Spartan Classic at MSU
2024 — Online, MI/US
Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideGBN '24
Dartmouth '28
2A/1N, she/her.
ecarpenter@glenbrook225.org
Everyone should aim to make the round an enjoyable and educational opportunity.
Flow.
Tech > truth. However, I will not vote on death/racism/sexism/etc good.
Complete arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact. I will not evaluate arguments that do not have a claim, warrant, and impact.
You do you in terms of argument type/style/performance and I'll make my decision based on the line by line at the end of the debate and try to be as least interventionist as possible. Judge instruction shouldn't be missing from any type of debating.
Feel free to ask questions about my decisions. But keep in mind that debate is ultimately a communicative, persuasive activity, and if I have voted against you, that means you have failed to communicate to me the merits of your argument no matter how good you thought your debating was. In other words, stay humble ☺️
Have fun and good luck!
gbn ‘26 she/her
add me to the email chain please! ecatdebate@gmail.com
flow. it'll help you, i promise.
clarity > speed. if i do not understand you, i will say "clear". i would rather you get qualitative arguments across to me rather than mumbling something no one can understand just to "be fast".
tag team cross ex is fine with me for now. Don't get used to it as the year progresses.
PLEASE give a roadmap and signpost!! it is really helpful for the other team and the judge with flowing (ask me if you don’t know what that is)
don't be afraid to make mistakes or try something new, we've all been in the same exact spot you've been in :)
feel free to ask questions about my decision or about debate in general.
good luck! (try to) have fun!
In accordance with guidance from my employer, please upload docs to the file share on Tabroom instead of emailing them to me.
I debated at KU and Blue Valley Southwest, I am currently coaching at Glenbrook North
FW
I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense. The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Counter interpretations can be useful, but the goal of establishing a new model sometimes exacerbates core neg offense (limits).
K
I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.
T
I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation.
CP
CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.
I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.
If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.
David Heidt
Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart
Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:
Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.
All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.
1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.
Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.
2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".
How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.
On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.
Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.
3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."
I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.
This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.
But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.
4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.
5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.
6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.
7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.
Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.
Old thoughts
Some thoughts about the NATO topic:
1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).
This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.
Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.
And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.
There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.
2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.
3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.
4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.
5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.
What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.
******
Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.
Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:
Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.
Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.
Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.
Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.
The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.
Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.
Thoughts about topicality:
Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.
Thoughts about evidence:
Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.
GBN '26 she/her
Add me to the email chain liorakdebate07@gmail.com
Be nice, flow, have a good time
Speak clearly because if I don't understand you I can't evaluate your arguments. I will say "clear" if I can't understand you -- clarity is far more important than speed
impact calc and framing are super important
-- your 2nr/2ar should tell me what I'm voting on and why. basically think of it as writing my ballot for me
Try your best to learn from what you are doing-- try to understand what you are saying (we've all said things that we don't understand, this is the time to learn from it)
Try your best and have a good time
Updated pre-greenhill on IPR
Yes email chain-- willkatzemailchain@gmail.com
Coach at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart full time and very part time at the University of Kansas.
I have been actively involved in research for the high school IPR topic and lightly involved in research about college energy topic.
Short Version
I will flow debates on paper and decide debates from my flow. Evidence quality matters a lot to me, as does execution. Debaters that use their paper flows to deliver speeches often impress me a lot.
I prefer debates with a lot of clash over well-researched issues that are germane to the topic. I often vote for arguments that I don't prefer, but the more your argument is built to avoid disagreement, the less likely I am to vote for you in a close debate.
No ad homs/screen shots. Things that happen outside of the debate are not within my jurisdiction. Contact the tournament director or have your coach do it if you aren't comfortable doing so.
I'm a teacher. Speeches must be appropriate. That means avoid things like excessive swearing, threats, insults, or stories that you would be upset if your principal heard.
Slightly longer version
Everyone must treat all participants in the debate with respect. Speeches are something that I, a high school teacher, should be able to enthusiastically show my administration.
I prefer debates with a lot of clash over well-researched issues that are germane to the topic. I would love to see your core topic da vs case throwdown, your topic-specific mechanism counterplan, or (most of all) your case turn strategy. I might even enjoy your core-of-topic k provided you make link arguments about the aff and have an alternative that actually disagrees with the aff.
Case debating: My platonic ideal of a debate involves the affirmative introducing the largest possible topical aff and the negative going for the core topic DA and engaging in a well-evidenced attack against the case. When the 2nr goes for the status quo, I often find the debates very enjoyable. When 2acs and 1ars engage in efficient yet thorough case debating, as opposed to blippily citing 1ac cards, I find myself very impressed.
Excessive plan vagueness is annoying and leads to multiple negative paths to victory. If I am unclear what the plan does, I will basically accept any interpretation the of the plan the neg wants me to. Do they want to define the plan broadly for a pic? Sure. Do they want to define the plan narrowly for a t argument? Also sure.
If you're response to that is "that's unfair, why does the neg get to decide what the aff's plan does?!?!?!" they don't! The aff gets to define what their plan does, and then subsequently forfeited that right. If you want to define your plan, be very clear about what your plan does.
Topicality: I have far fewer pre-dispositions about what is and isn't topical going into the season than usual. I will be interested to see how debates play out over what it means to protect IPR.
Non-topicality procedurals: My default presumption is that the only requirements on the affirmative are to argue in favor of a topical, positive departure from the status quo. If the negative wants to convince me that there should be some additional requirement, they would best be served by having topic-specific evidence or by using resolution language to prove that mandate.
Historically, the non-topicality procedural that has convinced me the most is a vagueness argument with topic specific evidence. I am generally unconvinced by the genre of argument that says affs must read a particular type of evidence, talk about a particular experience, or perform in a certain way.
Counterplans: I am increasingly opposed to process counterplans. I have historically had an okay record for them, but in close debates, I have voted aff far more than neg. I am equally convinced by "permutation: do the counterplan" and permutations that exercise "limited intrinsicness". Often, teams rush to the latter, but the former is almost always a simpler and clearer path to victory.
Conditionality: I am dangerous to negative teams that flagrantly abuse conditionality. CP'ing out of straight turns, multiple conditional planks, and fiated double turns/contradictions that the aff can't exploit make debate bad. I don't have a hard and fast rule about the number that you can read, but if you have more than 2 or 3 conditional arguments, you would be best served having a robust defense of conditionality.
By default, I care more about the quality of debates than "logic" or "arbitrariness." That doesn't mean I will never care about those things, just that it requires you to robustly develop your impact.
Non-conditionality theory: It can definitely be boring when it is just whining, but I do think there are some things that negative teams fiat that are hard to defend when put under scrutiny. I am probably one of the better judges to go for a theory argument in front of, provided that theory argument is developed and warranted. I have been sat out on a few panels that I thought were a crush for the aff on things like 50 state fiat bad, 2nc cp's bad, and international fiat bad.
Kritiks:I am not the best for most kritiks. There are K debates on this topic that I am excited to watch. Those K debates will focus on the link and actually talk about what the affirmative does that is wrong. It will focus a lot less on abstract frameworks, theories of power, or generic structures. A few more notes on kritiks:
1. Links aren't alt causes, they are things that the aff does that are bad
2. K's need alts. Framework CAN function as an alt, but then the affirmative obviously gets to permute it and any other deviation from the status quo that the neg defends. To convince me the aff perm doesn't apply, you would need to defend the status quo.
3. Bring back the ethics impact! I am rarely persuaded by a k with an extinction impact because those are usually very easily solved by a permutation. You need an impact to your link, not an impact to your overall structure.
Decatur High School 2023
Macalester 2027
"Don't be annoying or rude. Do line by line. Flow."
This is my 8th year in debate. I've been in elims of many major tournaments, including the TOC and NDT. I am happy to judge any style of debate.
Please still add wmkdebate@gmail.com to the email chain.
If you are a debater from a UDL or low-resourced program, feel free to reach out for debate advice. I am very busy, so I can't promise I'll respond quickly, but I'm happy to respond to questions.
Debaters work hard and I will in return. The most frustrated I've been with decisions isn't when I disagree, but when the judge clearly didn't engage with the debate. I do my best to not be that judge. I take a while for decisions and (if time permitted) try to write a thorough RFD that touches on all the core issues in the debate. Always feel free to ask or email me any questions about my RFD.
LD
I have only ever debated in policy, but I have some judging experience in LD. I don't coach in LD, but I did some research last year wealth taxation. Happy to evaluate whatever debate happens in front of me, but this is where I stand:
Policy/LARP and Ks: Perfectly fine, see the policy section.
Phil: Not inherently opposed, but haven't seen these debates play out much in policy.
Tricks: I'm probably not the best judge in the pool for this.
Theory: Most of it is fine if it isn't frivolous.
Policy
Unless it's a cardless theory debate, I'd appreciate if you sent a card doc after the 2AR.
I try to approach the debate with a reasonably clean slate and stay tech > truth. That being said, well-warranted arguments based in the literature are more likely to win my ballot than arguments that are missing pieces or lack evidence even with uneven time coverage or evidence disparities.
I wont decide a high school debate round on an out of round issue. If there is a severe out of round issue where a team is uncomfortable or unsafe debating their opponents, I am happy to help you take it to tab, but I do not believe that I have the ability to adjudicate issues which I was not present to.
Tech over truth. Arguments need a warrant for me to consider them, but that doesn't necessarily mean a great warrant. Arguments are often bad (lack warrants, evidence, logic, etc) and can be beaten easier than good arguments, but they still need an answer.
Everything below can be overcome by better debating, these are all tendencies I've noticed in my judging so no one will be blindsided by my decision making process.
Judge instruction is crucial
I will do my best to protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments to a logical extent, but I am pretty lenient if the argument was present with a warrant in the 1AR. New args in the 1AR/2NR need to be justified, but also called out by the other team.
For me, very bad or simply untrue arguments (i.e. logically inconsistent, lacking evidence, factually wrong, or lacking internal links, not claims that I just personally disagree with) have a low bar to respond to, but there is a bar. I think new answers can often be justified or cross applied, but dropping something twice if the other team made it an important issue means I will feel 100% comfortable ignoring logical consistency and vote on it. As an example, I once voted on a theory argument about rejecting a team for a card even though there wasn't (in truth) a link, but the negative dropped the argument twice. This does not come up in 19/20 debates I judge, but its somewhere I notice I've differed in decisions from other judges whom I otherwise fully agree with.
K
I have mostly debated using policy arguments. I have zero problem with Kritiks and I vote for them often, but my experience in the literature may be lower than other judges in the pool. Do not feel like you should change your style or go for different arguments because I am in the back, I'll judge these debates technically and vote on the flow.
Ks of util and consequentialism are much more persuasive for me if you have an alternate ethical system for me to use rather than criticism of the system alone.
Not a requirement, but I find a lot of kritiks much more persuasive when combined with a substantive (non-contradictory) case push.
Perfcon can matter for me. Not as a theory argument, but if you've ideologically double turned yourself, it makes sense to me that the aff can concede parts of that ideological contradiction. It's a debate to had though
When judging framework v K aff debates, I often think that the K impacts are more persuasive than fairness, but the neg internal links (limits, predictability, etc) and defensive pushes (i.e. SSD or the TVA) are more persuasive than the aff answers. I generally lean towards the team that can maximize those strengths and minimize those weaknesses. TVAs are not required for a neg ballot on framework.
I notice that I have a lower link threshold for non-fwk neg arguments vs planless affs, and err towards protecting the neg from shifty-ness. I can be convinced either way on if perms are legitimate or how they function. Haven't judged many K v K debates, but framework (not T-USFG/read a plan) as a component of these debates is important to me.
Non-Ks
Try or die framing is very persuasive to me.
I don't inherently default to extinction outweighs/only impact that matters, which means getting me to vote on presumption based on pure terminal impact defense vs a lot of impacts is very difficult. Just because a pandemic doesn't literally kill everyone doesn't mean there is zero impact to it.
I am fine for theory. Getting me to reject the team and not the arg on non-condo is possible, but requires substantial 2AC legwork. I am happy to vote either way on condo good or bad, but I'd appreciate it if everyone slowed down. 1AR to 2AR consistency and tight 1AR line by line is key for me voting aff.
I am fine either way on competition, but I am more skeptical of CPs that result in the whole plan.
My default is to not judge kick unless told to before the 2NR. If the 2NR says it and the 2AR concedes it, I guess I'll judge kick, but the bar for a 2AR response is on the floor. If debated out I will vote either way, but I need a consistent preference in case it matters.
I am heavily biased against 2NC counter plans to get out of straight turned arguments.
If no arguments are made on it, I default that presumption flips aff vs a CP or alt. Zero risk is possible and happens.
Case debate is a dying art. If you do it effectively, it can boost your speaker points a lot. DA + Case is a hard, but underrated strategy even on topics that are difficult for the neg. ADV CP + DA is nice too. Punish the 1AC for bad internal links.
I don't have any problems voting for "generic" or "bad" arguments if they're debated well and I do my best not to intervene, but under warranted arguments outside of good literature take substantially less to defeat.
Please do ev comparison
Speaker Points
I give a high weight to clarity, flowability, and speaking style. Indepth, specific, well-researched arguments might get a speaker boost bump, but I don't penalize for the inverse. Depends on tournament guidelines/difficulty.
gbn ‘26
former 1n/2a
note: i am no longer debating. i don’t have a lot of knowledge on the ip rights topic → slowing down and explaining your arguments in more detail will help
flow and interact with the other team’s arguments to become a better debater and get better speaks
top level
-
have fun and be nice!
-
novice year is to get used to how debate works. don’t get so upset about losing.
-
flow!!! this is the biggest thing that most novices miss out on → i know that you’re probably thinking, “why should i flow if the other team drops a da every single debate,” but you need to look at the BIG PICTURE. you will not do well in varsity if you don’t know how to flow
-
arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact → saying “they dropped [xyz], so you should vote for me” is not going to win you a round
-
tech > truth, but i might be a bit more truth-leaning than most judges
-
policy >>>>>>>>>> k
-
i care about evidence! → if you extend a piece of evidence to the 2NR/2AR, I will look at it to make sure it says what you claim it is saying. in a debate where i cannot resolve an issue from the flow, the quality of evidence will be something i weigh into my decision
-
do impact calc in the 2NR/2AR using magnitude, timeframe, and probability
-
do judge instruction. explaining to me why i should vote for something makes you sound more compelling
general
-
it is good practice to send the email chain shortly after pairings are released, not 1 minute after the round has started. you are not going to lose a round by sending the aff early
-
time your own prep. i will be timing it as well. if you lie about your prep time, i will dock your speaks
-
when you end prep, you should send the email right away. it doesn’t take 5 minutes to send an email (unless you’re having tech issues)
-
cx is binding → that means that you should hold up to something you said in cx. the other team can incorporate something from cx into their arguments.
-
im fine with open cx, but i think that the person who gave the speech should be answering the questions. if you answer all of your partner’s questions, your partner isn’t going to grow as a debater and as a team, you will have a hard time winning debates later on. in the big picture, do not take over your partner’s cx unless you think they are going to say something that will lose you the debate
-
SLOW DOWN. you probably think that you are really fast, but that comes with being really unclear. i can’t flow if you’re spitting out jargon
-
do not read blocks straight down in the rebuttal. i will boost speaks if i see that you are actively trying to clash with the other team’s arguments. you will not learn anything if you only read blocks that your coaches wrote up for you, and it will make you seem less compelling --> do line-by-line and answer all of the other team's arguments IN ORDER
t
-
interacting with the other team’s arguments and evidence quality is super important here
-
fairness is the best impact
das
-
probably my favorite argument in debate
-
politics and econ are my favorite das
-
impact calc is super important when going for das
-
a lot of novices spend their whole 5-minute 2NR on a da but forget about case. don’t be one of them
-
i will be more compelled if you have a specific link (not just that ip links)
cps
-
i like a variety of cps but advantage and process cps are ones i mostly went for when i was actively debating
-
NO JUDGE KICK, unless you tell me that the squo is always an option. otherwise, i will weigh the cp against the plan
-
i like solvency deficits better than perms but am open to voting on both
-
condo is a voter. don’t spam 15 cps in the 1nc.
k
-
i’m super bad for the k. i think that the negative should prove that the aff directly causes something bad to happen, not that it justifies something bad
k affs
-
do not read these in front of me. i will have a hard time evaluating the debate and probably won’t make the best decision
theory
-
everything except condo is probably a reason to reject the argument, not the team
Emma McGough
gbn 26'
she/her
add me to the chain please --> 264827@glenbrook225.org
-------
-- please call me emma or judge is fine
-- don't be afraid to make mistakes and try to have fun! I have been in the same position as you!
-- clarity>speed, if your speech is still incomprehensible then I will stop flowing
-- please signpost!
-- novice should not read k affs
Glenbrook North- he/him
If you are visibly sick, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.
Use the tournament's doc share if it's set-up, speechdrop if it's not.
I won't vote for death good.
If you're taking prep before the other teams speech, it needs to be before they send out the doc. For example, if the aff team wants prep between the 2NC and 1NR, it needs to happen before the 1NR doc gets sent out, so I'd recommend saying you're going to do it before cross-x.
1. Flow and explicitly respond to what the other team says in order. I care a lot about debate being a speaking activity and I would rather not judge you if you disagree. I won't open the speech doc during the debate. I won't look at all the cards after the round, only ones that are needed to resolve something being debated out that are explicitly extended throughout the debate. If I don't have your argument written down on my flow, then you don't get credit for it. As an example, if you read a block of perms, I need to be able to distinguish between the perms in the 2AC to give you credit for them. If you are extending a perm in the 2AR I didn't have written down in the 2AC, I won't vote on it, even if the neg doesn't say this was a new argument. The burden is on you to make sure I am able to flow and understand everything you are saying throughout the debate. If you don't flow (and there are a lot of you out there) you should strike me.
2. Things you can do to improve the likelihood of me understanding you:
a. slow down
b. structure your args using numbers and subpoints
c. explicitly signpost what you are answering and extending
d. alternate analytics and cards
e. use microtags for analytics
f. give me time to flip between flows
g. use emphasis and inflection
3. I think the aff has to be topical.
4. I'm not great at judging the kritik. I'm better at judging kritiks that have links about the outcome of the plan but have an alternative that's a fiated alternative that's incompatible with the world of the plan.
5. You can insert one perm text into the debate. You can insert sections of cards that have been read for reference. You can't insert re-highlightings. I'm not reading parts of cards that were not read in the debate.
6. I flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.
7.Plans: If you say the plan fiats something in CX, you don't get to say PTIV means something else on T. So for example, if you say "remove judicial exceptions" means the courts, you don't get to say you're not the courts on T. If you say normal means is probably the courts but you're not fiating that, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are Congress for a DA or CP.
8. If your highlighting is incoherent, I'm not going to read unhighlighted parts of the card to figure out what it means.