Speech/Debate Experience - Director of Debate at Liberty Sr. HS in Liberty, MO. Debated policy debate in high school and have been coaching now for 7 years. I can follow above average speed (it's your responsibility to signpost/be clear) but I acknowledge this is a communication activity and see more value in quality of argumentation as opposed to quantity of arguments. I will be flowing but don’t expect me to do the work for you in extensions or weighing. Your speeches are the priority when determining what to evaluate.

In order to weigh something on the flow, you need to include warrants with your claims. You can tell me to vote on something but if I don't have a clear (and well extended) reason to accompany it, I will look elsewhere for a claim that does have a warrant included. A complete argument should include claim, warrant, impact. Extend warrants with authors - sure, they dropped Smith '22, but why does Smith '22 matter to the round? is a question you should be answering on every extension. Each side should identify and impact calculate the offense in the round as early as they are able. Do not expect me to do the work for you or to be as well versed on the topic as you, it is better to assume I do not know a term than to jump straight in and leave the judge behind.

I typically lean more towards traditional debate in that it presents topic specific education and clash. However, kritikal arguments are fine so long as the thesis of the argument is clear and the clash is evident. Case debate is my preferred style of argumentation and if the K can provide a good link story into the affirmative world. Alternatives of do nothing in general are boring. That's not to say that they can't win a round (Solvency takeouts alone function in a similar manner) but I always wonder how much more creative the alt debate could be beyond "stay in the squo".

Prep Time: If someone is not speaking, someone is running prep time. Per the event rules there are speeches, cross-ex and prep. Especially now that high school prep is 8 minutes instead of the original 5... please don't attempt to steal prep. It is your responsibility to exchange evidence efficiently (if online, establish an email chain before the round if you think you'll need it). I will not stop prep if you "say stop prep, I want to request evidence from my opponent's". Take care of that during cross-ex or email speeches before you speak. There are time constraints in debate for a reason, abide by them, don't try to bend around them. Additionally "flex prep" is not real.

CX(Policy) Debate

I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech.

T-Topicality
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(22-23), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round.

DA-Disadvantage
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.

CP-Counterplan
I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.

K-Kritique
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see.

ON-CASE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.

Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFEER. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.

Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

(I,E UIL/TFA/TOC/NSDA EXPECTATIONS)

I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.

Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

LD Debate

I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief. Even though I prefer traditional LD Debate, I understand the merit of research that comes with progressive LD, I will evaluate these rounds and am quite capable of doing so since I spend most of my fall semester judging policy rounds. I would encourage you to read my CX(Policy) paradigm if this is your style. It will better help you navigate these rounds. I will also caution you with called drops especially if it appears this strategy is being used just to grab a win, I believe that harms the education in the round and makes me less likely to warrant them as drops rather than a lack of information. I would prefer an analysis of why the arguments are still valid and voting issues in the round rather than just calling them drops or unanswered arguments. Again, I stress reading the CX event above this to get a better understanding of how I will evaluate the round.

Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial, and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim, it could win you the round!

Congress

When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.

I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.

1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.

2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches

3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber

I have found that most PO in my balloting history will start in the 3 positions, and your effectiveness in this position will dictate if you move up or down from this position. I do place a premium on speeches, as I still think this is the most important piece to the event, so it will be common for my ballot that the speakers are ranked higher than POs, but if this is done well can push them to the top of a chamber but it is harder for these characters in the chamber to get my 1s.

Extemp

The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?

My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!

Interp

These are my weakest events to judge...That doesn't mean that I can't, just that I believe my qualifications are less in this event. I do place a premium on some of the speaking tactics over the theatrical elements (blocking). Not that I won't appreciate your movements and evaluate them throughout the performance, but it's not unheard of that someone who can tell an effective story and take me through their performance allowing me to feel what their performance is asking, will have better success with me over someone who uses blocking to communicate these moments throughout your performance. I would encourage you to utilize both throughout the performance as that is ideally what I am looking for in this performance. My best encouragement to you if I am judging your interp round, is to probably block less and what you do block, make sure that it has a purpose other than the "over-top" movements won't be as effective with me at the back of the room. I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!

UCONN BA in Political Sciences

QVCC Associate's Degree in Human Services and General Studies

Keiser U MSE in Teaching and Learning

Policy Debate Background:

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

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

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

A. Uniqueness: - Economy is good now.

B. Link/Brink/Threshold/Internal Links:

-Increased spending for FJG/UBI/SS leads to Inflation/wage/price spiral/interest rate hikes etc.

C. Impact: Economic crash leading to global war.

For affirmative arguments I appreciate turning the disadvantage.

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

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

T and critiques are okay along with debate theory arguments.

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

I need to be able to understand what you are saying, so if you are speaking at a rate faster than you can handle and I cannot understand you, it is just as bad as not saying anything and I cannot count those arguments. I also do not appreciate being told what I MUST do in any round. Use good arguments and logic, make sure you adequately address the points brought up by your opponent, and do your best to defend and uphold your own case. Use cross-ex to question, not to debate. Lastly, I like CIVIL debates. Know the difference between passion and unnecessary aggression.

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4 @ gmail dot com - do not stop prep until you hit send on the email.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.

Points of emphasis - adhere to each of these and your speaker points will be no lower than a 29.

1. Clarity. Many of the debates I judge mumble and slur the text of evidence, and the transitions between arguments are difficult to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If I have to say it a second time, I will reduce your speaker points by a full point. If I have to say it a third time, I will stop flowing your speech.

2. Refutation. If you use your flow to identify the argument you are answering, read evidence with purpose and speak clearly while you do it, the floor for your speaker points will be a 29. If you start the timer and read straight down without saying which argument you are answering or how to apply your evidence, the ceiling for your speaker points will be a 27. Scouring the flow to fit the pieces together IS judge intervention.

3. Highlighting. I will completely ignore evidence that is highlighted nonsensically. The threshold is obviously subjective, so if you are of the school of thought that you should intentionally highlight your evidence poorly to force the judge to read the unhighlighted text on their own, I am not a good judge for you.

4. Flowing. If you aren't flowing the debate, I won't flow your speech.

5. Meaning of the plan. If asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX, you need to answer. The way you choose to answer is up to you, but If your plan is the resolution + one word, be prepared explain what it does. If you do not, I will A. automatically assume the negative CP competes or DA links (based on the part of the plan in question) and B. The burden for what the negative has to do to win a vagueness procedural or solvency argument becomes exceedingly low.

6. Prompting. Each speaker should give one constructive and one rebuttal. You are permitted to prompt your partner once per speech. Additional interruptions will result in a full speaker point deduction and the arguments being ignored.

7. CX. Each partner must ask questions in one CX and answer questions in one CX. You are permitted to ask or answer one question in a CX to which you are not assigned. Additional instances will result in a full speaker point deduction and the questions/answers being ignored.

Other things to know

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. I am more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Conditionality is good. Judge kick is my default.

The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

Background: I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University. I have been involved in debate since 2001. I was awarded the 2020-2021 Fulbright Award to coach debate in Taiwan.

DISCLOSURE THEORY IS LAZY DEBATE AND I WILL GIVE YOU NO HIGHER THAN 15 SPEAKER POINTS IF YOU RUN THIS POSITION (this means at best you will get a low point win). I will also NOT evaluate it OR flow it.

I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know:

1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence.

2. I CANNOT flow speed due to an issue with my dominant hand. I will give you two verbal "speed" if you are going too fast. After that I quit flowing and if I do not flow it I do not evaluate it. Additionally, I do believe that the speed at which you go should be accessible to everyone in the round, this means your competitor, other judges on a panel, AND audience members. I am very open to voting on accessibility and/or clarity kritiks. SPEED SHOULD NOT BE A TOOL OF EXCLUSION!!!!!!

3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not evaluate moral obligations in the round (if you say "Moral Obligation" in college LD Debate I stop flowing, take a selfie, and mock you on social media). This does not mean I will not vote for dehumanization is bad, but I need a warrant outside of just telling me I am morally obligated to do something. Moral obligations are lazy debate, warrant out your arguments. HIGH SCHOOL LD DEBATERS- IGNORE THIS, I will vote for moral obligations if they are explained and well warranted.

4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm told to by the debaters--if you don't give me the tools I default to policy maker/net benefits, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote and why to vote.

5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence, snarkiness, and rudeness.

6. When running a kritik you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative text, alt solvency, and role of the ballot (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like. I'm very easily persuaded by arguments about the post-alt world not being possible if the debater running the K does not explain the post-alt world to me.

7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow. I do not like operating in multiple worlds as I believe that is abusive to the affirmative, especially given the speech times in NFA-LD. I am easily persuaded to vote against a debater that does this if their opposition makes it a voting issue.

8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.

9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" or "And" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. It also makes it easier for me to make a decision in the end.

10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision. I do reserve the right to intervene when any -ist argument is made or advocated for.

11. If you advocate for a double win I automatically vote for the other person, issue you 1 speaker point, and leave the room. This is a debate, not a conversation. We are here to compete, so don't try to do something else.

12. Wilderson has stated that he does not want his writings used in debate by white individuals. He believes that the use of his writings is contradictory to what he overall stands for because he feels like you are using his arguments and black individuals as a tool to win (functionally monetizing black individuals). So for the love of all that is good please stop running these cards and respect the author's wishes. If you are white and you run his evidence I will not evaluate it out of respect for the author.

13. I will give you auto 30 speaker points if you read your 1AC/1NC out of a black book with page turns. (this is still offered for digital debates)

Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :) I also believe this activity should be a learning experience for everyone, so if after a round you have any questions please feel free to approach me and talk to me! I truly mean this because I love talking about debate and the more each debater gains from a round will provide for better rounds in the future for me to judge. If you ever have questions about a comment or RFD please ask. My email is sjcarl3@ilstu.edu

Hi, I am a parent judge. Please send all cases and prewritten blocks to me so I can follow along as you speak. My email is yingyingchenmd@gmail.com.

Whether you share with your opponent is between you two.

I prefer slow, clear delivery; debate as if you're trying to convince the public.

Please have direct clash and debate respectfully, good luck!

I'm 100% a game judge, the flow is like a chess board and it is your job to navigate it with whatever tools you have at your disposal. You can run anything; Theory, Topicality, Ks, CP, DA/AD/Plans/KPlans but for all of those you need to give a "why" and impact calc for everything, fail to do that and you will lose the round.

That being said stock issues are inherent to an argument, if you don't solve for anything or you can't show significance then you will also lose. Topicality is loose for me but again if you fail to solve for something or show it's significance then you lose.

Spread as fast as you want, I was reading at 340 wpm once upon a memory. If you turn into a mumble rapper like Post Malone then you are not communicating effectively and you'll have stuff drop on the flow. Clear and fast is fine, murmuring quickly is not fine. When in doubt slow is smooth and smooth is fast. Too often debaters are reliant on judges reading their card for them to put them on the flow rather than conveying the information. If there is something in the debate that is the razors edge that will make or break the round then I will evaluate it but that is rarely ever the case (I have only seen it once, same source cut two different ways).

My default settings:

I will hear theory arguments if you are deeply against any of the following but otherwise this is how I vote.

Disclosure has to be consensual prior to the round but when you are giving the constructive what are you really gaining from not exchanging? Plus it is in the NSDA manual you have to produce evidence for your opponent at their request.

Aff gets fiat for world building otherwise the debate can't happen.

Neg gets conditionality to truth test with multiple worlds.

General sportsmanship should be observed. I was a debater, I promise you I know abuse when I see it. If your opponent checks it and you don't have some good reason for trying to push that envelope you'll lose. Be excellent to each other.

I do private coaching but I also care deeply about the debate community so please feel free to reach-out with questions after your rounds. mconvey1@jhu.edu

Private Coaching Link

https://www.citrononline.org/camps-and-coaching/p/private-coaching

B.S. Ecology from Arizona State University

M.L.S. Environmental Law from Sandra Day O'Connor Law College

M.S. Geospatial Intelligence from Johns Hopkins University

Debate Director of the Citron Online Speech and Debate District

Lansing '22

KU '26

please add me on the email chain: ryan.f.corrigan@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

good judge for = policy v. policy, policy v. k

ok judge for = k-aff v. t-usfg, k-aff v. k

(I’ll do what I can to follow along but I just have the least experience with k-aff rounds so my comments and understanding of the round will not be as good as other judges. This isn’t to say to not read k-affs in front of me, but I may need a little more explanation than some judges.)

Debate the arguments that you want to debate. The best rounds come from both sides understanding their content and doing what they enjoy/have spent the most time prepping out.

I am pretty well versed on the lit people have been reading this year, but it is probably good to make sure it is clear and understandable for everyone in the round.

When I debated I did DCI and primarily ran policy affs, politics DAs, and more traditional Ks (cap, set col, anthro) if you care, but don't let that dissuade you from running what you want. As a coach/judge I am learning more about different types of arguments than what I typically ran, so you do not have to worry too much about judge adaptation as I will do what I can to follow along. If you have any specific questions though feel free to clarify before the round, but I will likely tell you to read what you are comfortable with.

Maybe this is a hot take, but I do think that not sending your pre-written analytics is kind of silly. I get the strategic advantage, but if you are scared of the other team having your analytics on a doc then they probably are not good and you are trying to capitalize off of them dropping it rather than just winning it upfront. I see it similarly to the Wiki in the sense that disclosing what you read is important to make it accessible for good debates.

Overall, you do you and I will try my best to keep up.

tech > truth, but truth influences the burden of proving an argument as false

depth > breadth

in depth off case > more silly off case arguments

specific links > vague links

speed is good just make sure it is clear and understandable

Impact calc and judge instruction are super important. Make it easier for me to evaluate your arguments the way you want me to rather than assuming I am perfectly understanding your argument and evaluating it like you are in your head.

Overall, be a good person and keep the space inclusive for everyone.

..and yes, I am Jack Corrigan's older brother

Schools/Affiliations: Graduated from Charles Page High School.

I currently compete in NFA LD on the college circuit, I competed in policy debate in high school for 3 years, I was a finalist for NUDL debater of the year 2023

General Paradigm
Left to my own devices, I’d approach the round from a policymaking point of view, but I know that few rounds boil down to such a paradigm. In light of that, debate is a game of sorts and I’m willing to let the debaters decide how it should be played. I can’t see myself voting against an affirmative on a stock issue like inherency.

Speed
Clarity, of course, is key. If I can’t understand you, then I can’t flow you and I likely won’t be inclined to vote for you or the position(s) I don’t understand. Look for cues (not flowing, a blank look on my face).

Line by Line
I prefer line by line debate. I believe you need to flow and I don’t think a team is obligated to share analytical arguments in a flash/speech doc. If the debate becomes disorganized because of your inability to stay on the flow, that’ll likely cost you in some way. Debate, at its essence, is about a clash of ideas...therefore clash is an essential ingredient to a good debate round. A round between two teams who neither extend their own arguments, nor address the specific attacks made on these arguments, is not a debate round, and such a round begs for intervention on my part.

Decision Calculus
I am loathe to intervene in a round, but will do so if neither team presents a clear comparative analysis of the issues in the round. You need to tell my why I should vote for you and make that clear in the final rebuttals.

Framework
I’ll start with my paradigm, you tell me where to move to, and convince me of why I should do so, if you’d like to change the framework. Any framework should make it possible for both sides to win and shouldn’t be rooted in a rejection of debate as an activity (though it’s possible I could be convinced otherwise).

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)

I will vote on topicality. I think the negative has to construct a fully formed argument to convince me I should do so, complete with a reason that the violation committed by the affirmative is worthy of giving them the loss. I’m not as inclined to be convinced by a reverse voter argument in t, but affirmatives can defend themselves by attacking one or all of the components of a typical T argument and win the issue. Other procedurals tend to get decided based on actual, rather than, potential abuse.

Kritiks

. Despite my knowledge about some of the authors and their positions, I’m usually able to discern when the student speaking knows as little or less than I do. I prefer that if you’re going to make the k an issue, that you know it inside and out, and be aware of the inherent dangers in speaking quickly to a judge who may know less than you do, and who you are trying to convince. Real world alts are pretty much a requirement.


Performance
Do what you will, I’ll listen. Prefer they be relevant to topic.

Counterplans
I am good with counterplans, conditional is fine, but don’t get too feisty in this regard. Deep counterplan and pic theory give me headaches, so slow down and talk me through it.

Multiple Worlds

No thanks...multiple conditional positions are fine, but not contradictory advocacy. Can’t be convinced otherwise on the matter so save your time.

If you can find out who my high school partner was and mention them in your speech, Ill give you an extra speaker point.

3NRs and My Decision
I will give an oral critique if time allows and reveal decision if permitted by tourney expectations, but I will not enter into an argument with either team about my decision. I can handle a question or two, but make sure it’s a question. Look, I am always going to do my best, but I’m sure I’ve gotten the decision wrong a time or two, and I hate it when I do. That being said, my usual answer when teams argue why they lost is: I’d feel the same way if I were you, but next time debate better. Then I mark their speaker points down for being rude. Live to fight another day, and be aware that you might see your judge again down the road.

Prep Time

i will be lenient as we learn the online format, but that being said, I’m losing patience with the time taken up by flashing files even during in-person debates. Be efficient.

I am as fluid as the room needs me to be.
I'll gladly accept Impact Calc, Logic, Ks, Spreading, CEDA-style, Theory, FIAT, DAs, Ts, and just about everything else.

I look for the quality of the debate, and mark high in forms of forcing clash and counterattacks.

Understand that I am an expert on this content, so I do not need filler or backstory.

I want to see teams take calculated risks and show backbone.

I WILL VOTE AGAINST ABUSIVE MANIPULATION OF TEXT/CARDS/INFORMATION

Best of luck to all!

Email: shawn.daugherty@nkcschools.org (prefer SpeechDrop to email chain due to school computer 'firewall' from overpaid IT staff...)

email chains - evanderdavis6@gmail.com

Debate - Washburn Rural - '19-'23

I'm fine with speed (though I am biased toward slower debates). Analysis and (especially) theory should be slower than evidence. Signpost! I will clear you if necessary.

Truth informs tech (it is a tiebreaker), but tech > truth.

I generally default to reject the arg, not the team (condo being the obvious exception).

Case

Case is undercovered. Impact turns, clash, evidence comparison, rehighlightings, etc are great.

Intelligent debate is valued. A quality logical argument with clear warrants can be worth just as much as a card.

DAs

DAs are good. I like policy-type debates and DAs are a big part of that. Specific links are best, and make a debate much more interesting. Don't neglect impact calc or be afraid to do analysis about the weakness of an internal link chain.

CPs

Condo is good. If the neg reads 5+ conditional advocacies I'm much more willing to listen to these debates, but I've found I ere neg.

I think judge kick is pretty lazy. If you tell me to and the aff doesn't contest it though, I will.

T

T debates are fine. It's annoying when you read a bunch of throw-away T args in the 1NC, but you do you. Reasonability is a decent arg, but you can't just say "reasonability" - tell me why your definition is good/real world.

Ks

I used to hate Ks. I don't anymore, but it probably isn't the best idea to read one in front of me.

Kritiks should have an alt to generate uniqueness. If you kick the alt you should probably lose to a no uniqueness argument most of the time. It's possible to win, but much more difficult.

You need to prove alt solvency. You should actually explain what the alt does instead of repeating the same canned phrase 100 times. I am not all that familiar with a lot of the literature, so make sure to actually explain.

If you want to read a K in front of me, I'd recommend kritiks of the case. I'm most willing to listen to the frameworks on those and while I don't think they're true, tech > truth. You will have an uphill battle reading reps Ks or kritiks of debate in front of me.

K/planless affs are probably cheating. I will do my best to evaluate these debates fairly, but know I'm biased.

CX

Open CX is fine, but should be limited. Prompt, don't ask questions for your partner.

Other

Things that are good:

Judge instructions, impact calc, evidence comparison, etc. Your job is to do as much of my job for me as possible - that's the best way to ensure you get a positive result.

Things that are bad:

Running args you don't understand, unnecessary rudeness, bigotry, death good.

I will do my best to evaluate the round without bias. I think I've typed out above pretty much all of my biases in evaluating debates. None of these are totally insurmountable, but you should adapt to your judge. Debate is an educational activity and as a judge, my role is to allow for experimentation and reward the team that made the better arguments.

Hi,

I am an intermediate judge ( flay) . It would be nice if you kept communications easy and straightforward (avoid using jargons).

Please be respectful to all participants. Most importantly.. have fun !!

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Updated July 23
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net, fiscalrizztribution@googlegroups.com

Introduction: Hello, debaters and fellow educators. I am Tim Ellis, and I am honored to be here as a judge at this high school policy debate tournament. My background includes [briefly mention your educational and professional background relevant to the debate topic or communication skills]. My role as a judge is to evaluate your arguments, critical thinking, and communication abilities, while maintaining a fair and unbiased approach to the debate.

Debate Philosophy: I believe in fostering an environment where students can express their ideas passionately, engage in respectful discourse, and develop their critical thinking skills. I encourage debaters to focus on clear and logical arguments, evidence-based analysis, and effective communication. Substance will always take precedence over style, but effective delivery can enhance your message.

Argumentation: I value well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. When presenting your case, it's important to clearly define your position, provide relevant evidence, and logically connect your arguments. The use of real-world examples and expert opinions can significantly bolster your points. Remember, the quality of your evidence matters more than the quantity.

Clash and Refutation: Debates thrive on clash – the direct engagement with your opponents' arguments. I expect debaters to engage with opposing viewpoints by directly addressing their arguments, demonstrating the weaknesses in their logic, and offering counterarguments supported by evidence. Effective refutation requires a deep understanding of your opponents' case, so take the time to dissect their position and refute it cogently.

Communication: Clear communication is key to conveying your ideas persuasively. Speak confidently, enunciate your words, and maintain a steady pace. Avoid jargon or excessive use of technical terms that might alienate those unfamiliar with the topic. Remember, effective communication isn't just about what you say, but how you say it – engaging with your audience is crucial.

Etiquette and Sportsmanship: Respect for your opponents, your partner, and the judge is non-negotiable. Keep your focus on the arguments and ideas, rather than personal attacks. Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate, and remember that good sportsmanship is an integral part of the debate community.

Time Management: Time management is essential. Respect the allocated time limits for your speeches, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. Effective time allocation allows for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of the issues at hand.

Final Thoughts: Debating is a valuable skill that extends beyond the walls of this tournament. Regardless of the outcome, embrace the learning experience. Constructive feedback is intended to help you grow as debaters and thinkers. I am here to provide a fair assessment of your performance, and my decisions will be based on the quality of your arguments, your ability to engage in meaningful clash, and your overall communication skills.

I am looking forward to witnessing your insightful arguments and thoughtful engagement. Let's engage in a spirited and enlightening debate that enriches all of us. Best of luck to each team, and may the discourse be both rigorous and rewarding.

This is my 13th year coaching competitive debate. I like to hear good debate. I want kids to improve and succeed in this activity. When everyone competes better, the whole activity gets better. You having a good round is my goal. If you are a new debater, this is all you need to know. For the more experienced students, read on.

Updates for 2023 season.

Ask me if you do not understand or want clarity on the below.

I won't vote for positions that are overtly harmful or advocate harm.

I am typically a tech judge, as I would like to not intervene in the round. However...

I will not accept claims that are not warranted. It is not my job to blindly accept your arguments when they are incomplete.

If you run phil arguments, I will accept your interpretation of the phil... to an extent. However, if the phil you are arguing is something way of base or you have a gross misunderstanding, I will not accept it. You should have a basic understanding of what the difference principle or categorical imperative or whatever means that actually resembles it. It's not exactly fair to your opponent that you don't know what you are actually running. It leads to too much confusion for your opponent, and I will simply default to your opponents weighing mechanism, or a standard debate weighing mechanism.

Basically, on a truth to tech scale, put me as a 2 for your phil and a 7 for everything else.

If you are going to run a K and do not have all the elements of a K, do not waste your time. I will exercise my roll of the ballot by voting for the trad debater. (If you do not understand the joke I put in the last sentence, that is your sign a K is a bad idea).

General notes

I vote on my flow, and dictate my decision based on the arguments that I am told to vote on in the round.

Asking what your opponent's evidence is does not win you any favors with me. Unless you have a good reason, something you haven't heard before, questioning the source, evidence violations, I find it detracts from the real value of this activity. Please don't do this unless it is integral to advancing your arguments. To be clear, I totally respect and endorse asking to see your opponent's evidence IF necessary. I do not favor or ever vote for arguments based on "my opponent doesn't have evidence" when my flow shows otherwise.

I like impacts. I like links.

You should articulate your arguments clearly because even if I know the content and literature, I will not do the work of filling in the gaps for you.

I prefer students advance arguments. Arguments can and should evolve.

Please tell me what I should write on my ballot. Good chance if you do, I will write it.

Don't yell at me please. I am a person. Ask yourself, would like me to yell at you for 45 minutes? No, you do not. Make a different choice. I will verbally tell you to knock it off.

I call evidence. Please have evidence in round according to the rules. There is a good chance, especially in D1, I am calling it. It doesn't mean you did something wrong, it most likely means there is something I want to confirm. This specifically comes up when you are paraphrasing your evidence, and your paraphrasing changes to the point it doesn't reflect the initial read. I am just trying to be a good judge for you.

PF debate

I am pretty traditional in my sense of what PF should be and look like. I believe in the concept a lay judge should be able to judge the round.

Just because the summary is 3 minutes, doesn't mean it is a 2nd rebuttal. A summary during that time would be cool.

I vote on offense.

LD debate

I strongly advise carrying your framework with you through the round. It weighs heavily for me in voting. Framework is one of the strongest voting areas for me in LD. If you lose it, I am not sure how you win the ballot. I literally vote on values.

Criterion clash isn't a "thing". Stop trying to make criterion clash happen. You clash values, you argue criterions.

I am well read on popular philosophies used in more traditional circuits of LD debate. I prefer phil. heavy rounds.

Andrew Gibson
Director of Forensics at The Woodlands College Park High School
Speech Drop Preffered




Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. It is always running prep When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap. Sharing Speeches is INCLUDED in speech time


Policy (UPDATED FOR TFA STATE)

I am a more Traditional Style of Judge. Speed doesnt bother me too much as long as you are clear and dont spread tags/analytics.

T - I love Topicality debates if they are ran correctly make sure there is clash on standards and abuse is shown. Paint the story as to why this skewed the round in any capacity.

Theory -I am good with theory debate if true abuse is shown within the round. Make sure you show the abuse that exists and what was loss by this happening

DA/CP/Case Debate - This is probably the easiest way to my ballot. Impact calculus is very important for me paint a picture as to what the affirmative plan looks like and what the world looks like either in SQ or Counterplan world.

Kritik -I am not a K judge this will be a tough way to my ballot. if you are going to run it I prefer case specfic not generic K's just to the topic not the case.

Role of ballot is big for me tell me what my ballot does and why I should use my power as judge to pull the trigger.

Any questions please feel free to ask!

In my debate space, valuing fair and thorough engagement is paramount. This involves making logical concessions after proper analysis and engaging in fair, charitable comparisons. Rudeness, discriminatory language, and disrespectful behavior won't be tolerated, and penalties may be applied.

While recognizing the time constraints, avoid excessive speed in presenting arguments – no spreading. Clear articulation is crucial for understanding. Always be mindful of your burdens in the debate; don't just assert claims, justify them. Best of luck!

I am a head coach for Speech & Debate.

I prefer traditional-style Lincoln-Douglas Debate, with a focus on Value Clash.

Evidence should be read throughout the debate.

I keep a good FLOW during the round.

I prefer debaters speak at a conversational rate.

I encourage you to give VOTERS. Tell me why you have won the round.

I really do not tolerate disrespect in the round. Being rude will lose you the ballot.

I like intelligible speech and stock issues. I'll vote for anything that's persuasive and supported with evidence, though.

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

I have been coaching debate since 1980. I was a policy debater in high school. I have coached policy debate, Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Big Question and World Schools debate. I am also a congressional debate coach and speech coach.

LD-

It comes as no surprise based on my experience and age, that I am a traditional judge. I do keep up on current theory and practice, but do not agree with all of it. I am a traditional judge who believes that LDers need to present a value to support based in the resolution. A criterion is helpful if you want me to weigh the round in a certain way. Telling me you won your criterion so your opponent loses doesn't work for me, since I believe you win the round based on your value being upheld by voting affirmative or negative on the resolution. Telling me to weigh the round though using your criterion makes me very happy.

Voting Issues- I need these. I think debaters ought to tell me what to write on my flow and on my ballot.

Not a fan of K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's in LD. I know the reasons people do it. I don't think it belongs in this type of debate. I know debate is ever-evolving, but I believe we have different styles of debate and these don't belong here.

Flow: I was a policy debater. I flow most everything in the round.

Speed- The older I get the less I like speed. You will know if you are going too fast --- unless your head is buried in your laptop and you are not paying any attention to me. If I can't hear/understand it, I can't flow it. If I don't flow it, it doesn't count in the round.

Oral Comments- I don't give them.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum since it began. I have seen it change a bit, but I still believe it is rooted in discussion that includes evidence and clear points.

Flow: I flow.

Public forum is about finding the 2 or 3 major arguments that are supported in the round with evidence. The two final focus speeches should explain why your side is superior in the round.

I am not a fan of speed in the round. This is not policy-light. I do not listen to the poor arguments moving into the PF world.

ABOUT ME

Background: He/him/his pronouns. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum and IEs for six years. I’ve also been judging local tournaments on-and-off for six years. I was not very competitive in high school (I mostly did Model UN lol) and learned more about debate through teaching and judging.

TLDR: I’ll flow the round and vote off what’s on my flow. Tech>truth. Generally, feel free to go fast with some exceptions (below). I consider off-time roadmaps a must, and when you’re responding to framework, please state it explicitly (e.g. “The order is 1) framework 2) on-case 3) two offs.”) Make flowing easy for me: extend, cross-apply, collapse and weigh. I like to see lots of clash and clear, warranted links. In general, I think my thoughts on debate shift around a lot over time, but I will try my best to keep this paradigm updated as my beliefs change. At the moment, I'm somewhat conflicted on how I feel about email chains and speed. Feel free to ask me about anything unclear before the round begins.

DEBATE, BY EVENT

LD: I do not consider value/value criterion to be mandatory. Feel free to simplify your framework debate to a general weighing mechanism; just make sure to be clear about it. Continue reading below:

PF (and LD cont.): I generally do not flow or pay attention to cross-examination. If you anticipate that there’s any chance whatsoever that some part of your theory position may depend on cross-ex, please let me know before the round begins. I will in no way count it against you if you don’t actually end up reading T. Accordingly, I consider cross-ex to be entirely your time to get clarification on your opponent’s arguments, call for cards and prep your next rebuttal. No need for theatrics to try to make your opponent trip up over their words or something; it won't be on my flow.

CX: I have not personally competed in this event, but have judged in the past. I don't have a particular approach to judging CX different from other debate events; I am a tabula rasa judge that's moderately comfortable with speed and T/K.

OPEN DEBATE

Plans/Counterplans vs. Contentions: I believe that the Affirmative generally gets to frame the debate. Usually, that will fall under one of the following two categories: 1) a topical plan versus the status quo or another competitive counterplan 2) AFF contentions in support of affirming the resolution versus NEG contentions negating the resolution. I prefer plan debate over contention debate, because I believe it structurally favors clash and good debate. Notwithstanding, I will vote for contention ACs but make sure to read clear, warranted, link chains and don’t assume you solve for all your impacts by fiat.

Theory: What is debate? What should debate be? If you want to win a theory position in front of me, be prepared to convince me of your answer to these questions. At the end of the day, the “rules of debate” are what the debaters themselves make of the activity. I subscribe to the belief that the reason that debate exists is because it’s (one of) the only spaces where students can make an adult sit down for an hour, listen to their ideas and take them seriously. To keep debate meaningful to that end, debaters themselves ought to be the ones to decide how debate is practiced and adjudicated. Theory is the primary tool for self-enforcement of what I see as made up, debatable rules.

When reading T, read an interpretation, violation, standards and voters. Read your interpretation slowly, and then repeat it again. Argue each of these points out and do not assume I already know what you mean if you just say “strategy skew is bad for education.” Be clear about what you’re saying and highlight points of nuance. When the round has multiple theory positions, it’s ever more important for you to argue why I should prioritize some theory over another.

Some specifics: 1) Outside the round, I am generally conditionality bad but it’s up to you to convince me one way or another. I tend to think limited conditionality is reasonable (e.g. the NEG gets one condo counterplan and one condo K). 2) Dispositionality means nothing to me. It should mean that the CP is unconditional unless the AFF perms, but as long as teams are reading dispo with different rules, the inconsistency makes the term useless. If you’re reading a dispo position, be extremely clear what the condition to kick is. 3) Disclosure as a practice is good, systematically abusive use of disclosure theory against small schools/new debaters is really, really awful. 4) Theory can be an RVI but that’s still up for debate, and usually shouldn’t come down to theoretical abuse.

Kritik/criticisms: I’ve read a couple and heard several different Ks in rounds, but be forewarned that I am absolutely not an expert on K. I am less experienced with performances than K of case. I like to hear fresh and exciting debate, but make sure I can understand what you’re reading. Make sure to have a clear link, impact, alternative and alt-solvency. Like with T, read your link slowly, twice.

Speed: My comfortability with spreading tends to vary based on how active I’ve been in the speech and debate community. If my judging record indicates that it’s been more than six months since I’ve last judged an open debate round, please check with me prior. Generally, any rate of delivery up to around 300 wpm should be perfectly fine – I can type well over 100 wpm – as long as you’re enunciating. If it becomes a problem, I will call slow/clear. For newer debaters: you may interrupt your opponent’s speech by stating “slow” or “clear” if you can’t hear them. If your opponent doesn’t acknowledge your request, you may consider reading a “theory” argument that they ought to lose the round for disregarding basic debate etiquette. Debaters planning to be toxic and spread a new debater out of a round: be forewarned, my threshold for voting on such T shells is low.

Other: Do not neglect signposting. If you blitz through your arguments, I can get lost in my flow if you don’t make it easy for me. If whatever you argue isn’t on my flow, I cannot and will not consider it in my decision. I highly recommend that you read author and year slowly and twice before each card. Make it crystal clear where your warrant ends and where analytic or impacts begin. I expect that counterplans are competitive. I will vote on a perm for non-competitive counterplans. Impact calculus is magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability and reversibility. All of the above are important. I will default to weighing them about equally until/unless you argue otherwise and give me reasons to prefer one (or more). One of my biggest debate pet peeves: Debaters wasting precious rebuttal minutes on the framework debate unnecessarily (e.g. when you’re going for two different, highly specific forms of utilitarianism but your impacts weigh equally regardless of which one wins). I think I have moderately expressive non-verbals. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 very poor 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should be in late elims, 30 you are in the top 1% of debaters I’ve seen.

NOVICE DEBATE

Be respectful of your opponents and do your best. The most important thing is to have fun and learn! If your opponent is doing something really abusive in the round, I will vote on theory. For new debaters, this means that you can argue that they ought to lose the debate for being abusive. Do not under any circumstances read frivolous T in novice. Do not read K. Do not spread unless you have explicitly checked with your opponent and they have OKed it. See the “Speed” portion of my paradigm above. Make sure to signpost clearly and I highly recommend that you say author/year twice for every card. Weigh out the impacts of the round and read voting issues (explain to me why your impacts are more important than your opponent’s, and why you should win). Use all your prep time and don’t concede rounds even if you think you’re losing. You never know what’s happening on my flow, and mine is the one that ultimately matters. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 lot of room for improvement, 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should probably be in open, 30 no, but seriously, why are you in novice?.

NCFL Update: Don't clip. Idk why this tournament is so wild about this. If you have evidence that is highlighted, and you don't read all of the highlighted portion but act like you did (i.e. don't say "Mark the card at _____"), you are cheating and committing and ethics violation. This will result in an autoloss and the lowest possible speaker points I can give you UNLESS the other team clips. In which case both teams will get minimum speaks and I'll be very grumpy trying to determine a winner. Any questions about this? Don't risk it, ask before the round. I'm happy to clarify.

Jan 2024 Update:

Extend your arguments. Extend your arguments. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS! (THIS IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR ME THAN WHAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT YOU READ) Some of the debates I've watched this year have me so frustrated cuz you'll just be absolutely crushing in parts of the debate but just not extend other parts needed to make it relevant. For example, I've seen so many teams going for framework this year where the last rebuttals are 5 minutes of standards and voters and just no extension of an interp that resolves them. Or 2ARs that do so much impact calc and impact-turns-the-DA stuff that they never explain how their aff resolves these impacts so I'm left intervening and extending key warrants for you that OR intervening and voting on a presumption argument that the other team doesn't necessarily make. So err on the side of over extending arguments and take advantage of my high threshold and call out other teams bad argument extension to make me feel less interventionist pulling the trigger on it. What does this mean? Arguments extended should have a claim and a warrant that supports that claim. If your argument extension is just name dropping a lot of authors sited in previous speeches, you're gonna have a bad time during my RFD. The key parts of the "story" of the argument need to be explicitly extended in each speech. For example, if you're going for T in the 2NR then the interp, violation, the standard you're going for, and why it's a voter should be present in every neg speech. Whatever advantage the 2AR is going for should include each part of of the 'story' of aff advantage (uniqueness, solvency, internal link, impact) and I should be able to follow that back on my flow from the 1AR and 2AC. If the 2AR is only impact outweighs and doesn't say anything about how the aff solves it, I'm partial to voting neg on a presumption ballot

Ways to get good speaks in front of me:
-Extend your arguments adequately lol - and callout other teams for insufficient extensions
-Framing the round correctly (identifying the most relevant nexus point of the debate, explain why you're winning it, explain why it wins you the round)
-Doc is sent by the time prep ends
-One partner doesn't dominate every CX
-Send pre-written analytics in your doc
-At least pretend to be having fun lol
-Clash! Your blocks are fine but debates are SOOO much more enjoyable to watch when you get off your blocks and contextualize links/args to the round
-Flow. If you respond to args that were in a doc but weren't actually read, it will hurt your speaks
-Utilize powerful CX moments later in the debate
-If you have a performative component to your kritital argument, explain it's function and utilize it as offense. So many times I see some really cool poetry or something in 1ACs but never get told why poetry is cool and it feels like the aff forgets about it after the 2AC. If it's just in the 1AC to look cool, you were probably better off reading ev or making arguments. If it's there for more than that, USE IT!

WaRu Update 2023: I think debaters think I can flow better than I can. Slowing down on pivotal moments of the debate to really crystalize will make you more consistently happy with my RFDs. If you're going top speed for all of the final rebuttals and don't frame my ballot well, things get messy and my RFDs get worse than I'd like.

Krousekevin1@gmail.com

Background:

I participated in debate for 4 years in High School (policy and LD for Olathe East) and 3 years in College Parli (NPDA/NPTE circuit). This is my 6th year assisting Olathe East debate. I've done very little research on this topic (emerging tech) so please don't assume I know your acronyms or the inner workings of core topic args.

I have no preference on email chain or speechdrop, but it does irritate me when debaters wait until the round is supposed to be started before trying to figure this stuff out.

Speed:

I can keep up for the most part. Some teams in the national circuit are too fast for me but doesn't happen often. If you think you're one of those teams, go like an 8/10. Slow down for interps and nuanced theory blocks. 10 off rounds are not fun to watch but you do you.

Argument preferences:

In high school, I preferred traditional policy debate. In college I read mostly Ks. I studied philosophy but don't assume I know everything about your author or their argument. Something that annoys me in these debates is when teams so caught up in buzzwords that they forget to extend warrants. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual argument. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

I'd rather you debate arguments you enjoy and are comfortable with as opposed to adapting to my preferences. A good debate on my least favorite argument is far more preferable than a bad debate on my favorite argument. I'm open to however you'd like to debate, but you must tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it. Justify your methodology and isolate your offense.

I don't judge kick CPs or Alts, the 2NR should either kick it or go for it. I'm probably not understanding something, but I don't know what "judge kick is the logical extension of condo" means. Condo means you can either go for the advocacy in the 2nr or not. Condo does not mean that the judge will make argumentative selection on your behalf, like judge kicking entails.

K affs- I don't think an affirmative needs to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately. However I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for you. I wish more negs would engage with the substance of the aff or innovated beyond the basic cap/fw/presumption 1nc but I've vote for this plenty too. I have recently been convinced that fairness can be impacted out well, but most time this isn't done so it usually functions as an internal link to education.

I'm of the opinion that one good card can be more effective if utilized and analyzed well than 10 bad/mediocre cards that are just read. At the same time, I think a mediocre card utilized strategically can be more useful than a good card under-analyzed.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD Paradigm:

I've coached progressive and traditional LD teams and am happy to judge either. You do you. I don't think these debates need a value/criterion, but the debates I watch that do have them usually don't utilize them well. I'm of the opinion that High School LD time structure is busted. The 1AR is simply not enough time. The NFA-LD circuit in college fixed this with an extra 2 minutes in the 1AR but I haven't judged a ton on this circuit so how that implicates when arguments get deployed or interacts with nuanced theory arguments isn't something I've spent much time thinking about. To make up for this bad time structure in High School LD, smart affs should have prempts in their 1AC to try and avoid reading new cards in the 1AR. Smart negs will diversify neg offense to be able to collapse and exploit 1AR mistakes. Pretty much everything applies from my policy paradigm but Imma say it in bold again because most people ignore it anyways: EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual claim and warrant. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

Educational Background:

North Dakota State University (2014-16)- English Education

University of Jamestown (2020-2021) - Masters in Education- Curriculum and Instruction

Relevant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2017-present)- West Fargo Sheyenne High School

Etiquette:

Make sure to be respectful in your round with your opponents and be polite.

Public Forum:

Within a PF debate, I am looking at main claims, evidence, and logic being used to help a side win in PF. Use your evidence to advance your point and clearly show how that advances your side of the resolution. I take a lot into account in rebuttals. Crossfire is important in my eyes, and I want your questions in crossfire to carry over to the connection and clash you make in your rebuttals. That is the time to really show why your side wins the debate based on your use of evidence and clash.

Policy:

I look for clear argumentation between the evidence being used and how effectively you are able to attack the opponent's points and strengthen your own. I am much more content with a slower speed. I am used to argumentation and the typical debate style and format of claim/warrant/impact. At the end of the day, I will be picking the side that wins based on their better use of evidence, clash, and argumentation style.

Lincoln-Douglas:

The value/criterion framework is especially important in this debate format. Evidence of course is important in this debate format but really make sure that you are clear about how your value and criterion fit with your contentions (claims) and evidence. It is a moral debate, and I am looking to see how you can make a more reasonable moral argument based on your chosen value/criterion that advance your side of the resolution.

Speed and Delivery:

Make sure not to spread and not to speak quickly. Make sure you are understandable and clear in what you say. Your delivery matters, and if you talk too quickly, I will not understand your logic and position. Your taglines and signposting are especially important because I need to be able to follow your points and your case to help me know why your side should win the round. Make sure your links and voters are clear in the round.

Disclosure:

I am not used to disclosing when the debate is finished as it is not standard practice in North Dakota. At the national tournament, if it is expected or required, I will do it. If it is not required, I will not disclose or answer questions. I will have my thoughts and feedback written in the ballot.

Cross Examination/Crossfire:

Make sure to answer questions and ask for points of clarification politely. Make sure to use this time to help you build your rebuttals. In addition to your cross examination and/or crossfire, the rebuttals are when I really start to look at who is making the better clash and arguments.

Contact: nkurtti@west-fargo.k12.nd.us

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

Policy Debate Coach - North Star High School, Newark, NJ

email: tlatta27@gmail.com

Former policy debater and now second year policy-focused coach with some summer lab instruction experience. Comfortable with policy and critical approaches.

General Preferences

Depth > breadth: spread has rapidly diminishing returns with me. Warrant quality will win out so...compare warrants.

I appreciate a speaking speed where individual words are distinct and discernible, at the bare minimum. I'm not receptive to speaking styles with purposely low volume or monotone and this will be reflected in speaker points and, if egregious and repeated, the RFD.

If you want your arguments reflected in my flow, I STRONGLY suggest you DO NOT spread analytics, particularly those not reflected in distributed speech docs or those related to T's and/or Frameworks.

Disads: Uniqueness argument is usually the determinant in my view.

Counterplans: Throw-away cps with no solvency warrants can be defeated by the Aff with much less time than the Neg spends in the block but don't be sloppy in the 2AC. I am receptive to theory here. See remarks on theory below.

Receptive to condo bad. I'm not your best judge for 5+ off-case

Kritiks: Receptive to aff or neg but not as a shield to not engage with the arguments the other team is making. Not clashing will put you behind. The link debate is important to me and you have a much better chance if you compare warrants effectively in this area. Thoughtful Alts, particularly with analytics referencing history/examples are meaningful to me. I do not (yet) have a lot of direct experience with the literature of many areas of kritiks, hence you need to slow down and make them clear

Theory: Given my experience level, I encounter new theory all the time and that is sometimes a challenge. If you want to have an impact on the ballot in these areas, slow down and make your argument clear. Blasting through theory will leave a void on my flow.

Speaker points…28.5 is average clarity, most clear-thinking and focus. More and less of those qualities will be reflected by divergences from that point but will generally not go below 27.

In general, I will give you my full concentration as a judge, provide clear and reasonable feedback and appreciate your efforts to improve my understanding of policy debate and the round we are in.

Hello, my name is Bri :).

If you have questions please email me: briannalemaster1120@gmail.com

About me

I competed at Westmoore High School for 4 years where I was a 4x national qualifier and in multiple state final rounds. I competed in LD, PF but trad and circuit debate. I also currently coach multiple events including all the debate events and some specific IE events. I also beat Taylor Rafferty in a debate round once.

TLDR: General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth. This obviously excludes racist, homophobic, and other hateful sentiments.

2. You should be crystalizing and summarizing your best arguments in your last rebuttal speech going for everything is not in your best interest.

3. Clash is the most important thing for me in debate if you don't do it or are just avoiding it the round will probably not go well for you.

4. SIGN POST PLEASE. If you don't your speaker points just like your signposting won't exist.

Trad LD

1. Framework is pretty important to me especially when I'm looking at what arguments to prioritize in the round.

2. Mostly for non-OK debate- Since the progressive debate is becoming more common among the it I'm fine with speed and counter plans etc.... All I ask is that if you're going to do it please format it correctly and just call it a counter plan or a "K" or whatever don't try to hide it as a contention I know the difference. Include me on the file share if you want or email chain. I do not really like seeing identity K's but again run what you have prepared.

- Oklahoma debate - guys honestly since this is a trad circuit I would avoid running k's or cp or anything like that since the reality is your competitors will not know how to respond and it will make it an unfair round. I would recommend not running that stuff in general here it will not help you win a round.

3. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing). I will not vote off drops if they are not brought up, but I think it works in your favor if you bring up drops especially If your opponents do not address your entire case.

4. Your framework and your case should be able to match properly I don't want to see a Kant framework and then a bunch of extinction arguments I might sob internally.

PFD

1. FILL YOUR SPEECH TIMES. You already don't have a lot of time use it wisely!

2. Please don't make Grand Cross a big disaster please be civil and nice.

3. Make sure to carry your arguments all the way through final focus if they are not carried through I won't use it in my decision.

4. Public Forum Debate is called Public Forum for a reason it is supposed to be as accessible to a general audience as possible there shouldn't be a high use of progressive argumentation or debate lingo. Also I really do not vote off fw more impact clac take that as you will but if you make fw your entire voter I'm most likely got going to weigh it that heavy.

5. Don't be one of those teams that paraphrases evidence you will instantly lose all credibility. I will read cards if the other team tells me to call for them.

6. Make sure you have been well versed in the lit and case your reading it helps you to be able to answer questions better.

- disclaimer- I have coached and judged BQ just so ya know I can keep up

POLICY

LOL

• I did not do policy in high school but I can mostly keep up with everything except I do not like tricks so do with that what you will that being said I also am not entirely a fan of speed but if you want to spread plz send doc.

hello, i'm a competitor writing this paradigm for my dad

he's never judged debate before so super super lay

DO NOT be techy

condense on key points and give clear voters

you should signpost as well as you can

TELL him exactly what he needs to have down on his paper in ur speech

DO NOT use jargon at all, like dead serious none at all

he does not flow lol

you should really weigh

dont be rude

glhf

Hayden '22

KU '26

Add me to the email chain:

Smcconnell.debate@gmail.com

TLDR: I've gone for a mix of policy and critical arguments. I don't have preferences about what you read. Just do what you do well.

Speed is fine---Slow down for analytics and give some pen time

Unique strategies and in-depth explanation = Increased Speaks

Tech>Truth, but truth is a tiebreaker

Impact calc is good

LD/PF Note:

I did LD a few times in high school, but don't know too much about the event.

I've never done or judged PF, but know the basic structure.

This means I don't really have any preconceived notions about these events, so you have to explain how I evaluate certain arguments in the round.

Just debate your best and I will try to adjudicate the debate my best.

If you have any questions just ask!

Lay/Parent Judge: A public librarian, word nerd, mother of two awesome teens who values positivity and kindness.

For Speech: Please time yourself and speak in a cadence that I can follow. Be engaging.

For Debate: Keep it clear and simple, no LD jargon. I cannot judge fast rounds; I need to be able to understand and comprehend what you are saying. I value well-crafted arguments, supplemented with warrants. And evidence (for PF). Above all, be respectful and kind to your opponent.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit PF & Policy, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies in open/varsity divisions.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your floor.
5. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
6. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
7. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you go)

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Three caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score, 3) I won't penalize debaters in novice or MS rounds who don't send card docs. We all have enough to learn in those debates without also having to send docs. But if you are a novice team competing in an open/varsity division, the expectation is that you send cards.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Don't do it. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentive you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will get from me are a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your floor.

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level link & impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

7. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen an increasing number of rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution"). You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, and if you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am likely not your judge for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle. Debate is a space where we shouldn't be afraid to talk about important and difficult issues, and opt-outs can too easily be abused to gain advantage by teams who don't genuinely have issues with the topics in question. There would need to be extensive use of graphic imagery or something similar for me to be likely to buy a sufficiently large enough violation to justify voting on this kind of argument. Not impossible, but a very high threshold.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it. And that also includes arguments about proper forms of disclosure. Teams that just post massive blocks of unhighlighted, ununderlined text and/or without any tags read to me as acts of passive aggression that are just trying to get out of disclosure arguments while not supporting the benefits that disclosure provides. Also, responses like "our coach doesn't allow us to disclose" or "email us 30 minutes before the round, and this counts as terminal defense against disclosure arguments" are thoroughly unpersuasive in front of me. I'm sorry your coach doesn't support disclosure, but that is a strategic decision they have made that has put their students at a disadvantage in front of judges like me. That's just the way it goes.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just as likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, and, of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or even irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs & Paraphrasing. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

12. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be VERY EASY to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me (especially on the Aff when teams basically put the resolution), and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov/PMC: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp/LOC: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov/MGC: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Just listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

My experience includes 4 years of LD debate throughout high school as well as extemporaneous speaking and congressional debate. In college I competed on a national circuit in parliamentary style debate, LD Policy debate, and extemporaneous speaking. I’ve intermittently judged high school LD, policy, and congressional debate for the past 10 years. I consider my paradigm to be part tabula rasa, part games. I try to let the debaters determine the type of round it will be and I will vote on whatever the best and most logical arguments are. If a debater is able to logically defend their position as the most advantageous or the least disadvantageous, then I will vote on it regardless of how unrealistic or absurd it may be. I enjoy Kritiks, but they need to be well understood and ran with intention. I will listen to pretty much any argument as long as it links and you can defend it. I will vote on topicalities but I prefer to hear attempts at creative argumentation. I don’t mind speed but I prefer articulation over a larger quantity of arguments and my flow will be reflective of how clearly the speaker is communicating their arguments.

As a judge, I strive for fairness, clarity, and adherence to debate rules. I value logical arguments supported by evidence, respectful conduct, and effective communication. I expect debaters to engage with each other's arguments, stay on topic, and avoid personal attacks. I prioritize substance over style and look for well-structured cases with clear impacts. I'm open to different debate formats and arguments but prefer quality over quantity. Overall, I aim to make informed, impartial decisions based on the merits of the arguments presented.

Pronouns: He, Him

Experience: 11-year coach and 4-year competitor in both debate and speech. Significant experience in LD, PF, BQ, and WSD, but minimal experience in CX.

Style Preferences: Speed is usually fine as long as your enunciation can keep up. I will never vote on delivery, but strong delivery and clarity will only help your judge's understanding of your arguments. If I didn't hear it, it can't end up on my flow. You may also want to speak up a tiny bit (especially if masked), as I'm slightly hard-of-hearing.

Judging: Debate is about the clash of ideas. Tabula rasa is impossible, but I strive for coming into a round with absolutely zero preconceptions regarding what arguments hold water and what arguments do not. It's the role of the opponent to discredit the speaker's arguments (not my role); so, as long as the argument has a reasonable claim, data, and warrant, I'll accept the impacts of that claim until the opponent tells me not to.

The only time my preconceptions will come into play is with topicality/resolution analysis in instances where neither side gives me a reason to buy their interpretation of the topic. I need to vote on the resolution by the end of the round, which means that I need to have an interpretation of what the resolution means and the burdens of each side. If neither side makes an argument for what those burdens are and what interpretations are fair/unfair, then I have to use the burdens and interpretations that make most sense to me.

Because you don't know what my perceived burdens and interpretations for any given resolution are, this means that you would be wise to spend time on topicality/burdens in your speeches if it seems like you and your opponent aren't seeing eye to eye. If you're not clashing on interpretation, don't worry about it. Also, I love burden/topicality debates; if you want to make my life more fun, argue burdens.

Cross: For me, the CX or crossfire is for the benefit of the debaters, rather than the benefit of the judge. This means a few things: First, coming out "on top" or "looking better than the opponent" doesn't mean much to me. Second, I will add to my flow from cross if something comes up that clarifies something from the speeches, but I don't actively flow cross. Finally, any holes that you expose in cross should also be covered in your subsequent speeches if you really want it to be considered.

Things I like:

- Clear and consistent signposting

- Topicality/Rules/Burden Debate

- Clear impacts that stem from Claim-Data-Warrant structures.

- Kritiks/Theory - I like kritiks and off-the-wall arguments as long as their relevance to the ballot is made exceedingly clear. However, I come from and coach in a very traditional district, so I don't have much experience with judging these types of arguments. Give your best "...for Dummies" version of your kritik if you do go for one.

-Volume. I'm alitttttlehard of hearing, so I appreciate projection.

Things I DO NOT like:

• "I/my partner can bring that up in their next speech" -> Then never brings it up. If this happens, I don't hesitate to drop the contention that the question was related to (because part of the defense being used is to hide evidence that they have/don't have by being dishonest to the opposition/judge).
• Evidence battles over arbitrary things ("my card is 2020 when theirs is 2017!"). There's a time/place for calling evidence into question, but I need a clear reason why something like a year matters for a particular stat (like, a recently implemented policyshould probably have the most up-to-date info, but I don't need anup-to-the-secondarticle on something John Locke believed back in the primordial ooze).

-------------

Debate is incredibly fun. I'm having the most fun when the debaters in front of me are having fun too.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before round as long as we're not running behind.

-Christian Novak

she/her

debated @ lawrence free state, debating @ the university of kansas, coached @ lawrence free state

yes email chain: aaronjpersinger@gmail.com

i do not care what you read or how you read it; you should debate how you've invested in whatever way you desire. that said, my debate and academic experiences are almost exclusively critical and inform how i think about debates.

big-picture rebuttals, clear judge instruction, and robust impact calculus matter far more to me than most technical issues. i will flow and pay attention to concessions, but typically find it easier to resolve debates when the final rebuttals center on framing key issues in the debate as meta-filters for weighing offense/defense.

all of my specific takes and predispositions are malleable with good debating. if you have questions about specific things, you're free to reach out or ask before the debate!

random qualms and notes:

---clarity and flow time are a must. i flow on my computer, but that certainly does not mean you should spread through blocks or trade clarity for speed. i will clear you twice before i stop flowing.

---partner prompting makes it extremely difficult for me to flow...please just talk at me if you're the one doing the prompting, even if it's not your speech (i am going to flow you regardless). that said, excessive prompting is bad and will (circumstantially) tank your speaks.

---i don't like reading evidence at the end of debates...if you want me to read a piece of evidence you need to explain to me what i should be looking for and why it matters in your final rebuttal. read rehighlightings.

---treating cross ex like dead time makes me so so sad. it is a speech (that i will flow!) and is integral to argumentative and strategic developments that can easily flip a ballot...please use it to your advantage.

glhf!

Judging Paradigm:

Reece Peters (he/him)

Email:

reecepeters1@gmail.com

Experience:

I debated at Eagan High School for four years, three of which being on the Policy Debate team. I have experience judging from lay to circuit, so I'm not averse to any particular style. I've also debated Public Forum and Big Questions- alongside some brief Lincoln-Douglas exposure.

I've been a policy debate coach at Eagan High School for the better part of the last three years and have around four years of formal policy debate judging experience across all range of skill levels.

Although not debating there, I'm a college graduate from the University of Washington with a varied range of interests including Philosophy, Mathematics, Computer Science, Linguistics, and Political Science.

Tag Team:

Yes, it's fine but be respectful of your partner. Speaks will suffer if you are the only one talking.

Default Philosophy:

I tend to abide by the principle that debate is a game meant to improve the education and public speaking of its participants, but I am open to a wide variety of differing interpretations of the activity. Without the presence of super-ceding frameworks, I default to a humanitarian-utilitarian policy maker.

I will not make arguments for you that aren't on the flow. If you want me to think something, you have to say it in round. In other words, "tech over truth."

Argument Preferences:

No specific argument by default will be rejected by me (barring exclusive or otherwise harmful positions of course.) If you can argue it, I want to hear it.

Topicality- Topicality is certainly a stock issue, but it's up the neg to show why a non-topical aff is "bad" (even if the violation is blatant or conceded.) This is still true in the context of K-affs which don't defend a topical advocacy. Fair warning, however, if a sufficient enough job is done, I do tend to err neg in these rounds.

K- Though I have a modest background in cutting, running, and judging Kritiks, I've never had the greatest relationship with hyper dense or esoteric K-theory (Think Deleuze-esque.) If you are going to run these types of arguments, be prepared to give clear and compelling rebuttals which tell the story of the K.

Theory- I have a really hard time voting for a theory position that doesn't take a significant portion of the last two speeches unless it's cold conceded (significant determined by the context of the round.) In round abuse is key for the most convincing ballots but not necessary.

Condo- I like condo bad arguments more than most judges, but don't expect reasoning which boils down to "I'm overwhelmed" to secure the win.

Performance- no issue with it!

Presentation Preferences:

Speed is totally fine with me (350+ wpm), but I find my ability to flow comes best when it is clear. I love it when tags are slowed down, and analytics especially need a clearer (often slower) explanation compared to card text. Even card text should be slowed down if you want me to note a specific internal warrant.

In general, abide by the rule that if you want me to pay specific attention / vote on something later in the round, it's vital that you emphasize it. I understand it's frustrating to hear things like "I didn't have that on my flow" or "that was new in the last speech," so for both of our sakes, make sure you are signposting, sticking to roadmaps, and giving clear overviews.

In the same vein, I hate purposefully obfuscated arguments just to bamboozle the other team. To get a gist of my brightline, removing position names in the doc is about as far as I'd push it. Answering clarifying cross-ex questions with purposefully confusing jargon / tautologies, hidden theory, or purposefully mislabeling positions are surefire ways to tank your speaks.

Looking at me while giving your speech will give you a ton of information about how it's being received (am I thinking, flowing, nodding, confused-looking, typing, time-concerned etc.) This can be utilized to your advantage, as, I am quite expressive for the most part.

Behavior Preferences:

If I were to emphasize any of these categories the most, it would be this one. Please please please make the debate space an inclusive, empathetic, and (dare I say) fun activity for all participants. Belittling, mocking, or name-calling your opposition is not an effective rhetorical tactic, and you'll often find it has the opposite effect on the round results.

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

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

Round Framing:

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

My Weird Judge Things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Practices:

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

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

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

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

Debater Experience:

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

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

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

Overall Practices:

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

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

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

Predispositions:

Topicality:

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

Untopical Affirmative Rounds:

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

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

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

CP's:

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

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

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

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

DA's:

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

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

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

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

Even if statements are your friend.

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

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

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

Argument Structure (For Extensions):

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

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

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

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

Aff's Advantages: Status quo, Impact, Solvency

Kritik's: Link, Impact, Alt

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

FLOWING:

If typing, I flow the entire round in the RFD so that teams and coaches can see how the round went. I add my thoughts in italics, so that you can see my reactions to different arguments. I'll put my biggest RFD (and the value clash) at the top of my notes.

DECISION:

1 - Debaters should carefully consider how much evidence they use. Logic can only take you so far on its own. Evidence can only do so much on its own. The two need to balance.

2 - Impacts really matter. Make sure to clearly state your impacts.

PREFERENCES:

1 - Please do not spread. I understand that students do it to fit as much information in as possible, but you risk opponents and judges not being able to track everything you say. A good argument will be about argument quality, not word quantity.

2 - I recognize that I do have a bias against disrespectful debaters. It is very important to me that debaters maintain their composure and professionalism through the entire round. Competitors are future leaders and need to be able to set a good example for those around them.

3 - Meld values into your contentions and come back to that! Please balance the value clash with the contentions. I'll use the wining value to weigh both teams' contentions.

Hi, I'm Taylor. Keep in mind that my thoughts will probably change on specific aspects of debates as I judge more rounds, so I might change some things here and there in my paradigm.

My email: taylorrafferty22@gmail.com

About me (If you care)

I debated at Jenks High School for four years. I mainly did Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp. While at Jenks on the state level, I was in 4 state final rounds between Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. On the national level, I was a 4x national qualifier in 3 different events, and in my senior year, I took 24th in the nation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I now attend ESU and personally coach a few students in LD. Despite my LD experience I find myself judging mostly policy rounds these days but I will see a LD or PF round every now and then.

General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth; however, my threshold for responding to bad arguments is incredibly low.

2. I like Impact calc a lot. It would help if you did it.

3. Offense will get you further with me rather than defense. I don't think defense should be abandoned but telling me why you win goes much further than telling me why you don't lose.

4. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'm not going to do work for you if you don't extend your arguments through your last speech. I'm not gonna bother weighing it into my decision.

5. Crystalize and summarize your best arguments and why you won them in your final speeches. Generally, going for every argument on the flow is not in your best interest.

6. Time yourself. I'm terrible at it.

7. If you can be funny or sarcastic in a round (not at the expense of actually debating well), then more power to you. I will probably give you more speaks.

Traditional LD

Only Warning

I will NOT hesitate to drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved. I do not think it's impressive to win the flow while making the debate as inaccessible as possible for your opponent.

General Things

1. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing)

2. I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and, subsequently, who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot. For example, if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.

3. Good debaters have consistency between their value/criterion or framework and their contentions. If you're reading Kant and then a bunch of util arguments, I might cry.

4. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in trad LD. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence. This is not to say I don't enjoy analytics with good warrants.

Public Forum Debate

1. If I don't get a framework, I will default to utilitarianism for my framing. If you don't want me to do that, you should give me a framework.

2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. (Unfortunately, this seems to be a big problem specifically in PFD.) For the love of god, please, when you read cards, cite the author properly and read a cut version of the evidence. If I get a paraphrasing of evidence, I will be very inclined to vote you down

3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you cover the flow well, weigh impacts, and crystalize your most important arguments in your final speech. You will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.

Policy Debate

Just a few general things specifics are under my prefs.

1. Please add me to the email chain. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

2. My speed threshold is around 8.0/10 if that is any help at all (Probably not). I will yell "clear" if you're going too fast for me. If you ignore me I will be very sad. Please slow down on the analytics you don't put in the doc; if I can't hear them, I won't flow them.

3. Open cross is fine.

4. If you have questions about my policy paradigm, please ask before the round.

Prefs

1. Policy- Easily what I feel the most comfortable judging. I like seeing a topical aff against a competitive cp and some dis ads. I enjoy case debates, something that needs to be done way more. When you are reading your perms explain how it functions within the certain perm you read .

2. Topicality- Topicality is fun..... Until it's not. T feels more like a throwaway off-case position, especially as the violations continue getting increasingly ridiculous. I'm not saying you have to go for it if you read it, but I would like to feel like I know your T might be a legit way to the ballot rather than knowing it's just gonna be a time suck within the first 5 seconds you're into reading the T. With all that being said, winning the links to why the violation is legit is going to be way more important to me than harping on the impacts of the T. Sure, impacts are important, but if you're not going to put any effort into proving the T violation than why spend all that time impacting it out.

3. Theory- I find theory to be super boring mostly because it just turns into both teams reading their generic block files that I have heard for the thousandth time. That's not to say I won't vote on it. At some points, I have voted for speed theory and condo (It's been nearly a year, though), although I usually prefer to drop the argument and not the team. I'm very iffy on out-of-round theory violations being read I.E (the opposing team did something bad before the round started, so you are now reading theory). Once again, not that I wouldn't vote on it, but I don't have an objective view on what happened because likely I wasn't there ofc this isn't considering screenshots for a disclosure shell or something like that. I will reiterate what has been said about T previously: prove the violation first, then impact out.

4. K's- My experience with Ks has grown over the years. I generally feel comfortable with them. Explain how the alt functions and have a clear ROB; you should be fine. If you are reading something really abstract, you are going to have to explain it more to me, but I can catch on pretty fast. K affs have gotten more enjoyable for me as well just make sure it can compete and I will weigh it vs anything.

5. Performance- I am not gonna be your guy for this.

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

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

4 years of high school debate at Eagan High School (MN) & now I'm a coach there. I've been judging for 8ish years now. I'm a University of St. Thomas Alumni (Roll Toms), and I double majored in Political Science and Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies.

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

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

----- FYI -----

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

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

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

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

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

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

*My speaker points are generally high (my guess is an average of 28.5). I will reward well-executed strategies, clever concessions, insightful case debate, good cx questions, technical skills, and being respectful to your opponents. I love a good joke, pun, tasteful use of slang, and/or pop culture references in a debate :) pls make me laugh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pronouns: he/him

Email chains: Yes, please add me. johnsamqua@gmail.com

speech drop is fine as well.

TLDR:

I coach.

I don't coach that many fast teams. Clarity is what I put the most stock in.

Speed=4-6/10

Debaters that clean messy debates up will get my ballot.

I understand the K to a serviceable degree, but I wouldn't stake your hopes on winning on it in front of me unless you're just miles ahead on it.

Experience:

I competed in Kansas in both speech and policy debate for 4 years in high school.

I've judged and coached for 10 years. I tend to judge infrequently, and I haven't had many rounds on the economic inequality topic.

Judge Philosophy:

Generally: Run the things you want to run. My background basically makes me a policy hack. If you want to read something out of my wheelhouse just make sure you have good explanations. I coach teams that compete on a mostly traditional (meaning there's an emphasis on communication, and the debates are much slower) debate circuit, where it is seldom we see that type of argumentation. However I have coached a handful of varsity teams that do contemporary varsity style debate and I'd say they're pretty damn good. I may not be the most qualified judge when it comes to very fast and very technical debating.

Inclusion: I think that the debate space should be accessible to everyone, and if you engage in behaviors that negatively affect the people in the round then I will vote you down. I do not care if you are winning the debate. It's simply over. I've voted teams down in the past for being rude, racist, sexist or otherwise problematic. Just don't be a horrible person, don't talk over people, if you must interrupt try to do it politely.

Style: It's seldom that I see really good line by line. The more organized that you are during your speech the better chance you have of winning in front of me. Otherwise it's hard for me to parse where one argument ends and another begins and things get missed which is going to cause you to be not happy with me. Basically I'm saying that you're the master of your own destiny here.

Delivery:

Speed 4-6/10

I emphasize clarity

If I'm on panel with other judges that can handle more speed, I understand if I get left in the dust.

I mostly coach teams that are slow.

Argument Specific:

Disads: Read a specific link. I don't care for huge internal link chains. The bigger the chain the more untrue the argument sounds to me. But also if the other team completely bungles it then I guess I have no choice.

Counterplans: yep.

T: yep. If you're going for it, make sure you spend a lot of time on it!

K: I have pretty limited experience with K's. But that doesn't mean you should avoid them in front of me. My wheelhouse in terms of critical theory is Cap, and Biopower. I think that framework should be accessible to both teams. I would prefer that your alt actually did something

Theory: This is usually very hard for me to wrap my head around unless it's something like a spec argument. But also if we're reading spec then maybe you've already lost?

I debated at Lansing High School for 4 years

I currently do speech and debate at Western Kentucky University

email: nik.schintgentf@gmail.com

they/them

I don't care if you say judge, N, or Nik... just not Niklas

\\ I have an apd which makes it difficult to hear spreading so I'm probably not the best judge if you wish to do that, im sorry. Either way, you can go slow or spread in front of me but on the chance that you do spread don't blitz through the tags so I can actually pick up what you're trying to put down - the same goes for analytics or the rebuttals - if you need me to write make it so I can hear it. I cleared people at the end of my career as a debater and I will clear you now.//

General

Be respectful towards you're opponents

I think pre-round disclosure is good

Judge Instruction is going to be the most important for me. I want to know why you win the debate and how. Do comparative analysis, should be able to explain your evidence and why it is better than theirs and why this one thing means the debate goes entirely in your favor. If you don't then that's on you and will probably require me to do more intervening on my part.

I'm not going to read the evidence unless you tell me to. Don't just insert a rehighlight - tell me why it proves the aff/neg thesis to be false and then prove where that is in the ev.

I'm open to pretty much any arg - I've never had a problem with too many but if you as a debater think ev is bad and can be violent or exclusionary then tell me why. My debate partner and I in highschool made arguments like this in highschool so I can find them compelling.

IK this doesn't have a lot in it but I have a lot of the same debate philosophy as Jam Hoffman, Azja Butler, Joshua Michael, Alaina Walberg, Nate Nys, and some other folks as they have greatly influenced my debate career

___________________________________________________

Tech/Truth

I always find myself to be tech over truth - unless you give me a reason not to be

Disadvantages

I like disadvantages and think the creative ones with a good link story end up winning my ballot the most. There are lots of tricks teams don't utilize enough, especially with ptx DAs. Do the impact calc and link work - you know.

Counterplans

I love counterplans and I don't feel like they get used creatively enough. I don't think a counterplan needs to solve for the entirety of the aff but you should have a reason why it doesn't need to.

Kritiks/K-Affs

I did K debate my last year of highschool reading Afro-Pessimism, Afro-Futurism, Vampiric Necropolitics, Taosim, Cap, Empire, and Ableism. I think the link debate is always important, you need to be able to answer questions like how does it link to the aff/topic? Impacts need to be impacted out- duh. You need to explain the alt/advocacy and how it resolves your impacts. Teams don't do this enough and just repeat the name of their alternative and other teams don't call them out enough on it.

T-FW/Framework

I don't think the negative spends enough time trying to frame aff offense out of the debate and that causes the negative to lose lots of rounds. Same goes for the aff, there are sometimes just lots of easily conceded arguments that can cause you to immediately lose the debate. I find these debates become extremely messy and make following very difficult so please keep it organized.

Topicality

A lot of the same stuff on T-FW applies over here. T violations are better when they are carded and I don't see people answering we meets well enough

MISC.

Clipping is an academic malpractice and will result in a loss and low speaks.

Same with slurs, etc.

I've noticed I have lots of feedback sometimes, especially for novices, so I'm sorry if you do not like that. Sometimes my writing tone can come off as mean or passive aggressive, I pinkie promise its not.

Overview

-archan.debate@gmail.com---add me to the chain.

-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.

-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 the 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). Chaotic debates are the best debates.

-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 logical fallacies that don't win ballots.

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.

-Soft left affs should be the norm. If deployed right, the security K should deter all extinction affs because it's right that all of the 1ACs impacts are fake. If aff teams were able to debate framing contentions properly and judges didn't hack for extinction outweighs, the aff win percentages would skyrocket. There's a reason that no one takes debate cases seriously irl, and people just need to be able to import that logic into debate.

-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.

-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

-They're good. See "hot takes" section.

-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 (who is actually batshit btw) 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

I've never debated in LD, but I've now coached/judged one LD tournament and was extremely close to the LDers at my school and talked to them about LD specific things. I will be completely lost in phil rounds, but I think that I'll be decently competent in tricks rounds and good in theory rounds. Your best bet is gonna be to go for policy-like stuff though, I'll have the most familiarity with it.

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 -

3 - tricks

4 - k v k

5/s - phil

-This topic is insane for mechanism CPs---I would highly recommend reading them in front of me.

-Idk if this is true, but I heard that LDers don't go for fairness on framework often---I think that's a mistake and that fairness is probably the best impact.

-Nebel T is low key kinda true.

-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 judges. I feel like I'll also be more lenient on newer args bc 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.

-RVIs on T are probably bad? I'll be more amenable to them than I am in policy rounds bc ik it's a norm here, but I probably wouldn't recommend going for one.

-Phil---I'm gonna be fully lost. It's probably in your best interest to avoid these debates. I know basic stuff like util and deontology. I'm obviously open to hearing other stuff, but won't know it at all, which means that your burden of explaining what it is is gonna be way higher. I'm pretty biased to util though.

-Debate in front of me like you were debating in front of Sam Anderson or Aerin Engelstad

Email chain: lfsdebate@gmail.com

Who Am I: I debated four years at Field Kindley High School in Coffeyville, KS, did not debate in college, and have been an assistant coach at Lawrence Free State High School in Lawrence, KS since 2013. I have a Master's degree in International Relations.

General Approach: Tell me what I should be voting on and why. If you want me to evaluate the round differently than they do, then you need to win a reason why your framework or paradigm is the one that I should use. If no one does that, then I'll default to a policymaker paradigm. I don't view offense and defense as an either/or proposition, but if you do then I prefer offense.

Standard Operating Procedure: (How I will evaluate the round unless one of the teams wins that I should do something different) The affirmative has a non-severable duty to advocate something resolutional, and that advocacy must be clear and stable. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's advocacy is undesirable, worse than a competitive alternative, or theoretically invalid. I default to evaluating all non-theory arguments on a single plane, am much more willing to reject an argument than a team, and will almost always treat dropped arguments as true.

Mechanics: (I'm not going to decide the round on these things by themselves, but they undeniably affect my ability to evaluate it)

• Signposting - Please do this as much as possible. I'm not just talking about giving a roadmap at the start of each speech or which piece of paper you're talking about during the speech, but where on the line-by-line you are and what you're doing (i.e. if you read a turn, call it a turn).
• Overviews - These are helpful for establishing your story on that argument, but generally tend to go on too long for me and seem to have become a substitute for specific line-by-line work, clash, and warrant extension. I view these other items as more productive/valuable ways to spend your time.
• Delivery - I care way more about clarity than speed; I have yet to hear anybody who I thought was clear enough and too fast. I'll say "clear" if you ask me to, but ultimately the burden is on you. Slowing down and enunciating for tags and analytics makes it more likely that I'll get everything.
• Cross Examination - Be polite. Make your point or get an answer, then move on. Don't use cross-ex to make arguments.
• Prep Time - I don't think prep should stop until the flash drive comes out of your computer or the email is sent, but I won't police prep as long as both teams are reasonable.

Argumentation: (I'll probably be fine with whatever you want to do, and you shouldn't feel the need to fundamentally change your strategy for me. These are preferences, not rules.)

• Case - I prefer that you do case work in general, and think that it's under-utilized for impact calc.  Internal links matter.
• CPs/DAs - I prefer specific solvency and link cards (I'm sure you do, too), but generics are fine provided you do the work.
• Framework - I prefer that framework gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Kritiks - I prefer that there is an alternative, and that you either go for it or do the work to explain why you win anyway. "Reject the Aff." isn't an alternative, it's what I do if I agree with the alternative. I don't get real excited about links of omission, so some narrative work will help you here.
• Performance - I prefer that you identify the function of the ballot as clearly and as early as possible.
• Procedurals - I prefer that they be structured and that you identify how the round was affected or altered by what the other team did or didn't do.
• Theory - I prefer that theory gets its own page on the flow, and that it gets substantive development beyond each side reading frontlines at each other/me.
• Topicality - I prefer that teams articulate how/why their interpretation is better for debate from a holistic perspective. TVAs and/or case lists are good. My least favorite way to start an RFD is, "So, I think the Aff. is topical, but also you're losing topicality."

Miscellaneous: (These things matter enough that I made a specific section for them, and will definitely be on my mind during the round.)

• I'm not planning to judge kick for you, but have no problem doing so if that instruction is in the debate.  The Aff. can object, of course.
• Anybody can read cards, good analysis and strategic decision-making are harder to do and frequently more valuable.
• Individual pages on the flow do not exist in a vacuum, and what is happening on one almost certainly affects what is happening on another.
• Comparative impact calculus. Again, comparative impact calculus.
• You may not actually be winning every argument in the round; acknowledging this in your analysis and telling me why you win anyway is a good thing.
• Winning an argument is not the same thing as winning the round on an argument. If you want to win the round on an argument you've won or are winning, take the time to win the round on it.
• The 2NR and 2AR are for making choices, you only have to win the round once.
• I will read along during speeches and will likely double back to look at cards again, but I don't like being asked to read evidence and decide for myself. If they're reading problematic evidence, yours is substantively better, etc., then do that work in the debate.

Zen: (Just my thoughts, they don't necessarily mean anything except that I thought them.)

• Debate is a speaking game, where teams must construct logically sound, valid arguments to defend, while challenging the same effort from their opponents.
• It's better to be more right than the other team than more clever.
• A round is just a collection of individual decisions. If you make the right decisions more often than not, then you'll win more times than you lose.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

email chain/contact info: stoutmalicia@gmail.com

about me: recent graduate from truman state university where I debated for four years. I coach policy debate at pembroke hill in KCMO. in undergrad i studied polisci & ir, postmodern philosophy and women & gender studies.

housekeeping: doc should be sent within 30 seconds of ending prep barring unusual circumstances. signpost well (VERY CLEARLY, "NEXT OFF"). you should send analytics. card dumps and expecting me to cross apply the cards for you to the LBL is a risky game. "clean docs" that are sent that are not actually "clean" are slimy. lack of distinction between your card reading voice and your tag/analytic voice also can result in mishaps on the flow.

Debated: Immigration(CX), Arms Sales (CX), Immigration (NFA), Counterterrorism (NFA), Elections (NFA), Nukes (NFA)

Coached: Criminal Justice Reform (CX), Water (CX), Fiscal Redistribution (CX)

TLDR: Speed is cool. Signposting is necessary. Ks on the aff and neg are a vibe and procedural debates are fun.

ETHICS ISSUES: Don't scream. Be kind. Don't cheat! Don't card clip. Repeated Interrupting and yelling in CX is a voter.

Policy:

Tech > Truth: I am anti-judge intervention, I default to tech as reasonably as I can. Dropped args are generally true so long as there is some extension of a warrant. I will read cards - so at the very minimum at least make sure your evi. is somewhat coming to the conclusion you say it does. If the card is completely dropped, my threshold for this is pretty low but don't misconstrue evidence -> that's probably not good for debate.

Speed: Speed is my preference as a competitor. Will vote on the Speed K if pertinent. Slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.

T/Theory: Big fan if you do it well. The 2NR/2AR should collapse solely to the theory page. There should be an interp, vio, standards and voters in the shell. I'll vote on potential abuse if there is a clear warrant for why I should. Love a good TVA. I default to competing interps but can be swayed.

Disclosure: Neg and aff should disclose full-text new positions on the wiki. Hard debate is good debate. I'm from a smaller school, and have fully disclosed all of my debate rounds. I highly encourage debaters to disclose, it makes you better. Don't false disclose.

Disads: I pref aff-specific links. If you collapse to DA/Case, give me an overview on top and do lots of impact comparison. Tix aren’t my favorite but like I said tech over truth.

New in the 2: Not a fan, unless it's justified - i.e. a new theory sheet because of in-round abuse. New impact scenarios are fine, but I'll give a lot of mercy to the 1ar.

Counterplans/Conditional Advocacies (General): One condo CP/K is fine. The more conditional CPs/Ks you run, the lower my threshold gets. In most cases a CP/K combo is perfcon -- which I absolutely will vote on. I default to judge kick, but can be persuaded on why judge kicks are bad - or why I shouldn't. I won't vote solely on a solvency lens - you need to win the net benefit.

Kritiks (Neg): Please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading -- that's the best way to avoid any specific K biases I might have. I enjoy it if you can clearly explain what the K does & what the alt looks like. Well versed on cap, militarism, security and fem. Specific K links will always be more compelling than generic ones I like alts that do something. FW is important. (IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHAT THE K DOES I HAVE A VERY LOW THRESHOLD FOR K SOLVENCY!!!)

Kritiks (Aff): I've ran K affs without a plan text. they need an advocacy statement/clear alt text. I've voted neg and aff on framework plenty of times in these debates. tell me why the debate space solves, and how that outweighs fairness claims and such. What does my ballot do? What am I voting for? Am I a policymaker? Is fiat real? If I am left not knowing the answers to all of those questions I probably won't vote on the K aff.

Case: I LOVE turns and I will vote on them if they are impacted out properly. Do not expect me to vote on a dropped turn if you do not weigh it in the round. Case debate is a lost art for the negative, I award high speaks to debaters who do quality evidentiary analysis.

Fun Speaks: clever tasteful APPROPRIATE humor in round is rewarded w/ speaker points :)

Missouri State Debater (NDT-CEDA) 2007-2011; Judged NDT - 2011-2014; 2023-present

Greenwood Lab School - Middle and high school coach - 2011- 2023

Crowder College Director of Forensics (NFA-LD and IPDA debate formats) - 2015-2023

Missouri State Tournament Update

I have spent the last decade being around basically every other kind of debate besides NDT. I have judged at primarily regional and end of year national policy tournaments (NSDA and NCFL) for middle/high school and a ton of NFA-LD at the college level.

I have been working with novices and the packet this past month so I have some exposure to the topic (I also debated nukes) but you should assume I need a bit more explanation than the average judge about your argument.

Things I know to be true about myself as a judge:

1) I have a higher threshold for explanation and explaining how arguments interact than others. That is likely supercharged by the fact I haven't been around NDT in a few years. There are arguments that are just understood to mean certain things and I might not know what that is. Defer to explaining WHY winning an argument matters and interacts with the rest of the debate, even if you think it is obvious.

2) I don't have a lot of tolerance for unnecessary hostility and yelling (I am not talking about you being a loud person. You do you. I am talking about this in the context of it being directed towards others) in debates. There are times you need to assert yourself or ask a targeted series of questions, but I would much prefer that not to escalate. There is very little that is made better or more persuasive to me by being overly aggressive, evasive, or hostile.

3) Debate is an educational activity first, competitive second. I will judge the debate that happens in front of me to the best of my ability. Full stop. However, I believe in the educational value of what we learn in debates and will likely defer to the education side of things when in conflict.

4) My debate knowledge base is primarily shaped by NDT norms circa 2007-2012. I know some of those norms have changed. I will do my best to adapt the way the community has.

5) Policy arguments are more comfortable to me and what I know best. I would not consider myself particularly well versed in the nuances of most "K" literature that is read these days. However, with proper explanation and connections, I think I can judge any debate that I am presented with.

There is a ton not covered here. Feel free to ask questions or clarify. As I judge more, I am sure I will have more specific thoughts about specific parts of these debates and will add more.

put me on the email chain: ahart2241@gmail.com

Experience: 3 years of high school policy debate, 5 years of NDT/CEDA debate at Miami University and Missouri State University. High School coach for 4 years at Parkview (Missouri) High School, Graduate Assistant at Missouri State University.

Most of my experience in debate was very much on the policy side of thing. That doesn't make me uncomfortable with kritiks, but I also wouldn't say I'm familiar with much of the critical literature base. Even more so than in policy rounds, solid evidence analysis and application is very important for me to vote on a critical issue on either the affirmative or the negative. For critical affirmatives, I do think it's important to answer any topicality or framework arguments presented by the negative. For kritiks against these types of affirmatives, I think it's important to contextualize the philosophies and arguments in each in relation to the other side. Maybe even more than in policy v policy debates clash here is very important to me.

On the policy side of things, I love to see a good case debate, and think that evidence analysis(of both your own and your opponent's evidence) is of the utmost importance in these debates. I love a good discussion and comparison of impacts.

In terms of CP theory, I will probably default to rejecting the argument rather than the team in most instances if the affirmative wins the theory debate. On conditionality specifically, the affirmative must have a pretty specific scenario on the negative's abuse in the round for me to vote on it. I much prefer the specificity of that distinction over the nebulous "bad for debate" generality. That ship has probably sailed. One other thing to note is that I will not kick the counterplan for you automatically. The negative will need to make a judge-kick argument (preferably starting in the block) to allow the affirmative opportunities to answer it. I think this is a debate to be had, and shouldn't just be something that is granted to the negative at the outset of the round. That being said, I am definitely willing to do it, if said conditions are met and you win the reason why it's good.

Speed is fine, but I think clarity is far more important that showing me that you can read a bunch of cards. I will say that I am a little rusty, having judged at college/higher level high school tournaments sparingly in the last few years. On evidence I will likely be fine, but would appreciate going slightly below full speed when reading a block of analytic arguments/overviews.

In policy, I will judge primarily on the stock issues. These should be clear within the context of the debate. On topicality, I will specifically be looking at debatability and reasonability. However, if an argument is missed due to spreading, it will be considered a dropped argument.

In Public Forum, I judge heavily on impacts and argumentation, but will weigh uniqueness if it is brought up.

In LD, I am a proponent of the value debate.

I debated for 3 years @ Washburn Rural
I debated for 4 years @ Emporia State (NDT '08)
I am the Director of Debate at Lawrence Free State HS (7th year at FS, 15th year as a head coach, 23rd year in Policy Debate)

*Please add me to the email chain if one exists: kmikethompson@gmail.com

tl;dr

I will do my best to answer any questions that you have before the debate.

-I don't care how fast you talk, but I do care how clear you talk. I'm unlikely to clear you but it will be obvious if I can't understand you because I won't be flowing and I communicate non-verbally probably more than most other judges. This is particularly relevant in online debate.

-I don't care what arguments you read, but I do care whether you are making arguments, responding to opposition arguments, and engaging in impact calculus (your arg v their arg, not just your arg) throughout the debate.

-I don't care what aff you read, if you defend a plan, or if you debate on the margins of the topic, but I do care if you have offensive justifications for your decisions, and if you solve.

-If you're reading generic link arguments or CP solvency cards - it will matter a great deal how well you can contextual that generic evidence to the specific affirmative plan.

-I think teams should be willing to go for theory more.

Some top level thoughts:

1) "New in the 2" is bad for debate. Barring an affirmative theoretical objection - I'll evaluate you arguments and not intervene despite my bias. But, if the other team makes an argument about it - I will disregard all new positions read in the negative block.

2) Neg ground on this topic is not very good. I'm sympathetic to the negative on theoretical objections of counterplans as a result.

3) If you're flowing the speech doc and not the speech itself you deserve to be conned in to answering arguments that were never made in the debate, and to lose to analytic arguments (theory and otherwise) that were made while you were busy staring at your screen.

4) People should assume their opponent's are winning some arguments in the last rebuttals. A decision to assume you're winning everything nearly guarantees that you are incorrect and minimizes the likelihood that you're doing relevant impact calculus. I really think "even-if" statements are valuable for final rebutalists.

-My speaker point scale has tended to be:

29+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28.5 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

28 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27.5 - there were serious fundamental errors that need to be corrected.

Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always. That said, this topic is kinda awful for T debates. If you're not topical you should have an offensive reason that you're not. If you are topical then you should win why your vision of the resolution is superior to the negatives.

Critiques- K debaters tend to spend an extraordinary amount of time on their link arguments, but no time on explaining how the alternative resolves them. Affirmatives tend to concede K tricks too often.

Counterplans - I like smart, aff specific counter plans more than generic, topic type counter plans.

Critical affs - I'm fine with K affs and deployed them often as a debater. I find it difficult to evaluate k affs with poorly developed "role of the ballot" args. I find "topical version of the aff" to be compelling regularly, because affs concede this argument. I have been more on the "defend topical action" side of the framework debate in the last two years or so. I'm not sure why, but poorly executed affirmative offense seems to be the primary cause.

For most of my judging/coaching tenure, I have not included a paradigm, and that is because I do not believe my personal opinions are particularly relevant to the way you argue your case or present your program. You do you. But kids seem to want paradigms, so here it is:

1) Be logical. Impacts that don't link up are illogical. I probably won't believe it. Not every action leads to nuclear war, kids. Thankfully.

2) Speak clearly. If you love to spread, ok. But if I can't understand you, I can't evaluate you. It's like you didn't say it.

3) Be professional. Aggressive tactics are fine; rudeness is not.

I am a parent judge with an extemp past.

In LD, I try hard not to impose my own stylistic or strategic preference onto competitors. Do your thing. That being said, clarity and the art of rhetorical persuasion matter, especially if the evidence and argumentation are close.

Off-time roadmaps = okay but not especially worthwhile.

Hi! I'm Yuling (she/her). I graduated from UCLA with an econ dgree, I have 10 years of PF debating/coaching experience.

wangyuling1999@gmail.com for email chain/questions before or after round.

On top of my paradigm: I'm judging in a different timezone i.e. if you are doing a US tournament that means I may be judging at 2/3 am; that means I probably won't be able to handle spreading that well.

Bottom Line: be nice/don't be discriminatory in round.

Preferences:

Narrative Debate shapes my view of debate. Give me a cohesive storyline on why your side's view on the topic is more correct/important really helps me a lot in the decision making process.

Weighing matters, need extension and comparisons in the second half of the round.

Arguments need to be responded in the next speech - i.e. frontline in the second rebuttal.

Speed:
I am able to handle first constructive here (actually a bit faster than this is fine) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxiQYogqyIs&t=38s

but not really https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnDL_bIDEqg

Eventually I'll vote on a team that clearly tells me where should I vote on, how did you win there, and why should I vote there.

Theory/Ks: It's still new to me / the circuit I coach in. I'll try my best to flow and understand, and I also appreciate a chance to get educated on progressive debate, but the reminder is I'm probably not qualified enough to decide this type of round.

Experience: I competed in Public Forum for 6 years in North Dakota and am a past state champion in this event and a national qualification. Additionally, I competed on the National Circuit sparingly for 4 years. I competed in Extemp for 5 years in North Dakota/South Dakota and competed in International Extemp at the national tournament for 3 years. Lastly, I competed in Congress for 3 years but only at the local level (ND).

Judging PF: I'm looking for a good, clean round of debate. Be polite, act with class, and don't lose your cool. The team that extends the most impacts of their own and turns, delinks, disproves, or indicts the other teams will win the round 99 times out of 100 for me. I can keep up with nearly any speed but if you are going to talk fast please be experienced enough to enunciate. Truth is king, I don't believe tech should exist. Solvency won't win you the round. I strongly believe that solvency doesn't have a place in Public Forum because it is impossible to solve. If you can solve for poverty, war, climate change, etc. in a 45-minute round, I will personally fly you to the UN and you can go solve it. Extend the impacts, use logic and sources to disprove, persuade me. OFF THE CLOCK ROAD MAPS DONT EXIST. IF YOU START TALKING I START THE TIMER. I don't flow crossfire so if you want to garner offense from it, bring it up in a speech.

Judging LD: I have much less experience in LD however I still know what the basis of the event is. I am still looking for a clean round here too. Solvency doesn't exist in this event either. There's a reason a policy round is 90 minutes long. You cannot solve a moral/ethical issue with real-world implications in your 6-minute speech in a 45-minute debate round. Impacting is still king here. Sources are not as important but the clearer you pull them through the flow the more offense you have the opportunity to gain. I NEED a Value/Criterion Clash. Whoever wins this usually wins my ballot but can be swayed if both sides concede to the same V/C or if one side better upholds both V/C without a clear winner on the clash itself.

Judging Speech: If you're in a more rigid event, i.e. either extemp, inform, oratory, etc. keeping it light or incorporating comedic relief is great. Keeps the judge happy and engaged. Other events I take at face value.

Good luck.

Debate Paradigm

Paul Wexler Coach since 1993, Judge since 1987 Debated CEDA,College Parli, HS LD and Policy, College and HS Speech Current Affiliation: Needham High School Coach (speech and debate) I coach a little with Arlington HS (Massachusetts)
Previous Affiliations: Manchester-Essex Regional, Boston Latin School, San Antonio-LEE, College of Wooster (Ohio) (competitor) , University of Wisconsin (Madison)(coach): Debate and Speech for Irvine-University HS (CA) (competitor)

Coach: All debate events (LD, PF, WSD, Congress) plus spectrum of speech events.

POLICY Paradigm-

In absence of a reason not to do so, I default to policy-maker (though I do have some sympathy for hypothesis-testing).

The below on LD largely holds for my policy judging, though I am not as draconically anti-theory in policy as I am in LD/PF because the time structure allows for bad theory to be exposed in a way not feasible in LD/PF.

I abhor bullying, which I most recently saw a coach carry out in an elim round in policy at this tournament. . Coaches, if I believe you are bullying the 'other' team I will contact tab.

Now-a-days- I solely judge policy at NCFLS, and not every NCFL at that.

Special note- I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence. The following sentence applies. Needham High School, , by team consensus, does not permit its' members to disclose except at tournaments where it is specified as affirmaively required to participate by tournament invitation. I find the idea that disclosure is needed to avoid 'surprises' or to have. a quality debate to be unlikely.

Novice Paradigm is here first, followed by PF, and then LD (though much of LD applies to PF and nowadays even policy where appropriate)- Congress and Worlds is at VERY end.

I put the novice version first, to make it easy on them. Varsity follows. LD if below PF (even though I judge a good deal more LD than PF).

PLEASE NOTE SECTION BELOW REGARDING DISCLOSURE BY NEEDHAM AND ARLINGTON HS (MA) TEAM MEBMERS!

Novice Version (all debate forms)

I am very much excited to be hearing you today! It takes bravery to put oneself out there, and I am very happy to see new members join our community.

1)The voting standard ( a way to compare the arguments made by both sides in debate) is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

2)I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals/final focus/, will receive 'one-sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

3) As noted above, be sure to weigh your arguments compared to the arguments made by the other side. That means " We are winning Argument A - It is more important than the other sides Argument B (even if they are winning argument B) for reason X"

4) Have fun! Learn! If you have questions, please ask. This is an amazing activity and to repeat what I said above, am 'glad and gladder and gladddest' you are part of our community.

To earn higher speaker points...(Novice Version)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

Exhibit the ability to use CX /crossfire effectively ( This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.)

To earn lower speaker points (novice version)

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making arguments which offend, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or classist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)Use cases obviously not your own or obviously written by a super-experienced teammate or coach. Debate is a place to share your ideas and improve your own skills. Channelling or being a 'ventriloquist's dummy' for someone else just cheats yourself. Plus, for speaker point purposes, you are not demonstrating you have mastered the skill of communicating your OWN ideas, so I can't evaluate them.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4) For outrounds and flip rounds, please especially note section marked 'outrounds' at end

PUBLIC FORUM

I've judged it and coached it since the creation.

I default to voting on the whole resolution. I vote for whichever side shows it is preponderantly more desirable That may include scope, impact, probability, timeframe etc.

Most of what I say under Lincoln-Douglas below applies here, regarding substance as well as theory/and Ks. The differences OR key points are as follows.

1) I judge PF as an educated layperson- i.e. one who reads the paper (credibile news sources) but doesn't know the technicalities of debate lingo.

As such your 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

1b) I shall ignore 'theory' arguments completely (in PF, I will also ignore 'education' theory arguments, as well as 'fairness'-- '. Frame those arguments in terms of substance if you opt to make them, if there is a connection you will be fine). Theory arguments as such shall be treated as radio silence on my flow. I will also default to thinking you are uninterested in doing the work necessary to understand the topic, and that you are publicly announcing you are proud of being ignorant.

If someone's opponent is prima facie unfair or uneducational, say so without running a 'shell'.

1c) I WILL evaluate K's when based on the topic literature. Many resolutions DO have a reasonable link when one does the research

Your rate of delivery should be appropriate to the types of arguments you are making.

2)Stand during the cross-fire times. This adds to your perceptual dominance.

3) Offer and justify some sort of voting standard I can use to weigh competing arguments.

4) On Evidence...

--a)Evidence should be fully explained with analysis. Evidence without analysis isn't persuasive to me. (the best evidence will have analysis as well, which is the gold standard- but you should add your own linking to the round itself and the resolution proper).

4b) In order to earn higher speaker points, I expect evidence use to adhere to the full context being used and accessible. This doesn't mean you can't paraphrase when appropriate, it does mean reciting a single sentence or two and/or taking excessive time when asked to produce the source means you are still developing your evidence usage ability. Of course, using evidence in context (be it a full card or proper paraphrasing-) is expected Note #6 below.

You will also want to make note of the 'earn higher speaker points' in the novice ection above, it also applies to varsity.

--Quantitative claims always require evidence, the more recent the better.

--Qualitative claims DO NOT always require evidence, that depends on the specific claim.

-5)-Be comparative when addressing competing claims. The best analytical evidence compares claims directly within itself.

-6)Produce requested evidence in an expeditious fashion- Failure to do so comes of YOUR prep time, and eventually next speech time. Since such failure demonstrates that organizational skills are still being developed. Being in the 'developing skills' range is, like with any other debate skill, reflected in speaker points earned.

'Expeditious' means within ten seconds or so, unless the tournament invitation mandates a different period of time

-7)-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in summary or final focus are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

8)No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

9) I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during a speech.

10) What I have to say elsewhere in this document about how to access higher speaker points, technical mattters, and how to earn super low points by being offensiv/rude also applies to PF.

Most Importantly- as with any event " Have fun! "If you are learning and having fun, the winning shall take care of itself."

LD Debate -Varsity division

Note on January February 2023 topic. Making arguments grounded in racist appeals (such as claims group X is more prone to criminality) will result in a loss and low speaker points.

Shorter Version (in progress) (if you want to run some of these, see the labeled sections for most of them, following)

-Defaults to voting criterion.

-Theory-will not vote on fairness or disclosure. It will be treated as radio silence. See below for note regarding both Needham HS and Arlington regarding disclosure of cases by team members.

-Education theory on the topic's substantial, topic-related issues OK but if frivolous RVIs are encouraged.(i.e., brackets theory, etc ) I will almost always vote on reasonability.

--Will not vote on generic skepticism. May vote on resolution-specific skepticism

-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in rebuttals are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

-It is highly unlikely I shall vote on tricks or award higher speaker points for tricks-oriented debaters

-No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

-Critical arguments are fine and held to the same analytical standard as normative arguments.

-Policy approaches (plans/CPs/DAs) are fine. They are held to same prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds- That also means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence better be recent. If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds' you should opt for a different strategy.

-Narratives are fine and should provide a rhetorical model for me to use to evaluate approach.

-If running something dense, it is the responsibility of the debater to explain it. I regard trying to comprehend it on my own to be judge intervention.

As I believe debate is an ORAL communication activity (albeit one often with highly specialized vocabulary and speed) I (with courtesy) do not wish to be added to any 'speech document ' for debates taking place in the flesh or virtually. I will be pleased to read speech documents for any written debate contests I may happen to judge.

Role of ballot - See labeled section below- Too nuanced to have a short version

To Access higher speaker points...

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

exhibit the ability to listen.(see below for how I evaluate this)

exhibit the ability to use CX effectively (CX during prep time does not do so) This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.

To Access lower speaker points

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)have your coach fight your battles for you- When your coach browbeats your opponents to disclose or flip- or keeps you from arriving to your round in a timely fashion, it subliminally promotes your role as one in which you let your coach do your advocacy and thinking for you.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest. Running theory as a default strategy is a most excellent and typical way of doing so, and in public at that.-- (But there are other ways).

Longer Version

1)The voting standard is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

I strongly prefer debaters to focus on the resolution proper, as defined by the topic literature. I tend to be really, REALLY bored by debaters who spend the bulk of their time on framework issues and/or theory as opposed to topical debating.

By contrast, I am very much interested in how philosophical and ethical arguments are applied to contemporary challenges, as framed by the resolution.

You can certainly be creative, which shall be rewarded when on-topic. Indeed, having a good command of the topic literature is a good way to be both.

My speaker points to an extent reflect my level of interest.

2) I evaluate a debater's ENTIRE skill set when assigning speaker points, including the ability to listen. See below for how I assess that ability.

3)One can use alternative approaches to traditional ones in LD in front of me. I am receptive to narratives, plans, kritiks, the role of the ballot to fight structural oppression, etc. But these should be grounded in the specific topic literature- This includes describing why the specific resolution being debated undermines the fight against oppressive norms.

4) I am NOT receptive to generic 'debate is bad' arguments. Wrong forum.

5) Specifics of my view of policy, critical, performance, etc. cases are at the bottom if you wish to skip to that.

ON THEORY-

I will not vote on...

a)Fairness arguments, period. They will be treated as radio silence. - See famed debate judge Marvin the Paranoid Android's (which I find optimistic) paradigm on this in 'The Debate Judges Guide to the Galaxy.' by Douglas Adams.

"The first ten million (fairness arguments) were the worst. And the second ten million: they were the worst, too. The third ten million I didn’t enjoy at all. After that, their quality went into a bit of a decline.”

Fairness debating sounds like this to me.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE)

And complaints about having to affirm makes the arguer look and sound like this from 'Puddles Pity Party'

Instead, tell me why the perceived violation is a poor way to evaluate the truth of the resolution, not that it puts you in a poor position to win.

b) I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence. The following sentence applies to both Needham HIgh School and Arlington High School. I have assisted a little with Arlington High. Both Needham and Arlington High Schools, by team consensus, do not permit its' members to disclose except at tournaments where it is specified as required to participate by tournament invitation. I find the idea that disclosure is needed to avoid 'surprises' or have. a quality debate to be unlikely.

c) I will vote on education theory. In most cases it must be related to the topic literature. However, I am actively favorable to RVIs when run in response to 'cheap' , 'throw-away' , generic, or 'canned' education theory. Topic only focused, please.

d)Shells are not always necessary (or even usually). if an opponent's position is truly squirrelly ten seconds explaining why is a better approach in front of me than a two or three minute theory shell

e) I am highly unlikely to vote on arguments that center on an extreme or very narrow framing of the resolution no matter how much framework you do- and 100% unlikely based on a half or full sentence blurb.-

'Extreme' in this context means marginally related to the literature (or a really small subset of it)

ON BLIPS AND EXTENSIONS

I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals, will receive 'one sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

OLD SCHOOL IDIOSYNCRASY- THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING

1) On sharing cases and evidence,

Please note: The below does not apply to the reading of evidence cards, nor does it apply to people with applicable IEPs, 504s or are English language learners.

1) I believe that listening is an essential debate skill. In those cases where speed and jargon are used, they are still being used within a particular oral communication framework, even if it is one unique to debate. It makes no sense to me to speak our cases to one another (and the judge), while our opponent reads the text afterwards (even more so as the case is read) and then orally respond to what was written down (or for the judge to vote on what was written down). If that is the norm, we could just stay home and email each other our cases.

In the round, this functions as my awarding higher speaker points to good listeners. Asking for the text of entire cases demonstrates you are still developing the ability to listen and/or the ability to process what you heard. That's OK, this is an educational activity, but a still developing listener wouldn't earn higher speaker points for the same reason someone with developing refutation skills wouldn't earn higher speaking points. My advice is to work on the ability to process what you have heard rather than ask for cases or briefs.

As I believe that act of orally speaking should not be limited to being an anthropological vestige of some ancient debate ritual, I will courteously turn down offers to be added to any speech documents, except at contests designed for such a purpose.

Asking for individual cards by name to examine their rhetoric, context etc, is acceptable, as I don't expect most debaters to be able to write down cards verbatim. I expect those cards to be made available immediately. Any time spent 'jumping' the cards to an opponent beyond minimal is taken off the prep time of the debater that just read the case.

I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during the 1AC)-

On Non Debater authored Cases

I believe two of the most valuable skills in debate, along with the ability to listen, are the ability to write and research (and do both efficiently).

I further believe the tendency of some in the debate community to encourage students to become a ventriloquist's dummy, reading cases authored by individuals post-HS, is antithetical to developing these skills. Most likely it is also against most schools' academic code of conduct. I reject the idea that students are 'too busy to write their own cases and do their own research'

Therefore

I will drop debaters -with minimal speaker points- who run cases written by any individual not enrolled in high school.

In novice or JV rounds I will drop debaters who run cases written by a varsity teammate.

Further, if I suspect, given that debater's level of competence, that they are running a position they did not write ( I suspect they have little to no comprehension of what they are reading) I reserve the right to question them after the round about that position. If said person confirms my suspicion about their level of comprehension, they will be dropped by me with minimal speaker points.

THAT SAID my speaker points will reward debaters who are trying out new ideas which they don't completely understand yet- I think people should take risks, just don't let yourself be shortchanged of all that debate can be by letting some non-high school student - or more experienced teammate- write your ideas for you. Don't be Charlie McCarthy (or Mortimer Snerd for that matter)

Finally, I am not opposed to student-written team cases/briefs per sae. However, given the increasing number of cases written by non-students, and the difficulty I have in distinguishing those from student-written positions, I may eventually apply this stance to any case I hear for the second time (or more) at a tournament. That day has not yet arrived however.

ON POLICY ARGUMENTS (LARPING)

I am open to persons who wish to argue policy positions as opposed to voting standard If that framework is won.

Do keep in mind that I believe the time structure of LD makes running such strategies a challenge. I find many policy link stories in LD debate, even in late outrounds at TOC-qual tournaments, to be JVish at best. Opponents, don't be afraid to say so.

Disadvantages should have clear linkage to the terminal impact, the shorter the better. When responding, it is highly advantageous to respond to the links. I tend to find the "if there is a .01% chance of extinction happening you have to vote for me" to be silly at best if there is any sort of probability weighing placed against it.

Policy-style debaters assume all burdens that actual policy debaters have, That means if solvency -(or at least some sort of comparative advantage, inherency, etc. is not prima facie shown for the resolution proper, that debater loses even if the opponent does not actually give a response while drooling on their own cardigan. (or your own, for that matter).

That means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence should be super-recent. Otherwise, I may decide you don't meet your prima facie burdens, even for 'inherency' which virtually nobody votes on ever. Why? The same reason one shouldn't read a politics DA from October 2022

Side note: If your OPPONENT does so, please be sure to all call them out on it in order to demonstrate CX or refutation skills. (I once heard someone ignore the fact a politics DA was being run the Saturday AFTER the election, it having taken place the Tuesday prior.... I was sad.

I do have some sympathy for the hypothesis-testing paradigm where up-to-date evidence is not always as necessary- if you sell me on it. Running older evidence under such a framework may or may not be strategic, but it WOULD meet prima facie burdens.

If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens', or 'hypothesis-testing' you should opt for a different strategy. - Do learn what these terms mean if interested in LARPing, or answering LARPers.

I am also actively disinclined to allow the negative to 'kick out' out of counterplans, etc., in face of an Aff challenge, during the 1NR. Think 'Pottery Barn'- to paraphrase Colin Powell- "You broke the argument, you own it."

ON NARRATIVE ARGUMENTS

In addition to the 'story', be sure to include a rhetorical model I can use to evaluate the narrative in the course of the round. if you do so effectively, speaker points will be high. If not, low.

One can access the power of narrative arguments without being appropriative of other cultures. This is one such approach (granted from a documentary on Diane Nash)

ON CRITICAL ARGUMENTS

I hold them to the same analytical standard as more normative or traditional arguments. That means quoting some opaque piece of writing is unlikely to score much emphasis with me, absent a complete drop by the opponent. And even if there is a complete drop, during the weighing stage I could easily be persuaded that the critical argument is of little worth in adjudicating the round. When debating critical theory, Don't be afraid to point out that "the emperor has no clothes."

In the round, this functions as debaters coherently planning what both they and their sources are being critical of, and doing so throughout the round.

Identifying if the 'problem' is due to a deliberate attempt to oppress or ignorant/incompetent policies/structures resulting in oppression likely add nuance to your argument, both in terms of introducing and responding to critical arguments. This is especially true if making a generic critical argument rather than one that is resolution-specific.

Critical arguments all take place in a context, with the authors reacting to some structure- be it one created and run by 'dead white men' or whomever. The authors most certainly were familiar with whom or what they were attacking. To earn the highest speaker points, you should demonstrate some level of that knowledge too. HOW you do so may vary, your speaker points will reflect how well you perform under the strategy you choose and carry out in the round

In any case, be sure to SLOW DOWN when reading critical arguments.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT-

I believe that debate, and the type of people it attracts, provides uniquely superior opportunities to develop the skills required to fight oppression. I also believe that how I vote in some prelim at a tournament is unlikely to make much of a difference- or less so than if the debaters and judge spent their Saturday volunteering for a group fighting out-of-the-round oppression Or even singing, as they do in arguably the best scene from the best American movie ever.--

I tend to take the arguments more seriously when made in out rounds with audiences. The final round of PF in 2021 at TOC was important and remarkable. In fairness, people may see prelims as the place to learn how to make these arguments, which is to be commended. But it is not guaranteed that I take an experienced debater making such arguments in prelims as seriously, without a well-articulated reason to do so.

Also bear in mind that my perspective is that of a social studies teacher with a MA in Middle Eastern history and a liberal arts education who is at least tolerably familiar with the literature often referenced in these rounds. (If sometimes only in a 'book review' kind of way.) But I also default in my personal politics to feeling that a bird in hand is better than exposing the oppression of the bush.

if simply invited or encouraged to think about the implications of your position, or to take individual action to do so, that is a wild card that may lead to a vote in your favor- or may not. I feel obligated to use my personal knowledge in such rounds. YOU are encouraged to discuss the efficacy of rhetorical movements and strategies in such cases.

ONE LAST NOTE

Honestly, I am more than a little uncomfortable with debaters who present as being from privileged backgrounds running race-based nihilist or pessimist arguments of which they have no historical part as the oppressed. Granted, this is partly because I believe that it is in the economic self-interest of entrenched powers to propagate nihilist views. If you choose to do so, you can win my ballot, but you will have to prove it won't result in some tangible benefit to people of privilege.

ON MORALLY OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS

Offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I default to skepticism being in the same category when used as a response to 'X is morally bad' types of arguments.

By minimal speaker points, I mean 'one point' (.1 if the tournament allows tenths of a point) and my going to the physical (virtual) tabroom to insist they manually override any minimum in place in the settings.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or homophobic or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration policy is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally permissible to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.---

Outrounds/Flip Rounds Only

I believe debate offers a unique platform for debaters to work towards becoming self-sufficient learners, independent decision-makers, and autonomous advocates. I believe that side determination with a lead time for the purposes of receiving extensive side specific coaching particular to a given round is detrimental to debaters developing said skills. Further, it competitively disadvantages both debaters who do choose to emphasize such skills or do not have access to such coaching to start with.

Barring specific tournament rules/procedures to the contrary, in elimination rounds this functions as

a) flip upon arrival to the round.

b)avoid leaving the room after the coin flip (i.e., please go to the restroom, etc. before arriving at the room and before the flip)

c) arrive in sufficient time to the round to flip and do all desired preparation WITHOUT LEAVING THE ROOM so that the round can start on time.

d)All restrictions on electronic communication commence when the coin is in the air

Doing all of this establishes perceptual dominance in my mind. All judges, even those who claim to be blank slates, subliminally take perceptual dominance into account on some level. -Hence their 'preferences'. For me, all other matters being equal, I am more likely to 'believe' the round story given by a debater who exhibits these skills than the one I feel is channeling their coach's voice.

Most importantly

Have fun! Learn! "If you have fun and are learning, the winning will take care of itself"

POLICY Paradigm-

In absence of a reason not to do so, I default to policy-maker (though I do have some sympathy for hypothesis-testing).

The above largely holds for my policy judging, though I am not as draconically anti-theory in policy as I am in LD/PF because the time structure allows for bad theory to be exposed in a way not feasible in LD/PF.

Congress

To Access better ranks

1) Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, further develop ideas offered previously by speakers on the same side of legislation as yourself, demonstrate opposing ideas are actually reasons to vote for you, etc

2)Speech organization should reflect when during a topic debate said speech is delivered. Earlier pro speeches (especially authorships or sponsorships) should explain what problem exists and how the legislation solves for it. Later speeches should develop arguments for or against the legislation. The last speeches on legislation should summarize and recap, reflecting the ideas offered during the debate

3)Exhibit the ability to listen. This is evaluated through argument development and clash

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may be used be 'real' legislators is the gold standard. (government reports or scholarly think tanks or other policy works. Academic-ish sources (JSTOR, NYRbooks, etc) are next. Professional news sources are in the middle. News sources that rely on 'free' freelancers are below that. Ideological websites without scholarly fare are at the bottom. For example, Brookings or Manhattan Institute, yes! Outside the box can be fine. If a topic on the military is on the docket, 'warontherocks.com ', yes!. (though cite the author and credentials. in such cases)

4b) Souce usage corresponds to the type of argument being backed. 'Expert' evidence is more important with 'detailed' legislation than with more birds-eye changes to the law.

5)exhibit the ability to use CX effectively - This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you or a colleague to expand upon a speech later. Asking a question where the speaker's answer is irrelevant to you- - or your colleagues'- ability to do so later is the gold standard.

6)PO's should be transparent, expeditious, accurate and fair in their handling of the chamber.

6b)At local tournaments, 'new PO's will not be penalized (or rewarded) for still developing the ability to be expeditious. That skill shall be evaluated as radio silence (neither for, nor against you)- Give it a try!

To Access worse ranks

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means I'll look for a reason to rank you at the very bottom of the chamber, behind the person who spent the entire session practicing their origami while engaged in silent self-hypnosis.

2)If among any speaker other than the author and first opposition, rehashing arguments that have already been made with no further development (no matter how well internally argued or supported with evidence your speech happens to be backed with)

3)Avoiding engaging with the ideas of others in the chamber- either in terms of clashing with them directly or expanding upon ideas already made

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may NOT be used be 'real' legislators is the gilded standard. Examples include blatantly ideological sources, websites that don't pay their contributors, etc. This is especially true if a technical subject is the focus of the debate.

4b)In general, using out of date evidence. The more immediate a problem the more recent evidence should be. Quoting Millard Fillmore on immigration reform should not more be done than quoting evidence from the Bush or even the Obama Administration. (That said, if arguing on the level of ideas, by all means, synthesize important past thinkers into your arguments)

5) Avoiding activity such as cross-examination

5b)'Stalling' when being CXed by asking clarification for simple questions

6)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest

7)POs who show favoritism or repeatedly make errors.

What (may) make a rank or two of positive difference

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of others, etc. while avoiding being condescending. Be inclusive during rules, etc. of those from new congress schools or are lone wolves.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged, and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to ranking high without knowing it...)

If I think you have done the above, it will improve your rank in chamber.

World

First, Congrats on being here. Well earned. One piece of advice- Before starting your speaking in your rounds , take a moment to fix the memory in your mind. It is a memory well-worth keeping.

I have judged at the NSDA Worlds Invitational since 2015 with the exception of two years, though I have coached the New England teams each year. I judged WSD at a few invitationals and competed in Parli in college.

While I am well-experienced in other forms of debate (and I bloviate about that quite a bit here) for this tournament I shall reward teams that do the following...

-Center case around a core thesis with supporting substantial arguments and examples. (The thesis may- and often will- evolve during the course of the round)

-Refutation -(especially in later speeches) integrates all arguments make by one's own side and by the opposition into a said thesis

--Weighs key voters. Definitions and other methods should be explicit

Effectively shared rhetorical 'vehicles' between speakers adds to your ethos and ideally logos.

---Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in later speeches are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

--Even succinct POIs can advance argumentation

-Avoid using counterintuitive arguments.(often popular in LD/PF/CX) If you think an argument could be perceived as counterintuitive when it is not, just walk me through that argumentation.

Debate lingo such as 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

--Use breadth as well as depth when it comes to case construction (that usually means international examples as well as US-centric, and may also mean examples from throughout the liberal arts- science, literature, history, etc.- When appropriate and unforced.

If a model is offered, I believe 'fiat' of the legislative (or whatever) action is a given so time spent debating otherwise shall be treated as radio silence. However, mindsets or utopia cannot be 'fiat-ed'.

To earn higher speaker points and make me WANT to vote for you-

-Engage with your opponent's ideas for higher speaker points. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points. (This DOES NOT mean going deep into a line by line, it does mean engaging with the claim and the warrant)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

and needless to say, I'm sure, offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally acceptable (or even amoral) to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.

Again, congratulations on being here!! You have earned this, learn, have fun, make positive memories...

I am in my 7th year of debate. Third year in college at Kansas (NDT ‘24), four years prior at Lawrence Free State. I coach at Shawnee Mission East.

Please add both: jwilkus1@gmail.com and smedocs@googlegroups.com.

Last Updated: February 16^th, 2024, Pre-Spartan Green & Gold.

General:

Do what you want. I genuinely believe in debate as a space for debaters to make any argument they choose. This means I don’t care if you go for the K, read a plan, or force me to evaluate a highly technical counterplan competition debate. Over the course of my short 3 year tenure of judging, I have judged over 170 debates, voting for basically every argument imaginable.

I do care about teams making complete arguments. A complete argument is one that contains a claim, warrant, and impact. Arguments that are not explained with warrants or impacted out in the context of their opponent’s arguments are incomplete and therefore have less sway on my decision than those that are complete. For example, if the AFF has said “climate change causes extinction---ocean rise, temperature change, etc. make Earth uninhabitable by collapsing agriculture and destroying society”, the response of “no impact to climate change---it’s fake” is insufficient because a.) it does not contain a warrant (why is it fake?) and b.) it does not contain an impact (why does it matter if it is fake?).

The above applies equally to “answered” and “dropped” arguments. You cannot just say “conceded” or “they’ve dropped x” 20 times and expect me to vote on it. You still need to give a reason if it is true and implicate the concession in the debate. An argument being dropped does not guarantee it is “true”.

I have spent almost the entirety of my debate career reading a plan and going for DAs and CPs. This means while I will still vote for any argument, my experience and knowledge are both better in policy debates and the way I think about the K is attempting to beat it, not win rounds on it.

I will likely have a lot to say in the decision. I usually write a lot down, and tend to have opinions on almost everything said in the debate. I will likely talk for a while, either until I run out of things to say or am cut off by a question. Assuming the questions remain civil, I will answer any and all questions debaters, coaches, or teammates have about the round. If you start yelling at or berating me, I will likely pack up and leave.

I will do my best to give complete and thorough feedback for each speech. Too many times I've asked in an RFD "how can I improve the 1NR/2AR?" and received the response "I think the 1NR/2AR was really good. Don't have anything I'd add", while later seeing I got a 28.9. This is extremely frustrating as a debater, and I will do my best to avoid doing that by spending prep time after your speech coming up with feedback.

The bottom line for everything in this paradigm is that I care a lot about debate. I spend a large portion of my free time debating, judging, coaching, running tournaments, writing files, cutting cards, streaming debates on YouTube, etc. It has become an almost integral part of the last third of my life, and I know that is true of many of the debaters I will have the honor of judging. As such, I will try my absolute hardest in each and every debate I judge to render the correct decision and give thorough feedback.

Topicality vs. Policy AFFs:

---Competing interpretations is the only method of evaluation that makes sense to me. I do not understand how I would approach evaluating T debates if not from an offense-defense point of view. I also think that “reasonability” is meaningless and ultimately devolves into competing interpretations---instead of “we are reasonable because the NEG had the ability to debate”, explain it in the context of the risk of their impacts versus yours.

---I am getting really sick of AFFs reading vague plans that barely modify resolution language so they can go for “plan text in a vacuum”. Will I vote on it, and do I do it in my debates? Sure. But I think it’s a bad argument. Instead of touting your AFF that definitely violates as “topical” because you said a word or phrase, defend a model of debate that includes your AFF.

---In-round abuse is not necessary (it’s a debate of models), but explanation of what debates look like under your model is (case lists, examples of ground, etc.).

---My favorite T speeches I've ever watched are when the AFF has read a counter-interpretation they do not meet. This happens more often than teams realize, but is often ignored because the argument was either a cheap shot or the blanket assumption that the AFF meets the interpretation. If you think the AFF doesn't meet their own interpretation, go for it.

Topicality vs. Planless AFFs:

---Fairness can be an impact, but it also cannot. Whether it is depends equally on the NEG’s explanation and the AFF’s responses. I have found fairness to be a more persuasive impact than clash but have voted and gone for both.

---I find myself voting NEG when teams correctly use small, technical arguments to drastically reduce the risk of AFF offense (“T is a procedural, so you cannot weigh case vs. T”, “debate does not change subjectivity”, “the ballot cannot solve their offense alone, but it can solve ours”). I find myself voting AFF when teams either go for their counter-interpretation resolves NEG offense OR impact turn everything the NEG has said.

---I find it very hard to vote NEG when teams are re-reading blocks without engaging in the AFF’s arguments, or not explaining their offense in terms of what the NEG has said (going for a predictability internal link instead of a limits internal link when the counter-interpretation is “limited” but unpredictable, not comparing your impact to the language of the AFF’s impact, etc.). I find it hard to vote AFF when they are not debating technically or exploiting dropped arguments (the NEG dropping something like “small schools” or “the ballot can only solve our offense” but not going for it because your pre-written blocks don’t include an extension).

---I am a sucker for PIKs versus planless affirmatives, and usually find it far more strategic than going for topicality. When I was a 2N, many of my 2NRs versus planless affirmatives were PIKs out of random things (the phrase "mapping of time"; the phrase "lock them up"; etc.).

Disadvantages:

---Politics scenarios have become laughable. Writing a politics DA does not mean just finding a card that says a bill exists and a card that it would do good things, then throwing your generic PC or bipartisanship link and climate change impact card and making a DA. A politics scenario makes sense when it is something being actively debated or campaigned for, and when it is something the president is actually spending PC on. I love a good politics DA, but those tend to be few and far between anymore.

---I care a lot about turns case arguments---both “impact turns case” and “link turns case”. I equally care a lot about “case turns the DA” arguments. I find these to be extremely helpful in both breaking down close debates but also helping to reduce opponent’s offense because it tends to always be unanswered.

Counterplans:

---I hate watching a process CP debate---not because I think the argument is inherently bad (though it is), but because both teams are usually horrendous in doing the relevant line by line for competition.

---AFF-specific PICs are some of my favorite arguments. Topic generic PICs (like country PICs on NATO) are the opposite. I love it when counterplans contest a core assumption of the AFF, not when they negate something the AFF had no choice but to defend.

---Conditionality is good, and core to NEG strategy. I will still vote on theory, but it’s an uphill battle. I am NEG leaning on almost all theory, except for performative contradictions or international fiat, because I tend to find those violations to be extremely egregious.

---Most other theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. But, if the counterplan is the 2NR and you are clearly ahead on a given theory argument, go for it.

Kritiks:

---I find it much easier to vote NEG when the 2NR is FW, not the alternative. I personally think AFFs should get to weigh the plan but have found so many debaters to be horrendous at defending why that is the case. I find that FW 2NRs make the most sense when they attempt to reduce AFF offense to as close to zero as possible.

---However, I find it extremely difficult for the NEG to win FW or reps-based arguments when they have read contradictory arguments at different points in the debate, and I do not think that condo or NEG flex justifies that.

---If the 2NR is the alternative, I find it far easier to vote NEG when it is actively compared to and explained in terms of the AFF (does it solve the AFF? Make it impossible to solve?).

---I find it much easier to vote AFF when teams do impact calculus on FW or go for DAs to the alternative. It is insufficient to just say “fairness matters” or “education comes from talking about the plan”, it also needs to be explained in terms of why the NEG’s interpretation forecloses it and why those things matter more than the NEG’s offense. The same is true for the alternative---most AFF teams let the NEG get away with murder in terms of alternative explanation (especially when going for the alt solves the AFF), so reasons why the alternative does not make sense or cannot solve the links / AFF would be super helpful.

---AFF specific links > topic generic links > the USFG is bad > the theory of power is a link.

Case:

---The more time you spend on case, the better. My ideal 1NC is a single DA, a single CP, and 5.5 minutes of case. But this is high school policy debate so I know I will never get that.

---I find case debating that is just impact defense to be woefully insufficient. Solvency deficits, internal link defense, or analytics of any kind go a long way.

---You should go for the impact turn. Debaters are horrible at answering it, and I love a good, and fun, impact turn debate.

Jaggard Williams

Me:

- Assistant coach at The Pembroke Hill School.

- I have history in Public Forum, (HS) Lincoln Douglas, and collegiate NPDA.

Preferences for round:

- Be polite. I don't vote for rude people.

- I can handle about half-flow speed, but super flow speed does not work for me. If you choose to run uber-fast speed, I will do my best to keep up, but I cannot guarantee anything. :)

- Utilize jaggardwilliams1@gmail.com for the chain.

- Give me roadmaps before speeches so I can get my flow in order.

- I don't love K debate, but if you can articulate it well, go ahead.

Here's my blurb:

I want to see genuine clash in the round. If you completely disregard your opponent's arguments just because you want to run some off-the-wall argument, I'm throwing it out the window. If you can link it to the round, then by all means run with it. If you haven't figured it out, I'll listen and ponder anything you throw at me, it just has to be clearly relevant to the round. Also - please don't be debate robots. I would love to see some humor, personality, and charisma in the round - in your speeches, arguments, articulation, mannerisms, whatever. Make it fun! Please, for the love of God, make it fun.

As for CX, I lean in the traditional direction of favoring well-researched and crafted AFFs that link to the topic, solve genuine harms and produce plausible advantages. NEGs need to produce offense and defense arguments, looking for clear on-case attax and Off-case flows with specific links and significant impacts and CPs that are competitive. T args are usually a waste of time with me unless NEG can prove serious abuse of the topic. I'll vote on the K if I can buy the Alt. I ask to see cards on regularly. As for speed, if it is clear, I can flow it, and if I can flow it I can weigh/judge it. I'll yell "Clear" once, and after that, if the speaker is unintelligible, I put down my G2.

In LD, I flow everything--even CX. I look for good Framework clash/comparison and weighing which V/C will carry the round. Contentions must clearly link to the FW, backed up by solid evidence. I'm looking for debaters who can cover both flows thoroughly and offer a clear, concise pathway to getting my ballot. Try to stay steady and organized. Present good voters and weigh them against your opponent. I will listen to progressive strategies if they make sense to me.

With PF, I flow it all, but I in all honesty, I am looking for the team that can articulate the best scenario, back it up with stellar evidence, speak with authority and avoid making CX a barking fest.

he/him

If anyone reading this feels that debate or the debate community isn't a safe place for them and wants someone to talk to about it, no matter how small the issue, please reach out. If I or someone I know has made you feel unsafe, please do not hesitate to let me know so I can attempt to rectify the situation and/or change my behavior. You can email me, message me through any social media platform, or talk to me.

Please produce an email chain and add me to it: zimmerlukew@gmail.com

My Philosophy:

Do as you please and I will try my best to meet both teams where they are at. I'm happy with debates fast/slow, K or theory/traditional, quoted/paraphrased, and appreciate most styles of PF.

Strategic Praxis in Front of Me:

• Less is more. Please collapse. You can win almost any debate in front of me by going for like, two arguments; maybe 3.
• Probability weighing is mid. If an argument isn't probable, you should simply answer the link. Probability is derived from the link debate, not your new defense in second summary or innate disbelief in something.
• Lemme hear some warrants.TheONLY way I will ever vote on an argument is if the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact are extended in every speech in the back half of the round.
• Your weighing should reflect an intimate understanding of your arguments. You should thoroughly research and ponder the relative importance of the arguments you're preparing; your resulting weighing in the debate should be evidence-based and meet the same rigor as any other argument.
• I politely request that someone -- anyone -- simply answer their opponents' weighing.