Cal Invitational UC Berkeley
2025 — Berkeley, CA/US
Varsity Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideNorthwood '23. Assistant Coach at LASA.
niharrabhyankar@gmail.com
Don't call me judge.
Be nice.
Flow.
You cannot say death is good.
Don't clip. Don't steal prep. Be organized. Be prepared.
Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.
Tech over truth.
For Berkeley: if you read and go for tricks you will get 30s
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.
jaxarmstrong@berkeley.edu
add me to the email chain
he/him/his
STANFORD 2025 UPDATE: This is the first tournament I've judged this year, so I likely have little to no familiarity with the topic. I also haven't competed in a few years and only judge every so often, so I am not as comfortable with speed, policy jargon, and some of the more technical aspects of CX than I once was. That being said, to ensure I track all your arguments on the flow:slow down (if you want), includeyour analytics/pre-written blocks in the docs you send (this I am more adamant about),err on the side of over-explaining (if you are running some obscure theory or techy t argument).
TLDR: I am a young judge so I am still figuring out what sorts of arguments and strategies I am most conducive to voting for. I see debate as a performance and typically vote for the better performance. That performance can include a variety of different kinds of arguments but should, at some level, endorse a politic. Do whatever you want but I will vote you down if you are reading or going for something racist, sexist, transphobic, etc.
TECH vs TRUTH: sure tech > truth. tech is incredibly important for the sake of preventing the judge from intervening and for just ordering the flow and stuff, however, if you are winning the meta-level framing of the debate and I assume your vision of the world, than your technical arguments become true under that vision. You should be telling me how to frame and adjudicate the debate bc if you think judging off the flow is a bad model for who should win and can convince me you are right, than I am willing the throw out the flow.
Theory: Should be fleshed out with an interp and violation and everything and I will consider it, don't just tell me to vote something down because "PIKS bad". But I find these debates to be really interesting.
DA: They are fine -- I think I put most weight in impact framing/impact calc (how does ur impacts interact w the other teams? why do they outweigh, etc).
CPs: lean aff on theory.... but I can keep up with normative policy CPs. Just dont love them.
K: The vast majority of my debate experience is in k debate so I expect you to be pretty on point with how you articulate the k. Specific links are really important to me, I am not huge on alts so you can kick the alt and go for presumption but you should have been winning impact framing. Don't just read giant general cap overviews, just try to give specific examples take risks even if ur wrong.
K-AFFs: My favorite, they are the most fun and educational to judge. Go for impact turns, do your thing and you will have no problem. My background is in philosophy so don't feel shy about ready high-theory or really freaky pomo args.
FW: Still making my mind up about how I feel and what I tend to appreciate here. I think arguments like dialogue, truth-testing, institutional engagement > fairness, limits, ground BECAUSE the latter group of impacts end up being internal links to the prior. There's a TVA to almost everything so get creative, but TVA with a card that applies to the aff is a killer. If you're aff in these debates you should either impact turn everything or have a model of debate with some clear aff and neg ground.
but most of all please have fun and be nice to your opponents. Being a d1ck to your opponents is the most surefire way to mess ur speaks up and perhaps even getting you voted down.
But yea ur welcome in advance cuz Im a speaker point prince.....
Buck Arney (He/Him)
buckarney@gmail.com
Northwestern 27'
Head-Royce 23'
Last Update: 2/11/25
Top Level Thoughts:
Tech > Truth
I love this activity, it had a profound impact on my life and still does, and I hope it does for y'all as well. Please treat others with respect and have fun in this activity as for many this activity is a place people call home.
In college I go for nearly exclusively policy arguments and in high school I went for nearly exclusively critical arguments.
Generic neg strats with very little clash with the aff have to be one of my biggest problems with debate, conversely highly strategic and thought out neg strats are my favorite part of the activity.
I am very disinterested in debate rep. I love seeing upsets and hate that the community for some reason prevents them from happening due to rep. If you are really the best you should beat everyone.
Flowing Practices:
I flow on my computer using excel as I cannot handwrite proficiently enough to flow. I flow straight down.
I will have the 1AC and 1NC docs open, after that I WILL NOT open any docs until after the round if reading evidence is necessary.
Argument Specifics:
Counterplans: Great for these and love a good pic. I am good for evaluating a process debate but lean aff on competition (For the IP topic I am probably more neg biased because they seem uniquely nuked). However, neg teams are almost always better at process competition because of prep bias which means you should not be deterred if you are confident in your competition debating.
Disads: Good for these, go for what you want here.
T: I love T debates. Well thought out T debates are some of the best debates to watch. If you believe the aff in the round is not topical please go for T.
K:The K is a great argument when it is accompanied with well-thought-out contextual link and impact debating. Without that I am pretty uninterested. I am well versed in kritiks that pull from ableism, security, asian, and black studies. I am just not good for the microaggresions K like at all, obviously will evaluate it technically but I think not only is it in the opposite direction of the literature that it is paired with but it also can be very trivializing.
K-Affs: Went for a K-AFF for most of highschool and I am down the middle when it comes to T v these affs. This is not an ideological pre-disposition rather it is an issue with teams either being terrible at going for a K-Aff or terrible at going for T. K-Affs need to have an answer to SSD and TVA that is CONTEXTUAL to their aff, if they do not have this it is a very uphill battle. Teams going for T have to answer the specificity of T-USFG disads, disads are not just policing, and if you answer the DA like this you will probably lose. I also recommend going for things outside T-USFG, teams generally have horrible answers to Cap, T-Tactics, T-Parametrics etc.
If your Kritikal aff is not adjacent to the topic the bar for a negative ballot is at the floor.
Theory: Solid for theory and don't really have any ideological predispositions except that I think condo is conclusively good and have not really been convinced otherwise, obviously if it is dropped I will probably vote for it.
Extra:
I am not a huge fan of speaker point inflation, but I am also not going to fight it because I am not an old-head "debate was better when we spoke off tubs and I had to carry a printer cross-country" type of person.
I love innovation, if you are actively innovating arguments in debate please pref me and I will probably give you good speaks and advice
+.1 for good sports references or just being funny overall
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Email: tjbdebate@gmail.com
I'd really appreciate a card doc at the end of the round.
About me
Debated in policy for four years at Damien High School in La Verne, CA. I placed pretty well at some national tournaments and received some speaker awards along the way. I have worked as a judge and staff member at the Cal National Debate Institute. I was a consultant/judge for College Prep, and this is my second year as an assistant coach for College Prep.
I mostly think about debate like her. If you like the way she thinks then I probably think the same way.
Top Level
**** I will try my hardest to flow without looking at my computer so I suggest debating as if I have no reference to what is being read. Clarity is much more important than unchecked speed. SERIOUSLY CLARITY > SPEED ****
Debate is a competition, but education seems to be the most intrinsic benefit to the round taking place. I believe that debates centered around the resolution are the best, but that can mean many different things. Debate is also a communicative activity so the first thing that should be prioritized by all the substance is the ability to clearly convey an argument instead of relying on the structure and tricky nature of policy debate.
The most important thing for me as a judge is seeing line-by-line debating instead of relying upon pre-written blocks. Drops happen and that is debate, but what I most hate to see are students reading off their laptops instead of making compelling indicts of their opponents' arguments off the top of their heads. Debate requires some reaction to unexpected things but I think that it enhances critical thinking and research skills.
When it comes to content, I sincerely do not have any big leans toward any type of argument. Just come to the round with a well-researched strategy and I will be happy to hear it. My only non-starters are arguments that promote interpersonal violence, prejudice toward any group of people, or danger toward anyone in the round. If those arguments are made, the offending team will lose, receive a 0 for speaker points, and I will speak with their coach. The safety of students is the number one priority in an academic space such as debate.
Thoughts on Specific Arguments Below:
Disadvantages: Impact calculus and Turns case/Turns the DA at the top, please. These debates are won and lost with who is doing the most comparison. Don't just extend arguments and expect me to just clean it up for you. I like politics DAs, but I want more comparisons of whose evidence is better and more predictive instead of just dumping cards without any framing arguments. Go for the straight turn. I love bold decisions that are backed up by good cards.
Counter plans: I am all about good counterplan strategies that have great solvency evidence and finesse. I have grown tired of all the nonsense process, agent, and consult counter plans, and while I will vote for them, I prefer to hear one that is well-researched and actually has a solvency advocate for the aff. Regarding theory, most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or to lower thresholds for solvency deficits, not voters. Consult CPs are however the most sketchy for me, and I can be convinced to vote against them given good debating.
Topicality: Love these debates, but sometimes people get bogged down by the minutiae of the flow that they forget to extend an impact. Treating T like a disad is the best way to describe how I like teams to go for it. Please give a case list and/or examples of ground loss. Comparison of interpretations is important. I think that the intent to exclude is more important than the intent to define, but this is only marginal.
Kritiks: Over time I have become more understanding of critical arguments and I enjoy these debates a lot. The alternative is the hardest thing to wrap my head around, but I have voted for undercovered alternatives many times. I think that the more specific link should always be extended over something generic. Extending links is not enough in high-level rounds, you have to impact out the link in the context of the aff and why each piece of link offense outweighs the risk of the aff internal link. I prefer that the negative answer the aff in these rounds, but I do not think it is impossible to win without case defense. The only thing that matters is winning the right framework offense.
Planless Affs: Performance 1ACs are great but there has to be an offensive reason for the performance. I won't vote on a dropped performance if there is no reason why it mattered in the first place. I prefer that these affs are in the direction of the topic, but if there is a reason why only being responsive to the resolution matters, then I am fine with it not being so. Framework is a good strategy, but I don't like voting on fairness, because I don't believe that it is a terminal impact. I believe that having a fair division of labor is important, but not because debate is a game. Debate has intrinsic educational value and both teams should be debating over how they access a better model of the activity. For the negative, I like it when teams just answer the aff method and clash over the effectiveness of the 1AC.
Conditionality: I think that up to 3 advocacies are fine for me. Anything more and I am more sympathetic to the aff. Don't get it twisted, if the neg screws up debating condo, I will vote aff.
Feel free to ask me anything before the round. Most importantly compete, respect each other, and have fun.
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.
I'm a teacher and debate coach at Montgomery Bell Academy.
Put me on the email chain: abrown123564@gmail.com
Here is how you can make me want to give you a ballot + good speaks:
1. Make the debate comfortable and fun - please don't get super aggressive, snarky, or rude in round. Treat your partner and opponents the way you'd treat your classmates.
2. Please do not "cut corners" in your prep - I'd prefer not to judge debates with incomplete DAs, incoherent T arguments, meaningless Adv CP texts, or evidence so un-highlighted it doesn't say anything, etc, deployed for the purpose of winning through out-spreading instead of out-debating.
3. Remember you are in a public speaking activity. You should be clear, and you should flow. I am not evaluating the debate based off your speech doc. Please stop offering or asking for marked docs unless it is absolutely necessary.
4. Please do not abuse tag-team CX. Also, if you're not debating a new aff/debating as a maverick, and you decide to take CX as prep instead of asking questions, then I will allow the other team to keep reading cards for the remainder of CX.
Sorry if that all came across as grumpy. I really do like judging a lot.
My approach to judging:
I think that policy debate is good and that clash/fairness/etc. are all things which matter. I think debates should not exclude critical perspectives and we should seek to do what best improves the activity overall.
Tech over truth, but I'm very bad for arguments that advocate for death, human extinction, or nuclear war. I'm not thrilled about arguments that fit within the general TESCREAL milieu either.
Have fun!
My email is kbuckman023@gmail.com
I am a 1st year at UC Berkeley. I did 4 years of policy debate in high school. I have been a 2N/1A, a 2A/1N, and a 2A/2N, so trust me, I know how hard your speaker position is.
I ran exclusively K arguments. That being said, I love a good policy round, just know that I am not as familiar with them.
tl;dr
Tech > truth
Clarity > speed
Over explaining > under explaining
Do lbl and impact calc. Write my ballot for me.
6 off is more than enough
Death is not good and while I probably won’t give you an auto loss, your speaks will be terrible and it’ll take a lot more for you to win
Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. It’s an auto-loss if you do.
over adapting to my argument predispositions is likely to do you more harm than good. Run what you are good at as long as it doesn’t offend people.
CP/DAs
Not my favorite arguments, but can be fun if done well. Make sure you explain your arguments and how they interact with case. Remember I do not have a lot of experience judging these debates, so let that influence the way you explain your arguments to me.
T
I’ve gone for T several times. Just make sure your violation is good.
If the T violation is ridiculous, I will be more persuaded by aff reasonability claims and vice versa.
I know many debaters struggle with impact comparison when the impacts are fairness, education, etc, but that doesn’t make impact calc less important.
Ks on the neg
I love these arguments. They are my favorite ones to run when I 2N. I am most familiar with fem, IR ks, cap, disability, and set col. I understand some pomo and high theory, but no promises so make sure you explain it very well.
I do not default one way or another on the issue of fiat in K debates.
Have links that you can explain well and are contextualized to the affirmative. This means pulling lines out of the 1AC, reading rehighlightings, etc
Tell me exactly what your alt looks like in round and/or outside of it. Explain to me exactly what I am voting for if I vote neg on the alt.
You do not need to go for an alt if you can explain link uniqueness without it.
Do not assume I will hack for you if you are a K team. Because I know what a K debate should look like, I will know if you are doing something wrong. If you run an argument I love badly, I will not vote on it, and I will be very annoyed.
K Affs
Love these. I read a K aff during junior and senior year
Make sure you explain your method, how it solves, and what that solvency looks like.
I am not inclined to vote neg on presumption alone, but it frames the way I evaluate aff offense/impacts in other parts of the debate.
KvK debates are very fun when done well, and especially frustrating when done badly. Make sure you explain your arguments well and don’t let the aff get lost.
if you are going to read a K aff, you MUST understand your arguments. If you don’t know what you’re talking about or you can’t explain it, you will not win the round.
T-USFG
Don’t be afraid to go for T in front of me. I have no issues voting for it.
Procedural fairness is an impact if you explain its implications
If affs win some structural unfairness can be resolved with an aff ballot, I default to structural unfairness outweighing procedural unfairness
I’m not usually persuaded by truth testing, but I can be.
Clash is an internal link, not a terminal impact
Affs don’t need to go for a c/i if they are winning impact turns
Theory
Theory debates are not my thing. Don’t run theory unless there is real abuse, like if the 1NC is 10 off and the aff reads condo. That being said if you drop it you will lose.
Theory as a time-suck is annoying
I do not default to judge kick, but can be persuaded otherwise
Peninsula, Cal State Fullerton
Cal State Fullerton BW
Bakersfield BB
Previously Coached by: Shanara Reid-Brinkley, LaToya Green, Travis Cochrain, Lee Thach, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, and Parker Coon
Other people who influence my debate thoughts: Vontrez White and Jonathan Meza
Emails
HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com
College: debatecsuf@gmail.com jaredburkey99@gmail.com
2024-25 Update:
IPR: 18
Energy: 14
LD Total: 79
College: Going to be coaching Cal State Fullerton more so I expect to be judging college, have a depth of topic knowledge, and be doing more research for the team.
HS: Mostly will be in LD this year, I imagine I will be judgeing policy teams a few times this year and help out with the Pen policy kids from time to time.
Cliff Notes:
1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.
2. Who controls uniqueness - that comes 1st
3. on T most times default to reasonability
4. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - I think this is most of the debates I have judged and it's probably my favorite type of debates to be in both as a debater and as a judge. I would like to implore policy teams to invest in substantive strategies this is not to say that T is not an option in these debates, but most of these critical affs defend some things that I know there is a disad to and most times 2AC just is flat-footed on the disad. 2As fail to answer PICs most times. 2ACs overinvestment on T happens a bunch and the 2NR ends up being T when it should have been the disad or the PIC. All of this is to say that T as your first option in the 2NR is probably the right one, but capitalize on 2AC mistakes
5. No plan no perm is not an argument --- win a link pls
6. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.
7. Theory debates are boring --- conditionality good --- judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality
Specifics:
K --- The lack of link debating that has occurred for the K in recent years is concerning, the popularization of exclusive-based FW has diminished the value of the link debate. That being said I understand the strategic utility of the argument, but the argument less and less convinces me. I will not default to plan focus, weigh the aff, or assume weigh the aff when each team is going for exclusive fw. This is all to say that the link argument is the predominant argument and the K of fiat as a link argument is not convincing at all. Smart 2Ns that rehighlight 1AC cards and use their link arguments to internal link turn/impact turn the aff should win 9/10 in front of me. All to say that good K debating is good case debating.
FW--- Fairness its an impact but also is an internal link to just about everything --- role of the negative as a frame for impacts with a TVA is very convincing to me - only this debate matters is not a good argument, these debates should be a question about models of debate - carded TVAs are better than non-carded TVAs and are a sure fire way to win these debates for the negative --- I would describe myself as a clash truther most times, debate is net good maximizing clash preserves the value of debate --- 2As whose strategy is to impact turn everything with a CI is much more convincing to me than attempts to use the counterinterp as defense to T, although can be persuaded by the counterinterp being defense to T
DA--- Fast DAs are more convincing, turns case arguments good, any DA is fair game as long as its debated well
CP --- Must know what the CP does with an explanation --- good for functional competition only, not the biggest fan of text and function or textual only.
T --- Boring.
LD Specific:
1. Larp/K
2. K affs
3. Theory
4. Phil - Been convinced more and more about Phil thanks to Danielle Dosch, I would still say I am not the best for Phil
5. Tricks
Glenbrook South 2014, Northwestern 2018, now Dartmouth, he/him/his
Email chain: c.callahan45@gmail.com
Note on IPR topic: I know literally nothing. Please explain as much as possible.
Nearly all of my specific preferences arise from a strong desire for deep, substantive engagement over core topic-related controversies. I’m interested in both policy-focused and philosophical/epistemological controversies, and indeed often more so in the latter. I’m best for teams that structure coherent narratives across multiple positions and speeches. I care a lot about interactions between flows, and I’m uncomfortable when basic thesis claims are in tension across positions.
This preference for substantive, topic-specific debate means that I am very good for novel, well-researched strategies that allow the debaters to demonstrate deep knowledge, whether about the fiated results of the plan or its epistemic foundations. Conversely, I am extraordinarily bad for generic, backfile-based arguments that smell of cowardice, an unwillingness to cut a case neg, or both.
All of the above also means that I’m more willing than other judges to issue decisions in T or theory debates that amount to “I know it when I see it.” I find myself most sympathetic to T or theory arguments when the other team has done something obviously egregious, though I fully admit the arbitrariness of that standard.
Finally, in T/framework debates over whether the aff needs to read a plan, I’m most interested what alternative visions of the topic mean for clash and neg engagement. I tend to vote for T/framework when the neg wins that the aff’s interpretation lead to shallow debates that lack clash. On the other hand, I’m very interested in new and alternative ways to describe the process of research, topic formation, and clash that occurs over a year of debate, and creative aff teams can often exploit neg reliance on rote framework blocks.
In the interest of transparency, a few other random preferences:
- I work in climate for my day job and won’t be convinced that global warming is simply not real. However, it might be mild, far off, solved by a counterplan, or even good…
- The idea that “debate doesn’t shape our subjectivity” is borderline farcical to me.
- The use of CX time to clarify which cards were read, which theory arguments warrant rejecting the team, etc. has gotten egregious. What happened to flowing?
- The qualifications of authors matter a lot to me (if the debaters make it matter).
- Counterplans without solvency evidence that claim to "induce" some behavior or "strengthen" some aff internal link start at zero.
- I find the desire for explicit/written-out "perm texts" bewildering. If your counterplan's strategy involves nitpicking the words in a permutation rather than substantively distinguishing the actions of the plan and the counterplan, I'll be a bad judge for it.
Ethics stuff:
In general, my priority in cases of ethics questions is to maximize the amount of good-faith debating that can occur. If there is a way to resolve the issue and continue the debate, I will do my best to find it.
I would generally like to assume ignorance rather than malice when it comes to things like mis-citing or mis-cutting evidence. By this I mean cards being cited incorrectly, parts of cards not appearing in the original article, cards being cut in the middle of paragraphs, etc. If this kind of thing happens, I would prefer to just disregard a piece of evidence rather than deciding an entire debate about someone's card-cutting practices. Mistakes happen and people are people, and I would like to think that all debaters are here in good faith. However, if something is super egregious, I can be convinced that it should be a reason for a team to lose.
There needs to be a recording to accuse someone of clipping cards. This is a debate-ender: if you accuse someone of clipping, I will decide the debate on that issue. It has to be clear and repeated, not just missing a line or two. I will usually glance at speech docs during a debate, but I do not closely read along with the debaters.
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
Updated October 2024
Hi!
Ryan
Gemini
If you have questions about debating at Kansas or Iowa, feel free to reach out!
TLDR:Most of my personal experience has been with K debate but I am down to hear anything. Make complete arguments, have fun.
Background:
Debated for 4 years in Chicago/CDL for Northside College Prep (2016-2020). I debated on China, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales.
Debated for 4 years at the University of Iowa (2020-2024). I debated on Alliances, Antitrust, Personhood, Nukes.
I am currently a graduate student and coach at the University of Kansas. I was a lab leader at the JDI 2024.
As a debater, I was almost exclusively running K’s for the last 6 years of my career. My argumentative background is primarily in trans studies, Black feminism, and queer theory. I judge a decent amount of debates, high school and college, policy and K, and therefore have some experience adjudicating both.
Thoughts: This is a non-exhaustive list of observations, thoughts, opinions, and notes about me that may be relevant to how I evaluate debates. However, my job as your judge is to evaluate the arguments presented to me – not to give you my personal musings. Please feel free to run whatever arguments you want.
1. I flow on paper. I don’t usually look at the docs during the debate unless you tell me to (i.e. if there is a specific performative element of the 1AC that requires me looking at the doc, you should let me know.)
2. Make arguments! I often find, while I am judging debates, that people get too caught up in reading cards and getting shiny objected. Say things that are true. Figure out the spin. Find the offense. I care a lot about the application of arguments and less about the number of cards you read on a particular thing. Reading cards doesn’t substitute making good arguments, and the card is only as good as how it is used. An argument is a claim! A warrant! And reasoning!
3. Organizing arguments: The “big picture” v. “techy” dichotomy is not real, obviously I care about both. In terms of ~where to put offense~, I do find myself often preferring strategies that are closer to the overviewy side – i.e. putting best offense at the top and framing the debate through that. This is how I debated generally as well. Judge instruction matters a lot! Tell me what to do with your arguments and why they matter.
4. K debate thoughts, since this is likely what people are here for lol.
a. Neg K v. policy aff: Diversifying offense early on is good, going for too much in the 2NR is not good. I think the reason framework debates often don’t go well (and why judges often give weird decisions like “framework was a wash”) is because teams don’t go for offense and don’t think about the ~implications~ of their arguments for ~models of debate~. “Links to the plan” is a vague phrase but not something you need to go for if you’re running a framework heavy K, your offense just needs to have implications.
b. K affs: Impact turning predictable limits is the aff framework argument that makes the most sense to me. Fairness and clash are impacts but that doesn’t mean I’ll just assume they matter – make them matter! My voting record on framework is honestly probably fairly even aff teams most often lose when they don’t make offensive arguments. Neg teams most often lose because their arguments are generic and don’t engage the aff. Framework arguments that I don’t think make much sense (not that you shouldn’t say them – rather making clear my thoughts and noting that these arguments are often bad because people assume they have made a complete argument when they haven’t): the “fairness paradox”, “debate doesn’t change subjectivities”, “call tab if we did something offensive”. Again, the degree to which the aff needs to “do something” depends on how well you justify it with implications for each argument.
c. K v K: Well done K v K debates are my favorite to watch. I love performance things and am down for pretty much anything. Biggest thing in these debates is differentiating offense and framing.
5. Theory: A niche enough opinion that is worth including is that I think disclosure is inherently good and am likely more predisposed than average to vote for disclosure theory/new affs bad. Condo is fine but the more egregious it is the more likely I am to vote on condo bad. I almost never think "perf con" is a theory argument that is a reason to reject the team, make it a substantive argument.
6. Speaker Points: I try to start at a 28 and add or deduct points from there based on nuance, clarity, etc. I'd say on average my points generally range from 28.6 - 29.2 for teams in the middle to upper range of the tournament. I've never 'cleared' before and I likely won't unless it becomes necessary - if you are going so fast that it compromises your ability to speak clearly and effectively communicate your arguments, I will simply stop flowing.
Other things:
[For high school] Asking for a marked doc means that cards were marked, not that they didn't get to every card in the doc. If you want to ask which cards were read, you need to run cross-x or prep.
Random thought, it's called a "counterplan" not a "see-pee" this annoys me for no reason lol
Ethics Challenges:A few notes on what an ethics violation is and what it means:
An ethics challenge refers to something like a miscut piece of evidence, and amounts to stopping the debate. If it is called an ethics violation, the round stops - it is not debated out (unless tab decides otherwise, but if it is up to my discretion I will stop the debate).
Ethics violations are sometimes a necessity in situations of bankrupt research practices, but in my opinion is not a "strategy" for you to be prepped to go for if you think you are losing a debate. Posing such a challenge will result in me contacting tab about appropriate measures - whether that means me making the decision or the tab director depends on the tournament and circumstances. Some examples of ethics violations are internal omissions of evidence, straw mans, etc.
I understand that often times (especially in high school debate) citational or miscutting errors are not intentional or done with malice, and so please note I will not hold it against you personally if such a violation occurs. In the event of this situation, I will award a 28.8/28.7 to the team who wins and a 28.6/28.5 to the team who loses (again, absent intervention from tab/egregious violations that result in me awarding minimum speaks allowed).
Good luck, and have fun!
Sam Church
Please add me to the chain: samsdebateemail@gmail.com
Background: I am currently a sophomore at Harvard. I graduated from LASA in 2023. I debated for all four years of high school on the national policy debate circuit. I debated for one year at Harvard.
2025 Update: I haven't thought about debate in a semester and I have not judged/flowed a debate since the summer. I will do my best to adhere to fast, technical debating, but pref me at your own risk. If I'm in the LD pool, I'm less familiar with it than policy and will likely not be familiar with LD-specific vocabulary or arguments — please explain them if you use them.
Paradigm: Debate, ultimately, is only valuable if evaluated technically. I find myself frustrated when judges attempt to intervene with their own conceptions of "truth," or "argumentative quality." As such, I will disregard my preconceived notions to the best of my abilities when deciding a debate and judge strictly off the flow. I care less about cards than other people. Smart analytics are better than bad pieces of evidence.
Although my threshold for argumentative quality is not very high, bad arguments are bad and teams treating them as such can be very effective.
I do not care what arguments you read — process counterplans, topic DAs, high theory kritiks, whatever. I've mellowed out since high school and have few strong feelings. The only arguments I will not evaluate are those akin to evaluations of a debater's character or out of round callouts.
Jason Clarke
Experience:
3 years of high school CX debate
4 years college debate (One year CEDA, 3 years Parli – NPDA)
20 years high school debate coach
Policy Paradigm:
I tend to default to a policymaker paradigm, although I will vote on almost any argument if it is sufficiently warranted and impacted. In most rounds I will weigh the policy impacts according to the time frame, probability, and magnitude of each impact and vote accordingly. If you want me to consider non-policy arguments, like K and T, you just need to provide framework and voters.
I am not opposed to K, in fact I like really good kritiks, but I don't automatically vote on "you link you lose" which has become popular the last few years on the circuit. I prefer for you to explain the role of my ballot in the round to justify my voting for your position. Why is voting for a K and endorsing a theory of power preferable to voting for your opponent's policy option and its impacts? Alternatively, if you fiat a policy or specific plan and your opponent runs a K against it, why should I prefer that policy and its consequences?
If you are clear about how the impacts and voters should be weighed in your rebuttals, you are significantly more likely to win my ballot. Good 2AR and 2NR speeches tell me the story of the round and why I should vote for you. Be sure to extend the internal links, warrants, and impacts of your arguments, not just the tag lines. If you have an overview or under view, your goal should be to clearly articulate what my RFD should be, which makes my job easier.
I am OK with speed - I am pretty used to it by now - but don’t mumble or slur your words together – articulate and efficient speed can be a good strategy; inarticulate spread fails to communicate your arguments. I am a strict flow judge and always vote on the flow in policy debate.
LD Paradigm
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 and more likely to vote on consequentialist policy implications in a CX round.
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. Although in policy debate I flow dropped arguments as granted or conceded, 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.
PF Paradigm
Public Forum debate is designed to be a communication-oriented debate style, and I judge it accordingly. I flow every round, but I am more interested in your skill as a debater. I vote for the team that is the most persuasive. This includes your ability to use evidence to support your claims, to speak in a persuasive and articulate manner, and to refute your opponent's ideas in a respectful yet effective way. Avoid spread and jargon in PF please.
Email chain: aralynconnollydebate@gmail.com
**Important pref notes:** Will be able to judge best in semi-fast rounds or approx. sophomore level debates. K affs and highly technical jargon (e.g. counterplan competition, highly niche Ks) will likely be misevaluated by me. I lean policy > K.
Note for IP topic: Berkeley will be the first tournament I judge this year. Please explain topic lingo!
------
Leland '24. Debated lay and circuit policy for four years. Coaching Influences: Conner Shih (Circuit), Natalie Gao (Circuit), Michaela Northrop (Lay), Hannah Lee (Lay)
General things that are very important to me (& speaks!): Clear o/vs that "write the ballot" in rebuttals. Clarity>speed -- I haven't been in debate for a while, so please go 70-80% max speed at most. More than anything, kindness and respect toward opponents.
Below are some other misc. prefs and notes, but all can be changed through good debating
Policy - Circuit:
Policy vs. Policy
- Please send perm texts
T:
- Caselist
- Invest in i/l comparison > impact comparison
Ks:
- Familiar with basic Ks (cap, set col, security)
- Not familiar with non-basic Ks.
- If you were cursed by tab operators, got me as a judge, and these Ks are your only option: organize clash, have clear impacts, assume I know nothing, and invest in the link debate
K Affs:
- Fairness is an impact
- Biased towards neg TVA arguments
Theory:
- I default to condo good
- Detailed two-world analysis and clear line by line = key to my ballot
Case:
- Love it! I likely won't vote on presumption, but I will be heavily swayed toward a neg DA, K, etc. by good case debate
Misc:
- I love smart analytical arguments, and will happily prioritize them over bad carded arguments.
- I only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence
- I won't evaluate out-of-round events
Policy - Lay:
- I default to a stock-issues paradigm, but they need to be impacted out. E.g. I won't vote on a technical concession of "they dropped solvency" in itself -- explain why that impacts the aff
- Cross-ex is an art, and super important!
- I care about evidence quality. If you've done your research, show it! That being said, analysis and spin > evidence any day
- Please give affs and DAs a tangible impact! If stats are your friend, my ballot will be too :^)
Ask any additional qs before the round!
Judge, Judge Contreras, or just Contreras are fine
pronouns: they/them/theirs (don't call me miss/ma'am)
Head Coach at LC Anderson HS in Texas
Email chain: theedebatecoach@gmail.com
Order:
- General Comments
- PF
- LD
- Congress
- Miscellaneous
- General Comments
Trigger warnings are a norm you should be taking part in. Allowing competitors the chance to opt-out is not only encouraged but extremely important for making this activity safe. This is true for every event but more true for some- DI, looking at you!
I will not rank a triggering performance first. There’s no need for you to vividly reenact violence and suffering at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning (or like, ever). Triggering performances without trigger warnings will have their rank reflect the performance. Use your talent to tell a story, not to exploit pain. I have a "you should do a different piece" mindset on this issue and if you can't reenact that narrative without exploiting suffering, something is wrong.
If I'm judging your round and another competitor triggers you, you are welcome to quietly get up and walk out during their performance. I will not dock or punish you for this, your mental health is the most important. Please take care of yourself and each other!!
Respect and safety are crucial to speech and debate. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, transphobia, or any other kind of discrimination in or outside of round. If another competitor or participant is making you feel unsafe, you can always bring it to me. That behavior in round will be reflected in your speaks and on the ballot.
I love novices, I love fundamentals of debate. I will answer any questions after round to the best of my ability if we are respectful and wanting to learn. That also means do NOT dunk on novices in front of me. Reading 6 off on a novice might win you the ballot but I will tank your speaks.
I don’t disclose speaks.
Number responses!! the art of a clean flow/speech seems to be lost or at least elusive.
Broke: is anyone not ready?
Woke: Is everyone ready?
2. Public Forum
I’m fully flay. While I will evaluate most things, a K in PF is an uphill battle. I’m used to LD-style K’s and they have the advantage of longer speech times that PF doesn’t have. My flowing is strong, if I miss an argument it’s because it’s blippy. I don’t use the doc in PF because you should not be going fast enough to necessitate that.
My least favorite trend in PF is how cards are cut. Please include at least a paragraph of context. Your tagline should be an actual claim! “Furthermore” “concerningly” and “luckily” are NOT taglines. This is bad evidence ethics and if it comes down to a card v. card debate, yours will lose.
My second least favorite trend is insufficient extensions.
Extensions mean: tag/author and warranting. You don’t need to reread the card, you DO need to restate the claim and warrant.
I like theory. TFA rules allow tournaments to decide if judges can vote on disclosure. If allowed by tournament hosts, I will evaluate it.
3. Lincoln Douglas
I’m much more lay in LD. I will use the doc to flow but only if I’m in outrounds on a tech panel. In prelims, you should adapt. Many debaters believe they can spread, few debaters can achieve those speeds with clarity. Lay appeal is important, persuasiveness is important, style is important. If I’m your judge, that’s a great opportunity to improve upon those skills! I will reward adaptation with high speaks.
I like stock/policy arguments, theory/T, counterplans and am most comfortable with these arguments. I love framework debate.
Ks are really interesting to me, you will need to do more judge instruction and comparative to win on one but I will absolutely vote on the Kritik.
4. Congress
I love judging congress and don’t get to do it often. I listen just as much to content as I do to presentation and both factor into your rank. I appreciate a full buy-in to the congress LARPing (AGDs about your interns and time on the floor) and tend to prefer those to personal anecdotes. Intros are important, they need to be relevant to the topic, concise, cleanly delivered (ideally memorized), and impactful.
2 points, 2-3 sources per point.
Clash!!! It’s called congressional debate for a reason!
Good questions are everything! Being active in the round sets you apart from your fellow representatives.
I reward strong PO skills with high ranks in prelims. In finals, I do my best to fairly evaluate the PO vs. the speakers.
5. Miscellaneous
I occasionally judge World Schools Debate. In Worlds, I don't have as much technical knowledge about the nuances of WSD but will flow, watch for extensions, responses, and weighing/worlds comparatives. I will evaluate the round based on the argumentation, evidence, and logic. Prepare to do judge instruction and explain WSD jargon. Be so explicit about why your side and your world is better than your opponent's.
One time at a national circuit tournament, a PFer asked me if I "could evaluate complicated arguments"- don't do this. I will evaluate the most complex argument if you, the debater, can simplify, explain, defend, and weigh said arguments in the round. If I can't follow your case, it's either: a) so tangentially related that it's irrelevant, b) not clearly explained, or c) lacking links in your logic or evidence chain that would make it make sense.
***My hearing was not too great during 2023 but it is doing much better now and I'm feeling much more confident on judging. Just a health FYI/PSA.***
For email chains and any questions, my email is jason.courville@kinkaid.org
Speaking Style (Speed, Quantity) - I like fast debate. Speed is fine as long as you are clear and loud. I will be vocal if you are not. A large quantity of quality arguments is great. Supplementing a large number of quality arguments with efficient grouping and cross-application is even better.
Judge intervention - My role as a critic in a debate round is different than my role as an educator as a teacher in a classroom. I think the debate round should be understood as a brave space, where creative perspectives are presented with the expectation of student-centered competitive rejoinder. If there are arguments that your opponent makes that you believe have racist/sexist/heterosexist assumptions, I would encourage you to interrogate those assumptions within your debate speeches. I am far more hesitant to intervene and stop the debate than I would be to stop micro-aggressions between students in my classroom.
Theory - Theory arguments should be well impacted/warranted. I treat blippy/non-warranted/3 second theory arguments as non-arguments. My threshold for voting on a punishment voter ("reject the team") is higher than a "reject the argument, not the team" impacted argument. I'm open to a wide variety of argument types as long as you can justify them as theoretically valuable.
Topicality - My topicality threshold is established by the combination of answers.
Good aff defense + no aff offense + solid defense of reasonability = higher threshold/harder to win for the neg.
Good aff defense + no aff offense + neg wins competing interps = low threshold/easy to win for the neg.
Counterplans - counterplan types (from more acceptable to more illegit): advantage CPs, textually/functionally competitive PICs, agent CPs, textually but not functionally competitive PICs (ex. most word pics), plan contingent counterplans (consult, quid pro quo, delay)
Disadvantages - Impact calculus is important. Especially comparison of different impact filters (ex. probability outweighs magnitude) and contextual warrants based on the specific scenarios in question. Not just advantage vs disadvantage but also weighing different sub-components of the debate is helpful (uniqueness vs direction of the link, our link turn outweighs their link, etc).
Kritiks - My default framework is to assess whether the aff has affirmed the desirability of a topical plan. If you want to set up an alternative framework, I'm open to it as long as you win it on the line-by-line. I most often vote aff vs a kritik on a combination of case leverage + perm. It is wise to spend time specifically describing the world of the permutation in a way that resolves possible negative offense while identifying/impacting the perm's net benefit.
I most often vote neg for a kritik when the neg has done three things:
1. effectively neutralized the aff's ability to weigh their case,
2. there is clear offense against the perm, and
3. the neg has done a great job of doing specific link/alternative work as well as contextualizing the impact debate to the aff they are debating against.
Performance/Projects - I’ve voted both for and against no plan affs. When I’ve voted against no plan affs on framework, the neg team won that theory outweighed education impacts and the neg neutralized the offense for the aff’s interpretation.
Other Comments
Things that can be a big deal/great tiebreaker for resolving high clash/card war areas of the flow:
- subpointing your warrants/tiebreaking arguments when you are extending,
- weighing qualifications (if you make it an explicit issue),
- comparing warrants/data/methodology,
- establishing criteria I should use to evaluate evidence quality,
- weighing the relative value of different criteria/arguments for evidence quality (ex. recency vs preponderance/quantity of evidence)
If you do none of the above and your opponent does not either, I will be reading lots of evidence and the losing team is going to think that my decision involved a high level of intervention. They will be correct.
Northwestern, Peninsula, GBN
Emails
High School: jordandi505@gmail.com
College: jordandi505@gmail.com;debatedocs@googlegroups.com
Evaluation
I will flow and decide according to that flow. Technical execution and judge instruction combined with that flow will override most preferences, mainly due to my lack of attachment to particular preferences. There is one primary exception to this which I will describe as "frivolous" theoretical objections. That is not to say I will not vote on these arguments, but the bar is higher for the explanation and justification of these arguments and I fear any attempt to impart objectivity over this category of argumentation could lead to egregious overcorrection.
I usually begin carefully flowing at the 1NC on the case page (the exception is I will flow earlier to warm up or if the 1AC is on paper). I am however paying rapt attention to the 1AC and 1NC offcase positions, not twiddling my thumbs. Therefore, I will usually catch arguments not in the speech doc unless you are egregiously unclear, which would've been an issue regardless. I will not have the speech doc in front of me while flowing, but I will usually be looking at relevant cards during cross-x and prep time.
Other than the fact that I will flow, most other things are incredibly malleable. Judge instruction and framing of different portions of the debate should be utilized by debaters both early and often to resolve central questions. This means that most things should be contested, ranging from impact calculus to the permissibility of “new” arguments to inserting a re-highlighting to presumption. If a team forwards a claim + warrant for how I should evaluate a particular issue, it is the burden of the other team to refute that. The only exception that comes to mind is if it’s “new” in the 2AR, where I will reasonably protect the NEG.
In that vein, I tend to vote for the team that best identifies the central questions of the debate and rigs them in their favor. That is preferable to me than being provided a menu of arguments to vote on.
Whether an argument is considered “good” or “bad” does not impact my decision-making. What determines the quality of an argument is the debating and/or evidence. If you believe an argument is “bad,” you should have no problem persuading me that is the case.
I tend to decide quickly. That rarely has anything to do with the quality of the debate. Rather, I have been able to follow the core questions of the debate, which allows me to evaluate it as the debate is ongoing.
I have zero desire to adjudicate anything not about the debate in front of me.
Planless AFFs
I find answers to T that focus heavily on impact turns related to the process of debate that the NEG’s model forwards to be the most persuasive.
A counter-interpretation is useful to filter AFF offense. I am less persuaded by AFFs that lack a counter-interpretation. However, there are times when no counter-interpretation can be better than having one. This usually occurs when the AFF attempts to use their counter-interpretation mainly as defense to T. For example, it’s difficult to persuade me that a counter-interp is sufficiently predictable to outweigh NEG offense absent a large impact turn. In that situation, winning the large impact turn would have already been sufficent for an AFF ballot.
Debate is certainly a game, but it may be more.
T impacts about fairness / clash are more persuasive to me than topic education.
I think most 2ACs to even generic critiques, such as the Capitalism K, are poor and easily defeated.
The sole purpose of my ballot is to decide the winner / loser of a single debate.
K
The K should either be a DA to the plan or a framework argument that brackets the AFF out of the debate. I am worse for anything in the middle.
If both teams forward a framework argument, I will usually resolve that first. I am frequently befuddled at how some can evaluate these debates without first going to framework. Additionally, I won't contrive a middle ground between both interpretations. If one team believes their interpretation is the middle ground, I am open to being persuaded. Too often these debates lack comparison and are reduced to the same buzz phrases.
I tend not to care that fiat is not real.
A note on “death good.” I won't vote for anything endorsing self-harm or violence against anyone in the debate. That differs from arguments like spark/wipeout, the "death k," or some revolutionary praxis. I think the line is generally between arguments about the people within the debate vs actual academic controversy.
CP
I must know what the CP does, and what it solves to vote for it. The combination of a vague CP text with a lack of explanation is not persuasive…obviously.
“Process” CPs are fair game. I have no strong disposition against these strategies and tend to believe the consternation around them is rather silly. This is mainly because I am relatively more persuaded by substance, as opposed to competition or theory, against these arguments than the average person. However, that is not to say I think most 2As are prepared to execute such a strategy (in fact, it seems to be quite the opposite). All that being said, I would prefer it if the CP had topic-specific evidence.
I am good for a model of competition based on “functional only” and “text and function.” Winning a model of “textual only” is a hard sell but not impossible.
Theory
Conditionality and judge kick are good. A longer ramble with specifics is below under “Long Conditionality Ramble.” My line is probably fiating out a straight turn to offense the Neg introduced.
Judge kick is my default. It will be difficult to make me not consider the status quo with only a theoretical objection. This must start in the 1AR.
Nothing is a voting issue aside from conditionality.
Most theoretical objections can be expressed through competition, and I would prefer that. This is mainly because most theory interpretations are incredibly arbitrary. There may be some exceptions to that, including, but not limited to, “fiating multiple governments” bad, “CPs must be policies,” and “fiating federal and sub-federal actors” bad.
DA
Fiat is usually durable, good faith passage and implementation of the plan.
I do not care about the “type” of DA. Anything is a free game, so long as you are prepared to defend it.
Recent and specific evidence is preferred but can be beaten by smart analytics and spin.
Fiating in offense is underutilized.
Turns case arguments (especially if carded) and “fast” DAs frequently swing debates for me.
T
Debatability is more important to me than predictability. This is not categorical, but when the difference in the predictability of both interpretations is minimal, I care more about the quality of debates.
Provide a clear vision of what the topic should encompass and directly contrast it with the opposing teams' interpretation.
Cards to support various parts of a T argument are underutilized.
Quibbles
None of these will decide a debate but may affect speaker points depending on my mood.
Here are some (I am sure the list will grow longer):
1. Please don’t refer to this paradigm. I have physically cringed every time this has happened, please stop. I might also prefer you refer to me as “judge” than randomly mentioning my name throughout a speech (though this is much more situation-dependent).
2. Poorly formatted speech documents. I usually follow along during CX and tend to read cards during prep and other dead time. Bad formatting makes this difficult and annoying. This is not to say you must format in a particular way, but relative uniformity of tags, headers, and the like would be nice. There should not be deleted headers and tags, etc. This applies equally to card docs.
3. Too much dead time. Let’s pick up the pace, especially if you want to give me time to decide debates. Particularly, let’s start debates on time. It’s 2024, you should all know how to use email.
Others
Evidence ethics or anything else in a similar vein should typically be debated. That's what I prefer but if there is a clear violation consistent with tournament policy, the onus is on the debaters to direct me to stop the round and address it.
"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone uses gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.
***Long Conditionality Ramble***
Here are my thoughts for the NEG. I don’t really have AFF thoughts other than maybe that these will be the most important things for you to grapple with. Things I am good for the NEG about:
1. I have yet to see a 1NC where I thought the 2A's job was so difficult that it would be impossible to substantively respond. For example, you don't NEED an 8 subpoint response with 5 cards to answer the Constitutional Convention CP. The flip side of this for the AFF is either establishing a clear and consistent violation from the 2AC onward or focusing on the "model" of debate to override my presumption that maybe this 1NC wasn't too bad.
2. NEG flex is great. Two sets of arguments are persuasive to me here. First, side bias. 2AR is certainly easier than the 2NR. I am unsure about "infinite prep," but I am persuaded that AFFs typically can answer most NEG arguments thematically. For example, having a good "certainty key" or "binding key" warrant addresses a whole swath of potential CPs. Second, the topic. Teams that appeal to the nature of the topic (honestly for either side) are persuasive to me. For example, the idea that appeals to "specificity" allows the AFF to murder core generics is one I find persuasive.
3. The diminishing utility of conditionality seems true to me. Appeals to "infinite condo" allowing the nth degree of advocacies is something I am presumptively skeptical about. There are only so many arguments in the NEG box that disagree with the 1AC in different ways. Take what I said about being able to answer arguments thematically to apply here. In addition, for the NEG to accomplish such a massive proliferation, arguments tend to be incomplete. Again, this was talked about above.
4. "Dispo" is a bit ridiculous. The 2AC must define it (the NEG needs to implicate this still). The only other thought I have other than the "plank + process spam" stuff (which I like) is that I can be persuaded "dispo" would mostly only ever allow one advocacy. It now seems intuitive to me that absent 1NC construction that made sure every DA was a net benefit to every CP, the 2A could force the NEG to have to extend everything but since one links to the net benefit, it would be impossible to vote NEG.
5. This is more of a random quibble that I think can be used to frame a defense of conditionality. It seems logical to me that the ability of the AFF to extend both conditionality and substance in the 1AR, forcing the 2NR to cover both in a manner to answer inevitable 2AR shenanigans (especially nowadays) is the same logic criticized by "condo bad" as the 2AR can pick and choose with no cost. It seems worse in this case given the NEG does not have a 3NR to refute the 2AR in this scenario. This is a firm view, but it seems much easier to me for the 2AC to answer the fourth mediocre CP in the 1NC (like uncooperative federalism lol) than for the 2NR to answer the 5-minute condo bad 2AR that stemmed from a 45-second 1AR.
LASA 24 // USC 28
Email: dollingerjack21@gmail.com
- Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.
- Asking what cards were marked or what cards were skipped are CX questions.
- You cannot use CX as prep.
- Not good for affs without a plan.
- I am a good judge for impact turns and think more teams should go for them (especially in the 1AR).
- More teams should go for substance against process counterplans.
- Fine with everything else.
- Disrespect LeBron James = auto 27.
LD:
- Not a good judge for tricks.
updated nov 2024
she/her -- please don't call me judge my name is maeve.
please put me on chains -- ask me for email before the round if u dont have it.
clipping and offensive behavior is an auto L + contacting coaches.
i typically flow on paper, please give pen time!
tl;dr
i debated [2019-2024; 2023 NDT + CEDA Octafinalist] at Iowa and read primarily critical arguments on both the aff and the neg. i'm currently an assistant coach at barstow, coaching on both the policy and k side of things. i have a background in plan-style debating and did that in HS and the start of college so run what you're good at. i judge off the flow and am comfortable adjudicating whatever style of debate I am put in.
i will admit that the part of debate i find the most interesting, useful, and engaging will always be critical debate.
however, my main goal as judge will always be to be an educator, not to be influenced by my personal argumentative biases. overcorrection to appease my biases likely will go poorly for you. so please just do what you do best (this includes fwk, despite popular belief). judge instruction is super important for me, and i often find myself voting for the team who has outframed their opponent, this means top 30sec of the 2a/nr should be writing my ballot for me.
i flow cx and you should too, i tend to reward teams who utilize their cx in speeches and find myself using cx moments in my rfds more than most.
k v. fwk
because this is what everyone's here for anyways...
for the aff: impact turns are your best friend with me in the back, im largely unpersuaded by a good portion of the counter-interps i've heard judging and you'd be better off just winning kvk debate is better. proliferating offense is usually the best way to go about fwk debates. good k teams who consistently win fwk debates shut it down in the 1ar -- this requires being attuned to the round and prioritization (for instance, clash turns the aff because we couldn't test it or wtv the silly fwk 2nc block is, does not require more than 10s in the 1ar)
[for hs debate] to me, arguments about ballots spilling up to "change debate" have always seemed silly and easily beatable, i think it would be a better strategy to just win their model creates worse forms of debate.
for the neg: tva's and ssd are underutilized in debates i've judged so be the change i suppose, i also do love a good, tricky tva. fairness isn't an impact imo and i've yet to be persuaded otherwise, you're better off going for limits and clash. the 2nr should not drop case with me in the back. i mean it. it is highly unlikely to go well for you. debate is a game, yes, you do however have to justify why your way of playing the game is good. i'm becoming more and more irritated with the amount of fwk blocks that are just recycled from year to year, pls innovate.
misc. things
give your last rebuttal off the flow, expect good speaks.
condo is probably good, contradicting yourself is probably bad.
i stop flowing after 5 for HS, 6 for college, any more is excessive and cowardly.
for online debates: zoom audio is garbage so please prioritize clarity over speed. also probably dont start a speech if my camera is off
didn't think i'd have to add this but... I am all for debaters questioning my RFD, if something doesn't make sense to you please ask me to elaborate and I will. however, if the way you go about questioning me is disrespectful to me or the other debaters in the room (ie laughing at what i have to say, belittling opponents' arguments, etc) you should probably not pref me.
Don’t call me ‘Judge.’ I’m a freshman in college
UC Lab ES & ‘24
Michigan ES & '28
Top Level
Moderate topic knowledge.
Default to yes inserted rehighlightings, but if one team objects, like everything else, it’s up to debate.
I also default to judgekick (assuming conditionality) and offense-defense.
Apart from the 2AR, you must identify unjustified new arguments as such for me to cross them out.
Asking what cards were skipped or where they were marked is part of CX.
T
Fine for predictability outweighs limits or the other way around.
Good for plan text in a vacuum. Neg teams need a counter-interpretation of how to determine the plan’s mandate.
Ks/K-Affs
I’m much better for them than my history of argument selection would suggest. Win the flow and I’ll vote on it.
Framework is never a ‘wash,’ and arbitrarily crafting a ‘middle ground’ interpretation when neither side has advocated for one is interventionist and incoherent. I’ll look to framework first and clearly decide which interpretation I should be using to evaluate the rest of the debate before doing so.
No preference between fairness and clash.
Make it clear whether it’s a question of competing interpretations or just this round/what my ballot does or why that shouldn’t matter. This is often very important in these debates and yet it’s given 20 seconds of attention by both teams combined.
Please say, and maybe go for, something other than “tab solves” against framework DAs like legal definitions, individuation, etc. Judging this argument is really annoying and repetitive.
Fairness might be the only impact, an impact, an internal link, or an anti-black penal code — all comes down to how you debate it.
Specific links are fantastic, but going all-in on the “unique cybernetics DA to the plan that turns case” is a really tough sell (unless really mishandled). The link most likely a) isn’t unique, b) is just a solvency takeout, c) is resolved by the perm, and/or d) is outweighed by the aff.
I’m not too familiar with KvK debates, so please give me judge instruction if I end up in the back of one.
DAs
Carded turns case is good. I generally don’t care about turns case as much as other judges though — the likelihood of extinction seems more pressing than the manner/timeframe in which it happens.
I love going all-in on the politics straight turn in the 2AR! Extra points if you do this successfully.
CPs
I don’t care if the counterplan is ‘recycled’ or has a ‘generic’ internal net benefit (unless, obviously, the AFF technically wins that I should via a permutation or theory.)
I love a good competition debate, whether it's 'perm: do the CP' or 'CPs must compete textually and functionally.'
You’re better off going for conditionality in the context of models, not in-round abuse. Strategy and time skew don’t justify new 2AR arguments. However, I don't have a predisposition against conditionality bad if the flow is won, especially absent a strong arbitrariness/reasonability push from the Neg.
Net benefits to process counterplans are seriously terrible. If your AFF has good ‘certainty key’ or ‘say no’ deficits, don’t be afraid to go for substance against a silly process CP.
Very amenable to AFF appeals (theoretically or substantively) to vague advantage CP texts, especially ones without advocates.
Impact turns/framing
Love them. Run wild. Russia war good, dedev, animal wipeout, etc. are all fair game.
‘Try or die’ refers to the scenario in which, unless I vote a certain way, extinction is inevitable. Absent a compelling reason I should reject this frame and/or very low risk the team who controls try or die can solve it alongside a large probability and timeframe differential, I find it hard not to default to ‘try or die’ if this situation arises.
Not great for Kant and LD tricks that challenge the conventional wisdom surrounding logic/decision-making. I’ll vote on them if you win the flow, of course, but I can only vote for arguments I understand, so err towards explanation rather than spamming the taglines of contrived paradoxes and moral dilemmas.
Case Debate
2As often get away with murder. Most AFFs are already awful, and near-zero after blippy and shallow 2AC line-by-line that 2Ns don’t take advantage of.
Speaker points
+0.1 speaker points if you open source all your cards (tell me)
+0.1 speaker points if you make fun of a current/former UC Lab or Michigan debater. I’ll consider +0.2 for current/former partners (Mahi, Ishan, or Rishi)
Updated for Northwestern: It occurs to me I haven't touched this thing in awhile. They often feel quite self-aggrandizing, so I'm hoping to keep this short and informative.
For college debates, please add
For HS, please add
Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. I don't believe that heg good isn't offense, and people should feel comfortable going for impact turns against the K in front of me, because it's cleaner than T a lot of the time. Fairness is an impact, but it's way worse than skills.
Theory: the primary concern is the predictability of the interp. In order for it to be predictable, it needs to be based in a logical interpretation of the resolution. This precludes the vast majority of theory arguments. People seem to be souring on conditionality --- I am not one of those people. I've yet to hear an objection to it not solved by writing and reading higher quality arguments.
A few closing comments: unsorted
-I'm kind of an ev hack. I try not to read cards unless instructed, but if you read great ev, you should be loud and clear about telling me to read it, and if it's as good as you say, then speaker points may be in order.
-Sometimes recutting the other team's card to answer their argument is better than reading one of your own. If you want me to read their card on your terms, include highlighting in another color so we're on the same page on what part you think goes the other way.
-Arguments I won't vote for
-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate
-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea
-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate
-new affs bad
Lincoln Douglas
I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.
-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.
-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.
-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.
-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.
-I don’t flow RVIs.
Public Forum
Copy-Pasting Achten's.
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.
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.
Policy @ Northwood -> UCLA '26 (Environmental Science/Conservation Biology)
Email Chain - alexfu004@gmail.com
LD and PF paradigm at bottom
TL;DR
- Debate is a game
- Do impact calc
- I'm more familiar with Policy strats
- Slow down on analytics, especially on T, theory, or jargon
- Tech determines truth
2024 Update: ~20 rounds judged.
General
Don't be a bad person, you've seen it on other paradigms, no racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, etc.
DA/CP
I love them! Your disads should be specific to the aff, but generic links fine too if you put the work into them and contextualize them to the aff. Condo is probably good, internationall/private/object fiat is probably bad. I mainly read process counterplans and states in high school so make of that what you will.
K
I mainly went for the Cap K and find myself voting for SetCol pretty often, but I'm still not the best judge for the K. Case specific links would be great! The Aff should explain the perms instead of just throwing them out there, at least by the 1ar but preferably in the 2ac. I'll treat framework like an impact debate, but I tend to lean weighing the aff.
Ks I'm more familiar with: Cap, SetCol, Berlant/Suffering, Yellow Peril/Orientalism, Security, Militarism
Ks I'm less familiar with: Deleuze, Bataille, "pomo"-esque Ks (with reason), Kant
T
I'll vote on it, but I'm persuaded by reasonability more than other judges. The neg needs to win a clear instance of abuse beyond just "it's what they justify," and the Aff ideally should have specific reasons why the counterinterpretation resolves or turns neg offense.
Planless Affs
I have very limited experience with reading K affs (maybe 3 or 4 times ever), but I'm receptive to them. I think that having a stasis is necessary for debate, and I think that fairness is good, whatever fairness means. That said, I do think that K Affs can provide unique educational value, and if the Aff can prove their aff is important to talk about certain issues I can still buy it. Framework is probably your best 2NR against K Affs, I went for education and movements mainly in my junior and senior year in high school but I can be persuaded to vote on fairness as well.
Theory
Reject the arg, not the team is persuasive in almost every case, condo aside. I lean neg on condo; I can be persuaded otherwise, but it's an uphill battle for the aff to win on it. International and Object fiat are probably illegitimate, and require more work to be done on theory if you want to win on them as the neg.
Speaks
- being creative, strategic
- clarity, especially when spreading through analytics
- efficiency between speeches, sending out docs, etc
- if you're funny
- clear signposting!
- i was inspired by another judge but please get me food (+0.1? speaks) (but dont bankrupt yourself it's not worth it) (better to just speak better probably)
LD
I'll judge it like I judge a policy round, and I'm not familiar with a lot of LD theory. I'll try to adapt but please exercise discretion.
Public Forum
I used to do PF, don't worry about having to adapt too hard
Everything above applies, don't spread if your opponent is not okay with it though. Don't read policy-esque arguments just because you can, PF probably should be a bit more accessible. I'm more receptive to Ks than most PF judges, but don't read incomplete arguments i.e. a K without an alt just because PF doesn't have advocacies.
He/Him
Minneapolis South
My email is izakgm [at] gmail.com, add me to the email chain before the round, please and thank you.
Significant rework: summer 2024. I’m old now. I've judged policy debate at the middle school and high school levels, and a few college rounds.
If you think the New York Liberty beat the Minnesota Lynx in the 2024 WNBA finals, you should strike me.
General Debate Philosophy:
Debate is for the debaters. Do what you are best at. You have worked hard on your arguments – don’t over adapt to me, just execute as well as you can. You could skip the rest of the paradigm and go back to cutting updates.
Ideological flexibility. No argument is presumptively out of bounds. If you said something is good, the other team can say it's bad. If the argument is horrible, it should be easy to answer. I have coached and judged teams that made a wide variety of arguments and voted for many arguments I disagree with. I refuse to draw lines like “I won’t vote on death good or racism good, but I will vote on first strike China”.
Make choices. Time limits mean that adding one argument means you spend less time on developing others. Sometimes I have under 15 minutes to decide your round. Instruct and simplify whenever possible. If an argument is incomplete when it is introduced and the other team flags it as such, I struggle to imagine a situation where I will limit new responses after the argument is completed.
Holistic evaluation. Where you start your final rebuttal is very important to me – more than other judges. I am less likely to decide a round on standalone issues and more likely to look at how those smaller issues spill up to create an overall vision of the debate. This doesn't mean you have to list 4 reasons you win at the beginning of the debate and then list them again later.
Pure technical evaluation of debates is impossible. Style and presentation are relevant. Conduct in round is relevant. Cross-x is relevant. The flow does not exist in a vacuum - I am a human being. Those factors affect what I write down, what I’m thinking about/how I feel when I write it down, and how I understand what I wrote down when I look at it later. You as a debater are relying on my knowledge of debate concepts when you communicate your speech, and in close rounds you don't have time to reinvent the wheel.
Topic research defines arguments. Any argument is fair game – but debate is a research game so arguments about the topic that are backed by timely, qualified, and innovative research are more likely to succeed. Analytic arguments can take out poorly constructed arguments or egregiously highlighted evidence. Arguments that are entirely recycled from previous years are boring. Critical knowledge is a part of the topic, if you were wondering.
Debate is an educational activity. Try your best and give your full effort towards winning. Be scrappy and creative. Every loss is an opportunity to learn and improve. “if you cannot make peace with results in a subjective activity, you are simply not an elite debater, imho” – Martin Osborn
Judging Process:
During the debate:
I will attempt to flow your speech, even if you ask me not to. On a computer if I have one, because my handwriting is poor. During your roadmap, please let me know if there’s an overview so I can insert cells. If you do not declare your overview and make more than 3 arguments, I will miss something while I make more space.
I am not the best flow on the circuit. This often stems from attempting to write too much of what you say or not knowing what I can skip. Having good labels at the beginning of your argument stem will ensure I am able to identify arguments later.
I will not open the speech doc during the debate unless I think you are clipping or cross-reading. The burden of communication is on you.
If I can understand what you are saying while you read card text, I will try to write down warrants or words you emphasize in the card, especially for longer cards. If I cannot understand what you are saying while you read card text, I will not look at the text of that evidence during the round or decision time, until I’ve submitted my RFD.
I give strong non-verbal feedback when I can’t understand you. I will verbally clear you twice if needed, even on a panel in egregious instances.
I regularly look at the speaker and each team during speeches. Speakers that connect with the judge and teams that observe how I am reacting will benefit from this.
I often take notes on Cross-x. I will verbally intervene in cross-x if there is a miscommunication that is easily resolved, or if there is excessive filibustering/question dodging.
If the debate is online, I would prefer your camera to be on, if possible. Also, please slow down a bit more. I will be more lenient about checking the doc if arguments are missed due to internet quality.
How I decide the debate:
My role is to decide who won (within time constraints given by the tournament), so I will try to follow a team down their shortest path to victory. Your shortest path to victory will include “even if” statements, which is an acknowledgement that you don’t need to win every argument to win the debate.
During the final rebuttals, I am considering the round framing given to me by each team and how much it reflects my flow of the debate. By the time most rounds (90%) end I have an initial idea of who won. I will double check that the core arguments are consistently extended and explained across speeches and cross-x.
If a round ends and is very close (maybe 10%), I will quickly write a ballot for each side to help organize the key issues, attempt to resolve those issues until one of the ballots separates itself from the other.
The rest of my decision time will be spent running through the arguments and evidence for the team I provisionally believe is losing to see if I’ve missed anything. If I find something interesting that could change the decision, I'll look at both sides in more depth. This means most of the time my feedback about evidence and strategy will be targeted towards the team that lost.
I strive to only intervene (insert my own thinking) in a few situations (don't make me do these):
-
New 2ar arguments: since there is no 3nr, I will be careful that 2ar arguments can be traced backwards in the debate and strike them if necessary. I will strictly follow 2nr instruction, but I’ll try my best to protect the 2nr regardless. New arguments in earlier speeches need to be identified as new for me to strike them.
-
Ships passing in the night: If both teams have plausible frames for understanding the debate, but do not make explicit arguments comparing those ideas, I will have to decide where to start. I will dig through my flows to find implicit framing questions.
-
Both teams missed something big: the only way in my mind for something to become 100% true in a debate is a strategic concession – taking an argument presented by the other team and agreeing with it. If this happens early in the debate and implicates what you are talking about later and neither team talks about it, it's up to me to figure out what to do with it.
If you want me to read evidence during the part of the decision time where it's still up in the air which team won the debate:
-
Please read in a way where I could understand it
-
Please highlight what is good about the evidence, compare it to the other teams, etc.
-
If there is a lot of evidence that you think qualifies for me to read, and it was referenced in the final rebuttal, you can send a card doc.
I will not reconstruct the round based on the docs if I’m confused. If the above standards aren’t met, I’ll stumble my way to a decision based on the explanations I was given, then look back through the evidence afterwards to see what SHOULD have been said by the debaters.
The rest of it:
Ask me about my judging record:
Debate rounds can’t be summarized by the round report. Style and execution matter more. If both teams are in the room, feel free to ask me about what happened in or how I decided any round I judged, my abstract thoughts about topic arguments, how I would have voted in nearly any debate that is on youtube (I’ve watched many – nerd alert).
I am not a member of any of the following cults (you will have to convince me to join over the course of the debate):
-
Offense/Defense (I am certainly a top percentile judge for zero risk strategies, whether its presumption, links to the net benefit, zero risk of net benefit, etc)
-
Debate is only a game because it’s a game
-
Procedural arguments are exclusion
What are your argument preferences?
I like openness/honesty, respect for opponent and inclusivity. In my professional life I must "meet people where they are at". I believe that would be a healthy approach to debate and accordingly I am interested most in "middle ground" approaches in situations where teams fundamentally disagree about what the debate should be about. For example, k affs that have an interesting spin on what it means to be topical, or a critique that is primarily about the core assumptions of the aff. However, I am not naïve and understand that this style is rarely considered the most strategic, so I will not punish you for doing what you believe will "win" you the debate.
Feel free to post round or email me for feedback:
But if your approach in the post round is "what about this argument, what about this argument?" and you are listing one liners from the last minute of the speech, consider spending the time on a rebuttal redo where you make those arguments matter more, rather than convincing yourself that you've never lost a debate.
Minnesota Teams/regional teams without much national circuit exposure:
Use the wiki! (https://opencaselist.com/). I will boost your points (you might have to remind me but I'll try to remember). If everyone posts on the wiki, we can all save a lot of time tracking down what arguments everyone reads and spend more time preparing for better debates. If you need help setting up a wiki or navigating it, send me an email or catch me at a tournament and I’ll be happy to help. This is important for local tournaments because you get so little time to prep before the round.
Good disclosure at the tournament is also helpful. If you have a wiki that is updated, it’s easier during the preround to let folks know that your past 2nrs are on the wiki, but that only works if that is up to date. Honest and quick disclosure = more time to prep = better debates!
Think through your theory arguments if you are going for them. Not every bad or unfamiliar argument is unfair. Reading theory is also part of a broader strategy to constrain the other team's options and force responses. It still requires you to respond to opposing counter arguments – there is no one set agreed upon list of rules, so you’ll need to debate it out!
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 ✨
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
I have been a parent judge for PF since 2019 and LD since 2021, I still consider myself still learning along the way. I might also be new to the debate topic during tournament. I appreciate clarity, logical flow and please be respectful! Wish we all have fun at each round.
Marshall Green
MBA and USC
Yes email chain: marshallg448@gmail.com
*every card sent in the body is -.1 speaker point*
Tech above all else. You should go for the arguments you like to read rather than what I prefer. Here are a few things that might help:
1) Judge Instruction is essential. Most final rebuttals I have seen this year have been 5 minutes of various thoughts about the arguments with me having to do the work on what parts of the flow matter the most. I do not like making these types of decisions because of how subjective they are.
2) I must understand your argument to vote on it. Lots of debaters (myself included) assume the judge knows as much as they do whether it's a complex legal framework or high theory critical arguments. Especially on this topic, I do not have much prior knowledge. Saying "They dropped X means it's GG" with little to no explanation usually will not bode well.
This part is especially relevant for K teams. If I do not understand what's going on, I will defer to my preferences which is more in the policy camp.
3) Slow down. I am not the world's fastest flow at all and am still getting acclimated from switching from shadow flowing to regular flowing. Debaters often forget that it doesn't matter how many arguments they say but instead how many the judge writes down and understands. Some debaters say too much often repeating themselves and having lots of arguments be completely ignored or half flowed.
4) Where to pref me. I am good with all arguments policy and prefer fairness over clash nearly every time. I should neither be at the bottom of the K team's pref sheet nor should I be their ordinal one. If you're still confused, do the things outlined above, and you'll be chillin'
Dorian (they/them)
chain -- debatedorian @ gmail.com
LAMDL from Downtown Magnets '23
now at CSULB Policy '27
debate mentions: Jean Kim (bestieeee), Aless Escobar (my db8 partner), Gabby Torres, Erika Linares, Curtis Ortega, Diego Flores, Deven Cooper, Jaysyn Green
OV
Run whatever you feel comfortable with. I am tech > truth & who did the better debate unless told otherwise. I receptive to arguments about what the ROJ/ROB means. Impact things out. So what if something was dropped, I won't weigh that into my decision unless you tell me why a dropped argument matters for the round. Make offensive arguments too please.
Speaks
I start at 28.5.Speed is fine but annunciate or it won't make it on my flow. Things that weigh into my speaks: CX, offense/defense arguments, line-by-line, "even if" arguments, using real world examples, conceding spare minutes, engagement with what the other side is saying.tag teaming is fine but I dislike only one partner speaking in CX the entire time.
I don't prefer to listen to arguments that interfere with the way I evaluate speaks (e.g., "give me a __", "tank my speaks after the round").
I will disclose speaks if you ask during the RFD
Ks & K Affs
I open to K-affs but do extensive work on how your K-Aff creates subject formation or changes subjectivities and why reading the K-aff in the debate space is good. And I think these arguments are inherently true and winnable but don't just automatically assume I'll believe this if it is not made clear in the round.
For the K, I appreciate a good link story. I have more confidence voting for the ALT if you're winning FW/why looking at the ideological representations of a plan is better than their interpretation. . .also don't assume i automatically know what you're talking about if you're running some higher theory things. If you're winning your interpretation of FW, I'm willing to vote that the ALT is a pre-req to solving the AFF.
On KvK, the theory of power debate is important to me. Make arguments on who has a better explanation of the world. I will be paying close attention to the perm debate here. And both sides should be utilizing ROB/ROJ here.
T & T-FW
here I think about models. So think outside of just your round. Make the net benefits of your model the highlight of every speech if this is what you're going for in addition to any DAs to your opponents's model. Against K-affs, I am persuaded by arguments that tell me debating the resolution is epistemologically valuable.
DA
For me to vote on the DA, have a good link story. You need to convince me that 1) the squo is better than what the aff says the squo is and 2) the aff makes the squo worse.
Theories
I'm willing to vote on things like disclosure and speed theory. I'm open to reject the team arguments. But like all arguments, impact it out for me.
LD specific
don't do tricks. everything else is the same
thx for reading
since u made it to the end something you should know about me is that i love cats. if you can guess what my fav cat breed is I will give you +0.1 on your speaker points (hint its an expensive cat and is kinda instagram-famous) tell me your guess before the round and I will tell you if you were right after the round (no one has guessed it correctly yet lol)
I've been judging debates for a long time. I prefer listening to debates wherein each team presents and executes a well-researched strategy for winning. The ideological flavor of your arguments matters less to me than how you establish clash with your opponents’ arguments. I am open to most anything, understanding that sometimes “you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do” to win the debate.
At the end of the debate, I vote for the team that defends the superior course of action. My ballot constitutes an endorsement of one course relative to another. To win the debate, the affirmative must prove their course is preferable when compared to the status quo or negative alternatives. That being said, I interpret broadly exactly what constitutes a plan/course of action. An alternative is proven a superior course of action when it is net beneficial compared to the entirety of the plan combined with part or parts of the alternative. Simply solving better than the affirmative is not enough: the alternative must force choice. Likewise, claiming a larger advantage than the affirmative is not enough to prove the alternative competitive. A legitimate permutation is defined as the entirety of the "plan" combined with parts or parts of the alternative. Mere avoidance of potential or "unknown" disadvantages, or a link of omission, is insufficient: the negative must read win a link and impact in order to evaluate the relative merits of the plan and the alternative. The 2AC saying something akin to "Perm - do the plan and all noncompetitive parts of the counterplan/alternative" is merely a template for generating permutation ideas, rather than a permutation in and of itself. It's your job to resolve the link, not mine.
I believe there is an inherent value to the topic/resolution, as the topic serves as the jumping off point for the year's discussion. The words of the topic should be examined as a whole. Ultimately, fairness and ground issues determine how strict an interpretation of the topic that I am willing to endorse. The most limiting interpretation of a topic rarely is the best interpretation of a topic for the purposes of our game. The topic is what it is: merely because the negative wishes the topic to be smaller (or the affirmative wishes it bigger, or worded a different way) does not mean that it should be so. An affirmative has to be at its most topical the first time it is run.
I don’t care about any of your SPEC arguments. The affirmative must use the agent specified in the topic wording; subsets are okay. Neither you nor your partner is the United States federal government. The affirmative is stuck with defending the resolutional statement, however I tend to give the affirmative significant leeway as to how they choose to define/defend it. The affirmative is unlikely to persuade me criticisms of advocacy of USFG action should be dismissed as irrelevant to an evaluation of policy efficacy. I believe that switch-side debating is good.
All theory arguments should be contextualized in terms of the topic and the resultant array of affirmative and negative strategies. Reciprocity is a big deal for me, i.e., more negative flex allows for more aff room to maneuver and vice versa). Conditional, topical, and plan inclusive alternatives are presumptively legitimate. A negative strategy reliant on a process counterplan, consultation counterplan, or a vague alternative produces an environment in which in which I am willing to allow greater maneuverability in terms of what I view as legitimate permutations for the affirmative. I’ve long been skeptical of the efficacy of fifty state uniform fiat. Not acting, i.e., the status quo, always remains an option.
Debate itself is up for interrogation within the confines of the round.
I tend to provide a lot of feedback while judging, verbal and otherwise. If you are not clear, I will not attempt to reconstruct what you said. I tend to privilege the cards identified in the last two rebuttals as establishing the critical nexus points of the debate and will read further for clarification and understanding when I feel it necessary. Reading qualifications for your evidence will be rewarded with more speaker points. Reading longer, more warranted evidence will be rewarded with significantly more consideration in the decision process. Clipping cards is cheating and cardclippers should lose.
I value clash and line-by-line debating. Rarely do I find the massive global last rebuttal overview appealing. Having your opponent's speech document doesn't alleviate the need for you to pay attention to what's actually been said in the debate. Flow and, for god's sake, learn how to efficiently save/jump/email/share your speech document. I generally don't follow the speech doc in real time.
"New affs bad" is dumb; don't waste your time or mine. When debating a new aff, the negative gets maximum flexibility.
I believe that both basic civil rights law as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment.
Hello - I'm a lay judge, please speak slowly and clearly. If you use debate lingo, please define your terms for me.
I like to hear strong and clear final speeches at the end of your debate.
I may need a little time to process my notes before making a decision, disclosure will happen case by case.
Truth over tech. I like to hear plans / counter-plans that are realistic and based in accurate facts.
Evidence Ethics:
I am adding this to the top because it has had an effect on some of my students recently. I generally follow along on speech docs when they are sent to me. If I notice during the round that you are reading a card that is egregiously misrepresenting what the evidence actually says, I will stop the round and give you an automatic loss and the lowest speaks I am allowed to give. This doesn't apply to things that are simply "power-tagged." I am talking about evidence that has like 10 words highlighted to make a claim or argument not intended by the author. I don't judge PF that much, so this probably won't be an issue in whatever round I am judging you in, but be forewarned.
Harvard update (2/12/2024):
Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.
You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.
I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.
I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.
Yes, I want to be on the email chain (davy.holmes@dsisdtx.us).
Some info about me:
Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)
Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)
Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003
Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007
Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017
Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present
Observations for all debate events:
-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.
-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.
-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.
-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.
Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.
Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.
LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.
PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain
Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.
Speech: I have judged a lot more speech over the past couple years. I like students to demonstrate a personal connection to their topic or material.
Debated for the Boston Debate League.
I will vote on anything as long as its well articulated and you outline the voters and impacts very well.
Speed- Fine when it's done well -- be clear or I won't flow. I will usually tell you if you are not clear once.
Evidence & Arguments- I want a comparative analysis, I prefer debaters that explain the warrants within the evidence and that have good line by line.
K's- Make sure that the link is very well articulated. Also clearly explain the story of the criticism, don't assume I'm familiar with the philosophy you utilize.
Don't disrespect anyone in the round
If I don't see that you extend your arguments, I will not count them. I am most likely not to vote for a team that concedes on a point even if it's a small one. I am a tech over truth judge. I believe weighing and final speech is the most important part of the round, please give me exact reasons to vote and make it as specific as possible. Bring up unanswered points and bigger empirics.
Info: Archbishop Mitty '23, UC Berkeley '27
Email: tkher@berkeley.edu
My Experience: Competed in Policy for 4 years (1A/2N) - TOC, multiple bids, went to camp 2x, coaches poll, round robins, 3rd at state and elims at nats.
MLK Update: I don't care if the round is more circuit or lay - I will pick the team that wins the round, however that round is. If you're facing a lay team (inexperienced at circuit), please do not spread. Yes technically there is no threshold for what is considered "spreading", but you know what I mean - I'll tank your speaks. However, that doesn't mean you have to debate like a lay team. You can still run your circuit arguments (CPs, DAs), just at slower pace. I will decide whether to use stock issue vs. offense/defense based on how both teams tell me to frame my decision. This is the best middle ground in my opinion.
I have no preference for what arguments you read. I'm a little more policy leaning, but I was always known as the flex debater who went for diverse arguments. I spent an entire year reading 1-off Set Col K, read a Heg aff at the TOC, went for Fiat Ks, 10-plank advantage CPs, 4th Branch CP, politics DAs - point being, I've done things across the spectrum, so truly do whatever you want and I'll be happy & as non-interventionist as possible!
The following prefs are simply based on my experience, not my personal biases.
Shorthand prefs:
Policy v Policy: 1
Policy v K: 1
K Aff v FW: 2
K v K: 3
High Theory/Pomo: 4
Tricks: 5
UCLab '22
Emory '26
TLDR
I’m usually tired when judging, so the less time wasted, the higher the speaks.
Include line by line and judge instruction.
I like easy, clean debates.
I enter decisions relatively quickly. This isn't a referendum on the debate.
I am willing (begrudgingly) to vote on arguments about microaggressions, but will never vote on "X microaggression outweighs Y microaggresion." I am fine with link defense but will not vote on impact calculus. I will assume the impact is the same for both X and Y and will drop speaks for anyone that does impact calculus.
Paradigms are biased self-reports but I've debated with and you should check the paradigms of Don Pierce, Lucas Lobo, Jared Shirts, and Mahi Shah.
I've included a longer paradigm below.
Topic thoughts
Little to know topic knowledge. If your strategy is legally complicated or something to IP (even things like the sui generis CP), spend extra time and slow down explaining the legal context that matters to make a decision.
It seems incredibly aff biased. Thus, I understand the reliance on process CP's, UQ CP's, and other similar CP's that are questionably competitive. That being said, I will increase speaks for teams that have case specific strategies or 2NR's that do not include a CP that is not questionably competitive.
K Affs
I've read K affs my entire junior year but have also gone for framework against K affs.
Aff: Affs should choose between defending in round impacts versus spill up arguments. In addition, ballot solvency features prominently in majority of my decisions. That being said, the neg must win both that the ballot doesn't consequentially solve something and that consesquentialism is good in order to zero aff offense. Against fairness, I am generally better for in round impacts, but can be convinced that I should evaluate models of debate. Against clash, I am equally good for both a K of their model that turns clash as well as in round impacts that frame out clash as an ideal that cannot be solved by the ballot.
If the 2NR is a K, most teams run to the perm. I have a bit of a higher threshold for voting aff on the perm given the fact that there isn't a stable advocacy and it seems as though the 1AC and 2AC are irrelevant to the debate against a K because the 1AR and 2AR are completely new explanations of both the aff and the perm. In addition, the aff must have offense as to why the alt alone is insufficient, not just a reason why the links don't matter that much.
Neg: Ballot solvency is equally as important here. If you are going for clash versus an in round impact aff, then you must win that even if the ballot doesn't result in a model of debate, it is valuable to evaluate models. Conversely, if you are going for fairness versus an aff that defends a counter interp, it is helpful to win you should only evaluate consequential impacts to the ballot. I am best for a 2NR that emphasizes a fairness impact as an independent impact and utilizes clash to internal link turn aff offense.
K's against K affs are fine. I prefer framework debates because it's far easier to establish a link and a locus of offense. Thus, going for K's must have hyper specific link explanation and must pin the aff down to defending particular things as early as possible in the debate. In addition, links/K turns case arguments with external offense (similar to clash turns aff offense + fairness as external) is the most convincing explanation of going for the K that minimizes any net benefit to the perm.
K's on the Neg
Aff: Generally best for framework + util 2AR's. Majority of my thoughts on going for framework on the neg apply to framework on the aff, especially against fiat K's. Aff teams that lose usually lose because they either make technical concessions on framework, do not explain ballot solvency, or drop tricks including but not limited to arguments like link turns case, alt solves case, X is unsustainable, etc. I am also amenable to impact turns to fiat K's/affs that have offense premised off of scholarship as something to weigh against the link. Affs that are against alternatives that do something materially should include perm double bind and have offense as to why the alt alone doesn't solve. Should also include both framework arguments about competition as well as theory arguments about the alt. 2AC's should answer every link argument both at the level of fiat and scholarship. Saying it's a link to the squo might be sufficient if you win you should evaluate fiated implementation, but is the equivalent of dropping the link if the link is about scholarship not implementation.
Neg: Fine for both fiat K's and substance K's. Higher speaks for teams that technically execute K's that are not just framework K's due to higher difficulty. Generally bad for alts that fiat a lot, which makes links turn case with try or die alt far more persuasive than an alt that solves everything. However, smart competition arguments established by framework along with a robust theoretical defense of the alt makes the alt solves everything strategy viable. Fiat K's that moot the plan but go for links specific to the aff have a lower threshold for a link versus K's that moot the aff and only go for fiat is bad.
CP
Fine for everything. No particular thoughts. Generally better for PDCP than the intrinsic perm but understand that depending on how the CP is written, intrinsic perm may be necessary. Depending on the CP, delay perms that are explained as CP's may compete off of certainty but not immediacy is also very compelling. Willing to vote on conditionality bad, but not a conditionality hater. I default to no judge kick unless explicitly told.
DA
No particular thoughts. Make sure you make and answer DA turns case arguments. Probability of the link/DA filters the relevance of turns case.
T
No topic knowledge, willing to vote on most T arguments. Relatively better for aff ground rather than predictability. PTIV is not unwinnable but is an uphill battle.
Case
Honestly don't really care whether you go to case or not to win. Strategies that are case specific generally get higher speaks. Willing to vote on most impact turns. If your preferred 2NR is death good, I assume there has been some kind of trigger warning with the other team.
Misc
Tech over truth. Caveats include: ethics violations, -isms, and I will not vote on arguments that I cannot explain from warrants in the final rebuttals.
Impact calculus tips the scales in close debates, but is also executed poorly. Generic probability, magitude, timeframe impact calculus is insufficient when both teams are vaguely gesturing at an extinction impact that has no brink. Timeframe is helpful in close debates. I also find try or die and turns case arguments very compelling. That means you should always include a bit of impact defense/impact non-unique arguments in final speeches. Other logical presses like timeframe first, turns case/DA, and only evaluating opportunity costs/what impacts are resolved are convincing if explained well.
Card quality is important butonly in very close debates. Majority of debates I will not read cards.
I will also decide debates generally very quickly. This is not a referendum on debate but that I set a list of win conditions for both sides in the final rebuttal that streamlines my thought process.
I flow on my laptop and try to type out/transcribe as much as possible. That means go slower, emphasize, and number analytics, otherwise I will miss warrants and will not evaluate it in later speeches.
I've found myself unengaged in most CX's. That means if something important is happening, make it interesting.
+0.1 speaker point for every minute of prep not used, with a cap of 29.9. This only applies if you win the round, not if you're getting killed and you just want higher speaks.
If I see you consuming an item from the BDS strike list or from Starbucks I’m giving you 25 speaks. I do not like the idea of y’all supporting genocide.
My largest debate influences are Aaron Langerman, Tyler Vergho, and Adarsh Hiremath. Check out their paradigms if anything here is unclear.
I will try my best to minimize intervention and adjudicate the round solely on the arguments presented. That being said, my background is exclusively policy-oriented. In an evenly debated round, I am unlikely to vote for planless affirmatives, you link you lose frameworks, and similar arguments.
Answering arguments in the order presented, explicitly signposting responses, and crystallizing the debate into the most important issues during the final rebuttals will almost certainly improve your chances in front of me.
Lastly, I care far less about evidence quality than most. I will spend most of my time after the round going through my flow rather than the card doc. For evidence quality to meaningfully affect my decision, the final rebuttals must provide direct evidence comparison and explicitly impact out relevant evidence.
I judge based on the arguments presented, not on my own convictions. Apart from listening to first affirmative and negative constructs carefully, I pay close attention to cross examination, rebuttals, and timings before voting.
I am based out of East Bay, California.
I have been judging for past 8 years (in fact earlier than that).
annanlieggi@gmail.com -> add me to the email chain
Spreading is fine. Will vote on theory and t if done well (lean neg on these). If you run a k you should be able to fully explain it. Avoid card dumping randomly and try to stay away from only using premade blocks- focus on creating clash during the round.
Be respectful during cross/respect the other team -> I will vote down a team on issues of norms/ethics.
Familiar with most args, but not a fan of teams reading like 4+ sketchy cps.
Please put me on the chain: debate@sarahlim.com, interlakescouting@googlegroups.com (high school), debatedocs@googlegroups.com (college)
Interlake '14, Northwestern '18, coaching for both.
- Cal HS tournament 2025: I am recovering from a concussion and have trouble with screens, especially scrolling text. I may not read speech docs at all, including after the round. I'll probably ask for both plan and CP texts to be written on paper for my reference. Please be extra clear. Thanks!
- I am a blatant curmudgeon (”old man yells at cloud”), more truth > tech than most judges, and above all persuaded by argumentative rigor. This means Ireally do not want to vote for stupid arguments or intellectual cowardice, and my threshold for stupid is probably lower than yours. Everyone should debate to elevate the standard of this activity.
- Specifically, I am probably an unfavorable judge for low-effort process CPs, "textual competition means we rearrange the words," and "plantext in a vacuum". I mention these specifically because they appear to be in vogue right now.
Basic physics
- Presumption goes to the status quo, then the aff.
- I will judge kick the counterplan/fiated counteradvocacy if and only if the 2NR instructs me to do so, and the 2AR drops this argument. Just saying some variation of “the 2NR’s job is to decide what to go for” is usually enough.
Administrative
- I will "clear" your analytics to a reasonable extent, but I will not vote on arguments I cannot flow, andI will not backflow from the doc to compensate for your lack of clarity. Please slow down from your top speed, especially on topicality/theory/CP texts, and especially if you're debating online. I flow on paper by listening to the speech, not by following along in the doc.
- I detest intimidation, rudeness, or snark regardless of your argument content.
- I will not use my ballot to adjudicate non-falsifiable events that occurred outside the round. For in-round behavioral accusations that are debated out (rather than stopping the round), I reserve the right to evaluate these arguments using something other than offense-defense.
- If you give your final rebuttal without a computer I will give significantly higher speaker points. This is very important because I tend to give lower points than most people who inflated in the 2020's.
- I can’t believe this has to be said: please explicitly kick offcase positions you are not extending in the block/2NR. If you do not do this, the aff can leverage this on conditionality, or at the very least as a reason the world of the 2NR is incoherent.
- I attempt to line up arguments on my flow, rather than simply flowing straight down. Ideally these orderings will coincide, but oftentimes they do not, e.g. if you jump around, skip arguments, only flow off the doc, or otherwise mess up the numbering. When misalignments occur, I waste time trying to figure out where to flow you, and miss more of your arguments. Therefore, number/skip around at your own peril.
- Given the precarity of numbering schemes, I find it much easier to flow debaters who label the arguments they are answering, either explicitly ("2AC 4 is 'alt fails'") or via embedded clash ("1NC 4: yes China war")
- Rehighlightings must be read out loud. I will not evaluate anything “inserted” into the debate unless it is talked about in the speech.
Affirmatives
- Claiming durable fiat is a prerogative, but not an obligation, of the affirmative.
- I believe the aff gets to make permutations by default, regardless of framework or the nature of the 1AC advocacy. I am open to debates about what kinds of permutations are theoretically legitimate depending on the context, e.g. intrinsicness tests, competing methods, etc.
- Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies; as a result, they are not offense and do not require net benefits. All permutation texts must be read (they cannot simply be inserted in the doc).
Disadvantages and internal NBs
- I believe that DAs and internal net benefits should be opportunity costs to the plan, and that this produces the fairest and most educational form of debate. Pet peeve: It’s not an “intrinsic perm”, it’s an “intrinsicness perm”, because it tests whether the neg’s offense is intrinsic to the plan. It also makes no sense to say “intrinsicness is a voting issue”, if you wanted to defend the negative should get non-intrinsic offense, the voting issue would be ”intrinsicness perms are illegitimate.”
- Most agenda politics 1NCs are incomplete arguments, and more affirmative teams should leverage the holes. “Plan popular” is link defense, not offense. “Winners win” can be offense. However, it is also a label that gets slapped onto a litany of different internal links. Some (e.g. Singer 9) require the plan be unpopular to count as a win. Others (e.g. Hirsch 13, Waldman 20) don’t really care about the direction of the link. I genuinely can’t tell what Kane 21 wants.
Counterplans
- I am extremely persuaded by analytic common-sense solvency deficits to absurd advantage CPs.
- I am an unfavorable judge for most CPs that rely on banal definitions of "should = immediate and certain". This includes offsets, sunsets, recommendations, or your exciting new process strategy that somehow still reads Summers 94 in the 2NC. Assuming competent execution by both teams, the affirmative should almost always win my ballot. I only find myself voting for these CPs due to major aff execution errors, not because I find them in any way compelling.
- Textual competition is an utterly inane argument because that is not how words work in mainstream American English. Easy litmus test: if the plan says “do X” and the 2NR goes for DA/case, you are functionally going for “CP: don’t do X” which obviously represents an opportunity cost but would not be textually competitive. There are always better arguments for why a CP is illegitimate. The one exception is that this is sometimes a valid negative interpretation: for example, I can think of some topic-specific word PICs of terms of art that would be textually but not functionally competitive, with valid reasons why I should prefer certain language in the context of the aff's policymaking.
- Solvency deficits must be impacted and quantified. Corollary: you don’t need to tell me to use “sufficiency framing,” which is a three-steps-of-telephone mangling of the observation that CPs are tests of the plan’s necessity. This is like going to a DA and saying “evaluate this page using impact framing: if the negative impact outweighs the affirmative’s offense, vote negative.”
Kritiks
- I am bad for K's that rely on instrumentally calling everything a microaggression and saying fiat is bad just to win rounds. I am better for K debaters who believe their arguments to be true, have well-researched/innovative/nuanced arguments, and debate technically without blocks.
- Please be cognizant of your subject position as it relates to your arguments, and debate with the corresponding self-awareness.
- K vs. K rounds should maximize clash; these can be some of the most interesting positions to write.
- No one has ever explained to me how "frame subtraction" is different from a PIK.
- I think critical education is valuable and teams are unlikely to convince me otherwise. That being said, to quote Patrick Kennedy's philosophy, "I am interested in learning some things, but I am not interested in deciphering incoherent nonsense. I am not a nihilist, and I think 'things' are generally better than 'not things.' Ontology critiques are very interesting, for example, when articulated effectively. If you want to read the script of Dude, Where's My Car and claim it was an ontological critique, I don't think you want me to judge you. I guess you could win, but I think I hate you."
Topicality
- “Plantext in a vacuum” is incredibly silly because it implies I should reinterpret the words in the plan differently across different parts of the debate, which makes absolutely no sense as either a procedural locus or model of standard American English communication.
- For procedural impacts, I find clash and education more persuasive than fairness by default.
- I am unlikely to reject a team solely for being extra-topical.
- I evaluate “we meet” as a yes/no question. However, there are straightforward W/Ms and oblique W/Ms. Affirmatives depending on the latter would be advised to extend other offense in the 1AR. (Litmus test: suppose you were reading the negative’s interpretation as your own counter-interpretation. If the 2AC would include an additional line for “we meet our C/I” because it’s not blatantly obvious, then it’s an oblique W/M.)
Theory
- I will not vote on theory unless I flowed it while listening to your speech in real-time without reading the doc. Many people are insecure about their debate reputation and will vote on something they missed because a highly-ranked team made a fuss about it. I am not one of these people; if I end up sitting because I was the only one who missed a blip, so be it! You are welcome to not pref me. Online debaters especially, adjust accordingly.
- Please answer theory on the correct flows. These flow(s) should be present in the roadmap even if you are only answering theory and/or kicking (see above). Example: If the 2AC reads conditionality bad on the States CP and you answer it halfway through your K 2NC, whose roadmap did not include the states CP, that is not the correct flow.
- "C/I: we get what we did" is so annoying. I guess I'll vote for it, but like, why not just say conditionality is good??
Miscellany
- I think that teams often view conditionality as a blank check to make contradictory arguments, as long as they occur on different flows. I do not have substantive theoretical objections to this (assuming the neg is winning conditionality good, of course). However, debate is partly a persuasive activity, and when I hear a negative block consisting of diametrically opposed positions, I find it undermines the persuasiveness of the speech on both sides of the issue and becomes susceptible to 1AR strategic exploitation.
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
Dan Lingel Jesuit College Prep—Dallas
danlingel@gmail.com for email chain purposes (the new tabroom file share is actually the easiest and fastest--let's use it)
dlingel@jesuitcp.org for school contact
30 years of high school coaching/6 years of college coaching
I will either judge or help in the tabroom at over 20+ tournaments
"Be smart. Be strategic. Tell your story. And above all have fun and you shall be rewarded."--the conclusion of my 1990 NDT Judging Philosophy
****Top Level--read here first*****
I still really love to judge (its makes me a better coach) and I enjoy judging quick clear confident comparative passionate advocates that use qualified and structured argument and evidence to prove their strategic victory paths. I expect you to respect the game and the people that are playing it in every moment we are interacting.
I believe that framing a strategic victory path(s) and especially labeling arguments and paper flowing are crucial to success in debate and maybe life so I will start your speaker points absurdly high (just look at some of my early season points) and work my way up (look at the data) if you acknowledge and represent these elements: frame a strategic victory path, label your arguments (even use numbers and structure) and can demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate and that you used your flow to give your speeches and in particular demonstrate that you used your flow to actually clash with the other teams arguments directly.
Top 5 things that influence my decision making process:
1. Debate is first and foremost a persuasive and comparative activity that asks both teams to advocate something. Defend an advocacy/method and defend it with evidence and compare your advocacy/method to the advocacy of the other team. I understand that there are many ways to advocate and support your advocacy so be sure that you can defend your choices. I do prefer that the topic is an access point for your advocacy.
2. The negative should always have the option of defending the status quo (in other words, I assume the existence of some conditionality) unless argued otherwise.
3. The net benefits to a counterplan must be a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy (plan, both the plan and counterplan together, and/or the perm) not just be an internal net benefit/advantage to the counterplan.
4. I enjoy a good link narrative since it is a critical component of all arguments in the arsenal—everything starts with the link. I think the negative should mention the specifics of the affirmative plan in their link narratives. A good link narrative is a combination of evidence, analytical arguments, and narrative.
5. Be sure to assess the uniqueness of offensive arguments using the arguments in the debate and the status quo. This is an area that is often left for judge intervention and I will.
Topicality--I am not the biggest fan of topicality debates unless the interpretation is grounded by clear evidence and provides a version of the topic that will produce the best debates—I am still hopeful to find some this year. Generally speaking, I can be persuaded by potential for abuse arguments on topicality as they relate to other standards because I think in round abuse can be manufactured by a strategic negative team.
Kritiks and Framework--I believe that the links to the plan/advantages/representations, the impact narratives, the interaction between the alternative and the affirmative harm, and/or the role of the ballot should be discussed more in most kritik debates. The more case and topic specific your kritik the more I enjoy the debate. Framework should be about competing models of debate and/or provide a sequencing/decision calculus for the ballot process. Too much time is spent on framework in many debates without clear utility or relation to how I should use it to judge the debate.
Theory--being someone who has seen the evolution of all modern theory positions I enjoy a good nuanced and round specific theory debate especially given the proliferation of inconsistent advocacies. Theory should be used more to stop the proliferation of negative positions that do not engage or challenge the core questions of either the affirmative or the topic. For example, general PICs bad is usually an uphill battle but multiple conditional PICs without a solvency advocate could set up a theory victory path. The impact to theory is rarely debated beyond trite phrases and catch words and the implications for both sides of the game are rarely played out so often my default is to reject the argument not the team on theory issues when it could have been a vote against the team victory path.
Speaker points--If you are not preferring me on this issue you are using old data and old perceptions. It is easy to get me to give very high points. Here is the method to my madness on this so do not be deterred just adapt. I award speaker points based on the following: strategic and argumentative decision-making, the challenge presented by the context of the debate, technical proficiency, persuasive personal and argumentative style, your use of the cross examination periods, and the overall enjoyment level of your speeches and the debate. If you devalue the nature of the game or its players or choose not to engage in either asking or answering questions, your speaker points will be impacted. If you turn me into a mere information processor and encourage or force me to scroll vs flow then your points will be impacted. If you choose artificially created efficiency claims instead of making complete and persuasive arguments that relate to an actual victory path then your points will be impacted.
Logistical Notes--if you have not tried it yet I suggest using the file share/speech doc drop that is part of tabroom, if not than an email chain. I feel that each team should have accurate and equal access to the evidence that is read in the debate. I have noticed several things that worry me in debates. People have stopped flowing and paying attention to the flow and line-by-line which is really impacting my decision making; people are exchanging more evidence than is actually being read without concern for the other team, people are under highlighting their evidence and "making cards" out of large amounts of text, and the amount of prep time taken exchanging the information is becoming excessive. I reserve the right to request a copy of all things exchanged as verification. If three cards or less are being read in the speech then it is more than ok that the exchange in evidence occur after the speech.
Finale--I believe in the value of debate as the greatest pedagogical tool on the planet. Reaching the highest levels of debate requires mastery of arguments from many disciplines including communication, argumentation, politics, philosophy, economics, and sociology to name a just a few. The organizational, research, persuasion and critical thinking skills are sought by every would-be admission counselor and employer. Throw in the competitive part and you have one wicked game. I have spent over thirty years playing it at every level and from every angle and I try to make myself a better player everyday and through every interaction I have. I think that you can learn from everyone in the activity how to play the debate game better. The world needs debate and advocates/policymakers more now than at any other point in history. I believe that the debates that we have now can and will influence real people and institutions now and in the future—empirically it has happened. I believe that this passion influences how I coach and judge debates.
I am a parent judge, so please do not spread. Please explain each argument logically and clearly. I judge based on how logical and convincing your argument and/or evidence is. Please be respectful toward teammates, opponents, and judges.
tldr - do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; topic-specific research is good; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.
--
about me:
she/her
i coach policy debate at damien-st. lucy's
--
My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments. I am good for teams that do topic research and not the best for teams whose final rebuttals sound like they could be given on any topic/against any strategy.
--
Topic Knowledge: I don't teach at camp but I do keep up with the topic. I'm involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research. My topic knowledge for events that aren't policy debate is zero, but I'll rarely be judging these events anyway.
--
email chains:
please add both
--
non-negotiables:
1 - speech times - constructive are 8 minutes, rebuttals are 5, each partner must give one constructive and one rebuttal, cx cannot be transferred to prep.
2 - evidence ethics is not a case neg - will not vote on it unless you can prove a reasonable/good-faith attempt to contact the other team prior to the round.
3 - clipping requires proof by the accusing team or me noticing it. i'll vote on it with no recording if i notice it.
4 - i will not evaluate out-of-round events. this means no arguments about pref sheets, personal beef, etc. i will evaluate disclosure arguments.
--
i will not flow from the speech doc.
i will only open speech docs in the middle of a debate for the following purposes:
1 - checking for clipping (i'll do this intermittently throughout the debate)
2 - to look at something that was emailed out and flagged as necessary for my understanding of the debate (rehighlighted evidence, disclosure screenshot, chart that's part of a card, perm text with certain words struck out, etc)
i will download speech docs at the end of the debate to read all relevant evidence prior to submitting my ballot
--
flowing: it is good and teams should do it
stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:) you must show me your flows before i enter the ballot!!
--
Some general notes:
Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve theory arguments about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate.
Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. Going fast is fine, being unclear is not. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.
Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate is still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.
Disclose or lose. Previously read positions must be on opencaselist. New positions do not need to be disclosed. "I do not have to disclose" is a losing argument in front of me 100% of the time.
Evidence -- it matters and I'll read it. Judge instruction is still a thing here. Don't just say "read this card" and not tell me why. Ev comparison is good. Cutting good cards is good. Failing to do one or both of those things leaves me to interpret your bad cards in whatever way I want -- that's likely to not be good. The state of evidence quality these days is an actual crime scene. If you read ev that is better than the national-circuit average, I will be so happy and your points will reflect that.
Technical debating matters.I have opinions about what arguments in debate are better/worse. I think things like the fiat k and process counterplans probably produce less in-depth and educational debates than positions that require large amounts of topic research. I've still voted for these positions when the team reading these arguments executes a technical win. This means that you should not be too stressed about my predispositions -- just win the debate and you'll be fine!
--
Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):
--
Case:
I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.
Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.
2ac add-ons must be coherent in the speech they are presented. You don't get to turn a random card on a random sheet into an add-on in the 2ar.
--
Planless affs:
I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.
You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.
I dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have some kind of relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.
I think framework is true but I will do my best to evaluate your arguments fairly.It is easier to win against framework when affirmative teams explain the warrants for their arguments and don't presuppose that I immediately agree with the warrants behind their impact turns to framework.
--
T/framework vs planless affs:
In a 100% evenly debated round, I am better for the neg. However, either team/side can win my ballot by doing better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:
The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good.
I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness. I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponent's strategy.
I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.
--
Theory:
Theory arguments other than conditionality are likely not a reason to reject the team. It will be difficult to change my mind on this.
Theory arguments must have warrants in the speech in which they are presented. Most 2ac theory arguments I've seen don't meet this standard.
Conditionality is an uphill battle in front of me. If the 2ac contained warrants + the block dropped the argument entirely, I would vote aff on conditionality, but in any other scenario, the aff team should likely not go for conditionality.
Please weigh! Many theory debates feel irresolvable without intervention because each team only extends their offense but does not interact with the other team's offense.
--
Topicality (not framework):
I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are very helpful.
Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.
"Plans bad" is pretty close to a nonstarter in front of me (this is more of a thing in LD I think).
--
Kritiks (neg):
I am best for K teams that engage with the affirmative, do line-by,line, and read links that prove that the aff is a bad idea. Good k debating is good case debating!
I am absolutely terrible for K teams that don't debate the case. Block soup = bad.
I vote for K teams often when they are technical and make smart big-picture arguments and demonstrate topic knowledge. I vote against K teams when they do ... not that!
In general, clash-avoidant K strategies are bad, K strategies that involve case debating are good.
--
Disads:
Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.
--
Counterplans:
I don't have strong ideological biases about counterplan theory other than that condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.
No judge kick. Make a choice!
Competition debates have largely become debates where teams read a ton of evidence and explain none of it. Please explain your competition evidence and I will be fine! I'll read cards after the debate, but would prefer that you instruct me on what to do with those cards.
--
Speaker points:
Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.
I try to give points as follows:
30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive
29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots
29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined
28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix
28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round
27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors
27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors
26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament
25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.
Extra points for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.
Minus points for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.
--
Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:
-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational
-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc
-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument
-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such
-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc
-"tricks"
-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist
-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar
-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter
-new affs bad
--
Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:
-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic
-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies
-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate
-"role of the ballot"
-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate
-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr
--
if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.
Top shelf:
Pronouns are she/her
Just call me Alyssa or ALB - do not call me judge and dear debate Lord do not call me ma'am.
RE: Truf's flowing off the doc post - times I look at the doc:
-I typically will read the plan text and CP texts during the round in the sense that if I mis flow those we are all kinda cooked. I spot check for clipping on cards every once in a while. If there is an ornate perm text I will check that during the debate. If a specific piece of evidence is called into question during CX or during a speech I may check that piece of ev during CX or during prep. Besides that I will not under any circumstances flow off the doc. If you are unclear and I therefore do not understand your argument I could not expect your opponents to and therefore I will not vote for you.
Email chains: SonomaCardsCardsCards@gmail.com AND alyssa.lucas-bolin@sonomaacademy.org - I strongly prefer email chains over speech drop etc.
I deleted most of my paradigm
...Because I have run into way way way too many situations where people wildly misinterpret my paradigm and it leads to a rather miserable situation (mostly for myself.)
Debate well and we'll figure it out.
I'd prefer you talk about the topic and that your affirmative be in the direction of the topic. I could not possibly care less if that is via policy debate or K debate. False divide yada yada. Both policy teams and K teams are guilty of not actually talking about the topic and I am judging ALL of you.
Speed is fine but I need clear distinction between arguments and I need you to build up your speed for the first 10 seconds.
Tag team is fine but I'd prefer that the designated partner handle most of the cross ex - only intervene if it is absolutely necessary. I am an educator and would prefer to see each student develop their skill set.
Stop stealing prep.
Please make as many T Swift references as possible.
Have solvency advocates - plz plz plz don't read a cardless CP :(
Heavy stuff:
*No touching. Handshakes after the debate = fine but that is it.
*I am not the right judge for call outs of specific debate community members
*I am a mandatory reporter. Keep that in mind if you are reading any type of personal narrative etc in a debate. A mandatory reporter just means that if you tell me something about experiencing violence etc that I have to tell the authorities.
*I care about you and your debate but I am not your debate mommy. I am going to give you direct feedback after the debate. I won't be cruel but I'm also not a sugar coater. It takes some people off guard because they may be expecting me to coddle them. It's just not my personality - I deeply care about your debate career and want you to do your best. I also am just very passionate about arguments. If you're feeling like I'm being a little intense just Shake It Off (Lauren Ivey.)
*Clipping = zero points and a hot L. Clarity to the point of non-comprehension that causes a clipping challenge constitutes clipping.
*I am more than fine with you post rounding as long as you keep it respectful. I would genuinely prefer you understand my decision than walk out frustrated because that doesn't help you win the next time. Bring it on (within reason). I'm back in the ring baby.
Let's have a throwdown!!! If you're reading this before a round I am excited to see what you have to offer.
I prefer moderate speed. I vote for clear speaking and convincing arguments.
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.
please add to the email chain:
gbsdebate2024@gmail.com
HS Debate: 18-22 (4 years) -- Walter Payton WM
College Debate: 23 (1 year) -- Michigan MS
Top
Judging record is more informative than judging opinions.
How I Decide Rounds
I go through parts of the debate in this order, and stop at one if it is sufficient for me to not need to go further.
1. The flow.
This aspect is all tech, no truth. As far as I can tell, I am easily among the most tech-oriented debaters/judges in debate right now. I imagine I'd pull the trigger on a small technical concession much more readily than many other judges. Similarly, I think there are probably far more low point wins than are actually given out. The flow is where my analysis will end for almost all crushes and many debates that are semi-close but not that that close. I have switched to flowing on computer because back-to-back analytics were unflowable for me on paper. I still have no qualms voting you down on an argument I didn't flow in a speech because you were spreading through blocks even if it truly had been there, but hopefully flowing on computer will make this less of an issue.
2. Evidence
Mixture of tech and truth (truer args have better ev, but better card cutters/researchers will put out better ev). I get to this level of analysis in two circumstances: either a) I'm told to read cards or evidence quality is centered in the debate or b) despite not being told to read ev, the flow is too close to vote on alone. This is where most good, close debates will end.
3. Minor Intervention
Tech guided by truth. If I still can't comfortably decide a round based on ev and flow, I'll do things like give more weight to evidence quality despite not being told to by the debaters, look for potential cross-apps, or try to find something like that to decide a round without having to fully insert my opinion. This is where most bad debates without enough judge instruction will end.
4. Major Intervention
All truth. This is where bad debates with no clash and no judge instruction will end.
Biases
I hope to use the above steps consistently irregardless of what args are in front of me, and I think judges who are ideologically predisposed for or against a certain argument or style are annoying. I hope these biases won't affect my decisions, but the way someone has debated/coached will inevitably affect their judging in some way, so following is a list of biases based on how I've debated:
1. Policy bias. I'm almost certainly better for the K than you think (especially Ks on the NEG), and certainly better for it than my debating record would suggest; cross-apply all the tech first stuff here -- more than happy to vote on some small conceded disad to a NEG framework model if competently extended. This bias is mainly limited to thinking about these debates differently from how primarily K debaters would since I've almost always been on the policy side of policy v K debates.
2. 2N bias. This is small and to be honest could help the AFF more than it helps the NEG because I'm somewhat lenient for 1ARs in terms of if I count an extension to be an argument. I think structural AFF side bias (first and last speech) is probably true in theory but tech determines if I think that's true when judging. Overall I don't expect this to affect my judging very much. Probably one of the most 50/50 judges on condo. Default to judge kick.
3. "Small School" bias. For the most part I think people complaining about being from a "small school" would be better off spending the time they spend talking about it cutting cards, and if you do that you'll be just as competitive as your peer from a big school. However, the one area where I think there is truly a difference in schools is that I think a sizeable majority of judges are likely to (obviously subconsciously) factor school's/team's rep into their decision in close debates. I hate this and have a bit of a chip on my shoulder because of it. If debate rounds could be judged blindly I'd be all for it. I obviously won't hack for "small schools" or against "big schools," but when I was doing prefs late in my career I frequently wondered if a judge who would be good for me in most debates might be bad for me in those few key debates where I was hitting a team with more rep. I am not one of those judges.
4. Good argument bias. This is maybe too obvious to warrant saying. I'll vote on tricks and dropped ASPEC or whatever (all the flow first stuff applies for annoying args as well) but obviously in a close debate find it easier to vote for an argument with good ev, deep defenses, well-explained warrants, etc., and will likely award higher speaks in those kinds of debates.
Stuff I Frequently Wondered About Judges
-- What framework impact? --
I almost always went for fairness and consider it the most strategic, however I know I was considerably worse going for non-fairness impacts when I tried to adapt to judges, so I would just do whatever you like best.
.
-- Can I go for the K/K AFF? --
Yes.
.
-- How many condo? --
Don't care. If you lose condo you'll lose and if you win condo you'll win, the amount you read probably won't end up mattering past a good 2A contextualizing their interp to the round.
.
-- Do advantage counterplans need solvency advocates? --
Don't care.
.
-- 1NC construction/do they care about a ton of off? --
Don't care. Do whatever.
.
-- Insert rehighlightings? --
Fine.
.
-- Plan text in a vacuum? --
Fine.
.
-- Is going for theory hopeless? --
No.
.
-- If they drop condo or aspec or it's a crush etc do I have to fill the whole 2NR/2AR? --
No.
.
Speaks
Mean speaks is 28.5, standard deviation is .4, so two-thirds of debaters will be from 28.1-28.9, 95% will be from 27.7 to 29.3, and essentially all will be from 27.3 to 29.7.
Updated Jan 11, 2025
Tracy McFarland
Jesuit College Prep - for a long while; back in the day undergrad debate - Baylor U
Please use jcpdebate@gmail.com for speech docs. I do want to be in the email chain.
However, I don't check that email a lot while not at tournaments - so if you need to reach me not at a tournament, feel free to email me at tmcfarland@jesuitcp.org
New update for post-Inauguration world:
Trump's presidency has radically altered how the government works. You should account for this in your debates - whether its K or policy - both with smart arguments and with evidence. Yes, fiat is a thing - it's probably even be durable - but that doesn't mean that you get to fiat over problems with your DA or advantage internal links -- that means that even if you win a link, the Squo may have ruined the rest of the argument.
Other stuff that I didn't change
Clash - it's good - which means you need to flow and not script your speeches. using blocks = good - placing them where they belong on the LBL = good. LBL with some clear references to where you're at = good. Line by line isn't answer the previous speech in order - it's about grounding the debate in the 2ac on off case, 1nc on case.
Dates and "real world" matter - andI am persuaded by teams that call out other teams based on their evidence quality, author quals, lack of highlighting (meaning they read little of the evidence).
Process CPs and other neg trickeration - I get it. I do, however, think that the aff can make compelling arguments about why the process doesn't result in the aff and/or that the prioritization of the process is a bad thing. A discussion of what normal means is by the aff and neg would also help both sides to explain how the CP is competitive.
DAs - it's possible to win zero risk that the DA is an opportunity cost to the aff. Specific to agenda and elections - the aff can make compelling no link and non-unique arguments. The direction of the link doesn't influence uniqueness on these DAs. And, yes, even in a world of a CP Affs could win zero risk of agenda politics or elections. The aff should make arguments - even without evidence - that the link needs to be specific, the internal link needs to be about specific voting blocks in sufficient swing states to shift the electoral college.
Ks - specific links are good. You should have a sense on the aff and the neg what FW is going to get you in a debate -- too often that FW debate really just ends up two ships passing in the night.
K affs - should be tied to the topic in some way. If they aren't, then neg args with topical versions or ways to access the education the K aff offers through the resolution are usually persuasive to me. The neg can win that the TVA solves sufficient access to the lit. If the aff has a K of the topic, that's great offense that negs need to have an answer. I don't think that debate is just a game. Its a competitive activity that does shape our political subjectivity. And, despite all that, I often vote aff on these debates - so negs should make sure that they are engaging why their model creates better skills than the affs.
T - if you have a good violation and reasons why an aff should be excluded, by all means read it. If you are just reading it as a "time suck" then, meh, read more substance. And, an argument that ends in -spec is usually an uphill battle unless it's clever [this cleverness standard does preclude generally a- and o-]
Impact turns - topic specific one = good; generic ones - more meh
New affs are good - and don't need to be disclosed before a debate if it's truly the very first time that someone at your school has read the argument. But new affs may justify theoretically sketchy args by the neg - you can integrate that into the theory debate, you don't need a new affs bad 1nc arg to do that.
Be nice to each other - it's possible to be competitive without being overly sassy.
Modality matters - when you are debating in person, remember that people can hear you talk to your partner and you should have a line of sight with the judge. If you are online, make sure that your camera is on when possible to create some engagement with the judge.
My email is lochlandm@berkeley.edu
I am a 1st year at UC Berkeley. I am new to judging, but I did 3 years of debate in HS, primarily debating Parli but have 2 years of Policy experience in junior/senior year as a socal traditional debater.
The most important thing for me as a judge is seeing line-by-line debating instead of relying upon pre-written blocks. Drops happen and that is debate, but what I'd most hate to see are debaters just reading off their laptops instead of making compelling indicts of their opponents' arguments off the top of their heads. Debate requires some reaction to unexpected things but I think that it enhances critical thinking and research skills.
tl;dr
Clarity > speed -- please speak such that so I can understand
Over explaining > under explaining
Do lbl (note what you are rebutting) and impact calc. Write my ballot for me.
6 off is more than enough
Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. It’s an auto-loss if you do.
Over-adapting to my argument predispositions is likely to do you more harm than good. Run what you are good at as long as it doesn’t offend people.
CP/DAs
Impact calculus and Turns case/Turns the DA near the top, please. These debates are won and lost with who is doing the most comparison. Don't just extend arguments and expect me to clean it up for you.
T
I’ve ran T’s before. Just make sure your violation is good.
If the T violation is ridiculous, I will be more persuaded by aff reasonability claims and vice versa.
I know many debaters struggle with impact comparison when the impacts are fairness, education, etc, but that doesn’t make impact calc less important.
Theory
Theory debates are not my thing. Don’t run theory unless there is real abuse, like if the 1NC is 10 off and the aff reads condo. That being said if you drop it you will lose.
Theory as a time-suck is annoying.
I do not default to judge kick, but can be persuaded otherwise
Credit to Katherine Buckman for most this.
General
Huntington Park '24
CSULB '28
LAMDL x UDL 4eva <3
Currently coaching for Huntington Park and debating for csulb.
Yes, Add me to the Email Chain: dmedina1921@gmail.com
Have done competitive debate for around three years now and ongoing. I'm conformable with mostly every argument so feel free to get creative and do what you do best.
Shout-out to Tania Vasquez, Jay-Z Flores, Curtis Ortega, Desiree Delgadillo, and LAMDL! Shoutout Desiree Delgadillo 3rd place speaker at NAUDL!! my goat 30 speaks automatic - Delmy (Shoutout UC Davis)
TLDR
I'm a freshman in college so I am still developing my thoughts on debate as an activity. Therefore you do you and I will try my best to evaluate it. So persuade me but you don't need to be a bigot to do so.
Debates will be won based on the flow. I will evaluate arguments based off offense defense and will evaluate technical concessions prior to any other arguments. Though please do explain why dropped arguments matter otherwise other arguments potentially O/W or out frame any dropped argument that isn't explained in depth, so evidence comparison and impact calculus is very important. I don't mind what you read but how you read it so extend your claims and warrants for your evidence, do judge instruction, and comparison of evidence will get you the highest of speaks. I am mostly a K debater but am down for anything policy related like CP, DA's, and T.
The easiest way to get my ballot is to tell me where, why, and how I'm voting for you by making big picture overviews/framing offensive arguments that outweigh or resolve arguments that are being made in the round.
Would prefer my name instead of "judge". It feels boring/funny when people say it cuz like I'm 19 idky I should be called "judge" lol.
Little iffy on out of round things. But if something is definitely wrong like someone's wiki being blatantly sexist and problematic I will probably just be like welp gg's. But other than that I would prefer not to make personal judgements on people cuz I mean I am a freshman in college lol.
Pref Guide
1. K v K
2. K v T
3. K v Policy
4. Policy v Policy
5. High Theory v High Theory
Things I like when I watch debates:
For KvK debates, I love them. I will be extremely generous with speaks if both teams have done prior prep and are deeply engaged in the literature and the crux of the aff and are ready to engage in an in-depth debate about critical scholarship.
Likewise, I enjoy policy teams who will do the same against K teams and explain how their literature isn't mutually exclusive with policy-making on the level of form and content. This is way better than spamming state good generics/presumption go brrr on the solvency level of debate against k aff's.
Overall, I just wanna see the best strategy you can produce and the more specific a strategy the better imo.
LD
Not super familiar with the LD language or norms, so do over explain. Especially if you find yourself thinking that a strategy might be interesting to run in front of a first year out from policy that has not heard of it lol.
Anything is fine, just explain theory if that's your go too and why it outweighs and is an A-priority
Phil is good - explain why your theoretical framework must come first
Tricks are ok but must outweigh an argument or be a filter for some sort of impact framing
Misc.
Have fun, be petty but not mean.
If you are from an underfunded UDL school and have questions you can send them to the same email I use for email chains above.
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.
First of all, good on you for giving up your weekend to do something really hard in order to have a better shot at college or to better yourself intellectually (unless you just extremely love debate, lol)!
Note for GGSA: Please no spreading!
Lowell High School '24
UC Berkeley '28
Please put these emails on the chain: lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com and llc39354@berkeley.edu.
TLDR: I judge like most circuit judges. I have zero topic knowledge and hate extremely complicated arguments (especially complex Ks). Debate is hard, heated, and downright monotonous at times, so please be respectful of everyone.
Hello! My name is Win and I do not debate anymore, but loved my time (for the most part) while I did it! My views reflect those of the following people who all put up with my shenanigans and who I am so grateful to have met: my previous main debate partner,Eloise So, my senior year debate partner,Ethan Lee, my watchful, wise, and whimsical coach,Debnil Sur, and my equally watchful, wise, and whimsical debate directors, Jessie Satovsky and Taylor Tsan. Please refer to the above paradigms if you want more specific information about my judging style than what is covered below.
Specific stuff (shamelessly stolen from Taylor Tsan's paradigm with some modifications):
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 think debate is both an educational space and a competitive game, so I will be more persuaded by the model that maximizes its benefits for debaters and creates the most level playing field for both sides. That being said, PLEASE try to collapse to either fairness or education in the 2NR/2AR.
Counterplans: Unlimited condo is good. 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. Tricks are fine (I ran them lol), but don't make them overly complex.
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
Misc.
I won't read evidence at the end of the debate unless you 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. With that said, there is a clear difference between going for certain args and being actively violent in round, and I have zero tolerance for the latter.
Be nice, don't cheat, and have fun!
-----------------------------------------
SPEAKS BOUNTIES
-----------------------------------------
WANTED: Laughter
REWARD: 0.3 speaks
WANTED: Smile with teeth
REWARD: 0.2 speaks
WANTED: Smile without teeth
REWARD: 0.1 speaks
-----------------------------------------
Each bounty is renewable once a round, once per person, and needs to happen during cx or a speech. Please try to keep track of if I have done any of the above (I will try to also keep track, but I can be forgetful. Please don't gaslight me -_-
General Experience:I debated for Bellarmine College Prep on the national circuit for 4 years as a 1A/2N, graduated in 2016. During my senior year, I read a soft left affirmative (and for my other years read mostly big stick policy affirmatives), and went for anything ranging from Politics/CP to psychosecurity on the neg.
I currently work in tech as a software engineer, and help run the policy team at Sacred Heart Cathedral Prep in my free time.
Debate paradigms I align with: Anirudh Prabhu, Johny Hong, Debnil Sur.
I try to flow without looking at speech docs, so please go a little bit slower on analytics OR use hard numbering to help me organize my flow. I don't really read evidence, and as much as possible try to default to how you're explaining the evidence in round.
Framework/K Affs / K on the Neg:
I like K affs, and I am very receptive to teams running K's on the neg as well. However, I also think that framework/T is the best strategic option vs these kinds of arguments. Please debate what you do best, and I'll do my best to respect the work that you have put into the activity.
Don't have a super strong preference for clash or fairness.
Generally speaking, if you're going to go for fairness, you must win significant defense to the Aff method and solvency for the ballot, paired with defensive arguments about debate not shaping subjectivity. Clash is best used as an internal link turn to aff offense. Fairness is a nebulous and small impact, but the tradeoff is that you can play better defense to aff claims and lower the stakes of an individual round.
On the neg, I strongly prefer the 2NR to either go for framework and moot the 1ac, OR go for K proper and win root cause/ alt as a floating PIK, K turns case, etc. 2NR's that don't make a strategic choice between the two will find themselves spread too thin imo unless you have Rafael Pierry efficiency.
Read whatever you feel most comfortable with, I'm somewhat familiar with most of the generic K's that were read on the circuit during my time (Pessimism, Security, etc.) but I'm not as familiar with most of postmodern theory (Baudrillard, Deleuze, etc.) I usually evaluate K debates on framework first, then go to the rest of K proper, so make sure to be making clear your interpretation of what debates should be like, especially when you get into K vs. Plan Framework debates. (Do I weigh the plan vs. the real world representations?)
T: I default to competing interpretations. Make sure you're weighing impacts, and not just leaving me to decide whether or not fairness matters more than education at the end of the debate.
Theory: I usually default to reject the argument not the team unless you tell me explicitly so. I'm all for you going for theory, just make sure you impact your voters and explain to me why it's a reason to reject the team. Make sure you're actually giving me an interpretation of what debate looks like, and why reading multiple conditional advocacies/whatever is a reason to vote neg/aff. I'm less sympathetic to 5 seconds of blippy theory blown up in the rebuttal speeches.
CP: I evaluate CP's through comparison of net benefits vs. solvency deficits. I usually lean neg on neg fiat, but I'll vote on any CP theory you throw at me. (50 State actor bad, etc, etc.) I'll judge kick at the end unless otherwise told to do so.
DA: I'm fine with all disads. Make sure you make your turns case/outweigh case stuff clear at the top, so that I know how to evaluate it at the end of the debate. I'm perfectly fine with analytics if a DA is particularly silly, or if you know their evidence doesn't say what you think it says. Link usually controls uniqueness.
If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me at gnilson314@gmail.com
Tldr: top 5 things to know (applies to any debate event you do in front of me)
-
policy coach, tech > truth, tabula rasa critic of argument - details below but basically this means i'm tabula rasa as long as you have complete claim-warrant-impact arguments, and i place a premium on logical analytical work, evidence comparison, and impact comparison; importantly, quality logical analysis can easily beat subpar evidence
-
be excellent to each other - "Keanu Reeves & Alex Winter explain "Be Excellent to Each Other" ": this video gets the spirit right (minus Alex Winter's gendered language)
-
doing your own style = good & respected (i'm just as happy in a stock issues or case / DA round as in a circuity policy or K round as long as there's clear clash, weighing, & analysis, not just a card & block war)
-
in national circuit style, i prefer the depth and clarity of 80% of toc style speed and fewer off [much happier with the depth in a 1-4-ish off situation] rather than full fast
-
please no blippy unwarranted args - esp not for theory (you need claim-warrant-impact for it to be a voting issue - and reasoning for the voting issue when you first assert it's a voter)
everything below this line mainly includes background info, advice, and event-specific predispositions which you can override w/ skillful debating as long as you focus on the basic ideas above!
**************************************************************************************************
about you:
thank you for being here and for your commitment to speech & debate! i respect your work in this life-changing activity that builds essential life skills and shares important messages and advocacies. please communicate with me if you need any sort of support or accommodation during the round!
about me:
-
she/her...and you can call me Michaela; michaelanorthrop@gmail.com – put me on the chain
-
current debate & speech coach at Archbishop Mitty High School in San Jose
-
policy: policy debate on a spectrum from slow lay judge format to fast circuit style nearly every year since 1999 but have focused less on circuit style the last few years - more lay & semi-fast / mixed pool debate for regional / state & nsda / cat nats
-
former head coach with experience coaching all speech & debate events
-
competed in hs & college speech & debate (policy, extemp, congress, duo, oratory, & parli) in the late 1990s
-
tabroom experience is deceptive; i normally judge 50+ practice rounds a year
-
coaching experience:
-
2000-2003 - head speech and debate coach at Lynbrook H.S. in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments)
-
2003-2006 - head speech and debate coach from at Chantilly H.S. in the Washington D.C. metro (D.C. metro and some national circuit tournaments)
-
2006-2008 - assistant coach for policy debate at Wayzata H.S. in Minnesota & Twin River (formerly Henry Sibley) H.S. (Minnesota and some national circuit tournaments)
-
2015-2024- policy & impromptu coach at Leland High School in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments) + assistance for other events as needed
-
2024-present - debate & speech coach at Archbishop Mitty
SPEAKER POINTS
-
i adjust to a particular tournament’s level of challenge and objectives; in lay local debate, i defer to the adaptation goals of that community and adjust points accordingly; on the national circuit, i hold the line more on substance and relative skill in the pool
-
speaks are earned by a combo of:
-
style (art, creativity, accessibility, memorability, ethos/pathos/logos balance)
-
+ substance (tech, strategy, demonstrating knowledge and control of the flow + clearly writing my ballot)
-
+ adaptation (i think this shows your ability to pave a way to persuasion and willingness to make a speech act connect; as a critic of argument focused on education, to me that seems like part of the mission; you make a clear effort to reach out to my understanding of and goals for debate; it’s flagged; it’s obvious; bonus points in paneled prelim round situations if i can tell you're doing this for the whole panel)
-
the College Debate Ratings speaker point scale from a few years ago is a good guide for toc-qualifying tournaments but here i overlay my personal rubric so you see more of what i’m looking for per level:
-
29.7+ – exceptional; top few speakers; you’ve blown me away in style + substance + adaptation
-
29.5-29.6 – should be top 10 speakers; the force is strong with you across style + substance + adaptation
-
29.3-29.4 – still high points for top 10 speakers; very strong in at least one subset of style + substance + adaptation and other areas are still high
-
29.1-29.2 – median for top 10 speakers; by here, you may not have the full package of style + substance + adaptation but you are excellent in at least some of those areas
-
28.8-29.0 – roughly 75th percentile at the tournament; bubble territory; i see a bright spark in at least one of the areas of style + substance + adaptation but the breadth isn’t there yet / today
-
28.5-28.7 – roughly 50th percentile at the tournament; emerging strengths in style + substance + adaptation but some clear deficits in skills or effort across the areas
-
28.3-28.4 – roughly 25th percentile at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation; clearly uneven performance
-
28.0-28.3 – roughly 10th percentile speaker at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation
-
27.5-27.9 – having a tough day / round or looking early in your journey for style + substance + adaptation; some skills which seem basic for the tournament mission aren’t clear yet
MOST GENERAL PARADIGM FOR ANY DEBATE EVENT: (see below for more specific paradigms for Policy, LD, PF, Parli, and Speech - it’s a lot more specific below)
i’m a critic of argument open to most arguments (exceptions below in terms of arguments which marginalize or create harm).
If you’re unfamiliar with “critic of argument” as a paradigm, think of me as a tabula rasa judge who is:
-
tech > truth, as long as arguments have a claim-warrant-impact
-
open to whatever role of the judge / ballot you want to set up...but i first view myself as an educator seeking the outcome of advocacy skills and informed activism in / beyond the debate space
-
will default to the best-warranted logical argumentation (analysis and judge direction held in nearly equal weight with strong evidence) and the best control of comparative impacting throughout the debate (not just in final rebuttals).
-
evidence quality + analysis quality instead of evidence>analysis:
-
Arguments like “I read evidence, so you must prefer it over a high school debater’s analysis” aren't persuasive for a critic of argument. Reading evidence alone doesn't trump analysis or judge direction. Instead, the quality and quantity of warrants - and the comparisons of these warrants - will be persuasive.
-
Contextualized analytics with clear logical warrants / reasoning (empirics, cause and effect, etc.) easily beat evidence missing clear warranting other than having a non-impressive source.
-
Flagging fallacies and a lack of warrants in opponents’ arguments moves you up the believability spectrum.
-
Source quality is persuasive as a separate metric.
5. most impressed by these things (highly rewarded with speaks):
-
strategic thinking in speeches and cx
-
in-depth comparison of evidence (source quality, internal analysis, warrants);
-
detailed, clearly substantiated analytics;
-
clear advocacy (applies to condo / dispo as much as any other advocacy - tell me what this advocacy means and why it's good);
-
cross-examination as an art form which i'm flowing and applying highly to speaks and then to the round if you apply cx concessions during speeches;
-
a good balance of ethos, logos, and pathos
-
comparative overviews BEFORE FINAL REBUTTALS (starting in the 2ac) telling me your path to the ballot via the avenues above, the flow, and clear impact calculus (saving all your impact comparisons for the final rebuttals seems unfair and poorly develops the debate)
General Preferences Across Debate Formats:
-
rate / speed: speed is fine but needs to be clear; no predisposition for or against a rate as long as it's clear but I'm happiest and doing the best processing and evaluation when debaters choose a *moderately* fast rate. Please include the whole panel’s preferences when deciding a rate. If you're not clearly communicating (too fast, not enough articulation or separation of words, etc.), I'll indicate that once by typing "clear" in the chat or in person by saying "clear." If you don't change and i've already indicated an issue, don't expect me to flow.
-
Debate needs to be a safe space for all participants. Be kind. We're all here to learn and grow. Ad hominem, rudeness, and exclusionary behavior are unacceptable. At a minimum, you will lose speaker points. Personal attacks or marginalizing behavior - whether careless or intentional - which are repeated without apology after an objection is raised (by myself or anyone else in the room) may also be grounds for a loss, especially (but not only) if your opponents raise the issue.
-
i won’t vote on an individual's behavior *outside* my ability to observe it within the round.
POLICY DEBATE ADVICE / PREFERENCES (remember it’s all up for debate / persuasion)
-
Number of off case / depth vs. breadth in arguments & cards: as a critic of argument who values argument development, you'll fare better with me in a 1-4 off round than a 5+ off round. i'd much rather see a few well-developed arguments. i'd rather hear more internal analysis in a smaller set of quality cards than lots of cards highlighted down to bare bones.
-
CX: love it, pay attention to it, actually flowing it for reference, but waiting to hear you integrate it in speeches to factor it in beyond speaker points and general credibility
-
Overviews: love them! impact calc and a clear lens for the round at the top of a speech and / or on top of the core issues is strategic starting in the 2ac and in most subsequent speeches. (just make sure the line by line is developed enough to substantiate this work!)
-
Clash rounds: i don't have a strong default for sequencing, so please argue what level of impact / implication comes first and why.
-
Theory: enjoy it but cannot be blipped - i don’t vote on tagline theory debates, even if conceded; limited condo (reasonable # for any access requests by opponents) is probably good, as long as it doesn't force the aff into contradictory advocacies
-
no automatic judge kick for cps: waiting for the neg to pick an advocacy and i’d prefer it by the neg block
- T / framework:
-
- i default to competing interpretations / models with an eye on education unless given another method of evaluation
-
please offer distinct, warranted standards and voters, case lists, and descriptions of the quality of debate and other impacts those case lists create, plus the *importance* of the ground you've lost; no preference for potential abuse vs. in-round abuse arguments
-
a clean articulation of a counter-interp that hones in on one impact turn and how the counter-interp solves it is often pretty persuasive
-
Framework specifically: what does your model of debate do? why is it better? both sides can provide a lot of clarity by throwing down on a TVA and what it does and doesn't resolve.
-
perfectly willing to vote on old school T metrics like jurisdiction and justification if you tell me reasons that would be good in the debate space or in life; i’ve loved T debates forever including reading 1980s backfiles so do with that what you will…T theory is cool!
-
Case debate - yes! offense is great but case defense can also be very helpful in the overall decision (assigning relative risk). yes, i will vote on presumption (if you tell me how & why i should)
-
K affs and K v K: looking for a clear thesis, connection to the resolution, clear method or solvency, and a clear role of the judge and ballot; though i'm open to hearing K v K rounds, i wouldn't call them my wheelhouse. don’t assume i know your lit and give me strong sequencing arguments, please!
-
Performance: be very specific in telling me how to evaluate it with the role of the ballot and judge; explain how your performance is uniquely valuable and effective
-
Disads: yes zero risk exists; i heavily lean towards link strength + analysis ; love to hear about how the world of the disad implicates case claims and solvency; well-explained uniqueness + link specificity > long uniqueness walls & link walls
-
Ks: excited to hear Ks but i'm not steeped in high theory lit, so you need to use overviews and analysis to develop those; the link story and overall position need to be clear, as well as your role of the judge & role of the ballot; please contextualize specific links to case / speech acts instead of relying on generic links alone; please separate sections (framework / perm / links / implications / alt); also, alt specificity matters and it's frustrating and unfair when debaters are evasive about their alts
- Counterplans: if your CP doesn't have a solvency card / advocate, you're way behind and probably have to justify that with how small the aff is + some reasonable indication of solvency based on facts in the round (e.g. aff evidence)...or exploiting a plan flaw…but in general, i think the playing field needs to be level and counterplans should have solvency, given that affs should have solvency
DEBATE EVENTS BESIDES POLICY:
i'll go w/ the standards the debaters set as opposed to judging your LD, PF, and Parli rounds "like a policy judge" unless you give me no guidance, in which case i default to being a critic of argument
for LD Debate:
-
any style is fine unless your opponent requests a slow round based on access or comfort concerns
-
i rely heavily on the criterion debate in assessing my decision, unless the debaters argue another approach
-
will listen to theory arguments if they are substantiated and impacted
-
will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. "no plans" / "no counterplans")as directed by debaters' objections or formal protest (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules) in those particular settings
-
comfortable with traditional or progressive LD stylistically but let's be real about what's reasonable to cover with quality in a 1ar and not get too wild with the number of positions; i think depth is more important than breadth (see everything elsewhere in my paradigm about no blippy, unsubstantiated arguments)
for PF Debate:
-
my ideal PF round has debaters setting a clear framework for the round and pointing their contentions and their impacts towards this goal
-
conceded args / defense / whatever is NOT sticky - you need to say it in summary for it to be valid in final focus (i don't think it's fair for me to have to evaluate what was responded to or extended “enough” - requires too much subjectivity - so the objective standard for me is concrete extensions); rebuttal speeches don't have to cover their own side's case extension but it's often wise for them to do so at least at a top level or versus core opponent arguments, just based on the time to develop quality responses being at a premium later in the debate
-
can you please just share your ev w/ one another before speeches rather than making everyone wait for these vague and lengthy specific card requests?
-
crossfire / grand crossfire are important for argument testing and argument resolution - and i'm flowing them; however, debaters should apply cx concessions in speeches if they want crossfire to be part of the decision
-
theory - fine if substantiated and impacted, though i think PF lacks adequate time for impacting theory without placing yourself significantly behind on clash, so choose wisely
-
will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. "no plans" / "no counterplans") as directed by debaters' objections or formal protest (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules) in those particular settings
-
cards, not links or vague paraphrasing - "[author name] says X in 2022" where X is not a direct quote or at least mentioning a very specific data point / argument rather than a broad claim is absolutely not evidence to me. i'm dismayed by the paraphrasing i've seen in PF lately: paraphrasing brief claims without warrants or drop quotes...or simply providing a pile of author names. These things truly aren't persuasive if there's no quoted evidence or warranted analysis based upon specific conclusions. I also often see PF debaters adding their OWN power-tagged claims to these paraphrases and this really seems unethical and superficial.
-
this isn't to say you need giant paragraphs like policy evidence…but actually cite specific details and quotes with warrants for your claim if you want me to view that as a supported claim.
-
i won't go through your separate evidence doc to find the support for you if you haven't read it into the round.
-
you don't get to summarize a whole book or article w/o detail. NSDA rules (which apply to CHSSA & CFL tournaments as well as NSDA tournaments) are very clear on this point. See NSDA High School Unified Manual (March 2024 updated version) (command F "Evidence Rules for Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Big Questions Debate" and in particular, rule 7.2.B.3 on p. 30: "If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round.")
for Parli Debate:
-
I can go larpy or K here but I hold the line on T
-
mainly looking for clear warranting & impacting and a tight case debate linking plan provisions / your case thesis to advantages and the weighing standard for the round; willing to apply other frameworks based upon debaters' warranted advocacy
-
theory is fine if substantiated and impacted; T / other theory / off-case positions are welcome if clearly warranted; either "dismiss the argument" or "drop the team" claims need to be very heavily substantiated and demonstrate clear potential or in-round abuse
Hagannoyes02@gmail.com
Nothing on this topic yet, Teach it to me
I was a pretty decent debater Ill prob be fine for whatever you want, Please do what you do best, whether its the policy or the K strat. I was mad k hack senior year, keep that in mind.
2as I wanna see some saucy cross applications or something
2ns I just wanna hear you not let the 2ar get away with anything
While reading blocks please make it about the debate with some in round articulation on both sides. If you read the same block in the 2nc and the 2nr I will dissolve your speaker points I don't care how good it is.
Please drop some clear as day line by line on me.
If you give your 2ar/2nr without blocks I will be very happy.
If you run K args you don't understand, stop. But your welcome to ask me any weird k questions after the round.
Write my ballot in your 2nr/2ar
Please dont debate down, instead answer the best version of their argument even if they didn't say it.
Give me some saucy sketchy counterplan debates please.
I dont want to hear the psychoanalysis blocks your team wrote 4 years ago.
If you run procedurals no one has ever heard of I'm gonna have a very high threshold for you going for it and a low threshold for their answer as well as giving you crappy speaker points because no one wants to see that.
Drop some examples I've never heard of, specific ones, maybe others then our friends at the k lab gave us
Please someone go for Buddhism. If you do it bad tho I will be a sad bro.
I dont like to see unnecessary putdowns or unreasonable arrogance but I little competition is good.
I want to see everyone working during all prep, there's always something more you can do.
I also need an explanation for why fairness is good.
I also need your k aff to have a solvency advocate.
I want your evidence to be of top quality, but the quality doesn't matter if you don't reference the warrents, I will read what needs to be read and will probably read most of the cards
13 off kills the trees, if you do they better be real
I will get mad if your disads have uncarded tagline link chains,
if you feel the need to postround me, bring it but know this isn't an objective activity and its not personal
Give me some unique flames you have up your sleeve
Have fun, don't stress, don't stress out your partner, just chilax and vibe
Make me laugh. Make your oppents laugh.
Go get the W
drmosbornesq@gmail.com
My judging paradigm has evolved a great deal over time. These days, I have very few set opinions about args. If the plan is trying to be topical, T comes first. I don't think debaters do enough impact calc. I don't see a lot of debaters really delving into the opp's evidence anymore which is unfortunate since a lot of ev is trash. I used to think I had a flawless flow and a mind that captured every single twist and detail but now I can't follow everything, truth be told. Debate is a little too fast and I think people assume there is more shared thinking than really exists, so too much is being taken for granted. I will use the speech doc if I am hearing the arguments and my pen is just slow but if I cannot really hear things, I will not resort to flowing off the doc; you're just not gonna get flowed. I'm still pretty good tho? I dunno. Sometimes I feel like a great fit, sometimes I feel a little out of place. I don't research as much as I once did and I'm a long way from being a rolodex of ev and args like once upon a time blah blah old. All of that said, I try to prioritize debaters' decisions more than ever and try harder than ever to base my decision on what debaters are trying to make happen in the round, and how well they do it, as opposed to how I logically add up what occurred. If you're losing the debate at hand, I am not going to say "how it really works" to bail you out. The development of arguments inside the round should shape the contours of victory, and my brain will do its best to be sensitive to that and vote accordingly. But of course these are still my judgment calls, just of a different sort. No judge can totally eliminate their process of sorting things out or their lived personal experience but basically I try to judge rounds as the debaters tell me to judge them, and with the tools they make available to me. I think debate is about debaters, so I do try to limit and be aware of any intervention on my part. But sometimes my experience with traditional policy debate matters and favors a team. Sometimes my lived experience as a brown native person affects my encounter of an argument. These things happen and they are happening with all of your judges whether they admit it or you know it or not. I competed using "traditional policy arguments" (which, frankly, I am unsure still exist #old) but by now I have voted for and coached stupidly-traditional, traditional, mildly-traditional, non-traditional, and anti-traditional arguments in high-stakes rounds for a ton of programs in high school, college, internationally, in different eras, dimensions, all kinds of shi*. If you think your reputation matters in how I see the round, save us both the embarrassment and don't pref me. I do not even know "the list" any more. If I think you lost, I will end your career in a debate you feel you're supposed to win because that's how debate goes, that's part of why the game is great. Were you good in high school? Okay. If you or your coaches are used to attacking the critic in the post-round, you're gonna play yourself because if I am on, I will crush you, and even if I am off, I won't care that you're mad. You're supposed to make me vote for you - fail at your task at your own risk. Save the trash talk for the van ride home, or for the squad room, or for your therapist, or for all the other debaters who think they win every round they're in. Debate's a game but we are humans so we should treat each other with respect. Self-control and awareness of complex and diverse perspectives are hallmarks of critical thinking and deep intellectual power; if you cannot make peace with results in a subjective activity, you are simply not an elite debater, imho. Clever, sure, but elite? You're not as good as you think - none of us are, and none of us were. I got lucky a lot. Be grateful. Take it or leave it. Good luck to all debaters, seriously -- it's a hell of a thing <3
Overview
E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school mail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.
Experience: Damien '05, Amherst College '09, Emory Law '13L. This will be my eighth year coaching in debate, and my third year doing it full time. I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.
IP Topic Knowledge: I studied IP law while at Emory and was the recipient of an IP law scholarship. So I should be a pretty good judge for evaluating topic specific arguments and true analytics that rely on topic knowledge are likely to be super persuasive to me. I am very unsympathetic to neg gripes about this topic as I believe case specific research should be the default model of debate so lack of generic neg ground is not necessarily a problem.
Debate Philosophy: Debate is a game. The game can take many forms depending on how the players engage with it. I believe the ideal form of the game is one in which the debaters gain resolutional knowledge by arguing the desirability of the affirmative's proposed hypothetical government action. Therefore debaters do best when they develop good topic knowledge and do the research necessary to defend their case or make nuanced objections to the opponent's aff case. I believe debates about the meta of the game, both the topic (T) and what community norms should be regarding certain tactics (theory), are also a valuable endeavor that too few teams are willing to engage in. I am much more open than a normal judge to decide the round on these issues. However, I am extremely averse to deciding the round on any non-argument related norms (how debaters should behave in round). And I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the game (whether that was at camp or a previous round).
Judging Philosophy: The prime directive in every game is to win. Accordingly, all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents, and I will vote for almost any argument so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. You can minimize intervention against you by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions. The best 2NRs and 2ARs are pitches that present a fully formed ballot that I can metaphorically sign off on.
I run a planess aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am very firmly neg on framework, but tech over truth means that I usually end up voting aff close to half the time. Insofar as debate is a game, I draw a distinction between rules and standards. The rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, the standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate compared to your opponent's. What counts as better (more fair or more pedagogically valuable) is something determined in round through debate. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better.I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack out" on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.
Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off with one "painted" card than several under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, beat bad/under-highlighted cards.
Accommodations: External to any debate about my role that happens on framework, I treat my function in the room as judge first and facilitator of education second. Therefore, any accommodation that haspotential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary. Failure to adhere to proper accommodation request procedure heavily impacts whether I will give any credence to in-round voters attached to accommodations or exclusion.
Argument by argument breakdown below.
Topicality
Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.
I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive to reasonability as a filter (when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable) versus reasonability as a reason not to vote on T ("Good is good enough.")
I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think there should be a mechanism to check small affs.
Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.
Framework / T-USFG
For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments of the flow. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.
For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.
Procedurals/Theory
I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.
That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.
Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.
My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:
- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew).
- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness while the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.
- The aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity.
- The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).
- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.
My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:
- CX is binding.
- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).
- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors).
- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).
- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.
- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.
- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round.
- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric. You can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo.
- ASPEC is checked by cross. The neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC. If the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse. Potential ground loss is abuse.
Kritiks
TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission and reusing generic criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you. If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs/strategy.
A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt). A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for disregarding the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).
Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.
Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I would much rather, and am more likely to, give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than weeding through the epistemology and pedagogy debate to determine that your theory of power comes first.
Counterplans
I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.
- Process CPs: Neg ground should be a product of neg research, not spray and pray checks on the 2AC. I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases. The team that understands these differences and can impact them is usually the team that wins my ballot. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. The aff can win an entire solvency take out if there is a structural defect created by deviating from normal means.
I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).
I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).
Disadvantages
I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense, but having a good counterplan is the way the neg has to leverage itself out of flawed disads.
Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk.
Misc.
Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average and not everyone being actually average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.
Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.
Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.
Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Politics on a Courts CP is a disad; "CP gets circumvented" is not a disad). Negative teams with case specific strategies (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.
IR Master's Candidate @ Georgetown
University of Kansas '23, Washburn Rural '19
Coaching Taipei American School and Harvard
for college: harvard.debate@gmail
for high school: taipeiamericanpolicy@gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________________
TLDR:
I enjoy case-specific, fully developed strategies that are well-explained and backed with high-quality evidence/persuasion.
I am a bad judge for teams that rely on the brute force of conditionality, proliferate incomplete arguments, and use strategies that moot the AFF and K AFFs.
I am not too deep on the college topic; the high school topic is complicated, so I'd over-explain.
General Judging:
1. Respect your opponents.
2. Be efficient. The email chain should be sent out early. Don't steal prep. CX ends after 3 minutes. Prepare a card document ASAP.
3. Flow.
4. Clarity. I should hear every single word you say.
5. One debater, one constructive, one rebuttal. I will not flow the other debater if they interject or read parts of another person's speech.
6. Net benefits should be verbally specified in the 1NC.
7. Will not vote on ad homs.
8. Teams should disclose and open source their evidence.
My Biases:
1. Vertical proliferation > horizontal proliferation
2. Specificity > vagueness
3. I prefer debates to be topic-specific. AFFs and NEG strategies should be germane to IPR/clean energy policy — this means 2NRs on wipeout, spark, or generic process counterplans are less strategic in front of me.
4. Dispo > condo
5. Plans don't exist in a 'vacuum.'
6. Counterplans should compete via text AND function.
7. Willing to vote for theoretical objections considered 'arbitrary' if the outlined practice is unreasonable.
8. AFFs should be topical.
9. Links should be to the plan.
10. AFF-specific Ks > generic Ks
Washburn Rural ‘22
Michigan ’26
Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural and TAS
Judging
I will decide debates purely on my flow and the words I hear you speak. Prioritizing dropped arguments will be the best and quickest way for me to vote for you, and I will be more likely to decide on small technical errors, especially if you point them out or make them relevant.
If my flow is not sufficient to decide an argument I will look at evidence, whether it is because:
1. The flow is too close, i.e., no dropped arguments, lack of impact calculus, the debate is two ships passing by, etc.
2. The line-by-line is a dispute over evidence, whether quality or applicability.
If you predict debates coming down to this, provide a metric for how I should evaluate and elevate certain types of evidence and name specific authors or cards for my decision. This metric can include recency, expertise, causality, citations, etc. If a metric is never set, I will favor better-highlighted evidence, complete warrants, and conclusiveness.
I will try my hardest to flow, judge, and make the best decision possible, but I am imperfect. My biggest flaws that you can quickly adapt to are:
1. Typing. I attempt to flow cross-ex and transcribe every speech, but the combination of debaters blitzing through blocks at 300 WPM, typos, and debaters talking over each other means I miss 5-10% of text per debate. I do not think I have ever missed an argument in its entirety, but it would behoove you to be clear and flowable. Even when I miss things, I will remember the context and the surrounding words, but that is not as reliable as the words on my flow.
2. Knowledge Gaps. I try to stay in tune with wikis, argumentative trends, the news, and core topic themes, but there is a lot I do not know about. Things I have learned about in my time judging without much prior knowledge or personal debate experience include interest rates, Erdogan’s political trouble, the racism paradox, the many ways humans could survive nuclear war, laches, textual topicality, and the barebones of random philosophies. While most debates do not require an in-depth knowledge of individual issues, the best debates and debaters do, and I will try to match that. If it turns out that I am a moron, over-explaining different arguments could benefit you, i.e., speeding through moral philosophy and hypotheticals at 300 WPM is a way to win, but probably not the way to win.
Both can be easily overcome with clear, precise, technical debating and having a more explanatory narrative than the other team. While I appreciate and reward technically proficient debaters, making my decision come down to the second half of subpoint DA of subpoint 11 at 250 WPM is not ideal.
Here is my decision-making process proper if this helps you structure final rebuttals:
1. I will almost always start deciding debates where the debaters tell me to start, i.e., in framework debates, most debaters say to start on fairness as an impact or ballot solvency, or if the 2NR is a DA and impact defense, I will start assessing the risk of impacts first. This also means picking and choosing arguments is better than shot-gunning arguments.
2. If neither rebuttal tells me where to start deciding, I will start where I think is the most logical point of contestation. Given the lack of (1), this is where I start most of my decisions.
3. I will highlight cells on my flow for what is dropped and/or relevant to deciding first-order issues and so forth until every cell with words in my cell is highlighted (if this includes reading cards, I will put relevant card authors/warrants next to those cells). This process also includes striking new cells that could not be traced back to the 2AR.
4. I try to decide based on the exact words said by debaters to avoid intervening.
Observations
The above should obviate everything below because none of my ideologies, thoughts about the debate, or biases will affect my decision, but here are my impressions that could matter to you:
1. Ideology. The critique has been less than 5% of my 2NRs since I joined the activity, but about half of the debates I judge are clash debates. Critical teams that impact turn framework have had the most success in front of me, especially because most 2ACs do not counter-define the resolution. Framework 2NRs with a robust defense of fairness combined with lots of no link + the AFF links more to their offense has had the most success. Both sides are better suited to specify and apply their blocks to the debate or 1AC at hand. Critiques on the NEG usually succeed when they moot the plan; every other version seems more fallible.
2. Side bias. I have been a 2N my whole career and think being NEG is hard on most topics. My default is infinite conditionality, but I have been persuaded otherwise in a handful of debates. 2Ns should make their condo blocks topic-specific and go for flexibility or arbitrariness. 2As should ensure their 1ARs say enough words so the 2AR is not new and needs a robust defense of dispositionality. My default is to judge kick. Most 2ACs and 1ARs commit egregious amounts of under-coverage on the case, and 2Ns should quickly point this out. I will quickly strike ‘new’ parts of the 2AR to protect the 2NR. Lastly, I find myself voting NEG frequently on turns case where I think most AFFs do not have a great answer to.
3. Argument quality. All arguments are fair game. Degradation in quality should be quickly dispatched with high-quality evidence or low-hanging responses. I do not feel distaste for generic impact turns like dedev or spark or ‘generic’ CPs like process. I think the AFF is favored in both debates, but the NEG normally has tricks that help them. Your speaks most likely will not suffer from deploying strategies like above. However, if your A-strat is hiding ASPEC in the middle of the 2NC, you may get the ballot, but your speaks will definitely suffer. Lastly, I think most debate impacts and internal links are non-intrinsic or rely on a reality distortion, so I am more amenable than most to smart analytical advantage CPs.
Thais Perez, Wake ‘26
Add to chain: tcperezdeb8@gmail.com, debate@student.quarrylane.org
I care about debate, and hope that my RFDs reflect that. All of us are taking time to do this activity for different reasons, but regardless, I will try to respect the time and energy you are putting into debate by being attentive and rendering the best decision I can.
Things that matter to me, that should matter to you:
- Flowing. I do it, and I do it on paper. This means that if you are going at lightning-quick speed and sound incredibly unclear while doing so I probably won’t write down, or much less understand, anything you are saying. I sometimes get hand cramps/tremors, so if you see me lift my hand up for a second, you probably want to slow down. My flow is everything to me when I judge debates, and I try my very best to articulate decisions based on a precise interpretation of my flow. Slow and clear debaters will be rewarded with more speaker points than fast and clear debaters.
- CX. I flow it, and it can make-or-break your speaker points. Using your entire CX for clarification questions about cards your opponents did not read is a waste of time and you should instead use prep time for that. Don’t treat prep time like cross-ex, I won’t pay attention to it.
- Offense/Defense. Intuitively, I don’t really understand how else to judge debates. Any other paradigm seems to require intervention which I try to minimize, however, I can be persuaded to think otherwise depending on how ‘reasonability’ and ‘competing interpretations’ are technically debated.
- Evidence. It only matters if you make it matter. I don’t like reading evidence unless I’m specifically told to, although I tend to read re-highlightings just because I find them interesting when they’re done well.
Plan AFFs:
- In K debates, I will look at the framework debate first. I will resolve the framework debate one way or the other. AFF teams should not underestimate the power of a well-explained alt solves the case argument.
- Impact calculus is significant to me, but the impact debate is not in a vacuum, and I make sure to weigh each part of the debate equally. Relative risk is the only way to evaluate DA debates and avoids arbitrarily intervening just because we have an aversion to death.
- Competition debates can be fun, and I enjoy these debates more when teams place a heavy emphasis on evidence quality. In my mind, these are just topicality debates with the distinction being that competition is a NEG burden.
- Sufficiency framing means that I should evaluate the counterplan’s scope of solvency in relation to AFF impacts, and not the AFF in its entirety. Avoid misinterpreting that.
Non-Plan AFFs:
- Ballot solvency is central. I find most negative presumption arguments to be unpersuasive, mostly because they are never contextualized to the AFF. Tailoring your arguments to be relevant to the AFF you’re debating is the best way to make this part of the debate winnable for the NEG.
- If going for a clash impact, try to explain why iterative testing is inherent to your model and not the AFF’s. I find teams struggling to explain this impact as external which makes the debate get jumbled by the 2NR.
- In a K v K debate having offensive reasons why the permutation does not shield the link is your best bet.
Other misc. things:
- Plan/AFF vagueness is so obnoxious. Don't avoid explaining the mechanism or function of the AFF, normal means, or what your method results in/does for the debate space. If the other team doesn't know what your AFF does, neither will I which means I am likely to limit the scope of solvency to cross-examination and to what solvency evidence says.
- I default to judge-kicking if the NEG says that the status quo is always a logical option.
- Conditionality is a reason to reject the team, but most other ‘voting-issues’ are arbitrary. Having examples of what made the debate more difficult in the specific debate you are in will help you immensely.
Please put me on the email chain: donpierce2025@gmail.com and debatemba@gmail.com.
MBA 21’, Emory 25’
Don’t let that fool you. I primarily run and think about K arguments.
I’m a 2A who has read K affs without plans, K affs with plans, and policy affs that have nothing to do with the K.
I’m also a 1N who has read, extended, and thought through every type of position, from T-Framework and Queer Negativity to the NGA CP and Federalism DA, to impact turns.
Do what you want, don’t overcorrect for me in content. If you are worried, overcorrect in form. If anything, everyone should be overcorrecting in explaining to me why you win the ballot, cause I think far too often, debaters treat ‘judge instruction’ as ‘impact calculus,’ when it is more about explaining to me why and how you get to the ballot.
I will write my ballot starting with the argument either team is winning I should start with. When neither team has done that, I will start with framing/impact calc and/or framework, where you should be comparing/debating out both which sides framing is better and what that means for my ballot. This sets a threshold for what I should look for on the other pages and minimizes intervention. I can be convinced to build offense from the bottom up, meaning I consider each level of offense as a yes/no question and then consider who access more offense at the end of that chain and then do framing/framework/impact calc, but that is not my default.
Theory. I will be fine if you want to go for theory but please slow down. Outside of conditionality, I generally don’t think theory arguments are reasons to reject the team, and it would be difficult to persuade me to vote on it.
Ks. Do not use excessive jargon or just assume that I understand the underlying theory. The framework debate is often not impacted out. What does winning X argument mean for things outside of the framework section of the debate?
K affs. The focus of these debates need to be on clashing and comparing the two sides. Avoiding excessive jargon and using many examples will be the most useful. I generally think procedural fairness is an impact, but I can be persuaded away from it, like most things.
CPs. If you say judge kick and say I could in the 2nr, you should do that impact calc/framing for both a ballot with the cp + da and da + case defense. Generally speaking, I think the literature determines which counterplans are legitimate and which aren’t, but I can be persuaded against that.
DAs. DA plus case is an underrated strategy vs bad affs. You don’t need cards to pick apart a bad case. You just need to show me why their cards are bad.
T. A good T debate is really fun to listen to. A bad one is very annoying. It requires a lot of judge instruction in order to not intervene, so create a narrative for me.
Ayush Potdar
Add me to the chain with this email: ayush.potdar@gmail.com
Top Level
I cannot promise that I will always make the right decision, but I can promise that I will put the most effort I can when flowing and evaluating debates since I know how hard everyone works.
I consider myself to be extremely flow oriented. That means I am fine for arguments such as planless affirmatives, framework Ks, framework: no Ks, wipeout/spark, kant, process CPs, rider DAs etc. The only exception to this is arguments that are blatantly violent, which the other team still has the burden of pointing out.
Post-rounding is fine and encouraged if you truly believe I made an incorrect decision. I'll approach it as an educational opportunity for everyone in the room and will have a higher threshold than most regarding how emotional you can be.
Joint Winner of the Harvard College Tournament Costume Contest 2023
Debated
Jeff City 16-20
UWyo 20-24
Coaching
Niles West 23-
KU 24-
Email chain: ec [dot] powers [dot] debate [at] gmail [dot] com
College only: rockchalkdebate [at] gmail [dot] com
I cannot read blue highlighting. Green/Yellow is most ideal and most other colors are fine. If you are struggling to figure out how to change your highlighting, Verbatim has a standardize highlighting feature.
I flow on my computer. I do not look at docs.
Firmly committed to tech over truth. The exception being arguments that say the suffering of a group of people or animals is good.
Complete arguments contain three things: a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Debate accordingly.
Debates should be where the AFF proposes a change to the status quo and the NEG says that change is bad. In general I enjoy debates where teams forward and construct a coherent story and use that story to implicate other portions of the debate. I attempt to avoid judge intervention at all costs, I usually look for the easiest path to the ballot when deciding. I think that 3rd and 4th level explanation of arguments and why they matter is particularly important rather than just asserting something as true or dropped.
Judge instruction is really important to me, teams that are able to guide me to a ballot often end up winning more often than not. In addition, I think teams like to rely on their evidence far too much, while debate is a research activity I find that the art of argument has been lost. I think that making smart arguments from evidence already read is often better than unnecessary card spamming.
Unnecessary time-wasting irks me. The 1AC should be sent before the round starts. Asking questions abt what was read/wasn’t read is either cross or prep time. I will watch the time like a hawk, if you plan on conversing with your partner about debate-related things then you should plan on running a prep timer.
Judges that are unwilling to vote on condo bad are academically bankrupt and lying to you when they say they are “tech over truth”.
Hidden theory arguments, e.g. aspec on a T flow, is one of the worst trends I have seen in debate. I will allow new 1AR answers and you do not even need to particularly answer it that well. Any team hiding theory arguments will have a speaker point implosion.
Clipping/evidence ethics challenges need to be called out and backed up with evidence. The debate will stop and the team that has lost the challenge will receive an L. In general, I think you should email and/or contact people if you find that their evidence has an ethics violation. If you have done that and the necessary changes have not been changed, I will vote on it. However, teams calling out the reading of an author/article that would be problematic and make it an in-round voting isssue (e.g. Pinker/Bostrum) is totally fair game and up for debate.
I prefer to be called E.C. rather than judge or any other version. (it’s my initials if that helps with pronunciation).
I will clap when the round ends, debate is a very draining activity and I am impressed with anything you do even if it is round 4 at a local or the finals of a major.
About me:
Hello my name is Viplove; I'm currently a student at UC Berkeley studying EECS and IEOR.
I debated policy for four years at Canyon Crest Academy. I mainly ran Ks on both the aff and neg primarily based on set col literature.
I have not judged in the past before, nor am I familiar with the topic in the slightest. I also am not the most up to date with the current status of the world due to student things, so explain things in the SQUO clearly as well.
Put me on the email chian. My email is viploverahate@gmail.com. Please argue anything so long it is reasonable.
I love creative arguments. Think outside the box. Make it a story.
Evidence:
Share your evidence before the speech. If you want to see your opponents cards its on your prep time. Include all theory interpretations and violations, plan texts, and alterative advocacy statements.
If you are reading any cards and cutit short, please clearly state where its cut, mark it on your document and resend. Signpost when skipping cards and please send a new copy afterward.
Speaker Points: I'll start it at 28.5 and change it based on vibe
Good vibes: organizational, confidence, humor, logical, efficient, nice
Bad vibes: arrogant, rude, prep stealing, bad cross ex, arguments you don't get
Truth v Tech:
I'll vote on Tech so far that it is reasonable. Unreasonable would include things like slavery and genocide.
Evidence and Spin:
I'll vote on a spin until lits contested. I don't want to have to read into your evidence nor am I going to do work for the other team.
Speed v Clarity: I'm out of practice with listening to spreading so go 70%. I'll say clear once during a speech if things are unclear, after that I'm not writing down anything I don't understand.
Overview
Hey, I'm Eshaan.
Debated at James Logan (RS) - arms sales, cjr, water, nato
Currently at UC Irvine, not debating
Logistics
Please add me to the email chain: eshaandebate@gmail.com
Also please format the chain [TOURNAMENT --- ROUND # --- AFF vs NEG]
Send the 1ac before round start
Time your own prep / speeches
* congress paradigm is at the bottom
TLDR
Preferences
1 - K v policy / policy v K
2 - K v K
3 - policy v policy
Tech > truth no matter what. I'll pull the trigger on any argument if you can debate it. This includes death good, tricks, hidden aspec, etc. The only caveats are arguments regarding the personal qualities of other debaters.
I was a K debater in high school. I don't have the same experience judging super fast tech rounds as other judges, and I probably am not the best judge if you are going for theory or complex policy args. That being said, you should obviously not overadapt but please do a little extra work in explanation and judge framing.
I am also a second-year out and do not consider myself to be a perfect judge. There will be a time when I make a wrong decision. Please postround me if you disagree with it. It can't change my ballot but I'll try my best to understand why the decision is incorrect and learn from it in the future.
Clarity >>>>>> speed. I should be able to hear the words in the card. I should also be able to distinguish the tag of the card from the body through speed, tone change, or whatever else. If I cannot do these I will clear you. I will not have docs open during your speech.
Judge instruction is highly appreciated. I try to do as little intervention as possible, so if you write my ballot for me I'll be pretty happy and your speaks will reflect that. Especially in clash rounds - I usually find myself voting for teams with better judge instruction and ballot proximity arguments.
Everything below is a preference, not a rule, and can be changed with good debating.
Specifics
K Affs and FW
-- Affs should impact turn T either at a form or content level. Most counter interps are arbitrary and easily lose to limits.
-- Try to explain the aff outside of T. It's not really required but it helps paint a clearer picture of how the aff functions, ballot solvency, etc.
-- For the neg, framework should be in every 1nc, the time tradeoff is strategic even if you're going for another offcase position. Go for fairness or clash / skills - it really doesn't matter to me. I would recommend picking one and going all in for the 2nr though.
-- Neg terror is amazing. Read 8+ off it's not like the aff is going to go for condo. Generally I think PIKs are underutilized whether they be reps piks (word piks, author piks, etc.) or actual piks such as reading your policy aff as a pik on the neg.
Policy Affs and K Negs
-- K's should be debated technically like any other argument.
-- Neg fw interps should probably be you link you lose
-- Strong link debating is great, generic links are not so great. However, I have had my fair share of wins on the state good / assimilation link. What matters is how you debate it, not what it is.
-- For aff teams, generic answers are fine, but you should leverage good 2ac cards later in the debate. There's some more general things written below but what I find the most glaring in rounds is having some answer to ontology.
-- Theory against alts is a must. Most alts do nothing which can be exposed in 1nc cx. The ones that do something are wildly utopian and lose to the perm double bind or just something like heg good.
-- If your aff has russia and china war impacts it's generally better to impact turn the security K rather than go for a perm. Lots of teams would have a much better route if they defended their reps and went for the impact turn.
Disads
-- I'm fine for any disad you go for. The main thing is judge instruction and comparative impact calc. I'm good for politics. When I had to read disads, politics was pretty much the only disad available.
Counterplans
-- More aff teams should go for intrinsic perms and more neg teams should defend that textual comp is a bad standard.
-- For neg teams, please read the cp text verbatim. It's interesting to see a generic cp text that has something like "we should do [PLAN] and consult someone " and then the 1n just adlibs the plan text based on memory. This also applies to aff teams with perm texts. I'm amenable to arguments about competition if this ever gets brought up.
Theory
-- PTIV seems like the most reasonable model, though this is obviously debatable. Predictable limits to me is the most convincing impact.
-- Please give case lists if possible. I haven't judged enough rounds on this topic to know what ample aff / neg division should look like.
-- Condo - Go for it. I don't have much to say here as I've been in very few condo rounds as a 1-off K debater. It's probably the only theory issue that I default to as a voter, but again like everything else in this paradigm, this can be changed.
Misc
Here are some of my personal preferences and how I tend to look at debates, also including speaker point stuff.
Sometimes I'll read ev out of interest, but unless it's something that's been contested throughout all rebuttals, what the ev says is solely what the debaters in the round tell me it says.
Speaks - My speaks are probably a little inflated. I'll try to adjust them based on tournament, division, etc. For now its loosely as follows:
- 29.5+ --- One of the best debaters I've seen in this division ever
- 29.0 - 29.4 --- Really good
- 28.5 - 28.9 --- Average - above average
- 27.7 - 28.4 --- Needs improvement - below average
- < 27 --- :(
Speaks for me are largely determined on a combination of smart decision-making and clarity and maybe sometimes humor and debate personality.
Congress
Mainly looking for clear framing, impact comparison, and speaking. Early speakers should set a clear framework for the rest of the round identifying key points. Late round speakers should consolidate issues and have refs to other senators.
Good POs will usually get in the top 5 (3-4). A large part of my ranks are determined off the flow and technical abilities of debaters. However excellent speaking usually separates good from great. This includes humor, powerful intros/conclusions, good tonal fluctuations, smart use of CX, and other smaller things.
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
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.
My name is pronounced loo-CHI-uh. They/ them
Email chains: serialpolicyfailure@gmail.com
If you use speech drop, email a card doc at the end of the debate. Y'all can use this nonsense, but I'm not going to.
Debating: K-State (2013-2016), Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2009-2013)
Coaching: Barstow (2018-Present), Baylor (2017-2018), Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2013-2017)
Speaks
Speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down from there. If I think you should clear, I'll give you at least a 29. 27.9 cap on speaks if any of your docs are PDFs. Like, stop. Just stop.
Tech > Truth
I have almost certainly voted on everything I say I don't like in my paradigm at some point. Might I be grumpy if I have to judge a 10 off debate with Deleuze, a Gregorian calendar procedural, an anarchy counterplan, and whatever that omnipotent AI that's going to kill us all is called? Yes. So grumpy. Will I vote on these arguments if you win the debate? Also yes. Will it affect your speaks? No. Grumpy adults shouldn't get to determine what debaters do.
Tech over truth, but the less true an argument is, the less tech you need to beat it. This is particularly true of 1NC strats the just shove a bunch of garbage non-arguments in, contrived advantages with like seven internal links, and made-up politics DAs.
I'm not going to make arguments for you. If their cards are garbage, you have to say that. If the counterplan links to the net benefit, you have to say that. If the footnoting DA is an answer to clash, you have to say that.
I appreciate scrappy debate. If you like to use tricks to win, fine by me. People need to flow better. "This is dumb" is not an arg. -1.5 speaks.
What I don't appreciate is cowardly debate. I don't love watching rounds where the core strat seems to be defending nothing. Debate is about arguments and controversy. Embrace it. It's awesome.
My threshold for explanation on un-answered arguments is incredibly low. I don't think the 2A should have to spend time explaining the internal links of an advantage that has one impact d card on it, or the 2N should have to spend time explaining a dropped alt. You do, however, need to tell me what the IMPLICATION of those dropped arguments is in order for me to know how to evaluate them and how they interact with other flows.
Questions are not arguments. I see way too many 2NRs/2ARs that say, "What does the alt/aff even do?" instead of just explaining why it wouldn't do anything.
A double turn means you can concede both args and they become and adv/ net benefit for you. Contradictions are not necessarily double-turns. Saying "they double-turned themselves" without doing the necessary technical concessions and explaining the implication of the double-turn doesn't get you anything.
Procedurals/ Theory
I get grumpy about arbitrary interps of theoretical arguments (conditionality, ROB's, really anything). This means I do think "conditionality bad" is a better interp than "they get three conditional advocacies." Relax, I don't actually think conditionality is bad, but I also don't think there's a brightline between four vs five vs six advocacies.
With the exception of conditionality, I default to theoretical objections are reasons to reject the argument or reasons that justify you also doing some theoretically illegit thing, like "perm do the counterplan."
This includes perf con; I don't think perf con is a reason to reject the team, I just think it's a reason they don't get links off 2AC/1AR answers to the contradictory position in question. Pef con is distinct from an actual double turn.
For topicality, you need impacts. You're saying this team should lose the debate. That's a pretty steep punishment. You need to win more than just a violation here. What affs would be allowed under their interp that you shouldn't have to prepare for? What off case positions do you lose access to? Why does that matter?
I think "lit checks abuse" solves 90% of policy-based limits arguments. Aff teams should also make more arguments about why whatever ground the neg loses isn't ground they should have had in the first place. I think big topics are better than small topics provided those big topics have good neg generics. Politics and the states counterplan are not good neg generics.
Reasonability, to me, means that the neg had a reasonable amount of predictable ground, not that the aff is "reasonably topical," whatever that means. I don't think that means the aff's counter interp has to be "reasonable."
Case Debate
My favorite part of debate. I frankly like to vote neg on presumption, but the work done needs to be specific. I'm more likely to assign a low or no risk of the aff if there's a compelling internal link debate than if the 1AR dropped the third impact D card that's non-specific and two lines long.
I also think a well-leveraged aff can do a lot on other sheets of paper, especially when comparative work with the neg's offense is done.
Big pet peeve of mine is treating the aff like it's just one big page if it isn't. E.g. the 1AC had an advantage and a solvency contention, but the 1N just says "case" in their roadmap. Where on case? If it doesn't matter, you're not doing very good case debate. Same thing with the 2AC order. Why did you make the 1AC more than one page if you're not going to treat the pages as separate???
Your 2AC and 1AR advantage overviews are probably a waste of time in front of me. Overviews should frame, not merely explain.
DA's
Zero risk is a thing. Affs can beat bad disads on defense if affs explain why that defense is more important than everything the neg is saying (same goes for the neg with bad aff advantages). In terms of impact calc, I think probability is generally the most important. I default to uniqueness determines the direction of the link.
CP's
On balance, I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive. A 2A who's good at theory can win process counterplans just go away with enough work.
I think counterplans should have solvency advocates, especially if you've added seven planks designed to fiat out of solvency deficits.
I will not kick the counterplan unless the neg makes an actual judge kick argument.
I am willing to vote aff on zero risk of a net benefit even if the counterplan solves 100% of the aff. In that scenario, the counterplan is no longer disproves the aff.
I rarely vote on the perm alone; it usually requires a theory argument to justify a theoretically illegit perm. Unless the neg read an actually non-competitive counterplan. Then go nuts.
I really really really wish you wouldn't put all your perms at the top of the 2AC. It's so hard to flow. Spread 'em out.
K's
I don't have any preferences about lit bases; I'm not afraid of the big bad Baudrillard.
My threshold for a link is comparatively low. I think reps links are probably good if the aff gets to weigh their impacts.
My threshold for the alt is relatively high. Examples are good. Structural analysis with examples is better. Under no circumstances should the aff let the neg get away with fiating the alt. That's absurd.
Framework strats are also viable in front of me, e.g. I will vote on "any risk the 1AC is a settler project means you vote neg" assuming you are, in fact, winning the framework debate. I can be persuaded not to weigh the aff, but you really have to commit to this strategy.
I think most affs are best off going for extinction outweighs and the state is good; I think you're more likely to win that than a perm or link turn strategy.
It's tough to win a reps link without impact or internal link defense in front of me. If the threat is real, as indicated by you dropping it, then it seems like there isn't a reps link.
The floating pik you didn't catch in the block will lose you the debate. Flow.
K Affs
I think it's reasonable for K affs to say that all they have to do is prove their method is good; if the method is good, I should vote for the aff. I don't think they need to "spill out" or whatever. I am generally not persuaded by "winning is key to our method" arguments. Probably means you've got a bad method.
I think T violations that deal with substantive parts of the resolution are better than violations about the fg. I think affs should be making the argument that any education claims about the fg are non-unique; it's part of the topic every year. I think the neg should make arguments about why policy education on this specific topic is good and explain how the aff bypasses that.
Anything can be an impact if you tell me it's an impact and explain why it outweighs your opponent's impacts. I generally think, for the neg, fairness-based impacts provide the best external offense, and education-based impacts provide the best in-roads to the aff. Both the aff and the neg should be doing some comparative work about how education, fairness, and ethics implicate one another.
On balance, I think impact turn strats are better than counter interp strats for the aff in these debates. I think ethics arguments are the best offense for the aff. Affs can also internal link turn the majority of the neg's standards if they spend the time doing it instead of extending a wreck of random disads that are all basically the same.
I think the TVA and switch side are the best defense to the aff's impacts. I conceptualize TVAs as counterplans (an alternate mechanism to solve the same impacts while avoiding the net benefit, e.g. under limiting). That means I hold a TVA to similar standards; I think it should have to solve all or most of the aff and that the TVA should have a solvency advocate. Half the TVAs I hear aren't topical; not enough aff teams make this argument.
Other things:
New word Ks in the 2AR - okay, so this is tricky. I think if you do this, I think it needs to be the whole 2AR, and I think you should be held to an exceptionally high explanation standard. I think you should have to pre-empt the 3NR the neg doesn't get.
Arguments about micro-aggressions - Fine as long as you explain the implication for this debate/ perhaps the community as a whole. Tell me what you want me to do about it and what that does about the problem. You still have to answer the trivialization arguments, but they are not an auto-loss.
Arguments that compare conditionality to structural privilege - Fine as long as you warrant them. Just saying, "This is the logic of..." isn't enough; tell me why and how the reproduces that logic in debate and what the impact to that is for debaters.
So clipping. If you have somehow misrepresented what you have read/ if there is not a way to tell from the speech doc what was read, you have clipped. If I catch clipping, I will make sure I'm sure (usually during prep time), and then stop the debate. If a debater accuses someone of clipping, the debate stops right then. If the challenger is correct, they win. If they are not correct, they lose. I will give the person who clipped a 0, but everyone else is probably going to get somewhere between a 28.5 and a 29.5 depending on how much of the debate happened.
I've had some recent judging experiences that are moving me toward clarity being a clipping issue. If I can't understand any of the words in your cards, and it seems like this is to get in more cards, that's probably clipping. I've decided this means I'll never stop clearing you no matter how tired I get of it.
Email: jet.semrick@gmail.com, taipeiamericanpolicy@gmail.com
Coach @ Taipei American School | Debated @ University of Kansas 2019-2023 and Shawnee Mission East 2015-2019
______________________________________________
Summary:
--AFFs should be topical and solve a unique problem.
--I am good for any negative position that argues the plan is undesirable. Bad for arguments that intentionally avoid the case.
--Argument quality matters. I am more likely to be persuaded by complete, sound, and logical arguments. However, technical debating can change this predisposition.
--Preference for fewer, but more developed positions over many underdeveloped ones.
--Be reasonable with down time, sending out emails, and please don't send out or ask for a marked doc if it's not needed.
--Ethos, clarity, and strategic decisions will be rewarded with speaker points.
--I try to transcribe the debate and cross-ex on my computer. I generally don't follow along with speech docs. At the end of the debate, I read cards if needed to resolve important disputes in the debate.
--I do high school topic research. Outside of debate I am a graduate student studying machine learning at Cornell. My undergraduate was in computer science and economics at the University of Kansas.
______________________________________________
Policy:
Topicality vs. Plans
Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive defense of a non topical AFF.
Ground is the most compelling standard because a 'limits explosion' can be mitigated by existence of predictable and high quality negative ground.
Counterplans
Evidence that compares the CP to the plan is the gold standard.
Process CPs are awful for debate. If evidence quality is good and comparative to the plan, I am game, otherwise my biases heavily favor the affirmative on theory and competition questions.
I will judge kick counterplans unless instructed otherwise.
I think conditionality is bad, but my voting record favors the negative. One or two conditional advocacies seems reasonable, anything more quickly reduces the quality of the debate.
Ideally, the negative specifies net benefits and establishes competition in the 1NC.
Disadvantages
Link debating and evidence is often the important part of a DA.
Case
Solvency deficits and alt causes are more compelling than impact defense.
Case debating is better than counterplan debating.
If you decide to read a framing page, make it meaningful. Generic framing arguments are boring and generally still devolve to magnitude x probability. I don't need a framing page to vote affirmative for a low magnitude high probability impact vs. low probability DA.
______________________________________________
Critique:
Topicality vs. K AFFs
You should strike me if you don't read a plan. I will vote negative if minimum expectations are met when going for framework.
I think fairness is the best impact, but am also persuaded by arguments about iteration, research, and clash. Without a predictable affirmative constraint, I don't think debate could exist.
Critiques vs. Policy AFFs
I enjoy well researched and specific critical arguments. The negative should win link turns case arguments, solvency deficits, or impact turns.
Framework arguments should have implications. The 2NR and 2AR should give instruction for what to do if you win or lose your interpretation. I default to weighing the impacts the plan can solve against the impacts of links the alternative can solve.
I will vote negative for a linear DA.
The alternative should solve a material problem and am not persuaded by alternatives that 'reject' the plan.
Performative contradictions matter. I am persuaded that the negative does not get to sever reps if other arguments are explicit contradictions. Examples of this are reading the cap K and economy DA.
______________________________________________
Ethics Violations:
I would prefer for debates to be completed and am not interested in judging the moral character of debaters or events that took place outside of the round. I value my role as an educator and will intervene or answer questions mid debate if that leads to an agreeable resolution that allows the debate to continue.
I would prefer to strike evidence rather than end the debate. Questions about qualifications, context, and argument representation should be argued in speeches to undermine the credibility of a position.
If there is a formal ethics challenge by a team, the debate ends. If the challenge is successful, the team who made the challenge wins and receives average speaks. If not, they lose and receive low speaks. I will defer to tab, my experience, and advice of others.
If the issue could have been resolved before the debate and is unintentional, I will likely reject the challenge. If I catch clipping, I will give a warning during the speech under the assumption that debaters are competing in good faith. If there is an egregious pattern or the warning is ignored, I will vote for the other team at the end of the debate.
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
Umar Shaikh
Debated at James Logan High School
Debating at UC Davis
Currently Coaching: Berk Prep
Email Chain: umardebate@gmail.com
Tech>Truth
--TLDR--
You do you, anything and I mean anything goes, tech over truth, if you can debate/explain it I'll vote on it.
Judge Instruction: Can't emphasize its importance enough, good judge instruction in the 2ar/2nr will always be rewarded with high speaks and likely the ballot. Write the ballot for me.
I read the K my whole high school career and am reading it in college if that matters to you
--Specifics--
Ks - love them. I’ve gone for arguments ranging from set col to Bataille. Strong link debating with a cohesive strategy and good judge framing will take you a long way. I love examples. Please don’t just read your blocks. I am a huge sucker for unique and specific examples on the link and ontology debate. If you’re giving the same 2nr vs 3 different affs something should change.
Policy Affs vs Ks- I’m persuaded by the more “generic” arguments people make vs the k. Specifically heg good, fairness/clash on FW, ontology/psychoanalysis wrong, extinction o/w’s etc. Policy teams often have excellent cards on these arguments but struggle to utilize them past the 2ac, make the neg teams life hard.
K affs- love them. I probably have a higher threshold for teams saying that t in of itself is violent. That’s not to say I won’t vote on it if explained well. If you want my ballot all you need is a strong impact turn to the topic/their model of debate and that you either preserve some form of debate through the counter interp or have a substantive reason for why debate is bad. Honestly, when it's done correctly I think the counter interp is a pretty good argument, it is defensive but having some semblance of what debates look like under your model can soak up a lot of the limits stuff teams go for.
Neg vs K affs- my 2nr's vs k affs have almost exclusively been going for t. Go for fairness. That being said, I’ve been in my fair share of k v k rounds mostly reading the cap k, Afro pess, or set col vs teams. Neg terror is good, spam those off and dare them to go for condo lol.
DA’s/CP’s- I read my fair share of DA’s and CP’s at NSDA Nationals and State but my experience with them ends there. For reference, those rounds were at about half the speed of a normal circuit round. I’m probably not the best for super high-level rounds. This is not to dissuade you from reading these arguments in front of me, it’s to be transparent and let you know that you might need to over-explain some things for me to keep up. For counterplans I’m working on understanding competition better but as of now, I’m going to be lost.
Theory- Most of these debates are a wash and annoying to judge but if you explain it I'll vote on it
--Misc.--
At the end of the day debate is a game like no other and I want you to have fun. Cracking a joke or two will probably get you higher speaks. Treat others how you wanna be treated and let’s make this a positive and educational environment.
email chain: imaansidhu3@gmail.com
subject: "Tournament - Round # - Aff Team vs Neg Team"
Cal 25' - I have now judged 3 debate on this topic. Y'all need to slow down, I'm gonna lose my voice the amount of times I say 'clear'
Short:
Fine with K affs + whatever, just do what you do well. I’m not a blank slate but truth won’t come before tech/ I'm going to vote off the flow so there will be as little intervention as possible. Debate is about the debaters, I have no firm preferences on what I vote for. Speed should never come at the expense of clarity. Don't be a jerk, have fun.
Long:
Overall - The last rebuttals should write my RFD for me, tell me what I'm voting on and why. The team that has explained what it means to win will most likely be the team that wins. I don't make a big deal about speaks unless you're rude. On the aff, whether plan or K, know what you're talking about and have a clear mechanism that you maintain. On the neg make strategic decisions. Don't insult your opponents and don't speak over them aggressively. I like debate; don’t make me not like it.
DA - Impact calc is important on both sides. Aff has a good chance of outweighing the impact if they win a high risk of case and I like a good straight turn. Saying the words "turns case" in the your speech means nothing without an explanation.
CP - Run whatever cheaty counterplan you want, just be ready to defend the model of debate you justify. Solvency advocates are a good way to legitimize your counterplan in my eyes. Assume that I've never heard whatever agency you're talking about. Perm do the aff is not an argument.
K - Framework is an important part on both sides, it's where we all start the decision in these rounds. I know a little about a lot of Ks but that doesn't mean I'll do work for you. Keep the overviews reasonable and know your lit.
K affs - don't be super shifty and don't get too wild with contradicting yourself or your lit base. Slow down in your overviews and explain to me how my ballot helps solve or is needed for your aff.
T- I need a thorough explanation of why your interpretation leads to a better model of debate and good impact work. Explain how the aff leads to 'tangible' impacts within debate like in-round abuse.
Framework – The aff should explain what solvency they lose under the neg interp and should at least be related to the topic. Whatever the strategy on the aff is, impact turns or a w/m, they're all viable when well executed.
The neg has to prove the aff is bad by some metric and a good case debate and TVA are helpful. People don’t get into the internal link debate enough in F/W rounds, a lot offense can be accessed there. Impact work should be thorough, not just 'fairness good because it's fair'. I generally don’t think procedural fairness is always an intrinsic good, even if debate is a game. But that doesn’t mean that procedural fairness doesn’t matter.
If the aff solves an impact and the neg model excludes them (fully or to whatever threshold is explained) I’ll vote aff. If the neg proves that their model of debate is better and can resolve or outweigh the aff, I vote neg.
Theory - I think theory is strategic and a good way to check back against abuse, I just find these debates shallow and late-breaking. Usually the 1AR will spend 10 seconds on it and then the 2AR will make up things for 5 mins that I can't evaluate because it's all new. So either write better blocks or deal with all cheaty counterplans. My threshold for voting on theory is a scale, i.e., me voting on 1 condo bad requires more than me voting on PICs bad.
Misc -
I debated at Purdue for 4 years in college and debated at College Prep for 4 years in high school. I read a bunch of 'pomo' and disability Ks as a 2A and 2N, won some rounds, lost some others.
I don't hate you, I'm just not very expressive.
If you're uncomfortable with what is happening during a round, let me know and I'll do what I can.
Here's a list of people that have taught/coached me and shaped the way I look at debate: James Mollison, John Hines, Elliot Kovnick, Sara Beth Brooks, Michael Wimsatt, Ian Beier, and Lexy Green.
Emory ST ('28)
2024 The Ziggy Online Hosted by Wayne State Semi-finalist
Call me Ike, not judge, please.
Please add:
ikelovesdebate@gmail.com
debatebtbc@gmail.com
Tech over everything.
Defaults overcome by saying anything in your speech:
Inserting re-highlightings is fine.
Yes judge kick.
Presumption goes in the direction that makes sense. If no aff offense, vote neg. If no deficit, an intact aff advantage, but no neg offense, judge kick the CP and vote aff.
Things that might be useful:
IP knowledge is low-to-serviceable. I've cut a few affs and Process CPs, but lack enough knowledge to adjudicate a side bias debate in a manner congruent with reality (i.e. I know what the Sui Generis CP is, but don't know if it's truly a mainstay in the negative's arsenal).
Teams must identify arguments as new. The exception to this is new 2AR arguments, as there is no 3NR.
The warrants of dropped arguments don't need to be re-explained.
I won't read much evidence and probably don't want a card doc. It's up to the debaters to explain and spin their evidence; absent thorough evidence comparison that requires me to read cards, my interpretation of evidence quality shouldn't matter.
I like theory debates. 'Conditionality bad' is both untrue and underutilized.
I can't read your mind. Judge instruction is way to maximize the likelihood of receiving a satisfactory decision. Judging debates has made me realize that it's very easy to make mistakes, so you should leave me to my own devices as little as possible.
Regarding brainrot:
I'll evaluate anything, with no penalty to speaker points, as it's unfair to exclude arguments based on an arbitrary evaluation of how "real" or "germane" they are. However, "truer" arguments are easier to win, not because I'll 'lower the bar' for them, but because they should be supported by stronger and less easily-refutable justifications (which you still need to make).
If you're doing something weird, please do it well. Watching a terrible wipeout debate is one of the most depressing things on earth.
Feel free to ask questions. So far, I've thought a lot about every round a debater post-rounded me in. I'll admit I'm wrong if you're right.
I’ll probably take a really long time to decide. Sorry, but I like being thorough.
Have fun and be nice!
Dhruva Sood(he/him)
Head-Royce '24
USC '28
Put me on the chain: Dhruvasood1@gmail.com and HRSDebatedocs@gmail.com
Top Level:
Read what you want. I read a Kaff for three years in high school, and went for the K in most rounds, but my 1nrs were made up of T, DAs, CPs and Case.
Tech > Truth, I will vote for anything under the sun. I think judges saying tech over truth but then listing arguments they won't vote for is a little ridiculous (barring anything violent, racist, homophobic, etc..). there are predispositions below, but all of them can be overcome if you win it technically.
If you have new out of the box arguments or arguments you think most judges won't vote for I'll be good for you.
Evidence quality matters a lot to me, I will read every card that is mentioned in the final rebuttals. In order to win an argument you must win a claim + evidence + impact, if you fail to have a card that substantiates your claim or impact you cannot win that argument, similarly if the evidence you have barely substantiates the claim or impact it's going to be a lot harder to win that argument. On the other hand, if your evidence is very good and specific you should be clear about that and flag it for me
Greatly prefer specific strats to generics. I have no issue with generic case or off case arguments, but am just likely to be more bored
Topicality:
I'm good for T, many of my 1nrs were extending it
Caselists are super useful
Competing interps is probably better than reasonability (but I can be convinced otherwise)
Disadvantages:
good for these, case debate is probably necessary here.
Make sure to have explicit warranted out reasons for outweighs and turns case analysis
Counterplans:
Least familiar with counterplan debates, particularly competition, if your strategy relies heavily on noncompetitive counterplans or dubiously competitive counterplans I am probably not the best judge for you. Not to say I won't vote here, but these are just debates I have had very little of in the past.
Good for specific pics
Judgekick is probably fine, but it has to be said
Kritiks:
Familiar with a good amount of literature bases, In high school I read security, cap, racial cap, deleuze, set col, asian american studies, critiques of enlightenment thinking, and the death k. Not super familiar with higher theory stuff, but should be able to keep up if you explain it.
specific link evidence and examples are the best thing to have in these debates.
Both sides should try to know early on whether the K is going to be framework or alt dependent. The latter requires more work as you probably have to do a good amount of case debating in addition to alt solvency and perm debating (the alt rarely ever actually solves case).
shiftiness is super annoying in these debates, if you're defending something like decol you should be ready to defend against the material implications/turns to that.
Cross ex is one of the most important parts of these debates, both sides are usually making a good amount of pretty flimsy arguments, so hold them to them.
explain your impacts, and impact out the links
K-Affs:
Good for kaffs that are intrinsic and close to the topic. I think k affs that have little to no resolutional tie are both boring and probably unstrategic.
Kaffs should affirm something, not just critique the resolution
Examples of your solvency/method are incredibly important and useful, please have them
Think spillout arguments are very unconvincing by both sides, I'm not sure why kaffs need to spill out, and i'm rarely convinced that they do
that being said, you should still have a coherent view of why the ballot/affirmation of your method is good
I think non T-usfg t options are highly strategic against kaff teams, find a word in the resolution they don't meet other than the usfg that doesn't necessitate state action, and kaffs are likely to just read their fw blocks straight down at you anyways. I will be incredibly happy if you read other t violations in these rounds.
Vs. framework:
Fairness can be an impact or internal link
Debate is a game, but it is not just a game
I prefer counterinterps/countermodels instead of just impact turns, I think having a clear view of what debates should look like is better than just why they're bad now.
The aff needs to have clear answers to TVAs and SSD that are embedded within the case. It will be a huge uphill battle for you otherwise.
I think reading a counterplan and turning it into a tva is kind of played out now, everyone expects it, and it doesn't seem to be a great time trade off
please read specific tvas to the aff, the debate will be substantially easier for you to win, and odds are [x] soft left aff of the year or [x] aff that talks about capitalism and oppression will not resolve the impacts of the affs framework arguments
Neg case debating is incredibly important, all of their framework offense will be imbedded in the 1ac
Vs. the K
winning that kaffs don't get perms is likely reliant on winning framework, which means its a largely unwinnable argument in my opinion. Absent winning framework I don't there is justification for there being a difference between kaffs and policy affs that justifies not giving them perms. that being said if the aff is super shifty I'm much more likely to buy this argument.
as said above for kaffs and k debates, I think examples on both sides are some of the most important things to have.
the aff should have clear perm evidence and link turn evidence, the neg should have clear and specific link evidence.
stick to your literature/authors. Odds are both sides authors will agree on things like cap or heg being bad, but that doesn't mean they are saying the same thing or are mutually compatible
Theory:
Probably not great for these debates, just the area I have the least experience in
realistically 4-5 condo is probably fine (can be convinced otherwise)
I have a low threshold for beating cheap theory arguments, but you've got to answer them
Misc:
I don't think you can insert rehilightings if the words that are relevant have not yet been said by either team. Debate is a communicative activity which means you have to speak your arguments.
The death k is 100% justifiable to be read in round
I won't vote on things that I didn't see/didn't happen in round
Racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.. = Auto loss + Lowest speaks possible
You can stop the round or debate out ethics violations, this is probably good to ensure more teams call them out. If you debate it out should have clear cuttings of the rules of the tournament and what an ethics violation is/looks like, from there you have to impact out why it matters.
Be funny, I am very easy to make laugh and it will go a long way
Funny references to current or past HRS debaters = +.1 speaker points
Some other paradigms to look at to better understand how I think about debate: T Weddington, Tessa Harper, Cat Jacob, Riley Reichel
I coach the Quarry Lane School. I debated at KU, had moderate success, and said a lot of good and bad arguments.
Emails: jspiersdebate@gmail.com, debate@student.quarrylane.org
I think debate is valuable because of its process. If you:
--cut your own cards
--write your own blocks
--attempt to emulate good debaters stylistically without wholesale ripping them off
--demonstrate that you are thinking strategically during the debate
I am a good judge for you, regardless of the arguments you say. I give speaker points far above my average to teams whose strategies involve engagement with the case that is beyond impact defense. I much prefer even imperfect engagement that demonstrates good process over the most perfect version of scripting the entire debate from copied wiki cards.
The above rant is wholly irrelevant to wins and losses, but may implicate how much I enjoy judging. I will decide debates technically to the best of my ability. I'm strict about cross-apps and newness. I don't want a card doc. I flow on excel straight down and attempt to transcribe your speech, without docs open.
I don't know if I've ever been seriously "post-rounded," but I don't care if I am and it won't implicate future decisions.
Evaluating some args requires a "reasonable person" standard. I can think of bad reasons why condo would outweigh T, why AFF framework against a K means that aspec doesn't negate since it doesn't disprove the desirability of the plan, but I wouldn't expect a 2NR to have to answer possible justifications for those cross-apps without explicit elaboration or impact calc.
Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS
email: s.stolte33@gmail.com
**prep time stops when the email is sent, stop stealing prep**
Updates 24-25 (more recent towards top)
-I did not spend my summer looking at IPR evidence or cases coming out of camp. Like zero. Do not assume based on past knowledge that I know what the acronyms you are using or what your plan does. You should be explaining things as you would to any other judge who did not work a summer camp/does not know the topic well
-maybe this is really "get off my lawn" of me, but the correlation between teams who under-highlight evidence and who are incomprehensibly unclear is becoming increasingly frustrating to me. It won't necessarily lose you the debate, but surely these practices don't help anyone
-LD living wage: See above ^ It feels like almost every "give a living wage to XYZ worker" aff has some 'creatively' highlighted ev that more often than not indicates a lack of competitive wages, but not lack of living wages
_________________________________________________________________
Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do best and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.
-Clash Debates: No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.
-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. See above statement about highlighting, but it's hard to buy an argument when the card read supporting it consists of like 3 disparately highlighted sentences and no warrants read. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.
-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate. Things you can do to fix this: pen time on theory args, numbering responses, not making a bunch of blippy analytical arguments back-to-back-to-back.
-Inserting evidence/CP text/perms: you have to say the words for me to consider it an argument
-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates. I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that K debate has stagnated to the point where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.
FOR LD PREFS (may be useful-ish for policy folks)
All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.
1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.
2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters.
3) I'll be honest, if you're going to read 10 blippy theory args/spikes, I'm already having a bad time
4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate
5) If you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you (read phil tricks/justifications to not answer neg offense). I'll try my best, but I often find myself struggling to find a reason why the aff/neg case has offense to vote on. I don't offhandedly know what words like 'permissiblity' or 'skep' mean and honestly everytime someone describes them to me they sound like nonsense and no one can actually articulate why they result in any sort of offense for the team reading them
6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can *seriously* be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.
7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range 28.4-28.5 average; 28.6-28.7 should have a chance to clear; 28.8-28.9 pretty good but some strategic blunders; 29+you were very good, only minor mistakes
he/him/his
Pronounced phonetically as DEB-nil. Not pronounced "judge", "Mister Sur", or "deb-NEIL".
Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco
Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains. If you have my personal email, don't put it on the email chain. Sensible subject please.
Lay Debate: I care deeply about adaptation and accessibility. I find "medium" debates (splits of lay and circuit judges) incredibly valuable for students' skills. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread. If both teams explicitly tell me they want a lay debate before hand, I will gladly toss out all my knowledge about debate and judge like a parent (think San Jose Indian father). Speaks will range from 28.5 to 30, and like a lay judge, I will choose random numbers in that range based on your aesthetic appeal.
Resolving Debates: Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor.
I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. In most debates, voting for either team is defensible; I will likely vote for the team that does more comparison and requires less intervention in terms of resolution. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the 1AC and the 1NC. Subsequent evidence is only read when deciding the debate. (When online, I always have docs open.) I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.
I take an above-average time to decide debates. My decision time has little relationship with the debate's closeness, and more with the time of day and my sleep deprivation. (I am typically the sole coach and judge with my teams, so I'm quite tired by elim day.) I usually start 5-10 minutes after the 2AR, so I can stretch my legs and let the debate marinate in my head. Debaters work hard, and I reciprocate that effort in making decisions. My decisions themselves are quite short. Most debates come down to 2-4 arguments, and I will identify those and explain my resolution. You're welcome to post-round. It can't change my decision, but I want to learn and improve as a judge and thinker too.
General Background: I work full-time in tech as a software engineer. In my spare time, I have coached policy debate at Lowell in San Francisco since 2018. I am involved in strategy and research and have coached both policy and K debaters to the TOC. I am, quite literally, a "framer", as a member of the national topic wording committee. Before that, I read policy arguments as a 2N at Bellarmine and did youth debate outreach (e.g., SVUDL) as a student at Stanford.
I've judged many excellent debates. Ideologically, I would say I'm 60/40 policy-leaning. I think my voting records don't reflect this, because K debaters tend to see the bigger picture in clash rounds.
I am judging some college debate, mostly to help the return of Stanford's team. No topic knowledge or college judging experience. I'm likely a policy-leaning clash judge in college prefs?
Topic Background: I judge and coach regularly and am fully aware of national circuit trends. I'm not super in the weeds as a researcher. I don't cut as many cards as I did in the pandemic years, and I don't work at debate camp.
I do work in software and have applied for patents on my day-to-day work. This personal experience will make me more skeptical of sweeping innovation or tech impacts. But if you're detailed, granular, and apply technical knowledge well, your speaks will benefit.
Voting Splits: I haven't updated these in a couple of years. I've been too busy with my non-debate life post pandemic. I think the trends exhibited on water are likely still accurate.
As of the end of the water topic, I have judged 304 rounds of VCX at invitationals over 9 years. 75 of these were during college; 74 during immigration and arms sales at West Coast invitationals; and 155 on CJR and water, predominantly at octafinals bid tournaments.
Below are my voting splits across the (synthetic) policy-K divide, where the left team represents the affirmative, as best as I could classify debates. Paradigm text can be inaccurate self-psychoanalysis, so I hope the data helps.
I became an aff hack on water. Far too often, the 2AR was the first speech doing comparative analysis instead of reading blocks. I hope this changes as we return to in-person debate.
Water
Policy v. Policy - 18-13: 58% aff over 31 rounds
Policy v. K - 20-18: 56% aff over 38 rounds
K v. Policy - 13-8: 62% aff over 21 rounds
K v. K - 1-1, 50% aff over 2 rounds
Lifetime
Policy v. Policy - 67-56: 55% for the aff over 123 rounds
Policy v. K - 47-52: 47% for the aff over 99 rounds
K v. Policy - 36-34: 51% for the aff over 70 rounds
K v. K - 4-4: 50% for the aff over 8 rounds
Online Debate:
1. I'd prefer your camera on, but won't make a fuss.
2. Please check verbally and/or visually with all judges and debaters before starting your speech.
3. If my camera's off, I'm away, unless I told you otherwise.
Speaker Points: I flow on my computer, but I do not use the speech doc. I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.
Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.
29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.
29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.
29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.
28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.
28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.
28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.
28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.
K Affs and Framework:
1. I have coached all sides of this debate.
2. I will vote for the team whose impact comparison most clearly answers the debate's central question. This typically comes down to the affirmative making negative engagement more difficult versus the neg forcing problematic affirmative positions. You are best served developing 1-2 pieces of offense well, playing defense to the other team's, and telling a condensed story in the final rebuttals.
3. Anything can be an impact---do what you do best. My teams typically read a limits/fairness impact and a procedural clash impact. From Dhruv Sudesh: "I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments."
4. Each team should discuss what a year of debate looks like under their models in concrete terms. Arguments like "TVA", "switch-side debate", and "some neg ground exists" are just subsets of this discussion. It is easy to be hyperbolic and discuss the plethora of random affirmatives, but realistic examples are especially persuasive and important. What would your favorite policy demon (MBA, GBN, etc.) do without an agential constraint? How does critiquing specific policy reforms in a debate improve critical education? Why does negative policy ground not center the affirmative's substantive conversation?
5. 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 affirmative. This especially happens when impact turning topicality---negatives do not seem to catch on yet.
6. I quite enjoy leveraging normative positions from 1AC cards for substantive disadvantages or impact turns. This requires careful link explanation by the negative but can be incredibly strategic. Critical affirmatives claim to access broad impacts based on shaky normative claims and the broad endorsement of a worldview, rather than a causal method; they should incur the strategic cost.
7. I am a better judge for presumption and case defense than most. It is often unclear to me how affirmatives solve their impacts or access their impact turns on topicality. The negative should leverage this more.
8. I occasionally judge K v K debates. I do not have especially developed opinions on these debates. Debate math often relies on causality, opportunity cost, and similar concepts rooted in policymaking analysis. These do not translate well to K v K debates, and the team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus typically wins. While the notion of "opportunity cost" to a method is still mostly nonsensical to me, I can be convinced either way on permutations' legitimacy.
Kritiks:
1. I do not often coach K teams but have familiarity with basically all critical arguments.
2. Framework almost always decides this debate. While I have voted for many middle-ground frameworks, they make very little strategic sense to me. The affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge actually compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? As a result, I am much better for "hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik.
3. I will decide the framework debate in favor of one side's interpretation. I will not resolve some arbitrary middle road that neither side presented.
4. If the kritik is causal to the plan, a well-executing affirmative should almost always win my ballot. The permutation double-bind, uniqueness presses on the link and impact, and a solvency deficit to the alternative will be more than sufficient for the affirmative. The neg will have to win significant turns case arguments, an external impact, and amazing case debating if framework is lost. At this point, you are better served going for a proper counterplan and disadvantage.
5. I will not evaluate non-falsifiable statements about events outside the current debate. Such an evaluation of minors grossly misuses the ballot. Strike me if this is a core part of your strategy.
Topicality:
1. This is about the plan text, not other parts of the 1AC. If you think the plan text is contrived to be topical, beat them on the PIC out of the topic and your topic DA of choice.
2. This is a question of which team's vision of the topic maximizes its benefits for debaters. I compare each team's interpretation of the topic through an offense/defense lens.
3. Reasonability is about the affirmative interpretation, not the affirmative case itself. In its most persuasive form, this means that the substance crowdout caused by topicality debates plus the affirmative's offense on topicality outweighs the offense claimed by the negative. This is an especially useful frame in debates that discuss topic education, precision, and similar arguments.
4. Any standards are fine. I used to be a precision stickler. This changed after attending topic meetings and realizing how arbitrarily wording is chosen.
5. From Anirudh Prabhu: "T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet." Topicality 101---the violation is a negative burden. If there's any uncertainty, I almost certainly vote aff with a decent "we meet" explanation.
Theory:
1. As with other arguments, I will resolve this fully technically. Unlike many judges, my argumentative preferences will not implicate how I vote. I will gladly vote on a dropped theory argument---if it was clearly extended as a reason to reject the team---with no regrets.
2. I'm generally in favor of limitless conditionality. But because I adjudicate these debates fully technically, I think I vote affirmative on "conditionality bad" more than most.
3. From Rafael Pierry: "most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. ... Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome." For me, this is especially true with counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy. While I do not love the delay counterplan, I think it is much more easily beaten through competition arguments than theoretical ones.
4. If a counterplan has specific literature to the affirmative plan, I will be extremely receptive to its theoretical legitimacy and want to grant competition. But of course, the counterplan text must be written strategically, and the negative must still win competition.
Counterplans:
1. I'm better for strategies that depend on process and competition than most. These represent one of my favorite aspects of debate---they combine theory and substance in fun and creative ways---and I've found that researching and strategizing against them generates huge educational benefits for debaters, certainly on par with more conventionally popular political process arguments like politics and case.
2. I have no disposition between "textual and functional competition" and "only functional competition". Textual alone is pretty bad. Positional competition is similarly tough, unless the affirmative grants it. Think about how a model of competition justifies certain permutations---drawing these connections intelligently helps resolve the theoretical portion of permutations.
3. Similarly, I am agnostic regarding limited intrinsicness, either functional or textual. While it helps check against the truly artificial CPs, it justifies bad practices that hurt the negative. It's certainly a debate that you should take on. That said, if everyone is just spreading blocks, I usually end up negative on the ink. Block to 2NR is easier to trace than 1AR to 2AR.
4. People need to think about deficits to counterplans. If you can't impact deficits to said counterplans, write better advantages. The negative almost definitely does not have evidence contextualizing their solvency mechanism to your internal links---explain why that matters!
5. Presumption goes to less change---debate what this means in round. Absent this instruction, if there is an advocacy in the 2NR and I do not judge kick it when deciding, I'm probably not voting on presumption.
6. Decide in-round if I should kick the CP. I'll likely kick it if left to my own devices. The affirmative should be better than the status quo. (To be honest, this has never mattered in a debate I've judged, and it amuses me that judge kick is such a common paradigm section.)
Disadvantages:
1. There is not always a risk. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, and we cannot determine its sign or magnitude.
2. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad advantages can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.
3. Shorten overviews, and make sure turns case arguments actually implicate the aff's internal links.
4. Will vote on any and all theoretical arguments---intrinsicness, politics theory, etc. Again, arguments are arguments, debate them out.
Ethics:
1. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points.
2. You need a recording to prove the other team is clipping. If I am judging and think you are clipping, I will record it and check the recording before I stop the debate. Any other method deprives you of proof.
3. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX in constructives or the other's team prep time in a rebuttal. You do not need to remove cards you did not read in the marked copy, unless you skipped a truly ridiculous amount. This practice is inane and justifies debaters doc-flowing.
4. Emailing isn’t prep. If you take too long, I'll tell you I'm starting your prep again.
5. If there is a different alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team alleging the violation if they want to stop the debate. If so, I will ask the accused team to provide written defense; check the tournament's citation rules; and decide. I will then decide the debate based on that violation and the tournament policy---I will not restart the debate---this makes cite-checking a no-risk option as a negative strategy, which seems really bad.
If you could have emailed the other team about your ethics violation, I will only evaluate it if there's proof you contacted the other team. Prepping ethics violations as case negs is far worse than any evidence ethics violation I've seen.
Note that if the ethics violation is made as an argument during the debate and advanced in multiple speeches as a theoretical argument, you cannot just decide it is a separate ethics violation later in the debate. I will NOT vote on it, I will be very annoyed with you, and you will probably lose and get 27s if you are resorting to these tactics.
6. The closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument, the more likely you should be reading it instead of inserting. If you are point out blatant mis-highlighting in a card, typically in a defensive fashion on case, then insertion is fine. I will readily scratch excessive insertion with clear instruction.
Miscellaneous:
1. I'll only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence.
2. Dropped arguments should be flagged clearly. If you say that clearly answered arguments were dropped, you're hurting your own persuasion.
3. Please send cards in a Word doc. Body is fine if it's just 1-3 cards. I don't care if you send analytics, though it can help online.
4. Unless the final rebuttals are strictly theoretical, the negative should compile a card doc post 2NR and have it sent soon after the 2AR. The affirmative should start compiling their document promptly after the 2AR. Card docs should only include evidence referenced in the final rebuttals (and the 1NC shell, for the negative)---certainly NOT the entire 1AC.
5. As a judge, I can stop the debate at any point. The above should make it clear that I am very much an argumentative nihilist---in hundreds of debates, I have not come close to stopping one. So if I do, you really messed up, and you probably know it.
6. I am open to a Technical Knockout. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, not yours) and explain why it is unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out.
Be mindful of context: calling this against sophomores in presets looks worse than against an older team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.
7. Not about deciding debates, but a general offer to debate folk reading this. As someone who works in tech, I think it is a really enjoyable career path and quite similar to policy debate in many ways. If you would like to learn more about tech careers, please feel free to email me. As a high school student, it was very hard to learn about careers not done by my parents or their friends (part of why I'm in tech now!). I am happy to pass on what knowledge I have.
Above all, be kind to each other, and have fun!
Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.
tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.
Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.
Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.
Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.
Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.
Quarry Lane, CA | 6-12 Speech/Debate Director | 2019-present
Harker, CA | 6-8 Speech/Debate Director | 2016-18
Loyola, CA | 9-12 Policy Coach | 2013-2016
Texas | Assistant Policy Coach 2014-2015
Texas | Policy Debater | 2003-2008 (2x NDT elims and 2x top 20 speaker)
Samuel Clemens, TX | Policy Debater | 1999-2003 (1x TOC qual)
Big picture:
- I don't read/flow off the doc.
- no evidence inserting. I read what you read.
- I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author/date + claim + warrant + data + impact" model) over breadth (the "author + claim + impact" model) any day.
- Ideas communicated per minute > words per minute. I'm old, I don't care to do a time trial of flowing half-warrants and playing "connect the dots" for impacts. 3/4 of debaters have terrible online practices, so this empirically applies even more so for online debates.
- I minimize the amount of evidence I read post-round to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). Don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
- I care a lot about data/method and do view risk as "everyone starts from zero and it goes up from there". This primarily lets me discount even conceded claims, apply a semi-laugh test to ridiculous arguments, and find a predictable tiebreaker when both sides hand me a stack of 40 cards.
- I'm fairly flexible in argument strategy, and either ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some highlights: wipeout, foucault k, the cp, regression framework, reg neg cp, consult china, cap k, deleuze k, china nano race, WTO good, indigenous standpoint epistemology, impact turns galore, biz con da, nearly every politics da flavor imaginable, this list goes on and on.
- I am hard to offend (though not impossible) and reward humor.
- You must physically mark cards.
- I think infinite world condo has gotten out of hand. A good rule of thumb as a proxy (taking from Shunta): 4-6 offcase okay, 7 pushing, if you are reading 8 or more, your win percentage and points go down exponentially. Also, I will never judge kick - make a decision in 2NR.
- 1NC args need to be complete, else I will likely buy new answers on the entire sheet. A DA without U or IL isn't complete. A CP without a card likely isn't complete. A K with just a "theory of power" but no links isn't complete. A T arg without a definition card isn't complete. Cards without any warrants/data highlighted (e.g. PF) are not arguments.
- I personally believe in open disclosure practices, and think we should as a community share one single evidence set of all cards previously read in a single easily accessible/searchable database. I am willing to use my ballot to nudge us closer.
-IP topic stuff - I have a law degree and am a tech geek, so anything that absolutely butchers the law will probably stay at zero even if dropped.
Topicality
-I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
-I'm extremely unlikely to vote for a dropped hidden aspec or similar and extremely likely to tank your points for trying.
-We meet is yes/no question. You don't get to weigh standards and risk of.
-Aff Strategy: counter-interp + offense + weigh + defense or all in on we meet or no case meets = best path to ballot.
Framework against K aff
-in a tie, I vote to exclude. I think "logically" both sides framework arguments are largely empty and circular - the degree of actual fairness loss or education gain is probably statistically insignificant in any particular round. But its a game and you do you.
-I prefer the clash route + TVA. Can vote for fairness only, but harder sell.
-Very tough sell on presumption / zero subject formation args. Degree ballot shapes beliefs/research is between 0 and 1 with neither extreme being true, comparative claims on who shapes more is usually the better debate pivot.
-if have decent k or case strat against k aff, usually much easier path to victory because k affs just seem to know how to answer framework.
-Aff Strategy: Very tough sell for debate bad, personalized ballot pleas, or fairness net-bad. Lots of defense to predict/limits plus aff edu > is a much easier path to win.
Framework against neg K
-I default to (1) yes aff fiat (2) yes links to 1AC speech act (3) yes actual alt / framework isn't an alt (4) no you link you lose.
-Debaters can debate out (1) and (2), can sometimes persuade me to flip on (3), but will pretty much never convince me to flip on (4).
Case Debate
-I enjoy large complex case debates about the topic.
-Depth in explanation and impacting over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant or card comparison will do far more damage to the 1AR than 3 new cards that likely say same warrant as original card.
Disads
-Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments less so.
Counterplans
-I think literature should guide both plan solvency deficit and CP competition ground.
-For theory debates (safe to suspect): adv cps = uniqueness cps > plan specific PIC > topic area specific PIC > textual word PIK = domestic agent CP > ban plan then do "plan" cp = certainty CPs = delay CPs > foreign agent CP > plan minus penny PICs > private actor/utopian/other blatant cheating CP
-Much better for perm do cp (with severance justified because of THEORY) than perm other issues (with intrinsicness justified because TEXT/FUNCT COMP english games). I don't really believe in text+funct comp (just eliminates "bad" theory debaters, not actually "bad" counterplans, e.g. replace "should" with "ought").
-perms and theory are tests of competition and not a voter.
-debatable perms are - perm do both, do cp/alt, do plan and part of CP/alt. Probably okay for combo perms against multi-conditional plank cps. Only get 1 inserted perm text per perm flowed.
-Aff strategy: good for logical solvency deficits, solvency advocate theory, and high level theory debating. Won't presume CP solves when CP lacks any supporting literature.
Critiques
-I view Ks as a usually linear disad and the alt as a CP.
-Much better for a traditional alt (vote neg -> subject formation -> spills out) than utopian fiated alts, floating piks, movements alts, or framework is my second alt.
-Link turn case (circumvention) and/or impact turns case (root/prox cause) is very important.
-I naturally am a quantitative poststructuralist. Don't think I've ever willingly voted on an ontology argument or a "zero subject formation" argument. Very open to circumvention oriented link and state contingency link turn args.
-Role of ballot is usually just a fancy term for "didn't do impact calculus".
-No perms for method Ks is the first sign you don't really understand what method is.
-Aff strategy: (impact turn a link + o/w other links + alt fails) = (case spills up + case o/w + link defense + alt fails) > (fiat immediate + case o/w + alt too slow) > (perm double bind) > (ks are cheating).
-perms generally check clearly noncompetitive alt jive, but don't normally work against traditional alts if the neg has any link.
Lincoln Douglas
-no trix, phil, friv theory, offcase spam, or T args written by coaches.
-treat it like a policy round that ends in the 1AR and we'll both be happy.
Public Forum
-no paraphrasing, yes email chain, yes share speech doc prior to speech. In TOC varsity, points capped at 27.5 if violate as minimum penalty.
-if paraphrase, it's not evidence and counts as an analytic, and cards usually beat analytics.
-I think the ideal PF debate is a 2 advantage vs 2 disadvantage semi-slow whole rez policy debate, where the 2nd rebuttal collapses onto 1 and the 1st summary collapses onto 1 as well. Line by line, proper, complete argument extensions, weighing, and card comparisons are a must.
-Good for non-frivilous theory and proper policy style K. TOC level debaters usually good at theory but still atrocious executing the K, so probably don't go for a PF style K in front of me.
-prefer some civility and cross not devolve into lord of the flies.
The affirmative should read a plan. The neg should disprove the plan by demonstrating the status quo or a competitive alternative are preferable or the plan is not topical.
I will not vote for the kritik. I am uninterested in judging debates unrelated to the agreed upon topic.
”Conditionality bad” is a self-report for teams incapable of answering arguments efficiently and effectively. I will not vote for it.
If equally debated, I’m likely to conclude functional alone is a less desirable vision of competition than functional and textual.
Inserting is fine until someone makes an argument about it.
Assistant Director of Debate at Dartmouth;Coach at Sonoma Academy and Head Royce. He/him.
Email Chain
Add me: ant981228@gmail.com
College people, add:debatedocs@googlegroups.com
High school people, add: sonomacardscardscards@gmail.com
Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.
I write here.
Key Things to Know
1. I will flow your debate and vote based on that flow. I will read evidence if needed to learn more about an issue that the flow is insufficient to decide.
2. I will flow on paper in line-by-line format with my computer closed. If I do not have paper and cannot borrow it, I will flow on my computer and will not have the speech doc open. I will not attempt to reconstruct my flow from the speech doc. If you are interested in me writing down what you said, you should deliver your speech in a way that reflects that interest. If I did not understand something you said based on your speech, your opponent does not have to respond to it.
3. I prefer negs that clash.
4. I will judge kick unless instructed otherwise.
5. If you say death good you lose.
6. If you ask for a 30 you will get a 25.
Online
I STRONGLY prefer that all cameras be on whenever anyone in the debate is speaking, but I understand if internet or other considerations prevent this.
If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.
Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:
1. Inflect more when you are talking.
2. Put your face in frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.
3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.
4. Talk one at a time.
Big Picture
Tech determines truth unless it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument. I strongly prefer to solve problems without resorting to violence or force.
Here is my decision procedure:
1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide them first based on the debating, then work outward.
2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.
3. I will intervene if there is no non-interventionary decision.
4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide fewer issues.If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue.
This procedure typically means (for example):
1. I will prioritize resolution of impact claims.
2. I will deprioritize resolution of claims that do not affect the relative magnitude of two sides' offense. For example, in a DA/case debate where turns case is conceded, uniqueness is often irrelevant since aff solvency is reduced to the same extent neg offense is inevitable.
As of end-of-season 2024, I have voted aff 47% of the time, and sat on 11% of panels.
I often vote quickly. This does not necessarily mean the debate was lopsided or bad; more likely, it is a sign that the teams clearly communicated the relationships between their arguments, allowing me to perform evaluations as the debate is happening. If I take a long time that means I was unable to do this, either because there was significant complexity in the debate or because communication was poor.
DAs
The agenda DA will usually not survive a rich, accurate description of the current legislative agenda based on thoughtfully reading the news.
CPs
Will judge kick unless told otherwise. I am neg on most substantive theory questions, but strongly aff on the value of theory debate as an exercise. The idea that theory is categorically bad because it is non-resolutional strikes me as little more than textualist cosplay.
Functional competition + arguing about what your plan does and how we can tell >>>>> anything involving the concept of textual competition. Textual competition is mind poison that corrupts any competition model it touches.
If I can't explain what a CP does and how it accomplishes whatever the neg says it does, I am unlikely to vote for it. You can avoid this by writing a meaningful CP text AND explaining it in the speech.
T
I love a good T debate. I really don't like a bad one. What sets these apart is specific application of broad offense to interpretations and impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic.
I prefer topics with conceptual frameworks that guide aff and neg preparation and research.
Many parts of a T argument can be enhanced with cards - e.g. link to limits, claims of aff/neg bias in the literature, predictability via prodicts/indicts.
Argue by analogy and comparison to other affs, especially in CX.
Ks
All offense needs uniqueness. Uniqueness means that given a framework for evaluating a debate, the harms to be avoided are present on one side and absent in at least one legitimate option presented by the other. I do not care how this is achieved mechanically - turning your K into a DA is fine, an alternative is fine, a framework argument that is secretly an alternative is fine - as long as you communicate how each approach generates uniqueness for the offense you want to go for.
For whatever it's worth, I do most of my thinking about debate arguments through the lens of competition theory. This includes neg K framework arguments (which, in front of me, would benefit from disaggregating the questions of what about the aff is a basis for competition, what alternatives are legitimate, and what impacts are the most important). If you say "ontology first," what I will hear is that the aff's ontology is a basis for competition. I will expect the link arguments to be about the aff's ontology, and I will expect to hear about an alternative ontology. When these components are misaligned, my struggle with neg perm answers tends to increase.
Planless Affs
I do not judge many debates involving nontraditional affs. The biggest hurdles to voting aff for me are usually: 1) why can't the aff be read on the neg, 2) why is the aff's offense inherent to resolutional debate or to voting neg on framework instead of some avoidable examples, and 3) how do I reconcile the aff's vision of debate or the topic with debate's inherently (even if not exclusively) competitive nature.
I am very willing to entertain arguments that attempt to denaturalize debate as competition but struggle when these critiques lack an alternative or a theory of why debate as a way of putting two teams and a judge in conversation with one another is nevertheless useful.
I think affs that creatively reinterpret the resolution in a way that does not create excessive curricular demands would be more up my alley, but no one has tested this, so proceed with caution.
I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan. However, "no plan, no perms" is nonsense.
The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.
Speaker Points
Strong strategy, being fun/engaging to watch, being smart, being classy, being clear = higher speaks.
Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making CXs annoying/pointless, making bad arguments, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks. A new and frequent pet peeve is answering things from the doc that were not in the speech - that is 28.5 behavior.
I do not view speaker points as divorced from substance.
My points are slightly below average.
You can find my ethics and conduct policies here.
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
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
My email is tjdebate08@gmail.com
please label the email chain tournament name + round #
General Judging
I'm cool with tag teaming, though I think both speakers should do their best to answer individually
Spreading- I'm okayish with it tho I would appreciate it if there was an emphasis on taglines/main arguments (like slowing down during certain stuff, raising voice etc). Keep in mind I flow on paper,,
I will reference evidence documents for throughout the speech, but i will not be looking in depth at it unless im told to by debaters
Run what you like, I am familiar with the types of arguments you make however, I am not familiar with this topic specifics so if it's a niche argument don't assume I know it.
I will not do any work for you, make my life easy, simplify and tell me what im voting on.
I do consider cross ex as a type of speech in the way i am viewing and framing your arguments
(I will give higher speaks if you can provide clear judge instruction.)
Specific Policy Arguments
Policy sometimes overwhelms me so please try to simplify/slow down especially in rebuttal speeches.
On Condo bad: I'm more willing to vote, for it if the negative runs more than 5 or more off. I just prefer having in depth debates.
T: Not the best judge for policy t vs policy t however I do think that limits is a key component in debate because it does result in the type of education we recieve in round and certain arguments can affect a teams ground.
Tech over truth but keep in mind I'm more lenient toward the truth than most.
Counterplan- I like these most when the net benefits are weighed in the round, so not so much a one sentence counterplan with no evidence. A personal pet peeve is when that one sentence counter plan ends up dropped by the block
DA- impact calc pls make my decision easy also the LINKKK explain it
K/K Affs
Generally Im good with most k literature i've run racial cap k, set col, epistemic abolition/ anarchism . Though while I am familiar with most literature, high theory ks can still be really tricky to follow through so just try to explain please
For Negative Ks : Try to be familiar with your literature, and try to articulate how the aff links, not just generically. If you can label your links and impact them throughout the speech your chances of winning are higher. Also answer why the aff doesnt get a perm? Why is the aff a bad idea? Impact it out
For K affs specifically: I'm cool with you but please be ready to defend framework well because I want to understand why you think this approach is more beneficial to the debate space and why your education matters.
For both k/ k affs: Explain your alternative. Do not dodge around the question its okay not to be material and focus on education but explain the WHY and defend. Or if you are a material alt explain.
Fw= I value education and portable skills.
LD
No tricks, please.
Take a breath before you debate and do your best! you got this!
Unionville '23
4 years CX, 3 years LD. i hated reading thru paradigms so i'm keeping this short :)
tech > truth. be nice, have fun! pls add me to the email chain: unionvillewn@gmail.com
feel free the email any questions after round!
To LDeRs:
1 - stock Ks, policy args
2 - creative phil
3 - theory, T
4 - confusing CPs, Kant & Hobbes (smh), pomo Ks
5/S - tricks, friv theory
Anyways I was a flex debater until I specialized in the (awesome) Cap K in my junior and senior year, so go for whatever arg that you're comfortable going with, I most likely would understand most things u say if you explain it well (as long as spreading's clear).
- Start slow then build up, takes a bit time to adjust to circuit speed.
- CLASH pls pls pls
- pls explain complicated CPs
--> would prefer to have less than 5 neg flows
CX:
did all speeches at some point lol. My partner was more policy-focused while i was more K-focused, read plans on aff and neg strat was a combo of DA, CP, and cap K. So i'm def familiar with most argument style and had plenty of rounds on both sides of K v plan.
--> would prefer to have less than 6 neg flows
--> explain your CPs, would say that I'm def not the best judge there for complicated CPs, usually find them hard to understand & interpret. Also I do think that some random niche process CPs are probably abusive?? Not to say you shouldn't run them, all depends on the round and what's strategic
--> threshold for voting on theory might be slightly lower than your average policy judge bc of LD experience
--> love clever cross-apps and turns
--> love a good K debate
--> love a good clash debate w/ good weighing
for novices:
1 - please use up all your speech time!!! If u still have time left, default to doing some weighing or summarizing your case, those can never go wrong.
2 - Rebuttal Speech Structure (not required but it helps to be organized) should follow a SAR structure: Summarize, Answer, Respond. First, summarize your contention (this is your offense), answer the defense that your opponent has read against you, and then respond and attack (offense) against your opponent's case.
3 - Extending your case--> There's often a misconception that if your opponent drops something, then it's auto-assumed that you win it and it is true. It's only true if you also summarize your contention and provide warrants for why your contention is true and how it outweighs your opponent's impacts
speaks:
+0.1 for sending over a good debate meme!
+0.2 for being paperless, debate doesn't deserve to waste that much paper. remind me at the top of ur doc
+0.2 for not spreading when you go against novice or traditional debaters, make the debate educational and not inaccessible. pls don't read theory or tricks against them
NO SPEAKS BUT
- If you read cap and want a cap K masterfile (mostly cut by myself), i'm down to share and discuss strats outside of round!
Any pronouns. I've debated 1 year of JV CEDA Policy debate and I've done about 2.5 years of pf and half a year of Parli.
If I see you consuming an item on the BDS strike list or from starbucks I'm giving you 25 speaks. Companies that support genocide or attack their unions should not be supported.
I love to be included in things, especially things like email chains! Please add bothsw4641@nyu.edu and myndblew@gmail.com to the email chain. You can also email me any questions after the round at sw4641@nyu.edu.
I am NOT good with speed. You need to signpost or I will get lost in the sauce, and when going through your t/condo shells or perm shotguns, DSLOWOWN. If you want me to get an analytic on my flow I NEED you to go SLOWER. If it gets dropped it is because you did not make it clear enough for me. This can also be completely circumvented by just sending your analytics, which I am in favor of, at which point you can go as fast as you want as long as text is sent. I will shout clear three times. After the third time, if I cannot understand you any more, I will start playing BTD6.
Using the phrase "miss the boat" will earn you 0.2 speaks and an encouraging smile from your judge. This is a one time deal for each debater.
T
I have a pretty hard time voting for T unless it's super egregious/mishandled, I do like T- USFG vs. k aff debates tho.
I don't believe fairness is an actual standard, I think it's a good internal link into education but this articulation needs to be made.
K
I like Ks a lot but only if I can understand the theory of power so if you're reading smthn wacky you are better off overexplaining.
For Ks on the neg, I think krit condo is true, so affs will have a very easy time convincing me that I should vote teams down for conditional ks.
For folks reading K affs, there needs to be a very good articulation of what your in round solvency is, I think spillup is shaky at best so you need to very clearly tell me how you solve.
I think I have a very low threshold for antiblack Ks and tend to judge them unfairly. I'm really easily swayed by antiblackness args on either side.
DAs
I do not think most debaters explain or implicate DAs enough. If you want me to vote on a DA, you need to really really weigh it and blow it up in the 2nr. I think teams spend too little time on these and they exist on my flow most of the time as non-voters because not enough of the round is made to center on them, which I think is a shame. Most of the time I think it's hard to win DA outweighs case, so you need to do it really well or make a DA turns case arg somewhere in there.
CPs
I'm down for the 2ac reading a million perms but I will not care if it doesn't make it into the 1ar
Process CPs need to be explained to me, also a peeve of mine is ppl just saying "net benefit" to refer to the net benefit, I'd rather you be explicit and directly tell me why the CP competes without debate jargon
Case
The aff has a case, they should stick to it, I feel like some teams get too lost in the sauce and lose their core advocacy. I think I have a pretty easy time granting the aff offense, most neg teams don't do a good job of convincing me that the aff does nothing at all, so you should not bank on presumption unless it's really mishandled. Alwaysread overviews, also.
Tricks
do NOT read tricks with me I WILL, in fact, start playing BTD6.
PF
Second summary is a little late to be bringing up new responses, I don't weigh these as heavily and I'm really generous for the first final focus frontlining. Other than that, evidence and new stuff in final focus kind of goes out the window for me.
I know y'all are probably not too used to it but please make an email chain and get your opponent and me on it. Evidence ethics are super sketchy in this event and I just do not want to deal with the 20 minutes wasted every round looking and reading for cards. Just send your speech docs, especially if they use evidence, and we'll all be happier.
Assistant Coach at Damien-St. Lucy's. I debated for Bellarmine in high school.
I evaluate debates solely based on the technical debating of arguments presented. I will fairly consider every type of argument and argumentative style. However, my debating background is nearly exclusively policy oriented. I only read affirmatives with plans and predominantly went for policy arguments on the negative. This does not mean I will automatically exclude things like planless affirmatives, but it does mean that in a round with a planless affirmative versus framework I am likely to better understand the negative team's arguments. I will do my best to mitigate those biases.
The only exception to the above is that I will refuse to evaluate arguments about occurences outside of the round. In other words, I do not evaluate callouts or similar strategies.
I will reward clear line by line, clarity, strategic vision, technical proficiency, and creativity with high speaker points. Rudeness, arrogance, or other unethical behavior will be punished with low speaker points.
Evidence ethics should be debated out like a theory argument. The punishment for reading miscut evidence should be proportional to the egregiousness of the violation. Clipping is cheating and results in the round getting immediately stopped. You need a recording to prove that clipping has occured.
Tyler Vergho and Aaron Langerman have taught me everything I know about debate. I'd likely agree with most of their debate thoughts.
Rehighlightings can be inserted so long as they exist in text already presented. If the rehighlighting is in a totally different section of the article than what the other team has cut, you should probably read it.
Both zero risk and 100% risk are possible. Presumption is possible.
Peninsula '23 | Emory '27
Tech over truth but arguments must be clear and complete upon introduction. That means they must explicitly provide a warranted reason to vote for you or against the other team. Common practices that do not meet this threshold include embedded theory arguments, floating piks, laundry-list impacts, DAs that fail to establish causality and counterplans that lack solvency and/or mechanism explanation.
I have profound appreciation for the dedication that goes into preparing for debate tournaments, and I judge debates accordingly. I am worse than most for strategies that are not reflective of topic research and are instead reliant on debate techne & clash evasion.
This is not to say that you should radically alter your strategy in the pre-round if I am judging you, nor imply that contrived topicality arguments, process counterplans & exclusive framework interpretations are unwinnable, but to be transparent that I may not be the optimal judge for teams whose pre-tournament preparation consists primarily of writing blocks rather than cutting cards.
Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers
Please add both kelly@college-prep.org and cpsspeechdocs@gmail.com to the chain.
Please format the chain subject like this: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code. Please make sure the chain is set up before the start time.
Background
I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum. I'd say my comfort for judging rounds is Policy vs. Policy ~ Policy vs. K ~ Clash Rounds >>> K vs. K.
I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur, and I think about debate in the same way as this guy.He's probably the person I talk to the most when it comes to strategies and execution, it would be fair to say that if you like the way that he judges then I am also a good judge for you.
General Things
I'll vote on anything.I think there is certainly a lot of value in ideological flexibility.
I am unwilling to use my ballot to take a stance on anything that happened outside of the round (I guess the only exception would be disclosure). Things like call outs that require me to "punish" a team for behavior that I did not witness are a non-starter -- happy to allow you to end the round and take it to tab if you feel like your safety is at risk.
Tech >>>>>>>>> truth: I'd rather adapt to your strategies than have you adapt to what you think my preferences are. The below are simply guidelines & ways to improve speaks via things I like seeing rather than ideological stances on arguments.
Looooove judge instruction - if I hear a ballot being written in the 2NR/2AR, I will basically just go along with it and verify if what you are saying is correct. The closer my decision is to words you have said in the 2NR/2AR, the higher your speaker points will be.
I will not use my ballot to resolve things that happened outside the round. Take it to tab or trusted adult coaches. Disclosure is an exception.
2024-2025 Round Stats:
Policy vs. Policy (14-19): 42% aff over 33 rounds, 40% aff in a theory/T debate over 5 rounds
Policy vs. K (2-7): 22% aff over 9 rounds
Clash (1-2): 66% neg over 3 rounds
K vs. K (3-0): 100% aff over 3 rounds
Sat once out of 13 elim rounds
2023-2024 Round Stats:
Policy vs. Policy (11-20): 35.93% aff over 31 rounds, 22.22% aff in a theory debate over 9 rounds
Policy vs. K (5-2): 71.43% aff over 7 rounds
Clash (2-3): 40% aff over 5 rounds
K v K (1-0): 100% aff over 1 round
Sat once out of 13 elim rounds
Disads
Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. I start evaluation at the impact level to determine link threshold & risk of the disad. My preference for evaluation is if there is explicit ballot writing + evidence indicts + resolution done by yourself in the 2NR/2AR, I would love not to open the card document and make a more interventionist judgement.
CPs
Default to judge kick. If the affirmative team has a problem with me doing this, that words "condo bad" should have been in the 2AC and explanation for no judge kick warranted out in the 1AR/2AR.
The proliferation of 1NCs with like 10 process counterplans has been kind of wild, and probably explains my disproportionately neg leaning ballot record. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."
I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.
Ks
Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.
Very bad for post-modernism, simply because I've never read them + rarely debated them in high school. If you have me in the back you need to do a LOT of explanation.
Planless Affs/Framework
Generally, I don’t think people do enough work comparing/explaining their competing models of debate and its benefits other than “they exclude critical discussions!!!!”
For the aff: Tying your criticism to the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of advocacies not tied to the topic. Open to perms in method debates, but is something that can be debated. I prefer nuanced perm explanations rather than just “it’s not mutually exclusive”.
For the neg: I don’t really buy procedural fairness - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate having an effect on subjectivity. I don't think I'd never vote on fairness, but I think the way that most debaters extend it just sound whiney and don't give me a reason to prefer it over everything else. Impacts like agonism, legal skills, deliberation, etc are infinitely more convincing to me. Absent a procedural question of framework, I am just evaluating whether or not I think the advocacy is a good idea, not that I think the reading of it in one round has to change the state of debate/the world.
Topicality / Theory
I default to competing interps. Explanations of your models/differences between your interps + caselists >>>>> “they explode limits” in 10 different places. Please please please please do impact comparison.
Topic education, clash, and in-depth research are more convincing to me than generic fairness impacts.
Theory debates are usually the most difficult for me to resolve, and probably the most interventionist I would have to be in an RFD. Very explicit judge instruction and ballot writing is needed to avoid such intervention.
Ethics Violations/Procedurals
I don't flow off speech docs, but I try to follow along when you're reading evidence to ensure you're not clipping. If I catch you clipping, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what you're doing. I will give you a warning, but drop you if it happens again. If the other team catches you and wants to stake the round on an ethics challenge, I doubt you're winning that one.
Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations. If you believe the ballot should resolve a question of norms (disclosure, open sourcing, etc), then I will evaluate it like a regular procedural. If you believe it's an ethics violation (intentionally modifying evidence, clipping, etc), then the round stops immediately. Loser of the ethics challenge receives an auto loss and 20s.
Evidence ethics can be really iffy to resolve. If you want to stake the round on an evidence distortion, you must prove: that the piece of evidence was cut by the other team (or someone affiliated with their school) AND there was clear and malicious intent to alter its meaning. If your problem isn't surrounding distortion but rather mistagging/misinterpreting the evidence, it can be solved via a rehighlighting.
Online Debate
Please don't start until you see my camera on!
If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.
I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.
Lay Debate / GGSA
I actually really appreciate these rounds. I think at the higher levels, debaters tend to forget that debate is a communicative activity at its core, and rely on the judge's technical knowledge to get out of impacting out arguments themselves. If we are in a lay setting and you'd rather not have a fast round when I'm in the back, I'll be all for that. There is such a benefit in adapting to slower audiences and over-explaining implications of all parts of the debate -- it builds better technical understanding of the activity! I'll probably still evaluate the round similar to how I would a regular round, but I think the experience of you forcing yourself to over-explain each part of the flow to me is greatly beneficial.
Public Forum
I've never debated in PF, I will evaluate very similarly to how I evaluate policy rounds.
I despise the practice of sending snippets of evidence one at a time. I think it's a humongous waste of time and honestly would prefer (1) the email chain be started BEFORE the round and (2) all of the evidence you read in your speech sent at once. Someone was confused about this portion of my paradigm -- basically, instead of asking for "Can I get [A] card on [B] argument, [C] card on [D] arg, etc...", I think it would be faster if the team that just spoke sent all of their evidence in one doc. This is especially true if the tournament is double-flighted.
If you want me to read evidence after the round, please make sure you flag is very clearly.
I've been in theory/k rounds and I try to evaluate very close to policy. I'm not really a huge fan of k's in public forum -- I don't think there is enough speech time for you to develop such complex arguments out well. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense given the public forum structure (i.e. going for an advocacy when it's not a resolution that is set up to handle advocacies). I think there's so much value in engaging with critical literature, please consider doing another event that is set up better for it if you're really interested in the material. However, I'm still willing to vote on anything, as long as you establish a role of the ballot + frame why I'm voting.
If you delay the round to pre-flow when it's double-flighted, I will be very upset. You should know your case well enough for it to not be necessary, or do it on your own time.
Be nice & have fun.
Coach at MBA. Debater at Emory.
Please add all to chains.
-
I have no topic knowledge.
I attempt to judge technically. This means I attempt to remove any predispositions about argument or evidence validity, and am willing to vote on any genre of argument. “True” arguments win because they are easier to prove and harder to refute. My paradigm contains my thoughts on debate, but most debaters are best-served doing what they are most confident in.
When judging, I don’t look at the chain besides the 1AC. Typically, I don’t read evidence unless it’s necessary, and have a lower bar for a ‘warrant’ than average. I usually decide quicker than most.
BECAUSE I DON’T LOOK AT THE DOC, CLARITY AND ORGANIZATION MATTERS!
If you find any of the writing contained in this paradigm remotely compelling, strike me.
Top: My favorite type of debater maintains a strong strategic 'vision' of the debate. This is to say, they understand interactions between arguments, weaknesses in the opponent's strategy, and minimize their loss conditions. They are, of course, technical, but debate is ultimately a game of persuasion and strategy. It's easy to identify a dropped argument. What usually settles the debate is understanding strategic themes more than the opponent.
Impact Calculus: Is, in most cases, mediocre and non-consequential. Many debaters simply say the words -- "magnitude," "timeframe," "probability" -- without nuance or strategic vision. In most debates, both teams claim extinction. It seems clear to me in these cases, the probabilistic likelihood of preventing it matters the most. Timeframe, if debated, can break closer ties, make a 40-60 debate 50-50. I am much more of a fan of "strategic" calculus -- that is to say, turns case, iterations between sheets, try or die style arguments.
T: I enjoy it more than the average judge. Slightly neg-biased, probably. Fan of limits and competing interpretations. Annoyed with the cult of the vacuum. Predictability matters, but teams should provide the standard for how I should interpret reasonability (e.g., plain meaning, legal definitions, etc.).
K Affs: Not fantastic, not the worst. I judge these technically, but believe in the desirability of a limited and predictable topic. Most aff offense in these debates is counterintuitive to me. I am fine for both "this round" fairness 1NCs and "models" clash/fairness 1NCs, but slightly more deferential to presumption + fairness than clash. Affirmative teams that have topic-specific offense, as well as debate technically, have success in front of me. I think ballot solvency/modelling arguments are typically unpersuasive. I am also more lenient in giving the neg genres of offense on links, PIKs, etc., with similar fairness/testing justifications.
Ks: I have no strong opinions on framework here. I do believe in the desirability of the permutation, and think affs should be able to leverage the benefits of the plan. That being said, I think affirmative interpretations of framework that exclude vast swaths of Ks to be similarly unpersuasive. I think Ks can serve both an important strategic and educational function. I would much rather prefer to judge a K with disads to the permutation and a solvent alternative than a pure framework debate. Perfcon is a fantastic defensive argument against framework in many cases.
CPs: Conditionality maximialist, competition minimalist. I dislike almost every process counterplan. Just know when extending one that you are always at risk of losing on competition. I am much more pro-intrinsicness than pro-“do counterplan.” I am much more pro-permutation than pro-“no process CPs.” I default not to “offense/defense,” which is just “any risk perm doesn’t solve means we win,” and much more (this position seems obvious) “winning a perm zeroes the counterplan.”
There is an advantage counterplan issue. Nonsensical, vague mandates are increasingly popular. If going for an advantage counterplan, please help me stay organized.
I think condo bad is a useful 1AR argument, but I’m pro condo. Both the 1NC and 2AC have the same amount of time, and most counter plans are tragically bad or process.
IPR topic: Hate it. 40% of offcase positions have thus far been process counterplans. I hate it so much.
QLS 24 (2A|2N)
USC 28 (2A)
Email Address (add both on chain plz):zleyi0121@gmail.com ; debate@student.quarrylane.org
I think am a mediocre debater, but probably better as judge cuz I feel sucks if I am not flowing and we all waste another 2 hrs of our life here
I learned most things I know about debate from Chris Thiele - he has some unconventional philosophy regard debate and definitely affect me a little bit
24-25 Updates: I am still not quite familiar with this year's high school topic, but I think I marginally learned more through more debates I judged this year. That being said plz explain the case clearly and actually utilize your evidence if u want to go on a case debate : )
Top Level (TLDR):
- Tech > Truth
- OpenSource is good. Paraphrase is bad
- Speech Doc is mandated. Please set up an email chain before the round starts and send all your cards and evidence for each speech.
- Don't steal prep and time your own speech/prep
-English is my second language (people who know me probably know I still struggle with it sometimes. ), but Speed is okay with me (ie, normal high school/college spreading, so don't read dumb theory arg against your opponent, pls.)Quality>Quantity.
- I have no offense with most arguments. You may say, "human extinction is good" or "xx country is evil." I am cool with animal and alien impact as well. At least you should follow the structure of "author+claim+warrants+data+impact."
- Usually would judge kick but prefer getting instruction
- Not a huge fans for overview. Just need one sentence in the top of the 2nr/2ar instructed me how I should write my ballot and why you win the debate.
- (MS/Novice/Local rounds)
1. I don't believe in the stock issue. Sorry. How people debate in recent TOC/NDT is the only pattern of debate I learned.
2. Collapsing is important: I found many teams choose to go for all the things they have at the beginning to the end for both aff and neg, but none of the flow is fully developed. pls don't do that. Extend more than 2 offs in the 2NR is a signal of losing my ballot.
3. Do full extension for the argument each speech plsplsplspls. eg. Don't extend the full DA in the block with just one sentence with no link chain or impact clac at all
For policy specific:
Topicality
- Prefer competing interpretations. Offense/Defense + weighing is better than just going for reasonability.
- More evidence + card comparison determine the truth usually
- In-round abuse is good, but you don't need it to win my ballot.
Theory
- Hidden Aspec = "L " unless u carded in the 1NC. The best offense for me for 1AR new response justification should be the model of debate that spreads random one line theory argument everywhere in the 1NC is freaking bad.
- I will vote on theory. However, if you are going to run really weird theories, you should consider either you have amazing standards and warranting or the other team screwed up.
- I prefer to be more offensive in theory. The same goes for topicality. Competing for an interp is definitely stronger than saying we meet.
- Condo: real theory arg, but I am really bad at going for it as a debater. I think the condo is a winning strategy for me only when the neg team drops (auto win or T > Condo?) or the neg off case span is extremely abusive. You can still extend condo and go for it, but my threshold for neg to get away with it in 2NR would be low.
- For independent theory on off case (eg. fifty state fiat and process cp bad), "reject the arg not the team" is sufficient for me if the neg team is not going for it.
Framework
- Powerful tool if you utilize it well. (Fun facts: I had ran policy aff with 2min case + 6min FW in high school)
- If you want to win the framework, you should contetualize with your opponents' counter fw and explain why your fw is less arbitary and produce better education, policymaking, etc for debate.
- Policy Aff Vs K: There's a really high threshold for me to agree not to weigh the aff, but if the aff team drops your FW, then nvm. (Truth: I hate FW. Every 2N told me I couldn't weigh anything.)
- FW Vs K Aff: Naturally, I prefer to go for Clash and TVA. Fairness could be an impact and I belive burnout is real. However, history already show us K Aff won't completely disappear by reading more FW. Question more down to why the alternative model of debate is more important than the k. The only two true internal links for me on the neg are ground and limit. (Truth: everyone read FW against me I hate FW, but still go for it b/c I hate k v k more)
Case
- I think it's really hard for neg to know more about the case than aff does. If neg has an amazing case neg, I will reward the team.
- Go in-depth into the argument. Card comparisons are always effective. Weighing should not be later than 1AR.
DA
- It would never be wrong to go for a DA. Go hard on weighing + turn case!!
- Follow basic offense + defense pattern
- I feel like DA is the only section that is truth > tech for me. The evidence is the most essential part. The more recent cards plus good warrants always change the uniqueness and control the link.
CP
- 24/25 Update: TBH no one figure out this year hs topic really well. It seems like a pattern everyone is running process. Therefore, even though I hate process, my ballot rate on it this year is still 50/50. Competition c/a T and Theory
- I hate random cheating cp, especially when there are more than 6 offs. However, go for it when you need to win. (Truth: I also run these cps myself as 2N, but I still hate them when I need to answer them)
- Perm: prefer"perm to do both," "perm to do cp," and "perm to do the plan and part of the cp." (edit: if the plan is a process or devolution cp, i may buy intrinsic perm if u go well on theory)
Ks
- Prefer more plan based link. I am more willing to vote on link turn case strat + alt solvency than only fw.
- Going for alt needs to prove to me how the alt solves the k and the case better compared to the plan. Of course, you don't need an alt to win the debate. I will treat the K like a philosophical DA if you don't go for alt; then weighing and framework is important.
- FW prefer weigh the aff against the alt. If your A strat is win the fiat K and "you link you lost," I am probably not the best judge for you. I still vote for these empirically, but lwky fw debate is just boring. You can still got for it if that's the only thing you prepped, but I don't want neg end up cherry picking the drop. Instead, I need big picture clear DA that has been explained clear and warranted throughout the round that I can lay my ballot on.
- Perm is generally just served for checking uncompetitive alternatives.
- Ethics violation/Call out: If someone's discourse/behaviors has been called out as an ethical issue, I think an apology should always come first. If the situation falls into a deadlock, I would prefer to stop the round and call the tab instead of treating it as a link.
KAffs
- I debated K aff throughout my junior year and first semester in college, so I think I am somewhat familiar with it. I think K aff is pretty interesting, even though most of the time, it will end up collapsing on t-usfg. Statistically, 90% of the time, I am answering the framework, so I will still vote on it if you run it well. On neg, I usually run T against K aff, but you are free to run anything else.
- Still Policy > K for me. Don't blame me if I don't understand your K trick
LD:
- I have no experience with LD debate or topic, so I will judge based on policy standards c/a. This means I will still try my best to understand your argument, but better no trick and philosophy.
Be respectful
Have fun!
Contact Info:
jaredzu@umich.edu (camp tournament only)
jzuckerman@glenbrook225.org
Questions/comments:
If you contact me for feedback, please CC your coach in the email or I will not respond.
Current School:
Glenbrook South
Prior Schools:
Glenbrook North, 18-23
Blue Valley Southwest, 10-18
Blue Valley North, 04-10
Disclaimer:
-I have voted aff 6 times; neg 8 times on the IPR topic (updated through Viking Rumble).
-I only know a limited number of the camp files
-I don't flow as quickly as you probably want. Slow down and care about clarity.
-Have speech docs in a usable format that both teams can use. Manage your own prep and start the debate on time.
-On a scale of evidence versus in round performance, I slightly learn towards the performance.
-Aff's should read a topical plan.
-I generally think conditionality is good.