try to avoid judging IPDA but sometimes tournaments force me into it, but when that happens, I will not roleplay as a lay judge. I will still judge based on the flow as I am incapable of judging any other way. It is like the inverse of having a speech judge in more technical formats. I'm also down to vote on "collapse of IPDA good" arguments bc I don't think the event should exist - I think college tournaments that want a less tech format should do PF instead
TL:DR for NFA-LD - I don't like the rules but I will vote on them if you give if you give me a reason why they're good. I give equal weight to rules bad arguments, and I will be happiest if you treat the event like one-person policy or HS circuit LD. I prefer T, theory, DA's, and K's to stock issues debate, and I will rarely vote on solvency defense unless the neg has some offense of their own to weigh against it. I think you should disclose but I try not to intervene in disclosure debates
CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the debate. I like strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why it matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff - I love a well-researched tix or bizcon scenario. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.
SPEED: I am fine with speed, but I think you slow down if your opponents ask you to. I am uncomfortable policing the way people talk, which means that if I am to vote on speed theory, you should prove you made an effort to get them to slow down and they didn't. Otherwise it can be difficult to prove a violation, but I do think speed bad arguments can be necessary in situations where one team is deliberately weaponizing speed as a tool of exclusion.
THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I'll even vote on trichot despite my own feelings about it. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation.
I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them. I am also happy to vote on OCI's, and I think a "you violate/you bite" argument is a voter on bidirectional interps such as "debaters must pass advocacy texts" even if you don't win RVI's are good
I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. However, I would like a definition of reasonability because if you don't define it, I think it just collapses back to competing interps. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.
Rules are NOT a voter by themselves - If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate.
COUNTERPLANS: I am willing to vote for cheater CP's (like delay or object fiat) unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. If you're going to be dispo, please define during your speech what dispo means. I will not judge kick unless you ask me to. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and they are also good at making your hair look curly.
PERFORMANCE: I have voted on these arguments before and I find them interesting and powerful, but if you are going to read them in front of me, it is important to be aware that the way that my brain works can only evaluate the debate on the flow. A dropped argument is still a true argument, and if you give me a way of framing the debate that is not based on the flow, I will try to evaluate that way if you win that I should, but I am not sure if I will be able to.
IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. I like direct and explicit comparison between impacts - when doing impact calc, it's good to assume that your no link isn't as good as you think and your opponent still gets access to their impact. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).
KRITIKS: I'm down for K's of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.
REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in online debate (and even then, I appreciate POO's when possible). I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.
PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K alt flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it. Also, I enjoy presumption triggers and paradoxes and I am happy to vote for them if you win them.
SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group
If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.
RECORDINGS/LIVESTREAMS/SPECTATORS: I think they are a great education tool if and only if every party gives free and enthusiastic consent - even if jurisdictions where it is not legally required. I had a terrible experience with being livestreamed once so for the sake of making debate more accessible, I will always defend all students' right to say no to recordings, spectators, or livestreams for any reason. I don't see debate as a spectator sport and the benefit and safety of the competitors always comes first. If you are uncomfortable with spectators/recordings/livestreams and prefer to express that privately you can email me before the round and I will advocate for you without saying which debater said no. Also, while I am not comfortable with audio recordings of my RFD's being published, I am always happy to answer questions about rounds I judged that were recorded if you contact me by email or Facebook messenger. Also, if you are spectating a round, please do not applaud, knock on tables, say "hear, hear", or show support for either side in any way, regardless of your event or circuit's norms. If you do I will kick you out.
PARLI ONLY:
If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument it may impact your speaks. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down.
I believe trichotomy should just be a T shell. I don't think there are clear cut boundaries between "fact", "value", and "policy" rounds, but I think most of the arguments we think of as trichot work fine as a T or extra-T shell.
PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:
I judge PF on the flow. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments. I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, theory, and kritiks. I am very open to claims that those arguments should not be in PF but you have to make them yourself - I won't intervene against them if the other team raises no objection, but I personally don't believe PF is the right place to read arguments like plans, theory, and K's
Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to go fast (especially in an online round) please send a speech doc to me and your opponents if you are reading evidence, for the sake of accessibility
POLICY ONLY:
I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli and LD and I rarely judge policy, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. Please be sure to remind me of norms that are specific to what is or isn't allowed in a particular speech
NFA-LD ONLY:
I am not fond of the rules or stock issues and it would make me happiest if you pretend they don’t know exist and act like you are in one-person policy or high school circuit LD. However, I will adjudicate arguments based on the rules and I won’t intervene against them if you win that following the rules is good. However, "it's a rule" is not an impact I can vote on unless you say why following the rules is an internal link to some other impact like fairness and education. Also, if you threaten to report me to tab for not enforcing the rules, I will automatically vote you down, whether or not I think the rules were broken.
I think the wording of the speed rule is very problematic and is not about accessibility but about forcing people to talk a certain way, so while I will vote on speed theory if you win it, I'd prefer you not use the rules as a justification for it. Do not threaten to report to tab for allowing speed, I'll vote you down instantly if you do. I also don't like the rule that is often interpreted as prohibiting K's, I think it's arbitrary and I think there are much better ways to argue that K's are bad.
I am very open to theory arguments that go beyond the rules, and while I do like spec arguments, I do not like the vague vagueness shell a lot of people read - any vagueness/spec shell should have a brightline for how much the aff should specify.
Also, while solvency presses are great in combination with offense, I will rarely vote on solvency alone because if the aff has a risk of solvency and there's no DA to the aff, then they are net beneficial. Even if you do win that I should operate in a stock issues paradigm, I am really not sure how much solvency the aff needs to meet that stock issue, so I default to "greater than zero risk of solvency".
IPDA ONLY:
I don't believe in the mission of IPDA and if I have to judge it I will not vote on your delivery even if the rules say I should, and I will ignore all IPDA rules except for speech times. Please debate like it is LD without cards or one-person parli. I am happy to vote on theory and K's unless there is an argument made in round that they are bad for accessibility (which I am open to especially for students from teams that don't do other formats). I'll even let debaters debate a topic not on the IPDA topic list if they both agree.
Graduated from CK McClatchy High School in 2020. Graduated from UC Berkeley 2024. Currently DoD at Berkeley. Conflicts: CK McClatchy, West Campus, Harker, Cal.
he/him
Of course i want to be on the email chain. nick.fleming39@gmail.com
Moreover, the 1AC needs to be sent out before the official start time for the debate, unless it is new. Speaker point deductions are in order for debaters that fail to do this.
I flow straight down on my laptop. I frequently flow CX in college policy debates. How/if I flow is non-negotiable.
I frequently take a while to decide college debates. Don't read into it too much.
Novices/Middle Schoolers
Please ignore basically everything in this paradigm. Do not worry about any of my idiosyncrasies and do not try to accommodate them. Just do your best!
College Specific Note
The debate must start on time. Tournaments are increasingly time-pressed and decision time gets shorter every year. As such, I expect college debaters to not only start on time, but minimize delays as much as possible during the debate. You are too old to still be confused about the email chain. The more decision time I have, the linearly better your decision will be. This applies less to JV/novice debates, obviously.
Important Stuff
Below are many feelings about debate. Precisely none of them overcome technical debating, with the exception of the couple clearly flagged. I have rendered numerous decisions for conditionality, against framework, and for the argument that capitalism is sustainable. If my feelings were determinative, I would never vote for these arguments. There is a great deal of wiggle room, but it is exclusively accessed through technical debating.
My two least favorite things on earth are self-importance and cowardess. Don't do either of them.
I think I care more than other judges about judge instruction. Telling me how to read/understand cards, how to frame warrants, etc. will be taken very seriously when the debate comes to an end. Smart, strategic judge instruction and framing will quickly earn speaker points.
I believe being affirmative is fundamentally easy. On those grounds, I err neg on basically all theory. This is significantly more true for policy than LD, but my instinct to resolve theory in favor of the neg will remain strong.
Most of my paradigm is about k debate because I have far less feelings about policy rounds. That is not to say I am not a good judge for them. My favorite debates to judge are big, in-depth policy rounds that are vertically oriented and have lots of good evidence. That being said, I have far less instruction to offer you because those rounds are more straight-forward to evaluate. I will reward smart turns case arguments and clever analytics above a wall of cards in these debates.
Planless affs ---
I generally think that debates are better, more interesting, and more educational when the aff defends a topical plan based on the resolution.
I have been in many of these debates, both answering and going for topicality. My time as a k debater raised my threshold for the aff a bit because I have first hand experience with how easy it can be to beat framework with args that suck. If you are going for an impact turn to T without a counter-interpretation, you should probably win offense against model v model debates.
I like impact turns a lot. I am a good judge for heg/cap good, and a bad judge for affs that don't want to defend anything. In my opinion, if you have taken a radically leftist position and forwarded a structural kritik but are unwilling to debate the most surface level right-wing propaganda, you are both bastardizing the literature and being cowards. I will not be convinced that your indictment of settler colonialism/some other superstructure is conveniently okay with whatever the neg has impact turned. Inversely, if you are a k team that is ready to throw down on these questions, I will consider you strong-willed, brave, and smart.
Skills/clash solve the case with a big external, a TVA, and a robust presumption push on case is the quickest way to my heart.
Similarly, presumption pushes against affs that are just built to impact turn T are very persuasive.
I am increasingly persuaded by the fairness paradox.
I am unpersuaded by the trend of affs being topic-adjacent and answering framework with "you could have read x DA." I believe this reflects a fundamental, novice-level misunderstanding of what topicality is.
I don't like offense that hinges on the subject position of your opponent or me as a judge. I also very strongly prefer not to be in charge of your mental health, livelihood, or identity. EDIT 11/21: have received questions about this and would like to clarify -- args about value to life, ressentiment, etc. are totally fine. I don't want be in charge of you as an individual -- meaning your role in the community, your mental health, or your sense of self.
Kritiks -
Neg - I consider myself fairly sufficient in most kritik literature and have researched extensively, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your theory. I don't think its fair of me to just fill in gaps for you (for example, deciding in my own head what it means if you "win the ontology debate.") The best way to win in front of me is to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without framework. If your argument is about you and contains no theory, I am a decidedly bad judge for you.
Aff - Impact turn things. Weigh the aff against the alt for more than just fairness -- see my framework thoughts for the neg above. If you are going soft left against the k that is also fine, but sounding nice and in the direction of whatever your opponents say doesn't tell me why the link doesn't turn the case.
Theory -
I am not very good at judging T debates against policy affs. I like reasonability and precision, and my record is pretty decisively aff, despite not having strong feelings about T. At least an outside chance this means I am simply not doing a very good job evaluating the debates.
I tend to be lenient with all neg shenanigans. Consult 2N PTSD rant above.
I largely think if cps compete, they are legit. I can sometimes be convinced otherwise, but if your theory argument is just "this counterplan is bad," I am going to be convinced by neg arbitrariness arguments,
That being said, I am pretty decisively aff for a lot of process competition. Teams would be well suited to reformulate their theory arguments as competition arguments in front of me.
Please do not go for condo in front of me. I have no idea why the neg thinking they can kick a counterplan or an alternative is a voting issue -- simply saying conditionality is bad is not sufficient for me to nuke the other team from the debate. I have never participated in or seen a debate between competent opponents in which even the most egregious abuses of conditionality effected the decision. If the neg drops it twice, I guess you have to go for it. I can think of very few circumstances where it is a good idea otherwise. Slightly more sympathetic for LD because of 1AR time pressures, but still will lean heavily neg and will cap speaks at 29 for the aff (assuming perfect debating otherwise --- if you go for condo, you should expect your points to be in the 28-28.5 range.)
Online Debate
If my camera is not on, please assume I am not ready for you to begin speaking.
I would very much appreciate if you could record your speeches in case there are internet issues while you are talking.
Even the clearest debaters tend to be tougher to flow in an online format. I understand that this comes with some strategic cost, but I will reward you with speaks if you go a little slower than usual and make sure to be extra clear.
LD:
I am fine with flex prep if you want to ask questions, but I am not going to pay attention like it is a CX. If you need to clarify things, that's fine, but treating flex prep like time to make arguments is clearly egregious.
Edit 2/11/23
If you do not ask for a marked document in your debate, I will add .1 to your speaker points. Unless your opponent legitimately marked cards, your speaker points will be capped at 29 if you ask for one. Flow better. Asking about what was and wasn't read is CX time. Every time you ask "did you read x" that's minus .1 speaker points.
EDIT 4/10/22: adding this after judging ~120 LD debates:
1. There seem to be issues with clarity plaguing this activity. To try and discourage this, I will do the following things: a.) I will never open your documents during the debate. I will read cards after if you tell me too. b.) I will say clear 5 times, after that, I'm not flowing c.) If, on the other hand, you are clear, I will give way too high of speaks. Some of the best teams in this activity sound great -- its clearly possible to win without being unflowable.
As my record indicates, I overwhelmingly vote neg in LD debates. Usually, this is because the 1AR runs out of time and drops something important, and I feel like my hands are tied on new 2AR args. That in mind -- 1ARs that set up big framing issues, start doing impact calc, and cut out superfluous arguments in favor of barebones substance will be rewarded with speaker points and usually the ballot. Aff teams, the entire activity seems to be stacked against you -- so debate accordingly, and don't waste time on useless stuff like condo.
I am gettable on Nebel/whole rez, but don't usually find it particularly persuasive. Seems counter-intuitive.
Please go easy on the theory -- I get that its a big part of the activity, but if your plan going into the debate is to go for a theory arg, you shouldn't pref me. I am usually going to vote neg.
I am not 100% familiar with all of the LD nomenclature so I may need a little explanation of things like "upward entailment test" and other LD-specific vocab
No RVI's ever under any circumstances
running list of arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:
new affs bad
no neg fiat
plan focus allows you to say the n word in debates
my opponent did something outside the round that they should lose for
RVI's
Misc.
- Consider me dead inside -- moralizing and tugging on my heart strings will only earn you negative speaks - debate is not about individual feelings, and I will not consider yours when deciding who won.
- I strongly believe that you should be allowed to insert rehighlightings of evidence that has already been read in the debate if you think it goes the other way/want to add context to an argument. Please do not abuse this by inserting a million rehighlightings, but I will be hard to convince that it is not okay to do so in moderation (especially in the 1AR.)
- Please do not ask me for high speaks -- you lose half a point every time you bring it up
- I will only flow the person who's speech it is (edit: Feel less strongly about this during the 1AC/1NC)
- It is a damning indictment of our community that I even have to say this, but the debate will end immediately if it gets even remotely physical at any point. This includes touching other debaters' property. If this is any way surprising, confusing, or offensive to you, strike me.
- There is nothing more off-putting to me than debaters who take themselves too seriously. Please stop acting like this is anything other than a silly game we all want to win at.
- In that same vein, being rude does not make you cool, funny, or brave. Snarky CX comments, saying mean stuff in speeches, etc. will make me dislike you and actively hope that you lose the debate. If I think you are too rude, I will say something after the round and take pleasure in giving you bad speaks. If it gets to the point where I am saying something to you, you should assume I bombed your speaks. If you are a team cannot moderate your rudeness, or you cannot make your arguments without being mean, please strike me and save us both a headache.
Public Forum (copied from Greg Achten)
Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. 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.
Playlist Update: Berkeley '25 - a friend told me since i ask debaters to recommend me music, i should put the music i'm listening to here for reference. i like this idea. currently listening to My Apologies to the Chef - Winona Fighter.
All chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com
and, please also add (based on event):
HSPD: dulles.policy.db8@gmail.com
HSLD: loyoladebate47@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 (by the end of the 24-25 season, i will have judged 900 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.
quoth Bankey: "Please don’t be boring. Your pre-written blocks are boring." increasingly annoyed at the amount of rebuttal speeches that are entirely read off a doc. a speech off your flow that is obviously based on the round that just happened with breaks in fluency/efficiency will get higher speaks than a speech that is technically perfect but barely contextual to the debate i'm judging.
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"). sub-pointing 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 never 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). My favorite judges were DML, James Allan (before he coached me), Devane Murphy, Alex McVey, and Reed van Schenck - I liked them because they were ideologically flexible enough to enable 2nrs on anything, but consistent in they way they evaluated arguments and resolved decisions.
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 and put my hands up. 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 after the debate.
- 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 - good cards get good speaks, but only when i'm told to read them and how.
- 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 prep time penalties for excessive dead time/typing 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 marked 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 without hidden aspec, 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
Hey everyone! My name is Alexia (she/her/hers), I’ve competed in NPDA for two years at the collegiate level, and am currently competing as a member of Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley. As a current competitor I understand how fun debate can be. Remember you are here to learn, improve, and have a good time – there’s a reason you’re strategically arguing with other people in a cramped room on a Saturday and Sunday.
Here are my not-so-hot takes:
Cheating --Do not cheat. I consider cheating a form of self-deception as well as judge deception. Everyone present is here to learn and improve and cheating is a decision to void yourself and others of meaningful learning. If there is anything within the realm of cheating – e.g. copy pasting prep, internet searching during rounds, etc. – you will be dropped immediately.
Speed --I can handle some speed and will call slow or clear verbally if necessary. Regardless of your speed, clearly signpost and let me know when we are switching sheets.
Theory -- I love it when done right. I personally am not a fan of frivolous theory, but will vote on it if you win the sheet. I take a non-interventionist stance and will default to competing interpretations unless you tell me otherwise.
Ks/Aff-Ks --I have most likely not read your lit base so explain clearly how your K functions – especially within the context of the round. I will vote on it if you clearly articulate your position and win links to case / alt solvency. I don’t mind if you reject the topic.
Steps to Success --Signpost and terminalize throughout. Then, collapse, weigh, tell me why you win. By your final speeches, you should have decided where you are winning and communicate that to me. I follow the flow and vote based on how you tell me to evaluate the round. Please for the love of all things good in the world, weigh. Or as I like to call it, ✨You Weigh, You Slay ✨
Hi, I'm Anika! UCLA, debated at Notre Dame San Jose for 3 years, qualled 3 times, and earned 9 career bids to the TOC. Put me on the email chain (anikaganesh1989[at]gmail[dot]com) although speech drop >>
I coach withDebateDrills- 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
General
Will not vote on anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. that makes the round unsafe. This includes any arguments that deny the badness of death. Debate is an educational activity, but there are clear lines for what makes the space accessible and safe.
I will evaluate tricks but the threshold for answering them is very low -- I will lower speaks for every one read. I’m not your judge for phil and if you want to read it, treat me like I’m 5.
“If your eyes don't move up from your computer your speaks aren't moving up either” - Sophia Tian.
I'll stop flowing after saying clear/slow 3 times.
I will give the same weight to arguments as is in the evidence -- 10 highlighted words without a warrant means nothing even if your spin is great. If evidence is important in a debate, tell me to read it - dont automatically assume I will.
If you don't use prep or cx to ask flow clarification questions, I'm subtracting 0.1 speaks for every question asked. That being said, flow. One other note, if you're not clear enough and I can't flow an argument, I'm not voting on it if it magically appears in the 2ar. Please take a breath and slow down, you can give an equally good speech going at 3/4 the speed.
Policy
Default neg on presumption, judge kick
Weighing is extremely underutilized (especially turns case arguments) and should always be at the top of the speech. Lbl is important beginning from the 1ar. You should be making contextual arguments rather than making broad no links extremely specific.
Inserting rehighlightings/perm texts is fine as long as it's explained.
Please do judge instruction, I find myself voting for teams who write the ballot for me in the 2ar/2nr.
K
Contextualize your links to the aff in the 2nr even if they're written broadly. 2nrs shouldn't have overviews but rather answer aff arguments on the lbl. The 2nr should be organized into framework, link, and alt sections. Ideally, the 1nc and 2nr will pull lines from the 1ac to form a link wall.
I'm find with the k on either side and feel equally comfortable judging policy v k and kvk debates. I mostly read setcol/ir/cap but I'll evaluate any lit base as long as its explained and debated well.
K affs should leverage kritikal offense vs theory, t, etc. to create external offense that doesn't rely on fairness.
Great 2ar’s cite and indict specific examples, have big picture analysis (doesn't have to just come from going for fw), and explain how the aff interacts with the kritik.
Fairness is an impact. Good TFW 2nr’s have caselists, a TVA, and a clear abuse story. K affs will often have indicts of fairness and education so its key to explain both why they don't get kritikal offense and mitigate it via presumption, weighing, etc.
Cx matters a lot in these debates – reverse pit of doom, asking what the alt does, how the TOP explains the aff, what the aff Does, etc.
Topicality
Interps with well researched definitions are important. 2nr's and 2ar's should explain what models of debate they create.
Good 2nr's pre-empt the 2nr, include offensive caselists, and weigh between standards. Evidence comparison is important, but explaining which comparison metric I should prefer is equally as key.
Nebel-T is less great than topic specific violations, and I’m not voting on the grammar da/niemi.
Theory
Default reasonability > competing interps, no rvis, and dta on everything other than condo and t. I also err neg on counterplan theory, but I don’t have strong opinions on it and can be convinced otherwise
I will not vote on 1ar theory without a warrant that becomes a 3 minutes from “condo is a voter for strat skew.”
Slow down on interps and standards and pause between shells.
I’ll vote on disclosure and think proper disclosure (if your teammates read it, disclose it) is important.
I view debate as a competitive, communication event/game. You should communicate your argument(s) clearly whether fast, slow or at a medium pace (MEDIUM preferred by me). I am merely a witness to the game/event that the participants in the round create for me, the audience, and themselves. Presumption is in effect. You must win your affirmative case.
If you are not in the out rounds, I expect you to be mindful of prep time. The round is a timed event, not just your speech. There is no such thing as "tech time." The fact that you have the use of a laptop in the round makes it incumbent upon you to be more efficient with your time. Stealing prep time by claiming that a roadmap does not or should not count as prep time or speaking time is a delusion. If you're in out rounds and there is an audience, then and ONLY then are untimed roadmaps permissible for the sake of the audience trying to keep track of the debate. Otherwise, part of the challenge of debate is being a maniacal time manager. Good time management makes you a better, more competitive debater and communicator.
Do not tag team cross-x!! If you're not doing cross-x, you should be prepping for your next speech. If you tag team cross-ex, I will tell you stop and ding your speaker points.
Help me, help you!!
Keep the flow organized. In REBUTTALS- tell me what the voting issues are and why you're winning those voting issues. If you can mix in appropriate humor bonus speaker points from me.
I am a lawyer and a professional philosopher by training. I was a competitive CEDA debater on a nationally ranked team way back before most of you were born. I've judged approximately 100 rounds of high school and college debate over the last several decades. I am here because I love the activity. I want you to have fun, be civil, kind and good sports with one another. Hopefully you make great, lifelong friends, and memories from debate.
Thank you for taking the time to read my judging philosophy.
Best of luck,
Michael Giove
No spreading, please. If you must spread, I must be able to follow your arguments and evidence - that is how I will make my decision.
Please cite evidence to back up arguments and include sources with dates.
Quick off time road maps are OK. Be respectful please of your opponent.
Thank you!
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.
General Debate
You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If you time yourself, your alarm needs to silent. If you argue with me, you are begging for the loss.
Speed - You can speak at the pace you prefer, but it is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.
Voters - If you don't provide them, I have to choose. Don't roll the dice.
Evidence - You get two free card requests, for the rest must be on your prep time.
Cross - Is non binding. If you uncover something, bring it up in your next speech.
Lincoln-Douglas
I prefer the traditional LD style. I like to see a value and criterion and for your arguments to be impacted through your framework. If you don't have a framework, just be aware that your opponent can use their framework to take out the moral foundation of your argument and win the debate even if you are winning policy implications on the flow. I see policy debate as being primarily about policymaking and LD to be about moral and philosophical questions. I am more likely to vote on a moral or philosophical argument in LD. I am okay with reasonable levels of speed but keep in mind that I am more likely to vote on a well articulated and explained moral position than a bunch of cards which you speed through without warrants or explanations. In LD certain arguments can be dropped strategically when a more fundamental or significant argument needs to be further developed. Don't assume I will automatically flow a dropped argument in your favor in LD - you will need to extend the warrants and implications to show me why that dropped argument is more significant than other arguments in the round to win the ballot. Be clear in linking your argument to your framework.
Public Forum
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.
Kritiks and Plans/Counterplans - No. Join policy.
Burden - Pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof, clash, and persuasion.
Rebuttals in Crossfire - Don’t. I reserve the right to stop a crossfire that ceases to be in a question-answer format or one that becomes abusive.
Final Focus - This needs to have clear voters and extend the summary speech. My RFD is largely dependent on the voters.
Policy
Flashing - One free flash. After that, it comes out of prep time.
Be kind to your opponents in the round, or face the wrath of a default loss (this is more of an issue in policy debate than any event)!
I judge on stock issues. In terms of stock issues, the most important one is significance.
-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 of Debate at Lynbrook High School.
+0.2 speaks for starting early when possible
CIRCUIT LD PARADIGM
1. Am very good for 'Phil' – it's my favorite part of LD debate. In my view, LD debate is supposed to be, at least partially, about the criterion.
2. Be clear, slow down on tags, and pause between separate arguments. I don't flow off the speech doc.
3. Am bad for policy v policy. If this is the debate you want to have, you should make the following adjustments:
a. Dedicate a portion of your rebuttal speeches to explaining the story of your advantage/disadvantage in the simplest possible terms.
b. Policy debates most of the time look like assertion wars to me. One side asserts this thing will happen if we pass the resolution, the other side asserts that it won't. Please address this problem by focusing on the warrants of the arguments. It will also behoove you to go more slowly as you're doing this so that things are maximally clear to me.
c. Policy debaters seem to hide behind cards a lot. They read a piece of evidence in the rebuttal and think that this is a substitute for making an argument. If you read a bunch of cards against the case and don't do any analysis or explanation of why your cards provide better warranting than the arguments being answered, the debate looks an awfully lot like a tie to me. In general, the primary job in a debate is to break ties and to explain why I should defer to you.
My view is that right after reading a piece of evidence, a debater should provide some explanation as to why the evidence is particularly good/specific/uses better warrants than the other side's evidence. Then in the next speech, when they extend the evidence, it has more weight, especially if their opponent conceded the analysis. If the first time you do comparison is in the final speech, I might just disagree with what you're saying, plus it's hard as a judge to defer to one side's comparison over another without intervening.
TLDR: don't treat LD like a policy round that gets cut off after the 1AR. If you do that, the debate will inevitably look late-breaking. Read fewer arguments and spend more time in that initial speech doing analysis/comparison.
d. If it hasn't been clear yet from the above, in front of me you should definitely do more judge instruction than you think you have to. Seriously, I have very little background with policy arguments. It isn't instantly obvious to me how things work.
4. I don’t vote on disclosure theory. There wasn't disclosure when I competed, and I thought that was a much better system, for many reasons –
a. It required both sides to actively pay attention during the debate, to flow diligently, to use their brains during prep time to come up with responses
b. Due to a., speeches were generally more responsive. Debaters did more signposting, explained things a lot more clearly, and were better at judge instruction because a rigorous flow was the reference point and not a speech doc.
c. The debates nowadays are super focused on evidence. I'd rather people read less evidence and spend more time explaining their arguments and making responses about what links/steps/warrants are missing in their opponent's case.
d. I have no idea why the aff should have to commit itself to reading a particular case or version of a case 30 minutes before the debate has even started.
e. In a world without disclosure, tournament environments are generally more relaxed. People socialize more and aren't spending 30 minutes freaking out before their round.
5. 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.
6. I almost never read cards after the round. This means 'inserting rehighlightings' is unlikely to be effective in front of me. Instead you should be reading aloud specific lines from their evidence that disagree with their claim.
7. Speaks: I usually give between 28 and 29.
Lay judge.
Please do not spread. I want to understand your points clearly.
I want to know your logical and sequential arguments - explain throughout your argument why it's important.
Truth > Tech
I like off time roadmaps.
Sign posting is very appreciated - makes it easier for me to follow your arguments.
Have a clear summary and final focus.
Be respectful to opponents and each other.
Please keep your own time, I want to focus on your content.
Have fun and do your best!
Assistant Coach at Collegiate | Edgemont '22 (LD) | NYU '26 (Policy) | ajdebateld@gmail.com
I have no topic knowledge for your event, and you should explain every acronym and notable recent news. The first speech should be sent out two minutes before start time.
You should debate to your strengths and I am willing to vote on any style of argumentation. Debaters work hard so judges should work hard to render fair decisions. However, you would benefit from picking and choosing what to stake the round on, over-explaining your arguments/literature, providing comparative weighing as to why your impacts matter more, and giving me framing about what I should evaluate as early as possible. In other words, judge instruction makes or breaks close debate rounds, and I will attempt to default to the words of the debaters, exclusively. Bonus speaker points for sending analytics, slowing down and signposting.
I am the LD coach at Loyola.
I have coached traditional and circuit LD for over 30 years and am comfortable judging most rounds—having judged at many Circuit tournaments, elim rounds, and even TOC finals.
That said, I am NOT one of the coaches who is super familiar with ALL of the arguments that are currently in vogue. What does that mean? You make assumptions about my understanding at your own risk. I won’t fill in steps for you, because I happen to know what argument you’re trying to make. And I don’t have “preconceived” notions of how certain arguments are “generally” evaluated by circuit judges nowadays. What you’ll get is a fresh/independent/flow-based look by an impartial judge on those arguments. I don’t have the benefit of knowing how those debates are SUPPOSED to come out.
I can handle spread, but NOT if you’re incomprehensible...and most of you are NOT understandable. If you want to include me on an email chain that helps.
In terms of decisions, I try to make my decisions based on the flow, but will reward debaters for being smart and will generally NOT like to vote on undeveloped blips. I like making my decision based on the issues that are the most developed on the flow. I will, however, vote on a clear drop of an important argument. In situations where the round is unresolveable, I will not force a decision for either side based on arguments/extensions that really are not on the flow or fill in the gaps with my own opinion. I like voting for the side that requires the least judge intervention and, if that's not possible, I will vote for the better debater in terms of technique and delivery.
**Stephen Stewart: I'm not usually an LD judge so please don't use any jargon and let me know of the timings before your speech.
I'm a parent judge as my daughter participates in debate.
kindly please send me your case before the round starts.
jysjin@yahoo.com
Don't Speak too fast but clearly. Definitely no mumbling. If I can't get your arguments down and fully understand what you're saying, then you have lost the round.
Be specific with your contention, warrants and impacts as I'll vote my ballot based on those.
I will not flow everything, but take notes.
Be polite, respectful and patient to the other.
Cal ‘28
devin.devin.dk@gmail.com
2x NSDA Qualifier, assistant coach @ ADL
TLDR: flay, go slow, generally tab
UNLV Note: I have basic background knowledge, did MUN & ICJ mock trial throughout high school — you can assume I’m more educated than average on the topic
Effective warranting, impacting, and weighing are the easiest ways to get my ballot.
Policy ok, Ks strike, theory fine in paragraph form, spreading strike, phil overexplain, V/VC ok
If your speech is funny, I will give you additional speaker points. +0.1 for a reference to Evangelion.
arnavdebates+judging@gmail.com
LD Update
While I will remain technical, I am not sure how the affirmative wins debates. I expect to vote affirmative in ~25% of debates.
chain email: csulbkt@gmail.com
Jean Kim (she/her) policy debater @ CSULB '27
my favorite debaters: Dorian Gurrola (debate bestie), Gavvie Torres (debate partner), Erika Linares (debate sister), Aless Escobar (debate twin), Curtis Ortega, Jaysyn Green, Deven Cooper
please know
spread at your own risk. not being clear enough will dock your speaks.
have a lot of pathos to convince me I enjoy the dramatics
speaker points
start at 28.5
i flow cross X and weigh that into speaker evaluation
please don't tell me what I should be doing with my speaker points
using real world examples to support your arguments are very compelling and will results in good speaks
i'll disclose speaks if you ask during the rfd
LD specific
don't do tricks plz
K affs
Good K-affs will have a strong link to the topic or else I find it to be an uphill battle. You MUST be making arguments about why the debate space is key and/or it changes subjectivities and/or results in subject formation. I am a K-aff friendly judge if you'd like to pref me but if you're not winning the arguments I listed above I'll find it harder to vote aff. And I do think those claims are winnable but it must be a huge part of the aff in EVERY speech.
K's
love a good K. don't assume I know high theory literature, definitely wouldn't mind an in-depth overview. you should be winning your framework and alternative. I also appreciate an in-depth link debate or seeing those links cross applied on case.
T/T-FW
i'm also willing to vote on this. focus more on how the MODELS of debate that are being forwarded are particularly bad for debate for XYZ reason. So think of what their model of debate looks like outside of this round and why it's unfair/bad for education/worse for clash/etc.
Case
neg should be saying there is a 0% chance of solvency, go for case turns, or if there is a small chance of solvency it still results in something worse than the squo etc. also neg ... never drop the aff impacts especially if it's like an extinction impact .. aff should be saying any risk of solvency is a reason to vote aff/case outweighs/aff is a good idea.
CP
this is cool, just make the net benefit the top of the flow every speech if this is what you go for. should be saying how the CP solves the aff AND more (i.e. disad or case turn).
THANKS FOR READING :DDDDD
Conflicts: Edina HS, Isidore Newman, University of Minnesota, Kenwood SW.
umnakdebate [at] gmail [dot] com -- add me to the chain please!
Stanford/Berkeley Note: Much more up to date on the policy side of the LD topic than for college policy, you can disregard the PSA about that--I should be fine for any topical debate. Phil is fine if substantive, would prefer not to judge friv theory or tricks, but if you must, remember that claims must be paired with warrants.
College Policy
I take the responsibility of adjudicating debates very seriously. Debaters work hard and so should judges. That means I will attempt to flow all your arguments and render a decision that I would be satisfied with. I will be paying attention and not on social media during all speeches, including CX (which I flow). 50/50 on whether I am flowing on paper or laptop, depends on the vibes that day.
PSA: I would not take me if I was a policy team. Every single card I have cut on this topic has been a K card or a K answer card. I'm very out of the loop on the topic. Most of my time in debate these past few months has been spent working with traditional LD students and high school policy debaters reading arguments grounded in Black studies and trans studies. Accordingly, I have spent most of my energy recently reading and thinking about moral philosophy, political theory and contemporary critical theory rather than the nuances of energy policy or niche competition debates. I do consider myself relatively well informed on the background issues of this topic, but I do not know what affs are considered topical by community consensus, I probably won't understand the mechanism of your counterplan absent explanation, etc. If you have the bad luck of having me in the back for a policy v policy throwdown, I recommend taking care to make sure you explain your arguments in depth.
Presentation Thoughts: Debate is a verbal communication activity, and I vote on the words that come out of your mouth, not on what your document says or filling in my own understanding of the arguments. You should probably go about 70% of your top speed in front of me, for two reasons.
1–I have ADHD and I can be prone to zoning out unintentionally. If you are unclear or monotone, it's far more likely that I do this. I do try to actively check against this, but it's in your best interest not to be monotone.
2–I don't know all that much about the topic and I am likely to be lost if you go top speed. Keep in mind that I have not judged since October and I spend most of my time thinking about answering K things.
This includes constructives. I should be able to crisply and clearly understand every word during cards.
Numbering arguments and answering arguments in order is axiomatic.
Argument Thoughts:
On offense/defense: I generally think about debates through the lens of offense and defense, but I think zero risk is real and I can easily be persuaded to vote on it. AFFs should do something, and I’m unlikely to be persuaded to vote AFF simply on the fact that the status quo is bad.
KvK:
My favorite debates to be in. Not sympathetic to the "no perms" argument, but I could buy it if it is a technical crush. Articulate your vision of what competition looks like, what scale I should compare the AFF and the alt, etc. Floating PIKs are absolutely underrated in these debates. Examples examples examples. Impact turn specific parts of the 1AC. Judge instruction is key.
Policy AFF vs K NEG:
I don't like strategies that attempt to avoid clash. I tend to prefer debates where the affirmative substantively defends the way that they've described and theorized the world and where the negative critiques core assumptions of the affirmative and defends an alternative politic/episteme.
That being said, I will evaluate any move on framework on either side (which means I will start my evaluation of the debate by comparing the interpretations/models that each side offers), but I think that we've reached peak framework and teams on both sides are doing too much when there are easier and more interesting ways to approach these debates.
Planless AFFs:
Read these in college and coach a lot of these now. I prefer that you have a counter-interpretation on topicality. You don't necessarily need to counter-define every word (although NEG teams are free to advance this argument), but ideally you should explain a model for interpreting the resolution and what debates look like under this model. I'm not technically opposed to the impact turn approach but I ultimately think that AFFs should be responsible for articulating what their vision of debate looks like.
Less up on fairness than I have been in the past. Many arguments for fairness, especially at the high school level, have devolved into pointless enthymemes. I can be persuaded to vote on procedural fairness, but if the block is surface level on the question of why it is good and why your model is better for it… that’s on you.
Really not a fan of framework debates vs. K affs right now. It's getting really stale and I'd almost always rather hear a 2NR on a substantive option because often I find that aff teams are mishandling other options. I will be annoyed if you choose framework when the 2AC/1AR catastrophically fumbles on another off case flow. If you're only going to ever go for framework... be honest with yourself and just read one off case and stop wasting my time.
Counterplans:
Most process counterplans are total nonsense and should be easily defeated by a set of common sense substantive arguments that they do not solve the affirmative and would result in a slew of undesirable political consequences. Unfortunately, 2ACs rarely choose to advance these arguments.
Stop shotgunning permutations at the very top of the flow. Slow down and give me pen time.
Hi I'm Kanishk!
I wanted to let you know that I'm very excited to be judging you! Best of luck!
Stanford/Berkeley Note: I haven’t judged in a full year. That means I haven’t heard spreading in a full year. Sadly, these will probably be my last two tourneys judging debate (I’m starting a PhD in math). I don’t expect (and you shouldn’t expect me to be) a great judge, though I’ll do my best. Pref at your own risk. My debate ideologies haven’t changed (I still have no issue with tricks) but given that I expect to be significantly worse at flowing, I also expect to be a worse judge for tricks than I used to be on a technical level.
What's up. I'm Lukas/Luka (either is fine, they/them). Yes, I do want to be on the email chain. Lukrau2002@gmail.com, but I prefer using the fileshare option on NSDA campus, or speechdrop. If you would like, I am happy to send you my flow after the round (my dropbox expired so I'm no longer saving my flows after the round except in my trash folder, so if you want your flow ask me quick).
Important Warning: the longer the tournament goes the worse I become at judging. If I've judged like 10+ debates be prepared for short rfds and be clear so I don't misflow you and make things obvious so I dont do illogical things.
I will listen to any argument, (yes, including tricks, nebel T, intrinsic perms, extra T, K affs of any type, listing these as they are supposedly the most "controversial") in any event, against any opponent, with the exception of the obviously morally objectionable arguments (use common sense or ask), arguments attempting to change the number of winners/losers, and arguments attempting to take speaker points out of my hands (IE, no 30 speaks spike). With those exceptions, my only dogma is that dogma is bad. If you are confident in your ability to beat your opponents on the flow, pref me high. If you have certain arguments you dogmatically hate and are terrible at debating against, it is probably in your best interests to pref me low, because I will almost certainly be willing to evaluate those arguments no matter how silly you find them.
I believe that paradigms should exclusively be used to list experience with arguments, and that judges should not have "preferences" in the sense of arguments they dont want to evaluate. We're very likely being paid to be here to adjudicate the debates the debaters want to have, so the fact that some judges see fit to refuse to evaluate the fruit of some debaters' labor because they personally didn't like the args when they debated is extremely frustrating and frankly disrespectful to the time and effort of the debaters in my opinion. So below is my experience and a quick pref guide, based not on preference, but on my background knowledge of the arguments.
Experience: HSLD debate, Archbishop Mitty, 2018-2021; TOC qual 2020, 3 career bids. VBI camp instructor - Summer of 2021, Summer of 2022, Summer of 2023. Private coaching - Fall 2021-2022 (no longer actively coaching). Happy to talk about math stuff, especially topology!
Pref guide - based on experience as a debater and judge, not personal arg preference
1 - Weird/cheaty counterplans
1 - Policy Args
1 - Phil
2 - Ks (queer theory, cap)
2 - Tricks
2 - Theory
2 - Ks (other Ks, not high theory)
3 - Ks (high theory)
Again, I cannot stress enough that this is solely based on my knowledge of the lit bases, not my love for the arguments. I read and enjoyed judging many a deleuze aff as a debater and more recently judge. The amount of reading I did to read those affs was very minimal and I mostly just stole cards, so would I say I actually know the args very well? Probably not. Would I enjoy evaluating them? Absolutely.
Below are purely procedural things
Ev ethics note: I will evaluate ev ethics claims the way the accusing debater wants me to out of 2 options: 1] stake the round on the egregiousness of the ev ethics claim, if the violation meets my arbitrary brightline for egregiousness I will drop the debater with bad ev ethics, if not the accusing debater will lose 2] if you read it as a theory shell I will evaluate it as a theory shell. If you're unsure about my arbitrary brightline for staking the round, note that such ev ethics violation need to be reasonably egregious (to auto end the round, I would prefer to see malicious intent or effect, where the meaning of the evidence is changed) - whereas my brightline for voting on it as a theory shell is much lower, and given the truth of the shell you will likely win on the shell, regardless of effect or intent. This means if you have an edge case its better to debate out the theory because you'll probably win simply bc those theory shells are pretty true but I'm pretty adverse to auto dropping ppl so you might not if you stake. If it is obvious and egregious though feel free to stake the round I will definitely vote against egregious miscuttings.
CX is Binding. This means with respect to statuses, etc, your arguments must abide by the status you say in either the speech you read the argument, or the status you say the argument is in cross X. If you say an arg is uncondo in CX, but attempt to kick it in a later speech, & I remember you saying it was uncondo in CX, I will not kick the arg.
But I take this notion farther than just argument statuses. If your opponent asks you "what were your answers to X", you may choose to list as many arguments as you like. You may say "you should've flowed" and not answer, that's your prerogative. But if you DO choose to answer, you should either list every argument you read, or list some and explicitly say that there were other arguments. If your opponent asks something like "was that all," and you choose to say yes, even if I have other args on my flow I won't evaluate them because you explicitly told your opponent those were your only responses. DO NOT LIE/GASLIGHT IN CX, even by accident. Correct yourself before your opponent's prep ends if you've said something wrong. I will not drop you for lying but I WILL hold you to what you say in CX.
My personal beliefs can best be described via Trivialism: https://rest.neptune-prod.its.unimelb.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/3e74aad4-3f61-5a49-b4e3-b20593c93983/content
2023 Update - It's been a while since I've judged, but I've noticed that the quality of evidence has dropped significantly. Going forward, I will be reducing speaks substantially for poor evidence. I also think there's not enough specificity in argumentation. Debaters will say "x piece of evidence is fantastic and says EU unity is low", but won't point out the warrants in the evidence for why EU unity is low. This also means I rarely hear debaters doing any good evidence comparison, which makes for messy debates and difficult decisions. Finally, please don't put anything in the 1NC that you can't give a 2NR on. I've judged too many debates already where an off is completely dropped but the 2NR goes for something else.
Email - kavindebate@gmail.com
Background
I debated in LD for Dougherty Valley High School for 4 years.
General
-good with speed
-SLOW DOWN ON THEORY AND T—they are especially hard to flow at top speed and in an online format
-slow down in the 2NR, especially at the beginning
-offense/defense (extremely unconvinced by truth testing)
-will not vote on arguments I don't understand
-2AR and 2NR impact calc are not new
-CX is binding
-compiling doc is prep, but flashing is not
-disclose (open source is good)
-ev comparison is important and will give you better speaks
-all arguments (even dropped ones) need a warrant
-clipping and ev ethics violations will result in a loss
-scrolling ahead in the doc is cheating
DA/CP/Case
-enjoy this type of debate and was what I went for almost every round
-process cps/PICs are good so please read them in front of me
-consult cps (most of the time) are not good
-sufficiency framing is convincing
-politics DAs are good when they make sense and usually need to be coupled with a CP to beat a competent Aff
-for Affs, I like plans and enjoy small Affs—please have good evidence
-soft left and extinction impacts are both fine—I don't really have a preference
-heavily dislike Affs with large theory underviews/spikes
Kritiks
-ideally my threshold for a good kritik is one that is as tailored to the aff as the aff is
-I like the security K because I dislike shoddy Affs with poor evidence quality
-this goes for all Ks and especially security, but you need to answer the case or you'll almost certainly lose
-I'm extremely skeptical of pessimism arguments and I think pomo is often (underexplained) nonsense. K debate is usually just a bunch of buzzwords.
-good K debate=having impacts for your links, having links to the plan (not necessary but recommended), knowing how the alt works, not being evasive in CX, not relying on framework to win you the round, doing impact calc and explaining why the K outweighs the case and not just saying util bad, and answering the case
-links of omission are not links and the perm resolves them
-I am very persuaded by particularity arguments (the Aff should make the debate about the Aff, not the K)
-affs get to weigh the case—the K's impacts are consequential too and consequences prove the goodness of reps
-most Ks don't have a link and the alt fails—the Aff is probably a good idea
-if you win an extinction impact, the case should outweigh
K Affs/Framework
-please defend the topic, but if you win your Aff (and I understand what the offense is), I will vote for it
-no, limits is not a prison—metaphors like these are meaningless and don't constitute real arguments
-many K affs appeal to various ephemera as ways to escape the question of T—these include buzzwords like “role of the ballot” that don’t actually explain what they’re winning, or concessions from the aff that are clearly irrelevant
-KvK debate is extremely difficult to evaluate usually and the Aff will probably win on the perm
-the impacts most convincing to me on framework are movements/skills
Theory
-default is reasonability, no RVIs
-condo, PICs, process CPs are probably good
-consult is not good
-not a fan of friv theory
-debaters should do weighing on standards, not voters
-debaters should make arguments about what an interpretation justifies to answer things like friv theory
Topicality
-I really like well-fleshed out interpretations and really enjoy judging T debates
-have good evidence with an intent to define and exclude, offensive/defensive caselists, etc.
-do weighing
Philosophy
-very persuaded by util
-please explain your syllogisms clearly if not util
-I doubt any serious ethical theory would think extinction isn't a bad thing
-couple your NC with a CP or answer the case
Tricks
-please don't read them
-most tricks don't have a warrant or make enough sense for me to vote on them
Misc
-please be nice to your opponent
-debate should be fun
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.
Berkeley Update
Due to this tournament's special ability to mismanage its schedule every year, I will offer +0.1 speaker points per minute of prep so we can get out earlier. But if you're about to throw the 2AR for some speaks, please just take the additional minute to write your speech out.
The 10-minute no-show forfeit rule will tempt me if I'm in the back after 6 PM. Same with the 1-minute no-show rule for flight 2.
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.
LD
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.
From the rounds I've judged, it feels like LD is fairly new to framework offense that frames topicality and its performance of it as a microaggression. I think answers are often poor unless the debaters come from a school with a large policy program attached to it.
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 performance and evidence in rounds. Decisions on anything external to in-round violations probably happen above my pay grade.
I am a parent judge. Please be clear with your arguments. Read them in a manner that is comprehensible. If you read them too fast I won't be able to flow properly. Try not use to use extremely technical terms. If you do please explain them. Finally, be respectful to your opponents and have fun.
Email: kyalin@berkeley.edu
I'm a former LD debater and current parli debater for Berkeley (PDB). Important note - Even though I have my preferences, I am strongly against judge intervention and will limit it as best I can. I will vote for anything on the flow. Go crazy, have fun, but play nice. ദ്ദി(• ˕ •マ.ᐟ
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
1. Speed is fine as long as you're clear (but please actually be clear)
2. Arguments need to be extended to be evaluated. Shadow extensions are new buuuut I'm not terribly strict... My threshold for extensions is pretty low, but it always helps to be specific. :)
3. Terminalize your impacts for me to vote on them (that means death, dehum, QoL, etc. and not GDP, democracy, corruption, etc.). I will always prefer a more terminalized impact to a nonterminalized one.
4. Not too big a fan of blippier arguments, but if they're sufficiently warranted and weighed I'll still vote on them.
5. Good clash pls x3. Also collapse pls x5. Also weigh pls x7.
6. I enjoy fun arguments if the context is appropriate! Dedev, impact turns, tricks are all cool as long as you explain them well in round. Note though that because I do not run these often and you’d really have to explain them legitimately well, it’s always safest to read case or Ks in front of me.
7. Overall preference: case>K>theory
8. I'll try to protect the flow but call the POO still
9. Idc about FW unless you properly utilize your FW and implicate it to impacts. I'm not going to do the extrapolation myself, so you need to show me why it matters please!!!!
10. Your best bet is to make this easy for me. Implicate your arguments clearly. Tell me which sheet to evaluate first. Friendly reminder from 3 points ago that collapsing and weighing is extremely important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifics
Case & Counterplans
Love this, totally chill. Any CP is fine until told otherwise by theory. Perms are tests of competition. Aff has the burden of proving that the plan is actually good and more preferable than the cp, and if they fail to meet that burden I presume neg. Fiat is durable.
--------
Kritiks
Yay I love Ks. Still, your best bet is to assume I know literally nothing about your K and explain it in a way that is comprehensible to the average person. Win your topic harms/links though.
Read trigger warnings.
---------
Theory
Can be fun and am down to vote on it, but not keen on abusive friv T or MG theory. I’m also not a theory debater so just make sure you’re clear on why you’re winning. Theory can be fun except when used abusively against inexperienced teams, which I'm not a fan of. Please, do not make me vote on friv T unless it's an elim round or against a familiar team or something. Also if you run theory in front of clearly inexperienced debaters, even if you win, I will dock your speaks. I will also fill in the blanks for teams who respond to theory without clear structure. Probably best to steer away from this around me unless it's an interesting interp in which case I will be intrigued and that is probably a good sign lol.
---
Coooolllll gl hf
Been involved with the game in some way since 2008, do as you wish and I shall evaluate it in the way that I feel requires the least interference from myself.
Put me on the chain please: debate.emails@gmail.com, for the most part I do not look at the documents other than some cursory glances during prep time if a card intrigues me. I still may ask for specific cards at the end of the debate so I do not need to sort through each document, I appreciate it in advance. I may also ask for permutation and Counterplans texts since y’all speed through these things nowadays like an armadillo in the thicket.
I believe that debate is a communication activity with an emphasis on persuasion. If you are not clear or have not extended all components of an argument (claim/warrant/implication) it will not factor into my decision.
I flow on paper, it is how I was taught and I think it helps me retain more information and be more present in debates. I would appreciate yall slowing down and giving me pen time on counterplan texts and theory arguments (as well as permutations).
The most important thing in debates for me is to establish a framework for how (and why) I should evaluate impacts. I am often left with two distinct impacts/scenarios at the end of the debate without any instruction on how to assess their validity vis-à-vis one another or which one to prioritize. The team that sets this up early in the debate and filters the rebuttals through it often gets my ballot. I believe that this is not just true of “clash” debates but is (if not even more) an important component of debates where terminal impacts are the same but their scenarios are not (i.e .two different pathways to nuclear war/extinction).
While I think that debate is best when the affirmative is interacting with the resolution in some way. I have no sentiment about how this interaction need to happen, nor a dogmatic stance that 1AC’s have a relation to the resolution.
I have voted for procedural fairness and have also voted for the impact turns. Despite finding myself voting more and more for procedural fairness I am much more persuaded by fairness as an internal link rather than a terminal impact. Affirmative’s often beat around the bush and have trouble deciding if they want to go for the impact turn or the middle ground, I think picking a strategy and going for it will serve you best. A lot of 2NRs squander very good block arguments by not spending enough time (or any) at the terminal impact level, please don’t be those people. I also feel as if most negative teams spend much time reading definitions in the 1NC and do not utilize them later in the debate even absent aff counter definitions which seems like wasted 1NC time.
My small 2024ish update on framework/topicality is- I think teams have gotten far worse at going for the impact turns and might be better served explaining why their change in stasis point is good and still allows us to debate a portion of the resolution. I’ve voted far more for “unpredictability is good” than “topicality is racist.” Telling me a team going for topicality is the same as the “prl” lacks all three components of an argument. I’m still very down to check in on topicality is a tool used to eliminate perspectives from debate but I think the level of explanation has declined to a point where it’s hard for me to vote on in recent years. I have voted for fiat causes heart attacks almost as many times as I have for “you dropped completion shapes debate means you shouldn’t evaluate the impact turns.” As someone who judges a lot of clash debates I am hopeful to see innovation on BOTH sides of this game. I may be crazy (probably am) but I enjoy judging clash debates and encourage everyone to diversify these debates more often than the every 6-10 year cycle it feels we have been on.
While it does not impact how I evaluate the flow I do reward teams with better speaker points when they have unique and substantive framework takes beyond the mostly prewritten impact turn or clash good blocks that have proliferated the game (this is also something you should be doing to counter the blocktastic nature of modern framework debates).
It would behove many teams and debaters to extend their evidence by author name in the 2NR/2AR. I tend to not read a large amount of evidence and think the trend of sending out half the 1AC/1NC in the card document is robbing teams of a fair decision, so narrowing in and extending the truly relevant pieces of evidence by author name increases both my willingness to read those cards and my confidence that you have a solid piece of evidence for a claim rather than me being asked to piece together an argument from a multitude of different cards.
Prep time ends when the email has been sent. In the past few years so much time is being spent saving documents, gathering flows, setting up a stand etc. that it has become egregious and ultimately, I feel limits both my decision time and my ability to deliver criticism after the round. Limited prep is a huge part of what makes the activity both enjoyable and competitive. I said in my old philosophy that policing this is difficult, however I will now take the extra time beyond roadmaps/speech time into account when I determine speaker points.
I find myself frustrated in debates where the final rebuttals are only about theory. I do not judge many of these debates and the ones I have feel like there is an inevitable modicum of judge intervention. While I have voted for conditonality bad several times, personally my thought on condo is "don't care get better."
Plan-text writing has become a lost art and should invite negative advocacy attrition and/or substantive topicality debates.
Feel free to email or ask any questions before or after the debate. I have been privileged to coach some incredible competitors and judge some awesome debaters, I will do my best to give yall the same level of judging I think they deserve(d) and beyond.
Above all else enjoy the game you get to play and have fun.
-------------------
Experience:
Competitor-- Winston Churchill (2008-2012)
Assistant Coaching--
Past: Jenks (2012-2015) Reagan (2015-2017) Winston Churchill (2018-2023)
Currently: Texas (2017-present)
I am a "lay" judge. Please speak clearly, avoid speed, explain thoroughly and do not make assumptions about my knowledge of the topic. I prefer well articulated argumentation. Please don't be too tech-y with me, I don't know what Ks or T or phil are.
Nick Loew - GMU'24 - 4x NDT qualifier, 1x NDT Doubles
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.
Please add me if there is a chain: andresmdebate@gmail.com
Cal Debate
I have not judge many rounds on the LD topic and some but not an extensive amount on this topic for policy; please keep this in mind if going for arguments that are hyper-specific to the topic.
I try my best to decide the debate based off of what is on my flow. For that reason I weigh impact calculus and judge instruction slightly heavier than most judges. While I can appreciate extensive and various arguments, I think it is key to consolidate on specific and few pieces of offense on your final speech and forefront it as a reason to win the debate.
Note for LD:
Not super familiar with tricks or Phil; not opposed to having it run in front of me but keep in mind.
Hi! I'm Sam. Harvard Westlake '21, Vanderbilt '25. Email chain or speech drop please: samantha.mcloughlin@harker.org but I'd prefer speech drop. LD TOC qual 4x + 20 bids + won some tournaments (Valley, Yale, Stanford, etc) in high school - reading policy args, some basic T/theory, and some Ks/topical K affs (settler colonialism, fem IR, etc). I also coached for the past three years (more or less all over the argumentative spectrum) and currently coach for Harker, so I have some topic familiarity.
Everything in this paradigm (minus the hard and fast rules) is just a preference - my strongest belief about debate is that it should be a forum for ideological flexibility, creative thinking, and argumentative experimentation. I realized this paradigm was way too long so I tried to bold stuff for pre-round skimming.
Hard and Fast Rules--
I will not flow off the doc and I am not calling clear just for fun. I'm so for real, it will not just affect your speaks, you will lose the round because I don't have your arguments down. In the 1AC/off case in the 1NC, I'll follow the doc if I'm worried about clipping, and flow by ear (without the doc) if I think that you may be unflowable. Every rebuttal, the doc is closed. If I can't tell if you are reading all the words in your cards, I will assume you're not.
There's no flow clarification slot in a debate - take CX or prep if you need to ask what was read (exception is marked cards).
Won't vote on any arg that makes debate unsafe. This includes any arg that denies the badness of racism/sexism/etc, or says death good (args like spark/wipeout = ok, cuz it doesn't deny the value of life, it's just fancy util maths that says extinction better preserves the value of life). If your opponent wins your argument is repugnant (absent any larger framing or judge instruction), I'll drop the argument, unless you presented your argument with the agreement that it was repugnant (ie, if you admit your position is racist, but attempt to say that doesn't matter), in which case I will consider your repugnance purposeful and drop you.
Ev ethics - stake the round on it (ie W30 to the person who is right and an L with the lowest possible speaks to the other) if evidence is misrepresented (an omitted section contradicts or meaningfully alters the meaning of the card). I think a good litmus test for misrepresentation is: does the article agree with the claims presented in the card? If it's missing a sentence or two at the beginning/end of a paragraph but it doesn't change the meaning of the card, you're better off reading it as theory. To make everyone's life easier, just cut ev well (this means full citations, full paragraphs, in alignment with the author's intent).
Clipping = an L with the lowest speaks I can give.
Speaks are my choice, not yours (put away 30 speaks theory). Also, won't disclose speaks.
For online debate, I expect that you record all your speeches in case you, your opponent, or I drops out.
Argument TLDRs--
Defaults: reasonability on theory, competing interps on t, drop the debater on t/theory, no RVIs, T>theory>everything else, comparative worlds, fairness + education are voters, policy presumption, epistemic confidence
^All those can be easily changed with a sentence.
K debate - Line by line >> long overviews. Winning overarching claims about the world is helpful, but you need to apply those claims to the specifics of your opponents arguments or else I will not do those interactions for you. Framework is important (honestly most of the times in policy v K debates, the person who wins fw wins the round). Links to the plan are preferred, but not necessary - the less specific your links, the more fw matters, and the more persuasive the permutation is. I also tend to think debate should be about arguments, not people, which means I'll likely be unpersuaded by personal attacks or "vote for me" arguments. I'm more persuaded by skills impacts on T Framework than fairness, and more persuaded by non topical affs that impact turn things than try to find a middle ground.
Policy - Yay! Zero risk not a thing but arguments still must be complete to be evaluated. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. Read your best evidence in the 1NC - I'll be persuaded by arguments that the 2NR doesn't get new evidence unless it's directly responsive to the 1AR. Big fan of creative and topic specific counterplans <3(consult __ is usually not creative).
Theory - PICs and condo are probably good. Other CPs (international fiat, agent, process etc) are a bit more suspicious. All of this is up for debate. Descriptions of side bias are not standards. The more frivolous the shell = the truer reasonability and DTA are, and the lower the bar for answers. On that note, reasonability and DTA are under-utilized.
Philosophy - [GBX edit -- realized I've spent too long in debate and am now solidly fine with phil/actually think about it a good bit. Will enjoy a substantive philosophy round.] Not the area i'm the most comfortable in, but I'll try my best. I'd love to see a well explained phil debate, but I will not enjoy a blippy phil round that borders closer to tricks debate. I'd rather you leverage your syllogism to exclude consequences rather than relying on calc indicts. Debaters should take advantage of nonsensical contention args.
Tricks - I don't think a model of debate predicated on the avoidance of clash (ie relying on concessions) is an educational model. My test for whether an argument falls under this model of debate is: ask yourself if you would be willing to go for an argument if it was responded to competently. The same idea also extends to the formatting of your argument (ie you should delineate + thoroughly explain all your arguments with clear implications). I won't purposefully insert my personal beliefs about the value of tricks debates into the round, but it does mean that I'll probably be more receptive to arguments that indict tricks debate as a model. Some arguments are truer than others, and it's easier to win true arguments in front of me than false ones. I also default comparative worlds, and have given more than one RFD that boils down to "X trick was won but there's no truth testing ROB under which it matters." Up-layering tricky affs with Ks or strategic theory is smart, and when leveraged correctly make claims of new 2NR responses more persuasive.
Lay - I have respect for good lay debaters since I know I could never be one. That said, I will definitely evaluate the debate on a technical level regardless of the style. Good lay debaters can beat circuit debaters by strategically isolating key arguments. Circuit debaters vs lay debaters don't need to modify their style of debate, but should do everything they can to be accessible (explain stuff in CX, send docs, etc) (same applies to debates where there is a large skill gap).
Misc - My threshold for independent voters is high. Emphasizing this after a couple rounds where it's been relevant.
Rant Section--
Tech > truth, but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.
I'll deal with irresolvability using the "needs test" - the burden of proof falls on the side that "needs" to win the argument (ie the burden of proof is on the neg in the perm debate because the neg needs to beat the perm, but the aff doesn't need to win the perm).
I won't vote on arguments telling me to "evaluate the entire debate after X speech" that are introduced in X speech - it generates a contradiction. Also, the 2AR is after all the speeches before it - interpret this as you choose.
Likes/Dislikes--
Likes: plans bad 2NR on semantics if you understand the grammar behind it and are not reading someone else's blocks, creative and non-offensive policy impact turns, creative process CPs (no this is not the ICJ CP or consult the WTO), plan affs (yes I realize this contradicts with my first like), multiple shells bad, Ks with links to the plan, presumption/case presses vs non T affs, topical K affs, reasonability/DTA on frivolous theory, collapsing, flashing analytics
Dislikes: the grammar DA, RVIs, plans bad 2NR on semantics when you don't understand the grammar behind it, plans bad 2NR that's just reading off someone else's doc with no topic specific analysis, standard spec, buffet 2NRs, hidden args, non T affs that are an FYI not an advocacy, combo shells that don't solve their offense, "strat skew", "this argument is bad" [then doesn't explain why the argument is bad], "that's an independent voting issue" [doesn't explain why it's a voting issue past just the label] (this also applies to 1AR arguments not labelled as voting issues that magically become voting issues in the 2AR), "what's a floating PIK" "what's an a priori", being rude or interrupting your opponent (especially if you're more experienced or in a position of power) (at best it adds nothing at worse it's unkind)
Debated as a 2A for James Logan High School for 4 years and went exclusively for K’s on the aff and the neg. Currently debating as a 2A for the University of California. I exclusively go for policy arguments now.
Emilio Menotti (he/him)
Conflicts: James Logan, Harker
add me to the email chain.
A majority of paradigms are unhelpful in the pre-round. Judges are either inflating their qualifications or pretending they are good for certain args. In an ideal world id like to think i'm a soulless flow robot thats equally good for every position, but i'm not. I have argumentative preferences and skillsets that if adhered to increase the chances of a winning my ballot. However, no preference cannot be overcome with good technical debating. I often find myself voting for arguments I fundamentally disagree with due to technical concessions and persuasive explanation.
I think debate is an awesome activity. Its changed a lot of how I think about the world and I hope it will do the same for you. If any of you have questions about debating in college feel free to reach out!
Paradigm Shortcuts:
1. Policy v Policy, Impact turns, K v Policy.
2. K v K, FW v K.
3. T, Theory.
4. Tricks.
DA's:
- Turns case arguments, aff-specific link's and ev comparison matters a lot.
- Smart DA's and case debating are some of my favorite debates to judge. Im a sucker for a nuanced econ/politics DA.
- Impact calc should start early. Aff outweighs is super convincing when Im puzzled on how the conflict escalates, why it goes existential and what actors are involved.
CP's:
- If you go for process consistently, im not the best judge for you. I haven't been in, thought about, or judged a lot of competition debates. If you choose to ignore this, slow down, line by line, and explain args rather than bombing through blocks. Id much rather judge a clever permutation than a competition debate.
- Im generally aff leaning on certainty/immediacy and dislike counter-plans that compete off it. I think they significantly lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot.
- Smart deficits that have a clear impact are super important.
- I really like smart adv cp's and find myself thinking they beat a majority of affirmatives.
- I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.
T:
- Not much to say here. A majority of the affirmatives ive read were either a K aff or core of the res.
- Indicting evidence quality matters a lot in these debates and I tend to err on the side of reasonability and predictability.
Impact Turns:
- Good for it. Go crazy. These are my favorite debates to judge.
- Absent impact calc, I almost always find myself persuaded that S-risks outweigh X-risks.
- More 2N's should fiat out of aff scenarios.
- Note: Defending a K aff and avoiding an impact turn debate looks bad in front of me. If your 1AC says heg is intrinsically violent, you should be prepared to substantively debate the opposite.
Theory:
- These debates are often the most frustrating to judge. Its either because one side horrifically messed up the answer, or one side is spamming blocks because its the only win condition.
- If this is your thing...sure? If the negative is losing go for it. I find it weird to not vote on the argument when fully conceded or out debated.
- Please slow down. Trying to flow a 400 WPM condo 1AR makes me want to quit the activity.
K v Policy:
- Love it. I think that kritik's are one of the most strategic arguments in debate. I have the greatest familiarity with Cap/Setcol/Death/Afropess K's.
- Specific links to plan action are rewarded, but not required.
- The most strategic version of the K is grounded in framework. If the alt turns into a world peace CP, im unsure why it doesn't lose to perm-double bind. If the affirmative is allowed to weigh the case, I almost always default to extinction outweighs.
- For 2A's, theory is a super viable argument against the alt.
FW v K Aff:
- Good for both sides. These are a majority of my debates in high school so I have a significant amount of experience debating FW. I usually find myself thinking that affirmatives defending a topical governmental action is better for the activity. However, I realize that there is baggage that comes with the implicit assumptions within the resolution that ought to be discussed. Any K 2AC should be coupled with form and content level impact turns to FW.
- You do not need a counter-interp to beat FW. Im yet to see a C/I that isnt contrived, arbitrary, and mitigates the negs offense. If the aff wins that the negs model of debate is unethical, im confused why that doesn't warrant an aff ballot.
- I do not have a preference between fairness and clash. I think fairness is the most intuitive and strategic, but clash attached to an external impact/turns case is a super viable 2NR. While debate is a unique space that undoubtably influences our political subjectivity, Im unsure why clash isn't the internal link to changing how we think about the world.
K v K:
- These debates either make me want to read a book or cry in a corner.
- I think K v K debates structurally favor the affirmative unless grounded in some core lit based controversy. Most contrived applications of K literature in K v K debates seem super susceptible to the perm. Im yet to hear a convincing argument for why affirmatives do not get permutations in method debates.
- I have a special place in my heart for the Cap K. If this is your thing, go for it.
LD:
- Im fairly new to judging LD so go easy on me. Almost all of my thoughts about policy still apply.
- I have not seen a lot of phil debates---make sure to explain the arguments thoroughly if this is your thing.
Misc:
- Judge instruction is the name of the game. More of it will not only get you better speaker points but increase your chances of winning. If arguments are dropped, what does that mean for my ballot? Forcing me to sift through a laundry list of dropped args with zero strategic application is saddening.
- Theres a big difference between being a jerk and banter.
- If I make a decision that doesn't reflect my paradigm, please let me know after the round. I want my preferences to be as transparent as possible.
- I will read evidence at the end of the round, but that is not an excuse for lazy debating. Evidence quality matters a lot for me.
Some paradigms to look at to better understand how I think about debate: Nick Fleming, Nate Fleming, Archan Sen, Taylor Tsan, Rahul Ramesh, Nishad Neelakandan, Riley Reichel.
extra .1 speaks for making fun of a current cal debater.
Assistant LD Coach for Peninsula HS
Offense-defense - arguments are evaluated probabilistically.
Exclusive framework interps are unpersuasive, I generally think the aff should get the plan and the neg should get links, but I am willing to evaluate either.
I feel somewhat comfortable evaluating deontological frameworks. I have less experience with other frameworks but will do my best to assess them fairly. However, I'm not the judge for strategies that rely heavily on 'tricks' or 'a prioris.'
I think most skepticism or 'permissibility' arguments are defense. I do not vote on defense.
I’m convinced by reasonability against all 1NC theory arguments.
I try to stay non-expressive during rounds. If I show any facial expressions, it is most likely unrelated.
There is no designated time for flow clarification during a debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was or wasn't read, you must do so during cross-examination or use your prep time. If you mark cards during your speech (i.e., if you start reading a card but do not finish it), you should clearly state where you marked it and send a marked document immediately after your speech. You are not required to include cards you did not read.
I do not have a specific metric for speaker points, but demonstrating a clear understanding of the topic and minimizing dead time are effective ways to improve your score.
I prefer adjudicating arguments that are specific to the topic.
usc '26 (NDT/CEDA Policy)
edina '23 (HS Policy)
he/him
Hi! My name is Sabeeh and I am a second year at USC. In high school I did policy on the MN and nat circ. I worked at NSD as an LD lab leader summer of 2023 & 2024. TLDR: I flow and will judge the round in front of me, regardless of my argumentative preferences.
-----
Please add me to the chain -- sabeehmirza05@gmail.com
I will not vote for an argument that I do not understand or that I cannot explain at the end of the round. All of us will be unhappy with my decision.
I have no problem with speed, but you need to be clear. There should be a distinction between your card and tag voice. Give me an indicator if you are moving on to the next card (ie. AND, NEXT, etc). The round should start on time. The email chain should be sent out and you should already be in the room.
tech>truth
General Stuff
Overview
I have gone for a big stick aff, a soft left aff, and a non-T/planless aff all in the same year - don't feel like you have to adapt for me. I will vote for anything that wins the flow so long as it does not compromise the safety of anyone in round.
DA/CP
I'll judgekick unless someone tells me not to. Not a ton that needs to be said here otherwise.
Ks
My knowledge and experience is mainly in set col, militarism/imperialism, security, and cap. I can evaluate other Ks, but will just need more explanations. I won't default to a "middle of the road" framework unless a debater introduces one, or unless the framework debate is truly irresolvable.
For kaffs: I've both read a kaff and gone for T against them -- I don't think that I am particularly picky on arguments. Kaffs need to be conscious of presumption -- I need to know what voting aff does and/or what it endorses. This should be the top of the 1ar and 2ar.
T/Theory
I will vote based off of the flow -- spreading through dense analytics is a bad idea.
LD
1 - Policy
1 - Ks
2 - Trad
2 - Theory
4 - Phil and Tricks (will need HEAVY explanation and judge instruction)
*I will vote for tricks, but they need to be warranted when they are read and you need to be clear about the implication
PF
I flow, and will evaluate arguments with an offense-defense paradigm. Speed is fine, paraphrasing evidence is not. I think sharing evidence is a good practice. I'm not super familiar with PF - I'm more than capable of evaluating your debate, but I am not in the loop on PF jargon/norms. Have the debate you want, and I will adapt to the best of my abilities.
Dougherty Valley '22
Did LD and Policy - went to camp a couple of times.
he/him
Add me to email chain (tmishra@berkeley.edu)
if you're short on time, just read this top section:
Tech>Truth, but it’s easier to win more truthful arguments.
Arguments need Claim, Warrant, Impact
Flashing Analytics is a big bonus on speaks
in prelims - 5 mins prep for LD, 10 for policy
email chain should be set up before round starts
- paradigm agrees exactly with Savit Bhat
Misc:
- defaults: comparative worlds (LD), no judge kick, competing interps, no rvi, drop the debater on T and condo and disclosure theory and DTA on all other theory, fairness and education are voters, everything other than fairness and education is not a voter
-clipping if you do catch clipping, do not make clipping an argument in the debate - stake the round and show me the recording.
- ev ethics - any misrepresentation of evidence (stopping in the middle of a paragraph, if the article concludes the opposite way after the card ends, mis-cited) is an automatic L even if not called out. if your link is dead but the article can be procured through a different method you won't lose.
- i expect evidence to have cites/qualifications and not be bracketed unless offensive language. read theory
- i read a lot of ev, the quality of the warrant is the quality of the argument.
Disadvantages:
- WEIGH!
- ptx da are my fav
- 2NR/2AR impact calc not new
- concede defense to kick
- answer the straight turn plz
Counterplans:
- main 2nr strat for me was going for a topic da with a smart, creative cp
- start the solvency debate in the 1NC (card or analytic), not the 2AC
- err neg/drop the argument on 1AR theory is persuasive in LD
Kritiks (on the negative):
- good k debates are cool but rare - consequently good k debates with explanation and knowledge of your argument will get extremely inflated speaks and bad k debates meant to take your opponent by surprise or rack up easy wins with blocks will get extremely deflated speaks.
- the more the negative wins their link the easier it is for them to win Framework
- filter alt solvency through Framework
- LD only: Link walls must be in the 1NC.
- new links resulting from the 1AR fine in LD, anything else isn't
- extensions of 'ontology' and similar broad claims need to be much more robust than you think they do. you can't just say the buzzwords "natal alienation" or "gratuitous violence" or "metaphysics" without telling me 1) what they are and 2) how they implicate progress.
- i will vote for warranted K "tricks"
-short ov, do contextualization on case page (links, k trix, etc.)
- particularity vs Ks is good and Ks should either link turn or impact turn this and overinvest time on this argument
Kritiks (on the affirmative):
- T-USFG/Framework - aff teams can easily out-tech neg teams but i ideologically lean slightly neg. Don't care which internal link/impact you choose: fairness, skills, testing, etc. as long as they have an actual impact
- try to answer the case even if you go for T
- you get a perm, probably not the best for K v K though
- go for presumption if the 1AC is just an impact turn to Framework
Theory/Topicality:
- went for T a decent amount of times
- weighing is essential
- evidence comparison is underutilized
- RVIs are bad but don't drop them
- if a 1AC theory underview has more than yes/no theory, competing interps/reasonability, dtd/dta, voters you lose speaks
- Interpretations are models of debate, and definitions are the warrants for why those models are predictable - standards should be filtered through predictability
- "semantics first" is not persuasive, precision as an internal link is persuasive
Phil/FW typa debates
- if your cards and rebuttals do a good job of explaining the syllogism and reasons to prefer(they usually don't), you'll be fine.
- tricks: If there's a clear claim, warrant, and implication to an argument when it is first introduced, then I will flow and evaluate it like any other argument.
- "we defend the aff as a general principle" is a topicality issue about implementation.
- general confidence vs modesty bores me - contextualize (with cards) !
- didn't read many NC but im familiar w/ Kant, Hobbes, etc.
Speaks:
CX matters, -0.1 speaks if you shift around your order multiple times when giving it or if you don't label your flows in the 1nc ("next off" is insufficient).
- CX not binding
Hi, my name is Neelima Namburi.
I am a flow parent judge, so please avoid spreading and make sure you weigh a lot in your final speeches. It would be nice if you could send your speech docs before you speak.
Email: namburin2020@gmail.com
In my judging, I prioritize three things.
- Speaking Clearly. Make sure you speak clearly and slow down for taglines so I understand your case. If you want to go a little faster, make sure you send your cases and speech documents to my email.
- Arguments. Have well fleshed out arguments where you explain the warrants and have a logical link chain.
- Final speeches. Always weigh. Ensure that you always talk about what argument your are going to refute in your rebuttals. Move cleanly from 1 contention to another and try not to jump around on the flow. Do not bring up new arguments in your final speech.
Debate is supposed to be a safe space. Don't bully anybody. Have fun debating!
0. General:
chain for policy/general questions
chain for ld (pls add both)
Coaching: Isidore Newman, Coppell, IVA High
Conflicts: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. I care a lot about debate. Whether or not I should can be changed by persuasive argumentation.
Cal Round Robin: I know little to nothing about the high school CX topic. Explain IPR like I've never heard core AFFs or 2NRs before, because there's a high chance that's the case.
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.
Hi, I'm Max, I'm a third year out who did LD for 3 years. Won the TOC and a couple of other tournaments, read predominately policy arguments but dabbled a bit in critical international relations theory, settler colonialism, and ethical philosophy.
I coach withDebateDrills- 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
Paradigm:
Add me to the chain, maxvperin@icloud.com
-- Debate is a game (not sure why this is a controversial take in an activity with rules where we compete to win and have fun) – it’s a really fun game that can teach us lots of cool things, but don’t take it too seriously/please be nice in round/have basic human decency
Big fan of strategies that:
-- Spend most of the NC on impact turns
-- Use advantage counterplans and smart case presses to punish bad affs
-- Use long, good evidence
-- Don’t rely on the other debater dropping/mishandling arguments
Strongly dislike strategies that:
-- Are designed to avoid clash
-- Allow you to read off a script during a rebuttal
-- Try to explain all society/history/IR/etc. with a theory from the depths of god knows where in academia
Might vote you down for/won’t vote for strategies that:
-- Ad hom other debaters/force me to evaluate out of round events (exception is disclosure)
-- Say racism/sexism/other isms good (will def vote you down for this one)
Other things to know:
-- I find clash and especially fairness standards in T Framework to be extremely compelling, and if debated equally I lean heavily negative in clash debates. On a truth level, fairness is clearly an impact, though it's often a bit tricky to explain why in a manner that's not tautological, so I'll be impressed by 2nrs that give that explanation persuasively
-- That said, while I'd recommend reading a topical plan, you certainly don't have to read a big stick policy aff - I think that well constructed topical K affs that materially solve for some instance of a structural impact through a plan and leverage a critical theory of power to do impact calculus and attack the internal links of disads and counterplans are extremely cool.
-- When reading a kritik against a policy aff, case defense and predictions Ks are your friend. It's extremely difficult to win a framework argument that excludes the advantage or a reason a high probability extinction impact doesn't outweigh, and "reee ontology and the ROTB means the aff disappears" certainly won't cut it on either of those fronts. Instead, you should attack the parts of the aff that are most vulnerable, i.e. the shitty internal links.
-- Behind nuclear strategy and IR theory, I think formal logic is one of the coolest areas of study/literature that can be used in debate. However, I also hate bastardization of it. Tricks debaters, do with that information as you will.
-- I think that a lot of popular theory and non-topic specific topicality arguments (condo, nebel, etc.) are fairly obviously bad arguments, and gain strategic value almost exclusively from the fact that they exploit the time structure in LD very effectively. Because of that, I'll be very sympathetic towards the debater answering theory in most of these situations.
- On the topic of silly arguments, psychological theories that have been rejected by 99% of psychologists and readings of history that have been rejected by 99% of historians are probably silly – there’s a reason they exist in debate, English departments, and nowhere else
I need to hear what you're saying and arguing. If I can't do that because you're reading too fast, then I won't be able to judge you fairly.
I've been judging events since 2016.
For Speech:
For me, having clarity and to-the-point communication style matters. Leverage those effective oral presentation skills, with the use of pacing, voice modulation, strong and effective eye contact, meaningful pauses and I look for body language that amplifies your voice. Connect with your audience and exuberate confidence
For Debate:
1.) No spreading - I will flow arguments that I am able to understand, and wont flow if I cant understand you. Feel free to speak at a comfortable pace, but be aware of your own pace and put yourself in the shoes of others....if they cant understand you, they cant vote for your side.
2.) Stick to the resolution - Make sure to debate and bring up arguments that pertain directly to the resolution. I'm more of a fan of traditional debate if one of the debaters is, so that means to focus less on progressive arguments (kritiks, plans, pics, etc) if your opponents are traditional (please dont intend to confuse your opponent), but if both sides go progressive then I'm cool with that.
3.) No Longshot Extrapolations - Make sure to link all arguments, don’t jump from one contention to an impact that is widely different.
4) I enjoy seeing strong clash, and condensing the debate in the last speech from each side, and clear voters. Write my ballot clearly for you
4.) Respect - Be respectful to all debaters and follow the time restrictions.
For JF 2024- this is like my favorite topic ever. I am getting my MA in international affairs, and I have researched extensively the ICC and UNCLOS. International law is something I know a lot about, especially international environmental law. So, I will naturally have a high bar for accuracy in arguments. This may affect speaks, and if the wining debater is just saying false things, that's a low point win. Please just research how treaties work.
tldr- prefs key
Soft left affs- 1
1off K - 1 (esp with specific links, less if relying on link of omission)
theory/T- 2
larp-2
K affs- 2 (i have a high bar for these, be creative)
larp but like 8off DAs/CPs/theory- 3
Phil-3 (unless u explain it to me)
tricks-4
meme args- 5 (i have little patience)
--
cool with speech drop or add me to the email chain-katieraphaelson@gmail.com
Brentwood 19'
Smith 23'
The New School Graduate Program in International Affairs '26
Head Coach of Brentwood Debate
Hello! I'm Katie! I use they/them pronouns. I debated LD at Brentwood School from 2015-2019. I was a quarterfinalist at CHSSA state and 10th at NSDA nats my senior year. I focused mostly on circuit in high school and broke consistently my senior year. I mainly read performance non t affs and postmodernism Ks
I've been coaching and judging for about 6 years and have experience judging every event, but I do come from an LD background. This paradigm used to be super long but at this point I really only have like a few important things:
1) provide content warnings if you are going to talk about SA and violence against queer ppl. Please don't read cases that are primarily about SA/r*pe. thank u!
2) don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophopic, ableist, etc. Debaters are people. The people we talk about in debate are people. Every argument has real world implications. Be sensitive to that.
3)I have mainly been coaching trad debate, but I am good for circuit
a. my background is in Ks- id pol (queerness, ableism, queercrip, performance K affs) and pomo (D&G, Baudrillard, legal realism). I had many a KvK debate, so I am also very familiar with other K lit (antiblackness, set col, cap, fem).
b. I also love smart CPs and DAs with clear links and solvency aka DA uniqueness needs to be strong and CP has to solve. If the offs conflict, I like a good perf con arg.
c. I like theory that is based on in round stuff and is not frivolous- spec good/bad, condo (although i think condo is good reasonably), non frivolous T. I will vote on disclosure if it is clearly an intentional lack of disclosing. I’m not convinced by new affs bad.
d. I love a neg strat of K, T, CP, DA then kick the alt and go for the links as DAs to the aff. I also love a 1 off K.
e. Don't read meme arguments ill be really annoyed
4) I am neurodivergent, and it can be hard for me to get everything down if debaters spread super fast and I can't really understand the words. It is mainly to benefit y'all- if you want to make sure I am getting everything, send your analytics.If I can tell you are just reading off a prewritten doc, and you aren't sending those analytics, I will be sad. There won't be a penalty for not sending them, but you do send your analytics, I will give you +.01 speaks. I promise that disclosing your analytics in round does not give an advantage to your opponent, and it incentivizes reading blippy and cheaty arguments hoping that your opponent misses them. That's a one way ticket to not improving your debate skills.
5) I would like arguments to have warrants (hot take I know) so I won't just vote off of one line that was dropped bc it was dropped. If you are reading a case that proposes a new method or model of viewing the debate, I would like to know what that method/model looks like. If you weigh the case and I have no idea what the case actually is, I will not automatically pull the trigger.
6) time yourselves please! and keep track of your prep time. I am not keeping track.
7) Be nice to each other!!!!!!!
8) Debate the way you do best! Have fun!
I am a parent judge with 5 years of experience.
I expect the participants to speak slow but most importantly clearly
I want to understand the debate so explaining arguments help me understand why you should win more.
Respect other participants and I will respect you
add me to any email chains
ajayrawal@hotmail.com
I debated for 4 years in policy at Head-Royce as a 1A/2N and went for the K on both the aff and the neg for my last 3 years. I now debate at UC Berkeley and only go for policy args.
Put me on the email chain:
please name the chain something reasonable.
for online debates, please try to have your camera on. speaking into the void feels weird
Do what you do best. This paradigm is short because I will vote for almost any argument so long as it is won in debate. I know everyone says this but I will try my hardest to stick to the flow and judge as objectively as I can. I have also realized I tend to make faces when I like or do not like something.
That being said, it's inevitable I get something wrong. If you think that's the case, feel free to post-round and argue with me. I find it not only fun, but also a good learning tool.
I default to judge kick, conditionality, and generally think inserting rehighlightings is good. Each of these go out the window when someone makes an argument against them in the debate.
Tell me if you want to stake the round on an ethics violation, otherwise debate it out.
Some paradigms to look at to better understand the way I view debate: Larry Dang, Nathan Fleming, Nick Fleming, Katie Wimsatt, Emilio Menotti, Archan Sen, Taylor Tsan, Molly Urfalian, Buck Arney. Their paradigms are better than mine and they taught me everything I know (except Buck who I taught and take zero responsibility for when he inevitably makes the wrong decision. Also do not read Emilio's paradigm for sanity's sake).
extra .1 speaks for references to old/current Cal debaters
LD: please add my email AND breakdocs@googlegroups.com. please do not add me to a speechdrop. read this section and the must reads.
if the argument doesn't exist in policy, you will probably need to explain it. this includes strange acronyms and phrases that seem to only exist in LD like "does x trigger y". stop asking for marked copies and a million questions about which cards were and weren't read.
Tech--x--------Truth
K-----x-----Policy
Phil------x----No
Theory--------x--Substance
Disclose------x----Unverifiable
Tricks----------x-Literally anything else
GCB+30 speaks---------x-Please stop
More NC arguments/cards--x--------New in the NR
policy: read below.
i am semi-involved, but haven't extensively cut cards on IP. i did not judge at camp, but have judged ~20 rounds and 10 practice debates on this topic. a 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.
Please add me to the chain, my email is rosasyardley.a at gmail
Policy from 2014-2021 for Downtown Magnets High School/LAMDL and Cal State Fullerton.
I think I am best for k v k and k v fw/policy rounds. I lean towards truthy styles of debate but I view tech and truth as equally important. Go for less in the rebuttals. Write my ballot. Isolate key points of clash in the debate and compare warrants. You should be able to break down the debate for me to minimize the amount of thinking and work that I have to do pls.
Nicholas Rosenbaum (nrose1@stanford.edu)
Stanford University '24
Lane Tech '20
[order of contents: tldr, policy by arg/debate type, LD]
tldr of a tldr: be smart, good at debate, and clear-speaking (for I will never, ever flow off the speech doc. I hate that I even have to say that). I don't have any biases (argument or otherwise) that should be of concern to you.
A 2025 addition, hopefully appropriate to say: I love judging good debates and hate judging poor ones. Thus, good, smart debaters of absolutely any style/argument type should pref me (and vice versa..). We'd be doing each other a mutual favor: you'll get, humbly, adjudication as high-quality and discerning as available in the pool, and I get to watch vitalizing debates worthy of my time. As alluded to, this also goes the other way (re speaker points, for example; ofc my adjudication remains objective and fair, it just seems I dip into 27's [as well as high 29's, for that matter] more frequently then others. I think there's real inflation on the left tail of speaks that doesn't accurately reflect the enormous chasm in quality at nat circ! tournaments, leaving mediocre speakers too close on paper to poor and very poor ones)— hopefully a disincentive where relevant.
Another 2025 addition: Unclearness is a true epidemic. Perhaps signs of a community in decline, even many good debaters are slurring through untailored blocks to the detriment of complete auditory comprehensibility. I am so frequently frustrated by this, but much to my chagrin, I don't believe it's yet resulted in a loss (as it would if I didn't flow an arg ultimately gone for in a rebuttal), so I'm just going to start taking it out even more on your speaker points. Go as fast as you like— speed is the number of complete arguments able to be flowed by a competent judge or opponent, per unit of time.
tldr:
-- The platonic ideal of a judge is a valueless, disinterested critic of argument of maximal intellectual ability and openness. Teams who agree that all debaters ought to be entitled to this type of judge and judging (or as close as is humanly possible) should pref me. Good and smart/intellectual debaters of all stripes of style and substance should pref me. I have no reason to believe my personal convictions about debate, the world, etc. should hold any significance to the round I am judging. I will vote for literally anything.
-- Unlike many in the debate community, I want to be judging you. I really enjoy judging debates and do so diligently and with critical attention. With that said, bad debates are just not where I want to be— pref accordingly.
-- I think I am very good at rendering fair, correct decisions and often get upset listening to seemingly idiosyncratic RFDs, products of laziness and/or subjectivity. Hard working debaters have their toil, deserving of reward, negated by whims they could not have possibly expected or tailored to. I know debaters deserve so much better, and I do everything in my power to provide that. The paths-(predictable according to an offense-defense paradigm, i.e. non-idiosyncratic)-of-least-resistance that I take to my decisions are visually discernible from my flow.
Clash debates:
My voting record proves that I am 100% agnostic in these debates. I am as apathetic voting on 'extinction outweighs' as I am 'extinction doesn't matter in the face of the revolution'.
Just as I can't unduly hack for classical liberalism, I also won't do for you the work against it that many these days are taking for granted. Instead, everything from first principles, acknowledging certain args are easier (requiring less work) to win, like maybe human liberty good?
I am well-versed in the k as a practice in debate, and I know quite a lot of lit quite well. I most frequently went for settler colonialism and, among debate applications, probably know the most about afropessimism, but I always enjoyed a high theory injection for what it let me do. I now study a lot of German thinkers & political philosphy at university, do scholarly work spec. on Nietzsche, etc.
Insert typical ‘my background does not mean I will hack for the k; on the contrary, I know when..’. Once again, this is good for those who want to go HAM on smart stuff (for you needn’t worry about leaving me behind) but bad for ill-concieved strategies, those hoping to gaslight judges into equating multisyllabic tropes with profundity, etc. I do actually appreciate informedly-used jargon (using one word to express an assemblage of ideas) and abstraction generally. The throughline, again: good debate is good before me, and vice versa.
My senior year at a very small program, I (2N) primarily went for kritikal arguments & t/fw on the negative and wrote kooky fringe policy affs.
---
-- how to win: win an argument (or set of arguments) and win why you winning said argument(s) means that you have won the round!
-- I conceptualize debate as a deliberation-based intellectual competition where my ballot signifies an endorsement of one team's argument as true in the sense that it is proven preeminent over the opposing team's primary argument in the larger context of said round.
-- critical intellectualism and smart decision-making above all else! A 2ar that makes risky, bold decisions to hedge their bets versus an obviously lethal, winning 2nr is my favorite thing to watch. Even if it's not enough to win, ruthless strategy is the best internal link to higher speaker points.
-- flow and base your speeches around it.
-- I'm a good flow and am very comfortable with fast debate, but remember, fast =/= clear; I will only say clear twice per speech. I do not follow along in the speech doc.
-- even-if statements>>>
Policy
K vs Policy Affs:
Yes! Probably my favorite type of debate. The neg shouldn't be lazy with their links, and the aff should be smarter debating fiat arguments. I prioritize explanation and specificity above all else.
Please clash on the level of framework. This hugely important section often becomes ships passing in the night with the neg reading some epistemology DA and the aff talking about procedural things, neither side making inroads to other team's arguments. In many of these debates, whoever wins this section of the flow wins the debate, so invest!
I have read in debate (and actively research and read for pleasure) various flavors of settler colonialism and anti-Blackness, imperialism, capitalism, semiocapitalism, IR theories, Asian and Jewish identity, militarism, queerness, Berlant/affect theory, Baudrillard, Virilio, Kroker, Nietzsche, flavors of debate pomo, and many others. I read and think about critical theory a lot, so I likely have a working literacy in whatever body of literature you want to read.
You do not need an alternative if you are winning framework OR if your links are material DA's to the aff's implementation where the squo would be preferable OR if your theory of power overdetermines the aff's potential to be desirable OR if you can think of another reason you don't need an alt. With that said, I do like when alts are coherent to the strategy of the k or heavily influence framework.
"Critiques are not counterplans, nor are they plan focused. "Links must be to the plan" "Perm double bind" and "private actor fiat is a voting issue" are not persuasive unless dropped OR if the negative reads a K that ends up being explained as the world peace CP or movements CP." - shree
"Judges who say they won’t vote on death good are anti-K liberals who don’t know what the argument says." - eugene toth
Framework vs K Affs:
TLDR: I am agnostic in evaluating these debates, and I vote SOLELY off the flow. I am great for either side in these debates, see TLDR.
I have been on both sides of this debate. Purely theoretically— that is, in an equally matched round, not any real round— I lean negative, as I probably find the perfect framework + case/presumption strategy more convincing than general answers. Nonetheless, absolutely here for aff teams that disrupt the assumed terms of the debate to such an extent that probably true negative arguments lose their compelling power. Doing less than that can still result in an aff ballot, considering many neg teams will not be close to my above-described ideal. So the aff can and will win many of these debates, but disproving the neg's claims beyond asserting that the case is good is absolutely essential.
Assuming a smart negative, affs probably will need to prove why the process of resolutional debate the negative is demanding them to adhere to is bad or why the aff's model solves the neg's offense.
I think a we-meet stemming from the debaters 'doing'/discussing something related to [resolution topic] rarely passes the smell test. The words resolved, USFG, and [topic word] deserve attention, so (in order of preference) impact turn or we meet/counter-interp, but a strategy based just on being thematically germane to the resolution is probably quite vulnerable.
I can find TVAs that capture aff literature and read it on the neg arguments very convincing.
I am very open to 'debate bad' claims. I don't agree, but who cares? Even better for the aff are 'policy-centered discussions of this resolution are bad' claims.
Related to the above point, I am most persuaded by k aff answers to framework that take an extreme and unapologetic stance. Playing the middle ground is risky, because let's be honest, you almost definitely underlimit the topic etc., so just tell me why that doesn't matter.
Fairness can be an impact if articulated as one. Yes, it is an internal link to the positive benefits of debate, but I buy it if framed as as a prerequisite to anything good coming out of the activity.
I think it's fundamental for the negative to have a role in the debate. I think this need becomes especially magnified in debates where the aff proposes a method of self-care. I believe that the aff's strategy is probably good, but if it would be inappropriate for the negative to negate the value of the method and similarly violent for them to exclude the aff from debate, I don't see how a debate can occur, and I'll be very sympathetic to negative arguments about the inhibition of clash/fairness/any good byproduct of a debate happening.
Tell me whether I should be voting for a model of debate or just acting as a referee on this round. This frame of reference is something I utilized in every fw, t, and theory debate, and I think it is super valuable for judge instruction and helps clean up messy debates.
K vs K Affs:
Can be very interesting, and I'd love to hear it if you understand and can execute your argument. I am not interested in poorly executed k strats chosen because you think I'd prefer it or because they will confuse your opponents. This applies everywhere, but strategies premised upon confusing/annoying opponents are bad for debate, and I would rather not hear them; obviously, there are a few exceptions in the lit (we’ll always have the dada aff, keryk <3).
If either team wants this to be a "method debate," clearly delineate what that means, how I decide, etc. I view debates comparing method solvency alone as often missing the central component of winning links and other forms of offense, so tell me how to navigate the decision.
Word PIKs and other shenanigans - totally justified and a smart strategy. Truly no rules in these debates; the affirmative set the anarchic precedent, so I'll buy anything from anyone (again, just means no prejudices on my end; it's all always about what y'all debate out).
DA:
I think most politics DAs are garbage from the lens of political science, but debate =/= reality, and I really enjoy listening to an expertly debated politics DA. Read lots of cards and incorporate smart analytics/logic.
Receptive to aff ptx theory
Links exist on a spectrum; the "chance of a link" has to be qualified and then incorporated into the risk assessment component of impact calculus.
Expert turns case analysis is invaluable.
CP:
So as to incentivize contextual judge instruction, I’m not going to put fourth a rule on whether or not I’ll default to judge kick. Tell me what to do or face my discretionary decision.
I think lots of counterplans that steal much of the aff (interpret that as you wish) are bad for debate and unfair and the aff should hammer them. However, my personal opinion doesn't inform my voting; the aff still needs has to win theory or, even better, competion. As a judge, I kinda enjoy these debates cuz techy and words, but at the level of the activity, I beg for the aff to level the playing field with sense.
CPs should ideally have solvency advocates in the 1nc, but whatever. I do think CPs lacking solvency advocates magnifies the strategy skew of conditionality.
Sufficiency framing is ridiculous. Not that it's wrong, but it's just like eh, why even say this? Solvency deficits will always need to be weighed vs a risk of the net-benefit. I'll end up having to do this, so you're better off telling me how I ought to do it and net-out.
Topicality:
Yes please IF the debates will be techy, organized, and clash-filled; both or either team reading blocks through the rebuttals without refuting the other teams arguments in depth is very boring and not something I want to watch.
*I don't know community norms on the topic, so argue from first principles. Also slow/break down acronyms and other esoteric vernacular if you want me to render the most accurate possible decision.
Theory:
As a 2n, I resent 2A's that explode theory arguments shadow-extended in the 1ar because they've lost everything else. Theory blips are probably bad for the community. With that said, I understand doing what you have to do to win, so I will vote for whatever, but I'd ideally prefer coherent strategies.
I have literally no predispositions on whether condo is good or bad. I tend to think the problem is the abusiveness of counterplans, not the number thereof (cuz let's be real, that's what aff teams are actually objecting to, albeit under a different name), but I enjoy a good condo debate from both sides.
I will vote on any theory argument if executed properly. I don't like how many judges will in practice only vote on condo, even if the usually throw-away arg was dropped or seriously won; this practice is sneaky and bad, and I promise not to replicate it. I literally will vote for anything. If you’re actually up for the task (ask yourself), please do convince me why 50 state fiat in a CP kicked in the 2nc is a reason to vote aff. Doing so requires great skill and risk (making it much of the final rebuttal), but if done well, speaker points will rain because I think good theory debate is cool. You have to be so thoughtful and clashing to do it, though.
In-Round Conduct:
I will not adjudicate on things that happened outside of the round. There is no way for me to make an accurate determination in these cases. My ballot does not endorse any debater's character.
Do not steal prep, even a little! It is so prolific. It is rude to me, your opponents, and will result in tanked speaks.
Do not clip cards.
Clarity
LD
My experience is in policy debate, so I am not familiar with trad or local LD, but I've judged a handful of nat circ LD rounds, including outrounds. My senior year, my partner and I were flex (mostly policy affs and k's on the neg). The policy community considers/prefs me as a flex individual. I am well-versed in all argument types, but I most enjoy clash (policy aff v k or k aff v t/fw) debates. I also enjoy and am very comfortable judging straight policy/LARP debates.
preferences:
k
larp
theory
[big jump]
phil
tricks
trad
any other (lay) stuff i wouldn't know about
I am very competent at judging fast, techy debates; debaters that embody this or otherwise want to be judged by someone with extensive experience in policy debate across the ideological spectrum should pref me. I am most qualified to judge TOC style and tier LD debates (ie those closest to circuit policy). These are also the LD debates I most enjoy being in.
Tricks: I will vote on them, and I have no preconceived ‘this is too stupid to vote on’ threshold, but I still would prefer not to be in these debates. Impacting beyond “they dropped this” is absolutely essential, and I won’t vote on any trick I don’t have flowed. As I said above, I was/am a very fast debater and want to judge fast debates, but if I miss #7 of 30 one-line analytic voting issues, sorry.
Phil: I study quite a bit of continental philosophy at uni lol
See the rest of my paradigm for my more developed thoughts. Both the TLDR and argument-specific policy sections apply to LD.
Hi!
I'm a recent UC Berkeley graduate and an assistant Speech and Debate coach for Flintridge and Westridge. I'm a former debater who mainly competed in Parliamentary debate for Claremont High School. Alongside Parli, I've competed in and/or judged LD, PF, Worlds, BQ, Congress, and several speech events (mainly OO, Impromptu, and Extemp). I always appreciate a competitive and respectful round, so I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!
General Debate Notes
Please focus on your links! I believe they are just as (if not, more) important than your cards and impacts. Arguments that depend on well-thought out logic are always more interesting to listen to than a random card without much analysis from the debater. I weigh magnitude and probability heavily, meaning I will not vote for your nuclear fallout argument just because you tell me to based on a 0.0000000001% chance.
Please provide a roadmap and signpost in each speech! I want to be able to flow your case and refutations as accurately as possible, but it's difficult when you spew random facts at me for 7 minutes without taglines or titles. Remember, you could have the most beautiful argument to ever be conceived of in human history, but if I don't know where/how to flow it, I can't give you credit :(
For events with Cross, I won't flow every question or answer, but I'll be listening very closely with 100% of my attention. Please utilize cross to point out flaws in your opponent's case as opposed to a reiteration of tags/arguments (unless absolutely necessary).
Lastly, be respectful! Especially during POIs and Cross. That also means avoid making faces or facepalming in person or while your camera is on. I'll tank speaks without hesitation if a debater is being disrespectful throughout the round.
Kritiks & Theory
I'm very open to hearing these arguments as long as you can justify them. There are definitely rounds where these arguments are necessary and will impact my decision. I'm not the most familiar with more unique K's or performance K's, so please explain each component to me! If there's one thing I hate more than spreading, it's frivolous theory/k's that you wrote at camp 5 months ago and decided to shoe into your case without consideration for the topic or opponent. Please make sure the K makes sense for the specific round/opponent (Links matter to me!). Please avoid running K or Theory against novice debaters. Don't feel pressured to run these arguments either, you don't need to use jargon or one singular argument structure to convince me that a definition or argument is abusive/flawed!
Speaking
I'm pretty generous (I think?) when it comes to speaks. If you make me laugh I'm probably going to boost your speaks too. Be respectful to your opponents, being rude is an easy way for me to dock your speaks without feeling bad. Don't Spread, Don't Spread, Don't Spread. If you spread, I'll likely miss important parts of your argument, which will only hurt your chances. Or if you, for whichever reason, feel that you must spread and cannot make the necessary adjustments, at least send a speech doc via the tournament designated file-sharing program.
If you have any other questions feel free to ask them in round! :)
Overview: These are my defaults. Everything is up for debate. Please add me to the email chain phildebate@gmail.com
First, I consider myself an argument critic. By this I mean I might vote on an argument that I do not agree with or one I think is untrue because in the context of the round one team persuades me. This means that I tend to fall on the side of tech over truth.
Second, I understand debate by argument. There is a trend in debate to replace argument with author names. The community has begun referencing authors instead of the argument that the evidence is meant to strengthen. This is a bad trend, in my mind, and should be limited to necessity.
Third, I will not now, nor will I ever, stop a debate if I think that someone is clipping or cross reading. While I think this is cheating I think it is up to the debaters in the round to make an argument and then for me to judge that argument based on the available evidence and render a decision. However, if you are caught clipping when I judge I will give you a loss and zero speaker points. .
Fourth, Speaker-Points are dumb. Preffing judges based on the speaker points they give is even dumber. It has long been the case that weak judges give high speaks in order to be preffed. It is unfortunate that judges of color have had to resort to giving debaters higher points than they deserve to get into debates. I will do my best to maintain the community norm.
Topicality: Yes, I vote on it. It is always a voter. Topicality debates are about competing interpretations and the benefits of those interpretations. It is incumbent upon the debaters to do impact calculus of their advantages (these are the reasons to prefer aka standards) vs. the advantages of the counter-interpretation and the disadvantages to your interpretation. In other words, to win topicality you need win that your interpretation is better for debate than your opponents. This formula is true for ALL theory arguments if you plan to win them in front of me.
Framework: Yes, I vote on it. Framework is, to me, a criticism of the affirmatives method. What does this mean for you? It means that I am less persuaded by arguments like debate is a game and fairness claims. I tend to think of fairness, strategically, and my default is to say that fairness almost never outweighs education. I have voted on fairness as a terminal impact before and will likely do so again but the threshold to beat a team going for fairness is often very low and this gets even lower when the affirmative rightly points out that fairness claims are rooted in protecting privilege. If you are negative and you are going for framework my suggestion is that you make sure to have as many ways to negate the affirmatives offense as possible in the 2nr; this includes switch side debate solves your offense and topical version of your aff. If you do that and then win an internal link into education you will likely win my ballot.
I default to utilitarian ethics when making judgments about what action/vote is most beneficial. If you would like me to use some other method of evaluation that needs to be explained and it needs to be upfront.
Counterplans-You should read one. Counterplans compete through net benefits.
*Presumption never flips aff. I know there is a redefinition of Presumption as “less change” but this is a misunderstanding of presumption. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. Now like everything in this philosophy this is a default. To say that presumption flips affirmative is just to say that the affirmative has achieved their prima facia burden to prove that the SQ needs change.
*Counterplan theory: My default is that conditionality is the state that counterplans naturally exist. Because I believe counterplans are merely a test of the intrinsicness of the affirmatives advantages it means that I also default to judge kick. This means that there is little chance that I will vote outright on conditionality bad. Instead, I will assess that the Negative is now “stuck” with a counter-advocacy that alters the debate in corresponding ways.
Criticisms: Criticisms function much like counterplans and disads, insofar, as they should have an alternative and link and impact. I can be persuaded that K’s do not need an alternative. With that being said, if you are going for a K without an alternative then you need to have a lot of defense against the affirmative. Some of that defense can come in the form of the k itself (serial policy failure or impacts are inevitable arguments) but some of it SHOULD also be specific to the plan.
Any questions just ask. Good Luck!
General
Assistant coach for Immaculate Heart High School.
Speechdrop (fileshare) >> Email
Email: ssanchez2024@ihs.immaculateheart.org
Preferences (Short)
1-policy, T
2/3-theory
3- Phil, K's
No-tricks, friv theory, death good, etc
Misc
- GO SLOW!
- Must stake the round for clipping (need a recording) and ev ethics.
- Clarification questions about what your opponent read is CX or prep.
- Prep ends when you send the doc.
- Rehighlightings are fine
- Do impact calc or at the very least tell me the impact
- If you have any questions about my paradigm you can ask me before the round!
Overview
-archan.debate@gmail.com---please send the 1AC before the round start time.
-Eagan LS, Berkeley US. Coached at Georgetown Day Schools and Head Royce (policy) and Harker (LD).
-Please post-round me if you disagree with me---judges should be held responsible for bad decisions.
-LD at bottom.
-TLDR: Tech over everything. Debate is a game and you should maximize your chances of winning. Judges who say "I'll vote on anything except [xyz]" don't understand what tech over truth means. Everything below in this paradigm are general inclinations on my thoughts for how debate works, so that you can exploit some of the biases that I've gained throughout the years as to what arguments I think are convincing, but you do not need to read any of it. Regardless of what you go for, I will attempt to judge it as fairly as possible.
-Background: debated as a 2A since 8th grade (immigration, arms sales, cjr, water, NATO) and now as a 2N in college (nukes, MBIs). Read only policy affs and went for a K in exactly 4 rounds. Staked some pretty big debates on pretty stupid args (went for hidden aspec in mich finals and christian wipeout at the TOC). Gone for pretty much every policy arg under the sun: core topic DAs and CPs, impact turns (including warming good, spark, and wipeout), good T interps, terrible T interps, non-resolutional theory, process CPs, and Kant. Qualled 3x to the TOC and got to semis my senior year. I came from a small school, and appreciate being scrappy to make up for prep disparities. Despite the laundry list of bad arguments above, my favorite debates are the ones with the most clash and two sides that are well prepared on core topic controversies. Furthermore, from going for all the bad arguments, I've realized why most of them are bad, and even a couple smart analytics can zero most of them.
-Many decisions I've witnessed have been atrocious. Judges don't vote for args they like even though it was a technical crush, they rep out based on coaches poll rankings, or just don't evaluate the tech because they ideologically agree with one side. I will try my hardest to not do any of those things.
-CX is often the most interesting part of the debate. Show resolve and stand your ground. If you defended something in your speech, defend the logical implications in cross. One of my biggest pet peeves is when teams try to weasel out of hard cx questions.
-Innovation is good---if you have something that is genuinely new to debate, I will be very happy to listen to it.
-Neg terror is good. My most fun 2ACs were always against 10+ off. Aff teams should win theory or counter-terror (straight turn the DAs, read stuff that can be cross applied across the flows and don't cross apply till the 1AR, and impact turn everything).
-The point of debate isn't to maximize clash nor to avoid cowardice. It's to win. Go for dropped aspec, don't send analytics, and generally anything that increases your chances of getting the ballot. I will award strategic decisions more than your attempt to showcase your bravery by flexing about how you made the unstrategic decision to take your opponent up on what they're good at.
-If you win a try-or-die claim, I will pretty much always vote for you---if we're guaranteed to go extinct in one world, I'd always choose a different world.
-Inserting rehighlightings is good and should be done more---it lowers the barrier to entry for ev comparison and deters bad evidence.
-There is no substantive argument that's off limits: death good, hidden aspec, and spark are all fair game.
-Rep means nothing to me. A lot of my prefs as a small school debater my junior and senior year were preffing around judges who we thought would vote for whichever team had more clout as debaters. I will not care about how many bids you have, where you are on the coaches poll, or what school you go to.
-Read more impact turns.
-Ad homs are defined as logical fallacies.
Hot takes
Most paradigms are the exact same and don't give any insights into how to debate in front of them. Judges who don't have any controversial debate opinions haven't thought about debate enough. Here's a (non-extensive) list of mine:
-Plan text in a vacuum is true. Judges who simultaneously hate positional competition and PTIAV don't understand competition. Both PTIAV and competition describe how to determine the mandates of the aff. Any counter-interp to PTIAV is equivalent to positional competition and justifies competition off of that. Eg, if you think that a better standard is cross-ex explanations of the plan, then that's logically identical to having an interp that CPs can compete off of cross-ex.
-How "generic" an argument is has no implication for how well it rejoins the 1AC. No clue why people have a moral panic over seeing the NGA CP.
-If you're allowed to kick parts of CPs, then that means that every CP text is functionally infinite condo as you can kick any individual letter or permutation of letters.
-Textual competition is terrible. If the norm, I think it would collapse debate. The distinction between only being able to permute words vs being able to permute letters seems to be an arbitrary line drawn to make it work in the aff's favor. But, taken to the logical extent, it would be that you could literally permute any combination of letters or punctuation to make any sentence. Especially because the aff gets to choose the plan and jam as many characters in it as possible, this seems like it would be very hard to beat. The best answer I heard was PICs deter, but under a model of textual + functional, the majority of the PICs wouldn't be functionally competitive, but the ones that are could be read either way, so I don't get how this is defense. With that being said, it was around 50% of my 2ARs against process CPs, so it obviously can be defended in a debate.
-Affs need to be immediate. If they don't, then it makes it impossible to ever be neg. The aff team will always get out of DAs by delaying the plan (the answer that's like normal means = immediate is [a] an assertion with no ev backing it up and [b] taken out if the aff chooses to say that it isn't immediate in the plan). That seems like a big-ish issue, but I think that the bigger issue is that it makes any CP unviable. Teams can always say "perm do the CP and the plan in 100 years". That solves every net benefit ever because they're all based on the squo for uniqueness. It's definitely not intrinsic since the perm just specs the timeframe of the aff (similar to how they can go for PDCP against the courts aff by 'speccing' that the aff is the courts). It would destroy all neg ground. This was still the other 50% of my 2ARs against process CPs.
-Most theory interps should be impossible to win. Nearly all of them don't have a clear interp (what is a 'process CP'?), get rid of all CPs (every CP necessarily has to PIC out of something to beat PDCP), or don't exclude anything (no CP 'results in the aff,' proven by competition args). Neg teams that exploit this will have a very easy time beating theory in front of me.
-There are so many things in LD that would eviscerate the best policy teams. If there was a team that ever got good at phil or tricks, most policy people would not know how to respond.
K-Affs
-Very good for K teams that realize that Ks are a technical tool that is strategic because it has so many good tricks, very bad for for K teams that try to ethos their way out of technical concessions.
-Impact turns > counter-interps. Your counter-interp will always be contrived and incoherent when held up at scrutiny. Middle ground strategies are just harder to thread the needle on. It probably also links to your exclusion DA.
-Ambivalent between fairness and clash---go for whatever you're more comfortable with/what's going better for you in the round.
-Reading T is no different than other forms of engagement vs K affs. It is not "psychic violence".
-Read more stuff vs K affs---word PICs against un-underlined portions of the 1AC or impact turns to stuff like warming are all fair game.
-Go for presumption. When teams choose to give up fiat, they require winning that voting aff does something. It doesn't.
-I think that I'm more lenient on neg teams for links to DAs. If one of your cards says your method does something, impact turns to that definitely link as it disproves that the endpoint of your research practice as a desirable goal.
Ks on the neg
-Neg framework interps should moot the plan. Trying to debate the K like it's a CP means that it'll lose to the perm double-bind. If the aff gets to weigh their plan, extinction will almost always outweigh.
-Framework is never "a wash". It's a theory debate that has two discrete choices---not a continuous spectrum that the judge can arbitrarily chose their default ideological predisposition from.
-Philosophical competition is a worse version of positional competition (you not only get links off of what the 1AC says, but now the vibes that it gives off too?), but teams mess up on it. No counter-interp to philosophical competition = impossible to go for the perm.
-Use more K tricks. I'm very good for it.
-Defend your method---if the 1AC says that Russia is a threat, then defend that Russia is a threat.
-Beating 'extinction outweighs' relies on you winning an alternative to util (or winning fw to moot the impact).
-More teams should go for theory against alts---most are nonsense and fiat way more than should be allowed.
-If the alt is material, it mostly always has some great DAs to go for. Going for heg good vs basically any material alt is almost always a viable strat.
Soft left affs
-Two types of framing interps that are good:
---Discounted util: defend that consequences matter, but the way that we calculate them should be different in some way that discounts the impact. Eg, probability * ln(impact). Of course, this has some problems, but it's a much better starting point than "probability first".
---Alternatives to util: preferably something that says something like consequences are irrelevant combined with a boatload of "consequences fail" cards.
-Most framing contentions are atrocious. These are some args that are almost uniformly awful in debates:
---Probability first: a 75% risk of a paper cut doesn't outweigh a 74% risk of being tortured.
---Cognitive bias: a helpful tiebreaker, but it's not an interp. Also you open yourself up to cognitive bias claims going in the other direction.
---Conjunctive fallacy: doesn't assume debate where dropped args are true, so the diminishing effect, while true irl, is useless for debate.
---Don't evaluate future lives: might be true (probably not though), but largely irrelevant as if they win their interp, 7 billion * 1% will still outweigh.
---Util is racist/sexist/ableist: it still requires you to have a counter-interp for framing. Even if you win that util is the worst thing in the world, if I don't have some other heuristic to evaluate impacts, then I have to use util because it's the only one introduced in the round.
T
-PTIAV is good. See "hot takes" section.
-Good for T debates. Read more cards, indict your opponent's ev, and win the tech.
-Reasonability seems pretty bad. The only net benefit is substance crowd-out, but that's impact turned by just winning that T debates are good (which, I'm pretty easily persuaded is true). It seems to be arbitrary (at what threshold is an interp reasonable?) and the culmination of all reasonable interps seems pretty unreasonable. Despite this, the main answer seems to be "judge intervention," which honestly is probably inevitable.
-Debatability and predictability are often talked about in a vacuum, separated from the actual context of the debate. Everyone agrees that a definition that isn't predictable at all or one that would destroy our ability to debate would be worse than a middle ground that is fairly predictable or fairly debatable. As such, I think teams should spend like time arguing about whether predictability or debatability outweigh, and spend that time explaining how their opponents interp isn't predictable or debatable.
-Tech > truth means that I'll vote on weird interps. Especially if there's some sort of technical mistake (dropping one interp in an interp spam, debatability outweighs predictability, or that overlimiting is good), you should go for it.
CPs
-I've gone for every flavor of bad CPs available: Space Elevators, Future Gens, Consult [x] country. It's very winnable in front of me, but aff teams that know what they're doing will have no problem in easily defeating most of them on competition.
-Saying the words "sufficiency framing" in every 2NC/2NR overview doesn't really convince me of anything.
-All theory and competition debates are models debates. Make sure that you are defending your model, not whatever happened in this round.
-Every CP is a PIC, and they all have a process. Make your theory interp precise.
-I'm very good for condo debates---on both sides. Condo is about the practice, not the number of condo you read in the round---number interps are inevitably arbitrary and devolve to infinite anyways. It's probably the only theoretical reason to reject the team. The only neg impact is neg flex---I don't know why people go for anything other than that in the 2NR.
-Uniqueness matter a LOT in theory debates. Both sides generally agree on the direction of the link (ie, everyone agrees that a world without condo would be harder for the neg), but you need to win uniqueness to make it be a DA against your opponents interp. Obviously there's the generic debate stuff like first/last speech, infinite prep, or 13-5 block skew, but topic specific analysis almost always trumps those. Engage and interact with your opponents warrants for uniqueness, don't just read your generic block back at them.
-Do more work for the debatability DA for definitions.
-Analytical CPs are good. If its obvious how they solve the aff, no explanation is needed. If it's complicated, then you should explain it, preferably in the 1NC.
-Fiating in DAs is underrated and more teams should do it.
DAs
-Politics is a good DA, I'm not sure why everyone seems to hate it. It's a negative consequence of the plan that's probably real for most affs.
-Good for fake DAs that rely on artificial competition. Fiat in more offense.
-I debated on three topics where there was no link uniqueness (Water, CJR, and NATO). Thumpers are extremely useful. If a neg team can't tell you why the link would be triggered by the plan but nothing else that already happened, it's probably a losing DA.
-Uniqueness CPs and CPing out of future thumpers is pretty much always legit in the 1NC, and debatably legit in the 2NC.
-Both sides should read more evidence on what normal means is on most process DAs. Ie, if you're aff facing a resource tradeoff DA, reading ev that normal means is increased congressional funding is often a good argument.
-I think turns case is often overhyped. It depends on the neg winning the uniqueness and link, which the aff team is rebutting anyways.
Impact Turns
-Go crazy. I'm good for anything you have.
-Sustainability is often more important than both sides give it credit for---it frames functionally everything else in the debate.
-Fiat out of aff scenarios!! I will give high speaks for smart CPs---most external aff impacts vs impact turns are very easy to have an analytic CP that solves it.
-S-risks outweigh X-risks. While it's often helpful to have a card for this, I'll automatically assume it absent impact calc from either side and make it a side constraint to avoid a small risk of any S-risk, similar to how judges would evaluate a 1% risk of extinction over anything else even without explicit impact calc.
-Big pet peeve of mine is saying something is "unethical" without engaging the substance of the argument. In most impact turn debates, both sides agree that util is how you frame ethics. So, if the neg is saying that extinction would net increase utility, saying "wipeout is unethical" isn't an argument unless you win that it's worse (in which case, you don't need to say that argument, because you would've won anyways).
-Update your cards---especially for less common impact turns, everyone reads super old cards---don't do that.
-Spark: go for better args. Nuclear winter is obvi made up and is solved by the bunkers CP. Nuclear tornadoes/Saarg is empirically denied and taken out by a CP that spaces nuclear attacks out. UV is better, but people in the poles would probably survive. But, civilizational collapse would eliminate all tech, making us vulnerable to all disasters and elimination potential for beneficial AI and space col. Those are S-risks that def outweigh any neg scenario (which, to be fair, are almost always worse than aff scenarios).
-Wipeout: win positive V2L, alien contact won't cause extinction, MCE solves animal suffering, and some random future tech won't condemn us all to infinite torture. These are all very intuitive and true arguments. In evenly matched debates, the aff would always win. However, due to prep disparities (people who are planning to go for wipeout will spend more time prepping it out than an average aff team), these debates are not often evenly matched.
LD Stuff
My background is fully in policy. I've gotten into LD recently---coaching/judging tournaments, and talking about LD specific things. I will attempt to evaluate everything fairly, but your best bet is to go for policy-like stuff.
However, with that being said, the neg side bias seems pretty massive in LD and I'll probably be sympathetic to aff teams that try to use tricks or cheaty args to try to compensate for that.
Prefs shortcut:
1 - policy v policy, policy v k, k v policy, theory
2 -tricks
3 - phil
4 - k v k
5/s -
-Tricks---I'll evaluate them, and I feel like I'll be better than most policy judges as I went for pretty tricky stuff, but I think that I'll still be worse for you than most LD judges. I feel like I'll also be more lenient on newer args because I'm used to a format where there's a lot of time to recover if you mess up. I'll be fine for tricks like truth testing, presumption and permissibility, paradoxes, and calc indicts. Probably not so much for things like evaluate after X speech.
-Theory---I'll be pretty decent for you---I'll eliminate most of my biases, and for some stuff (like yes/no 1AR theory), I won't have any biases in the first place. Look at the CP section above for more advice.
-Phil---I'll be okay. I haven't debated this stuff a lot but I'm deep on the lit. I won't know the applications to debate, so you should explain stuff more than you normally would.
-Learned everything I know about LD from Sam Anderson andAerin Engelstad
Background: I debated for March High School for four years in LD. I competed and placed regionally & nationally. I judged debate tournaments in both high school and university.
I attended the University of Texas at Austin ( Class of 22') for Computer Science and Business.
Speed: feel free to spread in front of me, I can probably handle your top speed but I will say clear should the need arise.
Disclosure: please disclose and throw me on the email chain @ sharmasej@gmail.com. I do not like Disclosure cases. It is not a requirement in NSDA to disclose and thus have a hard time entertaining these cases.
Skep/ Presumption/Tricks debate: I wouldn't advise going for this in front of me because of my personal dislike for it.
NOTE: I highly prefer staying topical and do not like cases that revolve around debate meta.
---
LARP: go for it and go all out this is what I know extremely well
K's: don't be afraid to go one off k just make sure you can explain the thesis really well because I had some limited experience. Check the in depth section below for more information on my experience.
T and theory: I'm all fine on this layer but just please don't spread analytics at full speed because that will make me sad. I have a low threshold for frivolous theory so just keep that in mind but aside from that I don't have an opinion on most shells.
Phil: Do not assume I know your Phil NC at all. Practically no experience during my career but go for it if you think it's strategic.
I'll allow you to run any argument you want in the round as long as it doesn't promote racism, sexism, ableism, etc.
Leland '22 Michigan '26
Berkeley LD: Sending a marked doc should be reserved for egregious instances only and does not include taking out cards not read. Clarity is important and I won't flow off the doc. This is especially relevant if you plan on winning on dropped one-liners hidden between 1AC cards or the third subpoint under XX procedural. Not inherently opposed to phil/theory, it just requires far more explanation since I'm extremely unfamiliar with them. Both sides should clearly flag what 'new' stuff is allowed in final rebuttals since speech times favor the neg. You should disclose.
You can insert rehighlightings as long as its implication is explained. Recuttings of parts of the article not originally present in the card should be read.
I will not vote on events that occurred outside of the round or personal callouts. Additionally, using author indicts as case negs is terrible for the activity and will not be evaluated. Epistemological indicts are obviously fair game, but 'X was problematic on twitter' is not.
Fairness is good. It is an independent impact.
You should read cards.
Try or die is important. Identify why it matters.
Email: misimha4[at]gmail[dot]com. She/her. Asst. coach at Peninsula. I did LD at Mitty and graduated in '22.
I will always vote in the way that I think is the least interventionist. However, follow this rule of thumb: “don’t be preposterous.”
Here are my biases:
- Fairness is intrinsically good and a terminal impact.
- Risk is cumulative. Good for philosophy and soft left.
- Ballots have no operational value and voting as if they did seems highly problematic.
- Other than ‘we meet’ and ‘do CP’, nothing is 100 or 0 percent risk.
- Substantive debate is to be maximized but gettable on reasonable theory arguments such as ifiat or process bad.
- Topicality is about the plan text.
- Interps must be predictable. Debatability concerns merely follow.
- Kritiks should disagree with the implementation of the plan. Middle ground framework is best. Alts that aren't policies are fine.
- Aff on competition against process.
- Untopical affs should lose for being unfair.
Discrimination is not allowed. I will not vote on ad hominems or premeditated ethics challenges. Evidence ethics challenges require you to stop the round. Else, they won’t be considered. These are generally better expressed through rehighlightings, which you may insert along with verbal explanation.
Look up once in a while. I'll be making expressions or nodding when I hear arguments that I feel particularly strong about. Frankly, there are many times in debates where I have just wanted to yell "skip" to the debaters (e.g. wiki disclosure, role of the ballot, theory is a reason to reject the team not argument, 'try-or-die', 2AC case overview, etc.) but have chosen not to so far.
I am a parent judge on my fourth season of judging.
I do not like spreading and prefer a traditional style debate. Do not assume I know anything about the resolve so, for example, avoid speaking in acronyms without explaining them first. I will also do my best to judge what is presented without any outside prejudice.
I have many years of experience in theater production so I like smooth concise speaking, voice projection/modulation, casual eye contact, and to see your face now and again, not heads down or looking above the judges heads. I will intently listen to your speech/debate and then flow periodically.
I extremely respect the amount of time, effort, and energy you put into this activity and even though I am a parent who never competed in speech and debate, I will do my best to judge with the same dedication.
I have judged Speech, Interp, and Debate events (excluding Policy) at local, state, and national levels.
I am a parent judge - please do not spread too quickly and tell me why you should win in the last 2 speeches. I look forward to a good debate!
Hi! I’m Lizzie Su (she/her). I'm currently an assistant coach for Immaculate Heart.
lizziesu425@gmail.com - reach out w/ qs
TLDR: second year out, mostly read policy but dabbled in phil. will vote on any complete argument (bar the -isms) but you should err on the side of over-explaining something if you don’t think I’m familiar
visit ld.circuitdebater.org and share with your friends
important things
--defaults/changed with a sentence: permissibility negates, policy presumption, 1ar theory is dta
--no strong argumentative preferences but I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. I will give the rfd that says "I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr" or "this is not on my flow" if needed. If you would like to thoroughly explain why skep is true/a reason to negate or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of "they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff" isn't going to cut it.
--related list of non-arguments: "aspec they didnt," "no 2nr i meets" + 1ar shell they don't violate, eval after the 1ac, no aff args, no neg args. subject to change without notice!
--flow. take prep/cx for clarification (re: marked docs - minimize dead time!)
--i flow straight down in Excel by ear only. Speech docs will not be open during a speech. i shouldn't need to read evidence if you do enough comparison in round. it's on you to catch your opponent clipping with a recording.
--feel free to respectfully disagree with my decisions
argument 'preferences'
--very good for policy stuff.
--good for phil v util or phil v k
--fine for the k if you talk about the aff.
--not great for phil v phil or k v k but walk me through it and we’ll probably be fine
re: speaks
--boosted for strategic pivots and good ethos (read: smart CX, not distasteful zingers). If I enjoy watching/judging the debate, you will enjoy your speaks.
--docked for splitting the 2NR/2AR 5 different ways or otherwise making the debate irresolvable.
--docked if you ask for 30 speaks
--it has come to my attention that i was a speaks demon/goblin this past year. i'll try to be nicer.
--give me like an extra .5s to get to the counterplan flow before you say permdobothpermdothecounterplan. thanks!
--reading a 2NR off a doc you did not write yourself is probably the least persuasive thing in debate ("I am not going to assign speaks as if you were the one who came up with the arguments" -Iris Chen)
Hello! I'm a first-year student at UC Berkeley majoring in Industrial Engineering and Operations Research. Please add me to the email chain before the round starts: sab06tang@gmail.com
I debated LD semi-competitively throughout high school, but this is my first time formally judging. Throughout my debate career, I primarily debated policy arguments. I am not as familiar with kritiks and theory, although I will do my best to keep up. Very very very limited exposure to tricks and even less with philosophy. Honestly think they're pretty interesting, but they probably wouldn't be effective at convincing me that you should win the round.
Prefs for people who are skimming:
1. Policy
2. K and Theory
3. Tricks and Philosophy (please strike)
Regardless of what you run, please explain it thoroughly for both myself and your opponent. I generally try to keep up with current events and I will look into the topic before the tournament, but do not assume I know anything. I'm ok with speed, but please be clear. I cannot judge what I don't understand.
Off-time road maps and sign posting are super helpful. Make sure to extend and do impact calculus. I will try to be as much of a blank slate as possible (tabula rasa). However, if you say many untrue things, it may hurt your speaks. Also, it's been about a year since I've touched anything debate related, which might affect how well I can understand spreading and some jargon, so be clear and be thorough.
Some other points. I probably won't time your speeches, but please don't abuse this. No new arguments in the last speech (for both debaters).
A small tip: if you look at the first line of this paradigm, you can see that I am an engineering major. While I've run my fair share of dramatic arguments during my debate career, please make sure your arguments are logical. Real world examples will likely be super persuasive. And as I've mentioned before, prioritize clarity over speed.
Speaker points:
26-26.9: I had a hard time understanding your speeches, could be due to speaking, organization, etc.
27-27.9: I generally understood what you were arguing, but some parts might have been unclear/untrue.
28-28.9: I clearly understood everything you were arguing, but there may have been some strategic errors.
29-30: Great job!
Lastly, be nice! Debate is supposed to be fun and educational for all parties involved. Running offensive/hurtful arguments will greatly hurt your speaks and likely will not result in a win.
*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
Lowell '22
Cal '26
Email Chain
Policy: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail [dot] com
LD: tsantaylor [at] gmail [dot] com
Policy
Lay Debate: I'll evaluate the debate as a slow round unless both teams agree to go fast. Adapt to the rest of the panel before me.
Topicality: It's the negative's burden to prove a violation. I will vote for either, obviously depending on technical debating, but I am more persuaded by precision/predictability than debatability offense.
Counterplans: Tell me whether or not I should judge kick. Advantage CP planks should have rehighlightings or solvency advocates to be legitimate. Deficits should be clearly impacted out from the 2AC to the 2AR for me to vote on them.
Disads: Turns case arguments, aff-specific link explanations, and ev comparison matter most for me. Logical, smart analytics do just as much damage as ev.
Ks: Most familiar with cap/setcol/security/IR Ks. I evaluate framework first to frame the rest of my flow. Contextualization to the aff, turns case analysis, and pulling lines from the 1AC are really important for the link debate.
K-Affs/KvK: I have the least experience judging these debates. "As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote aff." - Debnil Sur
Theory: Condo is good.
LD
I primarily judge LD but I've never competed in the activity and don't coach the specific tricks/phil arguments, so I am not a good judge for them. I am really unlikely to vote on the activity-specific theory arguments, like RVIs.
Explicit judge instruction and good impact calc/comparison go a long way for determining how I vote. This is especially true when you're aff, given the speech times.
Your speaks will be lowered for stopping prep and THEN putting together your speech/card doc, or for egregiously asking what was or wasn't read after your opponent's speech.
Misc.
I usually don't read evidence at the end of the debate unless debaters explicitly tell me to and send a compiled card doc.
Read whatever you want - if an argument is truly so bad that it shouldn't be debated, you should be able to beat it with zero cards and three sentences. However, if you read an argument that your opponent specifically told you not to/said not to on their wiki or become actively violent in the round, auto-L.
+0.1 speaks if you make fun of a Cal debater, Cal coach, Debnil Sur, or Jessie Satovsky and I laugh
I did not do debate in high school or college.
I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."
In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters take on very complex ideas/arguments in PF and the time limits for that event make it very difficult for debaters to fully explain these complex ideas.
Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.
In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.
For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.
If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.
Pronouns: he/him
Please add me to the email chain: mollyurfalian@gmail.com
Notre Dame '23 (2A/1N for 4 years)
UC Berkeley '27 (2A/1N)
You can just call me Molly
TL
-
Tech > Truth. Very few, if any, of my personal opinions will shape my RFDs. If you’ve won the argument to my understanding, I will vote for it.
-
Time your own speeches and prep
-
Judge instruction is super important to me, especially in rebuttals. I am not a mind reader and you are often less clear than you think.
-
I love CP + DA debates and ptx holds a special place in my heart
-
I am fairly expressive and do not hide displeasure or confusion well, so look at me
-
Yes I have always been a 2A, I don’t feel as if this
Topicality
-
I do not extensively research or keep up highschool topics especially what is and is not topical, so I recommend against throwing out a lot of acronyms or assuming my knowledge
-
case lists are the most effective way for me to compare visions of the topic
-
competing interps > reasonability
-
smaller topics are probably better for innovation
Disads
-
Any debate with a disad I love to hear
-
I love ptx disads but I also know a truly garbage one when I see it
-
turns case and impact calc are your best friends and should start early (on both sides)
Counterplans
-
Agent CPs are my favorite
-
I am extremely neutral on process CPs, but not debated well I lean aff on most perms
-
I dislike super contrived adv cps, but logical ones that exploit poor aff writing are good. Be clear about the planks that you kick.
-
Do impact calc between the solvency deficit and disadvantage, otherwise you are letting me decide
-
I default to judge kick
Kritiks
-
If you go for Ks consistently, I am not the best judge for you. I don't dislike them, I simply never went for them so I may not default in your favor. If you debate well and don’t leave it up to me you should have no problem.
-
I prefer links to the plan, at least the topic. Does not have to be cards but lines should be taken from the 1AC
-
Don't read a super long overview, it just sounds like words to me. Do the work on the line by line.
-
Floating PIKs are probably bad
K Affs
-
If you read a K aff, I am not the best judge for you, however, I am also not the worst. You will have to do more work explaining your disads to FW than you would in front of K judges. What is intuitive/obvious to you might not be for me.
-
Consistency of explanation of aff offense is SO helpful. Super shifty K affs make me upset and more importantly, I am much less likely to grant you weight of 2AR offense if it was not rooted in an explanation started in the 1AR.
-
If you read a high theory K aff I am less likely to vote for you compared to an indentity aff. I understand them less and have the honest pre-disposition of thinking your offense is kinda dumb
-
I really need your aff to do something. Just explain to me what you solve, if you don't solve anything this round will be hard for you
Neg v K Affs
-
Presumption is great. I find it challenging to 0 an aff on a sentence or 2 of a 2NR (this is also true of policy affs). You are much more likely to win a presumption debate in front of me if the 2NR takes the extra 15 seconds to actually engage with the 1AR answers.
-
Fairness is an impact. 2NR can be clash or fairness, whatever you chose is fine with me.
-
TVAs and SSD are great. I find that 2Ns expect me to fill in some of the reasons as to why these would solve the aff intuitively. I am unwilling to do this work for you.
-
I was a 1N and took the Cap K or Cap good in every 1NR I ever gave. If you feel inclined to put me in a K v K debate, I am the most familiar with this one, but also don’t. I think neg team's sitting on a usually poorly answered K affs don't get perms debate is a winning debate
Soft Left Affs
-
The framing page will be an uphill battle for you. I like util.
-
I find it hard to vote for these affs when the 2NR is a CP and a DA.
Theory
-
Slow down half a step, I’m a moderate speed typer
-
I think condo is fine. If the negative has done something actually abusive (my personal brightline is around 5-6 condo and/or a very long adv cp) explain the in round abuse. Otherwise go for it as you please.
-
Dispo probably does not solve anything other than research, if you want to change my mind then explain it
-
International fiat and changing the whole world fiat is bad. This includes K alt stuff.
-
Perm theory debates are cool. Limited Intrinsicness good/bad are the theory debates I had the most and judge the most. I am very neutral on the question. I find often that neg teams win on a deficit to the intrinsic perm than the theory debate.
Speaks
-
If you yell and are mean I will nuke your speaks. You are allowed to be loud and passionate, but there is a level of respect that needs to be maintained for your opponents at all times.
-
On a happier note I like snarky remarks and sassy answers. Just be funny with it
-
If the top of the final rebuttal is why I should vote for you and has judge instruction you're doing yourself a favor
Re-highlighting
-
Have the theory debate over whether it can be inserted or not, I will evaluate the debate based on the outcome
-
If you choose not to have the theory debate I will default to letting ev be re-inserted. I changed my position on this issue because I want more debaters to do it, and forcing teams to read re-highlights seems to discourage quality ev idicts
-
However, I will not do the debating for you, don’t insert re-highlighting without explaining or implicating it in the debate. So only insert the amount of evidence you can reasonably explain
Hello Competitors!
I am a parent judge with limited experience in judging a debate round.
Please keep in mind the following:
1. Please please do NOT spread or rush. I like to write down points, if I am not then you are speaking too quickly.
2. Explain what you are saying clearly. I will vote on arguments if they are properly explained, with proper evidence.
3. Be respectful- don't say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.
(He, Him)
Email:paddu.vedam@gmail.com
Tech > truth, but I am only human.
For LD:
- Not the most well-versed in K literature, but not opposed to hearing it out. Just keep in mind that if I'm confused, it's harder to win my ballot.
- Slow down on analytics and implicate responses.
Run whatever you want: Theory > K > Topicality > Trix > Substance
Competed in public forum from 2020-2022 under Basis Independent Silicon Valley AV and VB.
Strong warranting >>> blippy responses.
Egregiously bad evidence will likely result in lower speaks.
vinay_vellore@berkeley.edu
Be nice :)
I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my sixth year judging and ninth year in the debate-space.
Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:
1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).
ADDENDUM: THESE DAYS I REALLY PREFER SPEECHDROP.NET. PLEASE USE THAT IF YOU CAN.
2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.
3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.
I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.
Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.
I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.
I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.
Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).
Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.
Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.
Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.
Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.
Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.
I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.
Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )
If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.
In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).
It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.
I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.
vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com - email chains.
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,
For email chain: wareham.jack@gmail.com
I appreciate the enormous amount of effort debaters put into preparation and will do my best to fairly and precisely adjudicate the round. I debated "progressive," national circuit LD for Oakwood School, graduating in 2017, and I am now Oakwood's LD coach.
Here are the two things that are most important to me:
- Please slow down on tags, author names, and analytics. Go as fast as you want through your evidence, as long as it's clear.
- Please do not mark cards more than twice in a speech. If you are just blitzing through a ton of evidence and marking cards all over the place, I will delete the marked evidence from my flow.
Like any judge I have default positions. However, I will happily depart from them if presented with a persuasive argument.
- The neg must prove the proactive desirability of a competitive advocacy (in other words, not truth-testing)
- No judge kick
- Affs should be topical
My threshold for your winning frivolous theory or tricks is higher than my threshold for normal arguments. That's not to say I won't vote for them. But it should be persuasively argued and defended.
Plus speaker points for:
- Intelligent use and demonstrated understanding of phil and kritik literature. The LD division between "phil" and "K" is highly artificial, and I appreciate debaters who exploit this by mixing the two layers.
- Creative arguments
- Not reading off a doc for the whole round
- Strategy. Debate is a strategic game, and I appreciate interesting and gutsy decisions about what arguments to go for and what to ditch.
They/them
Quals: Been doing nat circuit coaching and competing since 2019
- You should disclose. I wont auto vote on disclosure but I'll have a high threshold for responses to it. Violations should also probably have a screenshot and time stamp *except in parli
- Either flash analytics or slow down because I'm not going to get the 2 page long overview at 670 WPM
- Probability>Magnitude>Time Frame
- Tech>Truth
- I think implicit clash is true to the extent that if the disad directly contradicts the advantage and the disad is won but the advantage is dropped then my brain doesnt just magically turn off.
- I don't vote on call out positions.
Theory: I don't feel strongly about things like condo, dispo, or anything as such. Stonger feelings I do have are event specific and listed at the end of the paradigm. I have a list of defaults but I can def be persuaded otherwise.
- Competing interps > reasonability
- Text > Spirit of the interp
- Drop the debater > Drop the argument
- Theory comes before critical args
- Fairness and education are voters
- Topicality comes before other forms of theory (like spec!)
- 1NC interps comes before 1AR/2AC interps
- No RVIs
K Debate: I was mainly a K debater when I competed. I'm pretty tired of hearing post-structuralist arguments that amount to imperialism but with a radical sticker on it. You won't convince me that it's not glorified libertarianism with a dash of poetic metaphorical writing style. But thats just a product of metaphysics! Cap/Set Col debates are done wrong in many debates for a lot of the same reasons.
- Reject alts are fine but have a pretty low chance of winning my ballot short of conceding alt solvency.
- I think debates can be won on frame outs paired with a risk of solvency.
- Don't care for role of the ballot debates, however, if done right they can still win rounds if you go for it as a question of whether or not the other team textually meets the role of the ballot. Almost like theory!
- I still don't know what no perms in a methods debate means!
- Critical affs dont need links to the topic if theres substantive framing that justifies the aff.
- Links can be disads to the perm but tell me why!
- I think Framework is a good arg against K affs
Case:
- Fiat is durable
- I don't judge kick unless told to
- kicking planks in a plan or counter plan is cool unless someone wins a theory violation
- Link turns or uniqueness blocks make more sense to me than impact defense
Parli Specific: I've had these happen enough times back to back that if you do these things its either an auto L and/or 25 speaks
- Reading a K Aff then going for 2AC theory and impact turns to T at the same time when they have the same impact
- Reading a neg perm gets you 25 speaks. Going for it gets you an L.
- Disclosure theory because theres no speech docs or wiki in parli, how do I even verify it!
- Speed bad theory gets you 25 speaks but an auto L if you're an open circuit debater who spreads and read speed bad
MISC:
- Don't read Afropess/social death claims if you're not black
- Terminal defense is hard to win
- PF Debaters should not paraphrase ev and not exchange ev untimed
I am a lay judge so please articulate your points and speak clearly.
I will judge based on logically constructed arguments well supported by facts. I am not familiar with technical terms, so please explain them if you use them. My preference is for a straight-forward policy debate.
My background is in economics, finance, and tech, so advanced arguments there will be effective with me. Given that, it will take something really special to move me off of utilitarianism, as Spock says "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)."
K's, phil, off-topic is not going to work well with me as I'm just not going to be able to follow it as much as I need to in order to make a reasonable decision.
Also, please dont read anything around racism or genderism/sexism. That is auto-L20 from me to whomever brings it up first. I dont think it's fair to expect a student to argue or defend a position that they dont necessarily agree with in order to win a round. I dont want to see anyone called sexist or racist just because their opponent read a race or sexism argument.
2024- 2/4/2024
edit 12/19/2024
I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old. Have judged countless rounds of policy, lincoln douglass, and public forum.
General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.
World Crafting:
Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.
Argument Framing:
Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.
The K:
I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afro press, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.
Theory:
Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory, but it is your round, so do you.
Tech vs. Truth:
Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.
Rudeness is a No-Go:
Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. if its bad bad, i'm hitting up your coach
Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:
Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.
Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:
Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.
Voting Issues:
Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal, for real.
TL;DR
Be clear
Weigh
Impact calculus
>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<
2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it
ask questions
My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...
for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later
1. yes, i flow
2. yes, speed is fine
3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )
4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running
5. ask questions