Updated January 2023

Email: greg.achten@harker.org please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: he/him/his

Pref Shortcuts: 1: substantive arguments about the topic 2: mainstream K's, good T debates 3: Theory, Pomo K's 4: Phil 5-6: Tricks

Overview

I expect the debate to be conducted as though it were a classroom setting. As such inappropriate behavior, specifically cursing, will not be tolerated. If you choose to curse during the debate expect dramatically lower speaker points. Further, if the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to highly sexual or sexualized performances, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.

My background prior to coming to Harker in 2010 was almost entirely in college policy debate though I have been coaching LD since then and Public Forum since 2016. But it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates.

I do not judge very much anymore but enjoy judging when I am able to do so! Despite not judging a great deal I am very involved in our team's evidence production and preparation and judge lots of practice debates in class so my topic knowledge is fairly strong.

.

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: I am familiar with most mainstream critical arguments that are prevalent but anything outside of that is likely to require more explanation. I took a handful of continental philosophy classes in grad school but that was a long time ago and my knowledge of a lot of the underlying literature for lots of critical arguments, particularly high theory, is likely lacking. Having said that I think I am an ok judge for critical arguments, especially when executed technically. I often find the strongest elements of K's to be the link and the weakest to be the alternative, though of course this varies from argument to argument. I also think impact turning is an underutilized strategy though I get that can be hard to pull off at times in LD.

Critical Affs: I think the affirmative should have a meaningful relationship to the topic. Thus topical, soft left affs are often very strategic. I am very sympathetic to t/framework against affs with little or no relationship to the topic. In these debates I think the best aff strategy is to impact turn framework, depending on what that looks like in the context of the aff. But overall I am likely not the best judge for non-T affs.

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Although I do take a fairly strict view of the topic and am willing to enforce that view when teams do a good job of arguing topicality. I often find topicality arguments that are not based on expert/technical definitions of key terms of art in the resolution to be fairly hard for the negative to win. I am also more likely than most judges to vote on reasonability if well explained and this is true for most theory arguments as well.

In debates about counterplan theory, I probably err slightly neg. on most theory issues, though I have voted aff. on things like PIC’s bad, etc. so I am not terribly biased. The main exception is that I think that a lot of mainstream counterplans that compete on the function of the affirmative are not competitive (think consultation, delay). I am kind of a sucker for the argument that counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive though this is not something I will automatically check in on, especially if the negative has strong explanations for their defense of their counterplan.

I am generally in favor of conditionality but there are instances where the negative takes it too far especially in LD. For example, 5 multiplank counterplans where all of the planks are individually conditional is not ok. In general anything more than 3 conditional arguments is pushing it for me.

I am a solid no on judge kick. Make strategic choices.

Theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are non-starters. Don’t waste your time.

Theory arguments are generally too underdeveloped for my tastes so if that is a key part of your strategy invest some time.

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances. I will not allow debaters to insert re-highlighting of evidence, it must be read aloud in the debate like any other piece of evidence.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.

Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery (especially important in online debates), quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards lack of clarity. I will say clear once or maybe twice and if clarity does not improve afterwards I will flow the things I understand and the speaker's points will decline significantly. I will not vote on a card or argument I was incapable of flowing. I will under no circumstances flow from the speech doc.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

Contact Info

Email: joshadebateemail@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain) w/ Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs School Name (Neg)

Pronouns: He/Him

Background (Updated For 2024-2025 Season)

I am a current Sophmore at Rice University & I graduated from Challenge Early College High School w/an extremely small and underfunded debate program.I've been part of the activity for a while and want to give back to the community. I've tried every format at least once, and I am a progressive debater who started off traditional who has made it to a few BID Rounds, including Emory & Stanford, qualified to TFA State 2x and made it octos, qualed to UIL State for Congress and LD a bunch of times, etc.

I have taught at camps such as TDC, NSD, & VBI

*I Specialize in Non-T Afropess, Afro Opt, Afro-Futurism, Performance, Cap, Security, etc. (pretty much any K literature) but started off stock/lay/traditional and understand Policy args well.

Conflicts

Institutions: Frank Black Middle School; Heights HS; Challenge Early College HS; Dulles HS

Individual Debaters: Carnegie Vanguard KF; Garland LA; & St John TI

TLDR: What I don't like

1) If you are running identity args and you don't identify with that identity i.e afropess, queerpess, feminism and you say "I" and "We" when you don't know the struggle

2) Promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, lack of necessary content warnings, etc.

3) Rudeness- I understand aggression, but I am not a big fan if you are mean to others in the round. Debate rounds can cause anxiety, and people are human... remember that. Rudeness will not lose you the round, but I will tank your speaks- and if someone runs an IVI or a DTD warrant because of something said I will evaluate it.

LD & CX Specific

DA's, Larp, Stock, Lay, Stock, General Debate =)

This is what I started with. I'm cool with it! Just make sure to do the important things like:

[A] Weigh impacts and clearly delineate what arguments you are gaining offense from- if you are Aff my vote is dependent on offense, while for the Neg if the DA's/Disadvantages are great or the offense o/w the Aff- then you get my vote-pretty straightforward

[B] Defense is not sticky- please extend down the flow. I'm a lot more lenient for novices, but if your opponent does it proficiently, I will address

[C] I love evidence comparison- if you indict the author or what the card is saying, I am less likely to evaluate that card in the round- which will severely harm their link chain.

[D] Run whatever args you want and have fun- I'll vote on anything. I will evaluate extinction first and against K Affs I think its a good strat to go for.

Theory:

I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument, reasonability against all other types or friv shells.

I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responses. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

I personally did not disclose on the wiki because I believe it to be AB, thus, my threshold for disclosure is a lot lower. That being said, I have read different forms of disclosure and lost rounds to it where I have agreed with the RFD. I won't rule out disclosure and have no issue voting on it; just know I won't vote off of like a "small school prep" arg as a gg issue right away unless conceded.

Theory v Theory: Metaweighing is extremely important here and I have a good understanding of these debates- but they were never my prime strat. Please do the work for me-but I will my best to evaluate.

Kritiks & TFW/Topicality

K vs. Framework (TFW) - I don't default any way. I will buy debate bad args and impact turns. P-Fox & Chao helped me out a lot with this- so review their paradigm to understand how I lean

K vs Anything Else- Again, love the K! But just know that I will not hack for them. I did a lot of work with the K's, but also a lot of workIN ROUNDfor my wins with the K. Also, I personally enjoyed spectating other rounds that were not the K, as they were more interesting for me- thus I love the K, but will not hesitate to give people who think I'm a K hack the L

Non T Aff's/K Affs- LOVE THEM! Be careful though, as running Non-T Aff's against really young, inexperienced debaters will get me frustrated. Also, as a person who ran a lot of Non-T Aff's and watches a lot of Non-T performance rounds, I would be careful being lazy around me in regards to this.

*Also if you are running a K or a K Aff please LBL TFW and extinction first warrants. Its okay to impact turn and give top-level/an overview on these arguments- but I've noticed that debaters drop key warranting on TFW and extinction first that controls the IL to Aff offense or just indicts the reading of the K in the first place

**Please do not spread/blitz through your long pre-written overviews. While they do extend offense I often find them very incoherent and if they are not extrapolated to anything on the flow then it makes it hard to include and integrate them into the RFD. If you are reading an overview explain why its key (which I assume you already do) and contextualize it to the important things in the round.

Phil

I do not have the most experience going for Phil, but I have read a decent amount of it and have found myself in the back of many rounds for it.

Be sure to explain the syllogisms as I have a limited understanding of different Phil Authors (especially ones that have similar but slightly different theories to other more universal Phil authors).

Explain the TJFs- I also think that Permissibility negates but be sure to warrant it in the 1N.

Tricks (LD Specific)

I am personally not the biggest fan- I think they're a bad model of debate and are AB, but I will consider them if they are warranted and explained EXTREMELY WELL THROUGHOUT THE ROUND.

[A] Again- I will evaluate tricks but my threshold for responding to them is extremely low

[B] When I say explain it well- I don't mean just spend like 10 secs on it. You probably need to spend a solid 20-30 secs on it and why its a voting issue

[C] Tricks are ever-evolving and you honestly can make them out of any concept. Thus, don't expect me to know what the trick is

[D] I have thought about this and I WILL NOT BUY "EVAL AFTER X Speech"- I find this really dumb and I just refuse to vote on it.

[E] Identity Tricks- My threshold for evaluating them are similar to my threshold to regular tricks- make sure you warrant out the trick and give it offense independent of the AC/NC. If it is not, then I will by any takeouts of substance and cross apply it to the trick. (i.e., IF "X" Identity Trick is similar to "Y" Argument like Case ontology/thesis- then if you end up losing Case ontology/thesis, then you lose the trick).

Round Logistics

[1] Rehighlites- If you are re-highlighting, please read the highlighted text of the card

[2] Speaks IVI's- I have thought about this for a bit and came to a conclusion- If you ask for 30 speaks and you did not do anything to deserve the 30 speaks in round... you will not get it. I am sympathetic to certain situations, and if you give me a good reason for 30 speaks and have a clean round- then you got yourself a deal.

[3] Hitting a Novice- If you are hitting a Novice, here's my advice- run what you want to run (you shouldn't be limited on running certain arguments, just BCS of skill level), but don't be excessive and abusive. I think 1-2 offs (maybe 3 depending on event and skill level) is more than sufficient and you should take to time to explain arguments that they might not understand. Being abusive in round will not give you an L- but will make me super happy to TANK YOUR SPEAKS.

General Strategy:

I will slightly pay attention to Cross, but will not flow it (probably just take some notes for clarification). If it is important just make sure to flag me and BRING IT UP IN THE SPEECH.

Speaker Points: will start at 29 and will move up or down depending on your strategy- if you ask, I probably will disclose speaks and if you have any questions on how it could've improved just ask.

If you are below a 29- (28.7-28.9) Then I think the round was pretty good- but you might go 3-3 at a tournament

If they are 29.1-29.3 Then I think you did a good job and have a decent shot at breaking

If you are a 29.4-29.7 Then I enjoyed the round, thought it was good, but some strategic things had to be fixed

If you are 29.8-30 Then I thought it was a really good debate- and your strat was either extremely good or peerfect

Personal Belief:

I agree with people such as Zion Dixon, Leah Yeshitila, Patrick Fox, Issac Chao, Becca Traber, & Chris Castillo.

Taken from Leah: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=155571

Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts on those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also, it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)

World Schools Specific

A] Make sure to defend your burdens and clearly explain to me why you have won the round based on those burdens

B] I will be keeping track of POI(s) so make sure to reasonably answer about 2 each speech if you are hit with POIs

C] My speaks are somewhat generous. First Speakers- just offer persuasion with the speech; Second Speakers- Make sure to clearly restate your burdens and how you are gaining offense from them as well as offer strong responses; Third Speaker- clearly crystalize the round and what lens I should be looking at it from; Reply Speaker- Please don't offer new points as that will most likely not persuade my vote in any way- just bring it home and if the speakers before did their job it should be all good.

Public Forum Specific

Weigh and clearly delineate what offense you are garnering coming out of each speech. I am a big fan of evidence comparison, weighing, and uplayering. If you do a huge Ethos push in your last speeches and you are not contextualizing the claims to any args in the round then I probably will still down you.

If you wondering if you can run any other args like K's, Theory, etc (More Policy and LD-specific things), reference the above things on my paradigm.

If you decide to run any progressive args (K, Theory, Etc. and your opponent has no idea what it is (In PF)- my threshold for them answering it is a lot lower and if you are extremely abusive with it- i.e running 2 or 3 off when you don't have to- then I will probably tank your speaks.

Speaking Events (Specific)

Just speak good- I had a lot of teammates participate in speaking events and while I have never done them I sat with them at practice and had a coach who heavily focused on speech. I know what good speeches look like and will know what rushed/no-practice speeches look like.

Congress Specific

Just do your thing. As of now I have only judged one congress round at UT but it was a fun experience. I am fine with creative intros as long as they are clever and relate to the topic. Otherwise do your thing and please attempt to create clash (especially if you are later speeches into the cycle)

General

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

they/she/he (switch it up!)

coppell '23 || wake forest '27

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

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

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

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

Shortcuts:

1- K/LARP

2- T/THEORY

3-PHIL/TRICKS

TLDR

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

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

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

ask me questions! if you disagree with my decision feel free to respectfully inquire about it-just key wordrespectfully andI loveeee helping people talk to me ill work with you on anything--> post-rounding is diff from asking, maybe focus on WHY I voted a certain way instead of WHY im wrong. I am not a perfect judge nor human but I always want to make sure the reason i made my decisions is understood.

Trad

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

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

Counterplans

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

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

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

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

Disads

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

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

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

K

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K affs

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

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

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

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

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

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

TFW

my brain has tons of thoughts.

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

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

Theory

I enjoy judging this if you do it well

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

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

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

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

Phil

I like following syllogisms that are very logical and organized.

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

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

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

Tricks

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

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

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

Speaks/Random

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

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

I give speaks yes on speaking but also strategy + organization

If when you are debating a k or any argument frankly you say things that have a problematic nature to them even if it isn’t staked the round on I won’t intervene it in my decision but it COULD effect my speaks. just be a respectful person.

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

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

NUMBER UR ARGUMENTS PLEASE

the more you split ur 2nr the less likely it is i will vote for you- ur arguments wont be fleshed out enough AT ALL this is a major ick for me!!!!! IF YOU WANT TO WIN an ivi argument sit on it

i’ll disclose speaks if u ask

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

WSD:

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

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

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

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

Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

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

College Debate: rundebate@gmail.com

High School Debate:asafuadjayedavid@gmail.com

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

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

-Rutgers

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

Two primary beliefs:

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

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

FW

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

Kritiks

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

CPs

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

1. No judge kick

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

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

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

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

DA’s

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

Plans

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

Presumption.

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

LD Specific

Tricks

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

My judging philosophy is first built on the approach that debaters define the debate. This means I generally do not have any predisposition against anything within the context of the debate. Hence, I do NOT push an agenda. The arguments presented before me are to be engaged by both sides and analysis should be given whereby I should either reject or accept those arguments. This means arguments for or against should be well developed and structured logically. There needs to be a clear framework, but this is only the first level. Impacts and disadvantages need to fit within this framework. They need to be developed and consistent within the framework.

If there is one thing I do not like, blip arguments. These are essentially glorified tag lines that have no analysis behind them, where then a debater claims a drop of this 'argument' becomes a voter for them. For me: no analysis = no argument thus is not a voter. However, if within the context of the debate both debaters do this they lose the right to complain about me intervening. So, take heed, do this and I will allow myself to insert how these blips should be pieced together and the analysis behind them.

There needs to be clash. Far too often debaters do not really analyze. Generally, people view good debates where the flow shows responses to everything. I view this as a fallacy. There should be analysis as to how the arguments interact with each other in regards to the line by line debate and hopefully build a bigger view of the entire debate. Again, it is the debater's job to fine tune how everything pieces together. Specifically, I prefer hearing voters that are in some way intertwined versus a bunch of independent voters. Yet, though, I prefer intertwined voters it does not mean independent voters could not subvert or outweigh a good story.

Things I have voted for AND against

K - I actually like a good K debate. However, I do warn debaters that often I see people run K's they have no reason running because they themselves do not really understand them. Further, as a theme, debaters assume I am as familiar with the authors as they are. Not true. Rather, I feel it imperative that the position of K be well articulated and explained. Many debaters, read a stock shell that lacks analysis and explanation. NEW - Alts need to be clear as to what they will cause and what the world of the alt will look like. Nebulous Revolutions will not sway me, because you will need to have some solvency that the revolution will lead to the actual implementation of the new form of thought.

counter plans - I have no problem with these in the world of LD.

Topicality - I generally stand within the guidelines of reasonability. Muddy the waters and that’s what I will likely default to.

Role of the Ballot - At its heart I think the ROB is a paradigm argument or more simply a criterion argument so that even if one on face wins it does not guarantee a win because the opposite side can in the venue of the debate meet the criterion or ROB. However, the ROB I tend not to like are ones devolve the debate into pre fiat and post fiat debate. I tend towards post fiat worlds in close debates.

RVI - Again this less so, an RVI for seems to be justified within the context of some blatant abuse. As an analogy I have to see the smoking gun in the offenders hand. If it not clear I will side with a standard model. To date I have not voted on an RVI as of 1/05/2024

Understand, I honestly do approach all arguments as being justifiable within the confines of a debate. However, arguments I will on face reject are arguments whose sole objective (as a course or an objective for gain) is to oppress, murder, torture or destroy any class or classes of people. That is to say you know what you are doing and you are doing it on purpose.

I'd say that the realm of debate is for students to engage and craft. As I am no longer a competitor my bias, if it exist, should only intercede when debaters stop looking at human beings as genuine but rather as some abstract rhetoric.

Feel free to ask me some questions. but understand I'm not here to define what will win me. Good well structured argumentation that actually engages the other side are the types of debates I find most interesting. It's your world you push the paradigm you want. My voting for it or against it should not be interpreted as my support of the position beyond the confines of the debate.

Personal Narratives - I am not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.

Communication - I believe in civility of debate. I am seeing an increasingly bad trend of students cursing in debates. I fundamentally, think High School debate is about learning to argue in an open forum with intellectual honesty and civility. The HS debate format is not one like private conversations between academics. I reject any belief that the competitive nature of the debate is like a professional sport. Cursing is lazy language and is a cheap attempt to be provocative or to fain emphasis. Thus, do not curse in front of me as your judge I will automatically drop you a point. Also, most people don’t know how to curse. It has its place just not in HS debate.

So what about cards that use curse words? Choose wisely, is the purpose because it is being descriptive of reporting actual words thrown at persons such as racial slurs. I will not necessarily be bothered by this, however, if it is the words of the actual author, I advise you to choose a different author as it is likely using it to be provocative versus pursing any intellectual honesty.

I do not have a have a problem with spreading. However, I do not prompt debaters for clarity as it is the debaters responsibility to communicate. Further, I think prompting is a form of coaching and gives an advantage that would not exist otherwise. If on the off chance I do prompt you (more likely in a virtual world) You will be deducted 1 speaker point for every time I do it. If the spread causes a technical issue with my speakers - I will prompt once to slow it down without penalty, only once.

NEW: 1/29/21

My email is erick.berdugo@gpisd.org and erickberdugo01@gmail.com for email chains. I am now putting myself part of the email chain due to virtual tournaments and to help overcome technical issues regarding sound. However, please understand I will NOT read along. I have it there for clarification if a audio issue arises during the speech. I still believe debaters should be clear when speaking and that speaking is still part of the debate.

I will automatically down a debater that runs an intentionally oppressive position. IE kill people because the world sucks and it’s bad to give people hope. However, if a person runs a position that MIGHT link to the death of thousands is not something I consider intentional.

NEW - 1/29 7:30PM Central Time

DISCLOSURE - Once parings come out. If you are going to make contact with your opponent requesting disclosure you need to CC me on the email chain: erick.berdugo@gpisd.org and erickberdugo01@gmail.com. Unless I am part of the request I will NOT evaluate the validity of the disclosure inside the round. If you do not read my paradigm and you run disclosure and your opponent does read this. They can use this as evidence to kick it directly and I will. This means they do not have to answer any of the shell.

I expect folks to be in the virtual debate room 15 minutes prior to the debate round. I especially expect this if a flip for sides has to be done. We as a community need to be more respectful of peoples time and of course from a practical matter allows an ability to solve technical issues which may arise.

NEW UPADATE 2/11/2022

Evidence - So, folks are inserting graphs and diagrams as part of their cases. I have no issue with this. However, unless there is analysis in the read card portion or analysis done by the debater regarding the information on the graph, diagram, figure, chart etc. I will not evaluate it as offense or defense for the debater introducing these documents. Next, if you do introduce it with analysis, it better match what you are saying. Next, as a scientist I am annoyed with graphs using solid lines - scientist use data points as the point actually represents collected data. A solid line suggest you have collected an infinite amount data points (ugh). The only solid line on graphs deemed acceptable are trend lines, usually accompanied with an equation, which serves as a model for an expected value for areas for which actual data does not exist.

Special Notes:

You are welcome to time yourself. However, I am the official time keeper and will not allow more than a 5 second disparity.

When you say you are done prepping I expect you are sending the document and will begin with a couple of seconds once your opponent has confirmed reception of the document. This means you have taken your sip of water and your timer is set.

COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE ROUND - I understand when debating virtually where one is set up is not always going to be an ideal situation. However, one should not be communicating within anyone other than ones own partner. There should be zero communication with someone not in the debate. This means those chat boxes need to be off. I understand there is no way to police this situation, however, please remember it looks poorly and you never want to have doubt cast upon your ethical behavior. Also, its just disrespectful.

Last updated 2/11/2022 6:23 PM - Most of the changes are due to poor grammar.

Berdugo

St. Mark's '24

2A

Tech > Truth, I'll vote on anything as long as it's warranted and not harmful (racist, sexist, etc.)

bidaresid@gmail.com

add both to the chain

For LD - Please do not go for tricks in front of me

I also don't really understand Phil that well - would much prefer policy or Kritik centered strategies

Speaker Point Scale:

29.8 - 30 - should reach late elims
29.4 - 29.7 - should clear
28.9 - 29.2 - should go 3-3 or 2-4
28.5 - 28.8 - serious errors in strategy

+ 0.1 speaker points if you open source ev - if you are a novice and your top teams open source this also counts

How I evaluate rounds:

• even though this is novice - I will flow the rounds and try to evaluate the round with the least judge intervention
• I try to avoid reading evidence but will have to if the debaters don't resolve the central questions for me

Argument prefs:

I am fine for policy and K, but I am usually on the policy side of these debates.

DA:

I think they are especially strong on this topic.

like 70% of my 1nr's have been on the econ DA or ptx DA

CP:

I prefer you go for competition over theory - ie. against Burden Sharing QPQ - defend that counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive is better than going for conditions CP bad.

PDCP > Intrinsic Perm > "delay/sequencing" perm

K:

I will decide in favor of one sides interp

I dislike middle-ground interps because I find it hard to weigh the affs imaginary extinction impact against the negs in round violence impact - you can still go for it though

if you are reading high theory explain it well

I personally think fairness > clash, but I have gone for both and am fine for either

K affs:

I am bad for KvK debates (apart from cap K)

When I'm neg we exclusively go for T USFG (unless the 1ar or 2ac mishandles something else) so that should tell you what I think about K affs

Condo thoughts -

I have no strong thoughts - if you are Aff make sure you central offense is developed before the 2ar

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

^I vehemently disagree with every word of this paradigm. Making mocking references to it will certainly earn you higher speaker points. You should use it to construct my argumentative ideology by taking every premise presented within it and assuming that I believe the exact opposite.

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

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

Coach at George Mason & Harker

anadebate07@gmail.com

for college policy debates: please also add masondebatedocs@gmail.com

TLDR:

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

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

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

I am most excited about judging case vs disad debates. Debates not about the effects of the plan are less persuasive, less educational, and less engaging to me in almost every way.

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

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

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

I think about debates in terms of strategic moves and argument function --- explaining arguments on that meta level is the most compelling and understandable to me, especially in debates with complex legislative nuance and/or critical theories.

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

I refuse to vote on disclosure or other norm based theory arguments unless a) it is entirely conceded b) i witnessed MISdisclosure with an intent to lie or cheat --- anything else is not worthwhile for anyone's time. New AFFs are good.

I try to be very predictable in my decision-making, given I believe debate takes a lot of work, dedication, and time, which judges ought to respect by evaluating debates technically by flowing and comparing each argument as presented. This means I also only evaluate arguments presented in speeches and remove my hands from my keyboard when the timer goes off. Cross-ex matters, but I can not vote on arguments not made in speeches.

Prep time includes flow check questions. Prep time ends when the doc is uploaded in the email.

Framework debates:

My least favorite debates, but I judge them the most

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

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

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

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

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

AFF v K on NEG? Overly specific AFF interps are less compelling than some version of weighing the effects/justifications against the K, and they tend to link far harder to NEG offense. I'm not a 'will always weigh the case' nor a 'loves the fiat k' truther - I just like impact calculus, comparison of warrants, and explanation of any solvency claim presented. You should still answer the links if going for framework or at least say why the case outweighs or solves the links.

General Debate Thoughts:

I auto-judge-kick.

Theory debates aren't fun to judge, but I understand the strategic utility on both sides. 1 reason condo is good & impact calc >> spending a certain amount of time.

I'm not great for competition debates; I don't like evaluating scripts read at each other with minimal impacts and direct engagement on the line by line.

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

Will vote AFF or NEG on presumption

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

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

I will let you know if I need a card doc - I probably won't. I strongly dislike judge intervention, so I aim to read every card during the debate as it is read to understand the context and completeness of every argument presented during each speech.

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

I stop flowing when the timer goes off.

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

I think disclosure is, in nearly every case, good. I have zero tolerance for misdisclosure, lying, and shady practices designed to evade clashing with your opponent.

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

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

Speaking:

Speed = arguments effectively communicated per minute.

Clarity >>

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

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

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

29.6-29.4 = excellent & elim worthy performance

29.3-29.1 = good & expect to break

29-28.7 = median

28.6-28.4 = room for improvement

28.3-28 = some hiccups & things to work on

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

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

26.9 and below = something went pretty wrong]

LD:

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

I do not flow nor know how to evaluate phil, skep, tricks, and the like. If you do not defend some form of consequentialism, I am most likely not your judge.

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

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

Except animal wipeout or using people's spiritual beliefs to justify extinction --- this is NOT educational, not productive for HIGH SCHOOLERS, and is something I will refuse to evaluate as an EDUCATOR. I will not flow Benatar or the like - you would be better off making any other argument possible.

I would certainly prefer to not a LD debate with arbitrary disclosure norms; i think these debates and theory shells are worse for novices and access issues.

The most TLDR:

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

RVI's, hypotesting & tricks are nonstarters.

general

graduated: northland christian hs '20; ut austin '22 (ba); texas law '24 (jd)

experience: competed 4 yrs hs ld local/nat circuit; consistent ld/pf/cx coach and judge since competing

chain email: austindebatedocs@gmail.com (speechdrop.net/file share preferred but idrc)

tldr: intervention bad

____________________________________________________________________________________________

misc.

- all claims need a warrant with a threshold of "bc" (or something similar) bc although warrants are infinitely regressive, voting on a warrantless claim requires an out-of-round justification (it's more interventionist)

- i default both sides must have access to winning/speaks bc such access is intrinsic to the ballot (common implications: args must be in the 2n/2a to be evaluated, no new 2ar args unless answering new 2nr args)

- spreading, flex prep, joint cross, sitting, cameras off, and/or most anything else is fine bc idk y not

- i don't clear unless asked bc it's interventionist

____________________________________________________________________________________________

p/p

- by default i presume in favor of whichever advocacy is closest to squo bc i need a reason to deviate from it; i don't assume permissibility flips either way bc by default no debater has the burden to prove a binding ethic

- no extended fw/paradigm issue and i'll likely vote on p/p absent an uplayer/downlayer bc the debate becomes irresolvable otherwise (for cx i'll assume util/x first bc that seems to be the norm)

- if the p/p debate is irresolvable (i.e. one debater wins permissibility and one debater wins presumption but no one says which comes first, both debaters win a reason they get presumption, both debaters defend squo), i'll flip a virtual coin (aff heads, neg tails) bc that's least interventionist

____________________________________________________________________________________________

pref shortcuts (by % confidence in ability to adjudicate):

theory/t/tricks: 95-100% (depending on density/speed; flowing several blip-y tricks gets weird sometimes)

larp: 85-100% (depending on density/speed; i'm unfamiliar w some cx nuances but learning)

phil/k: 100%

____________________________________________________________________________________________

speaks

- based on strategy and evaluated on a scale from 0-100% then converted to a "normal" speaks range (locals 28-30, nat circuit 27-30) bc idk a more objective way to eval (these are always on some level arbitrary)

- will grant a speaks spike bc no reason not to (and i prefer to bc it's less interventionist); subject to ballot constraints like "no ties" bc i can't give double 30s on a no ties ballot

Updated 4/10/25 Post-NDT

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

Topic thoughts - AI Prohibitions -

This topic sucks.

I think that most disads lack link uniqueness and the ability to generate a link to the aff, I know this isn't exactly the negative debaters fault but it does mean that I have a certain threshold for evidence that needs to be met.

Being negative on this topic seems impossible.

Just finished judging the Western Kentucky, I hate to beat a dead horse but this topic is BAD.

Topic thoughts - ICC/UNCLOS -

Aff ground seems interesting in terms of what teams can defend, I haven't judged on this topic at all so I am not as familiar with topic acronyms as you'd like me to be.

"T - and/or means all" is an abomination and are a perfect example of why T debates in this event suck 90% of the time.

Neg k links seem to be pretty alright, I certainly enjoy the link angles here, and I prefer neg teams to take up specific criticisms of the institutions the resolution talks about rather than like "international relations/institutions bad."

I have not judged high school LD since Greenhill in the fall, since then I have judged primarily collegiate policy debate along with some collegiate LD. What does this mean for you? Unsure yet, but more than likely I might be a bit stingier with speaks than normal (also given the tournament), my willingness to put up with nonsense is a lot lower (nonsense = tricks, frivolous theory, and arguments that induce an eye roll when read). For adaptation purposes, I have been spoiled in an event with cohesive warranting and debating for the past 7 months, PLEASE: read an affirmative that defends something (a plan, an advocacy of some kind, or a carded philosophical framework) and negate that something with arguments that prove it is bad (kritiks with links to the aff/the epistemology of the aff, a counterplan + disadvantage, impact turns, a carded philosophical framework).

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Yes insert rehighlightings, caveat is that it must be from the same portion of the article that the respective side cuts, if you read a part not introduced in the debate, you must read it out loud.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Colin Quinn.

Friends of mine in debate whose takes I agree with at least partially: E. Cook, Dylan Jones

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8-8.5/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others and need a bit more hand holding)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theory - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, this year will mark my 9th year in debate. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 700+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. Those (probably too many) debates have ranged everywhere from local circuit tournaments, the TOC, and to the NDT, but I would say most of my time judging is in national circuit LD, with college policy debate coming in right behind that. I think the reason I judge so much is because I think judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX). Independently, I coach Berkeley Carroll JH, Jasper SG, Plano West AR, Plano West NS, Plano West RC, and Riverside Independent JD.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Jordan (TX) institutionally, and with American Heritage Broward CW, Barrington AC, Bellevue/Washington Independent WL, Clear Springs EG, Clear Springs MS, Greenhill EX, McNeil AS, and Vestavia Hills MH.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are decided by me, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

If it means anything, I think most of my debate takes are in camp "2N who had to be a 2A for a while as well so I think mostly about negative strategy but also think that the aff has the right to counter-terrorism against negative terrorism."

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be pleased.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, impact calculus, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters posture too much. I don't care, and it annoys me. Debate the debate, especially since half the time when debaters posture it's about the wrong thing. There is a difference between being firm, and being performative.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2025 and y'all have been using technology for how long????).

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and especially when it's not about the specific terms of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 737 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff exactly 52.24% of the time.

My speaks for the 2024-2025 season have averaged to be around 28.633, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.543.

I have been a part of 220 panels, where I have sat exactly 13.18% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

"Give me thirty speaks." How about I give you a 27 instead?

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

Thoughts on conditionality/dispositionality are in the theory section.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 9 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just be able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more because sometimes the permutation is indeed a nonstarter.

For aff teams answering the K, going for framework does not automatically make the risk of the link zero, especially when there is no judge instruction on why your interp would exclude their link arguments. That necessitates that you need to answer the link most often time, especially if there's a turns case argument. I have had too many debates where the 2AR was just framework with no link defense, and I end up voting neg quickly because of conceded link turns case arguments that the 2NR say directly affect the plan's implementation.

Framework only matters as much as you make it matter. I think both sides of the debate are doing no argument resolution/establishing the implications of what it means to win framework. Does that mean that only consequences of the implementation of the plan matter, and I exclude the links to the plans epistemology? Does that mean that if the neg wins a link, the aff loses because I evaluate epistemology first? Questions like these often go unresolved, and I think teams often debate at each other via block reading without being comparative at all. Middle ground interps are often not as strategic as you think, and you are better off just going for you link you lose, or plan focus. To sum this up, make framework matter if you think it matters, and don't be afraid to just double down about your interp.

Link uniqueness matters a lot for me as well, this is where I think framework becomes a large guiding question for how I evaluate the rest of the debate. You don't need to win framework if you have non-unique links to the aff that are resolved via an alternative that commits to a material action and is not just "lets adopt new epistemologies," so long as you win the plan trades off with the commitment toward that alternative.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons I will be extremely thankful. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Grove, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Marxism, Moten and Harney, New Materialism, Psychoanalysis, Reps K's, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, Security, Settler Colonialism, and Weheliye.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Abolition, Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Bataille, Cybernetics, Disability Literature, Puar, and Queer pessimism.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

For other k v k debates, I think the emphasis needs to be offense, offense, offense. Often when teams just throw a bunch of cards at an aff there is little resolution of how arguments interact with one another, this is where I think think line by line debating is necessary to ensure that I keep track of the debate in the most clean way possible.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

In my heart of hearts, I probably am very slightly aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner. If you are an aff debater reading this, my response to you is to innovate and to try to emphasize technical debate rather than posturing, you have an aff and you should definitely use it to help substantiate your arguments.

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me enjoy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's and instead

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

Subject formation? Yeah debate probably influences it, it's definitely shaped my research practices, interests, etc. However this isn't as much a game over issue for T-Framework teams as you think it is, as I think that subject formation can be strategically levied against K teams as well.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the resolution. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, and you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. I think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be more than dismissive if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges. If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Dipositionality is fake, genuinely don't understand how teams can defend dispo and say that it is any radically different than conditionality.

Counterplan theory is probably a reason to reject the argument.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. If you think there is a violation you either stake the round or don't make an argument about it.If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. If I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory arguments like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

I will evaluate every speech of the debate sans there being an ethics violations that stops the flow of the debate.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic modesty > confidence in skep debates, confidence > modesty in phil v phil debates

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good/heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Why are we obsessed with bad T arguments that do not have an intent to define words in the topic in the context of the topic? Come on y'all, act like we've been here.

Speaks:

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

Peninsula, Cal State Fullerton

Cal State Fullerton BW

Bakersfield BB

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

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

Emails

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com

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

2024-25 Update:

IPR: 18

Energy: 14

LD Total: 79

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

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

Cliff Notes:

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

2. Who controls uniqueness - that comes 1st

3. on T most times default to reasonability

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

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

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

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

Specifics:

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

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

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

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

T --- Boring.

LD Specific:

1. Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

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

5. Tricks

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

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

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

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

***TOC Note 1: No PDFs or cards in the body; Word docs only. Also, I will aggressively dock speaks for teams that don't have their timer go off and exceed their speech time.

***TOC Note 2: If you are a graduating senior and would not like to hear a decision and/or feedback, please feel free to tell me.

Coach at Bellaire High School (TX)
Conflicted with: Heights High School, Bellaire High School, Archbishop Mitty SM, Cypress Ranch KH, Woodlands SP

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me.

If I'm judging you in PF: bellairedocs.pf@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in LD: bellairedocs.ld@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in Policy: bellairedocs.policy@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, spent 10 years coaching LD, Policy, and WS at Heights High School, am currently a teacher at Bellaire High School, and coach a variety of speech and debate formats: my program competes through the Texas Forensic Association and the Houston Urban Debate League.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• There is no flow clarification time in debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them.Please don't send cards in the body of emails; Word docs only. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• I spent much of my career coaching policy debate, so I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters do not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or teams who are genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of clash debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

toss me on that email chain: aacchapman2@gmail.com

I graduated from UCLA in 2019. I coached LD for 4 years at Harker. I work in a volunteer capacity with the Heights now. That said, I have always had a lower threshold for speed. I'll yell slow twice then I stop flowing until I can comprehend the argument.

I am the most familiar with policy/framework/theory arguments. I won't vote on an RVI on T

Practices Trigger Warnings

Debaters reading positions about suicide, depression/specific mental health, sexual violence, or any similarly traumatic issue, the onus is on them to ask those in the room permission to read the position. Spectators may leave, but judges and opponents do not have that option, meaning there is an expectation that if one of them objects to the triggering subject, that the debater will not read that position. If a debater does not adjust their strategy after being asked to, they will start the round with a 25. If you do not ask before round, but someone is triggered, speaks will similarly be docked. If there is no trigger warning but no one is triggered, the round can continue as normal.

The question for what necessitates a trigger warning is difficult to objectively delineate - if you have a reasonable suspicion someone could be negatively impacted by your position, ask before you read it - explicit narratives are probably a good starting point here. Trigger warnings are contentious in debate but I've seen students negatively impacted in rounds because they were not present and have engaged in conversations with other coaches that lead me to conclude something along these lines is necessary. At the very least, debate is (or should be) a 'safe space', and I believe this is a necessary first step towards achieving that goal. Feel free to discuss this before the round if you are worried it will become an issue in round.

This (admittedly strangely) probably means I'm not the judge for "must read a trigger warning" shells - they often make debate rounds uncomfortable and i have seen them leveraged in ways that make debate spaces unsafe - if no one was triggered, don't spend your time on that shell.

https://medium.com/@erikadprice/hey-university-of-chicago-i-am-an-academic-1beda06d692e#.bqv2t7lr6

This article is very good at articulating my views on the importance of trigger warnings
It is not up for debate that if someone was triggered on account of your failure to adequately make use of trigger warnings, you'll be punished through speaks and/or the ballot

[Evidence Ethics]

1. Things I will drop a debater on whether or not their opponent brings it up: Card clipping, mis-representing the authors claims, grossly misrepresenting a cite (Use discretion here - but a completely missing site would seem to qualify here). The round stops if I notice this happen, or if the opponent brings up this claim. If the opponent brings forward this claim, I will evaluate the claim after the round has stopped.
2. Things I believe should be debated out (with the caveat here that it's an uphill battle - I think these are good norms): Other disclosure norms (not including the whole paragraph in a cut card, broken links, etc).
3. If you expect the round to be stopped (Category #1, or Category #2 but its a panel) I expect clear standards/arguments in a doc emailed out laying out the evidence claim, and specifically, why I should vote on it
4. I will not vote on evidence ethics claim that hedge on the TFA constitution. While I respect the TFA executive board and generally agree with most of the constitution, I think it sets a bad precedent in requiring debaters, especially in Texas, to be beholden to overarching academic councils.

[Things I would like written out before a speech]

1. Interps & Counterinterps
2. Perm texts

[Strategies I love]

1. A good internal link debate w/ deep evidence comparison
2. Having a true/stellar response to UQ or Inherency
3. Nuanced T
4. A unique plan aff that is extended the whole round & leveraged correctly

[Strategies I don't love]

1. Tricks
2. Dense Phil
3. Analytical args
4. Dense critical lit

vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

NDT quarterfinalist reading K arguments.

Have coached every argument at high levels.

Ask question before debate for specifics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaks rewarded to those who make judging enjoyable.

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

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

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

Please add me on the email chain:amandaciocca@gmail.com

2/19/24 UPDATE: I feel compelled to preface that Im becoming pretty tab. I keep a pretty detailed flow. I don't hack for args. Speaks are what I say they are. I evaluate almost anything as long as there is a coherent argument with a warrant. Yes, I will read cards if instructed. I need a warrant, stop spamming blippy arguments and making me decide whether I find them legit enough.

Ex-varsity college policy debater for UMW who read primarily Policy and K's. Been judging for 5 years so Im slowly becoming more cranky about bad debates. FSU grad with a Bachelor in Intersectional Women's Studies and Media/Comm, currently a MA student in the Women Studies program. I competed in LD for four years, mostly read soft-left policy stuff and fem/ borderlands Ks. I coach in the summer for the Texas Debate Collective, and also coach a few independent students during the season.

Refer to me in round however you'd like, my pronouns are she/her. Some people hate being called judge but unless you feel comfy referring to me as Amanda then do whatever you want idgaf <3

Im fairly flex at this moment in my judging career so realistically I'm fine with most args. Just dont say morally repugnant stuff. Any questions just ask.

____________________________________________________________________________

Pref guide:

Ks (General) : 1

K Affs and Performance: 1

Policy: 1

Phil: 3

Trad: 5

Theory: 2

Tricks/Skep: 4

_____________________________________________

LD:

Here's the most important things to know:

1. Learn how to flow. Im tired of debaters answering stuff that wasn't read. Im THIS close to just not looking at the doc at all because y'all are just docbots.

2. Don't be racist/homophobic/sexist/ or just problematic. Any instances of BLATANT verbal discrimination/ harassment of an opponent then Im giving you an L 20 and will hard stop the round reporting you to tab.HOWEVER, if you just are slightly big headed and/or arrogant idc. You do you, but just be respectful to other people in the room. Please use proper pronouns!!

3. Your pre-written analytics SHOULD BE GENDERLESS. Im ripping my hair out at the fact that people still aren't removing he/him/she/her from docs.

4. I'm expressive af. I will be actively making faces, most of them aren't actually directed at you. Also I do have an RBF so don't take it personally.

5. Do what you are best at.

6. Weigh.

7. Give me judge instruction.

8. Im not doing any extra work for you, I'm many debate years old and am LAZY. Tell me where to vote or else I'm going to make a decision you don't like lol

_____________________________________________________________________________

2/5/25

Updated Preferences Stylistically:

Policy-I've started really loving good policy debate. Policy-making is cool, do whatever you want. Plan texts need a solvency advocate, idc what ur coach says. CP's are cool, make sure there is some sort of net benefit and also if you don't answer the perm I'll be very sad. DA's are fun as long as there is a clear link to the aff, also for the love of god weigh. Your UQ needs to be from like two days ago PLEASE, enough of UQ from five years ago.

K-K's are groovy. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. I have been leaning neg on TFWK, but this debate CAN be won j stop reading generics that debaters already have answers to. Yes impact turns, unless the 1N tells me otherwise. Please extend the text of the ROTB, I need some framing when extending. Please refer to my tricks section to see my opinion on K tricks.Stop reading K's without links OR extending every card in the 2NR, its just making me sad.

Performance-I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself. If you are going to engage in an in-round performance, please extend it in rebuttals or else I fail to understand how it is important to the aff/neg.

Traditional-I am perfectly alright with traditional debate. I loved it as a freshman and sophomore. I value debaters making strats accessible for all debaters. Make sure that you are weighing and using that short 1AR/2AR to crystalize and extend your arguments. Nothing is ever implied, please use well-warranted args. I have so much respect for strong traditional debaters on the circuit but I will hold you to the same standards as I hold progressive kiddos.

Phil-I love good phil debates.Post-Harvard, Im pretty comfy evaluating dense Kant debates. Im fine with any phil as long as you win it is a good metric to frame the debate through. I have no defaults, probably should win ideal theory good. Do with this what you want, if you are comfy going for phil then pref me wherever you'd like.

Theory: I've been enjoying it a lot more. Used to really hate 1AC disclo but have recognized its necessity sometimes I guess. Also have started to really enjoy a good theory debate but PLEASE read paradigm issues on your shells!I've voted recently on ROTB Spec, ASpec, Disclo, and CSA. Let that guide your prefs however you'd like.

Tricks-This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly.I hate debates that are just sloppy tricks debate, if this applies to you then dont pref me at all like please don't pref me if you just want to meme around.

Skep-This is probably morally repugnant. Only chance I vote in this is when it is completely conceded and I can get a nice slow 2NR explaining the syllogism. I DONT enjoy these debates and would much prefer other things. I've voted on skep twice and somehow a entire tourney decided I should be struck in elims <3 tldr: dont read it unless its an easy debate, if you make me think even just a little about it then you'll probably lose.

email chain:

backslash309@gmail.com

add breakdocs@googlegroups.com as well

top level:

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

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

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

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

random thoughts:

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

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

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

I default to judgekick.

WFU '23

Now at UT-Austin for grad school

Yes email chain — ask before the debate.

NDCA Update:

If you are a senior, please tell me either before the debate starts or right after it ends. I’d love the opportunity to congratulate your achievements and give you a speaker points boost. Getting to the end of a 4-year high school debate career takes hard work and deserves to be rewarded. Congratulations on getting here.

I think I value novel and well-thought-out strategies at the championships more than most as they reflect detailed preparation in service of a deep desire to win. Make your blocks actually respond to what your opponent says. Listen and flow the other team's speeches intently. Specificity wins debates, now more than ever.

Don’t clip. I’m paying attention to your doc and not afraid to tell you that you did it. I am not one to second guess myself and I usually highlight the lines you skipped in my copy of the doc in case I’m questioned about it. It’s a championship tournament, debates are won at the margins, and every debater should go in expecting to be given a fair shake. Especially in a time crunched activity like LD, clipping can make all the difference in determining a win or loss. I’ve certainly seen it happen before!

CX is not extended prep.

If you anticipate disclosure shenanigans and you want me to vote on an argument about it, I suggest you attempt to do disclosure while I am present. I know this is near-impossible given coaching responsibilities... do with that what you will. Obviously, if both teams agree on what had happened in the disclosure (ex: "it was new and they didn't disclose"), I will decide from those shared presumptions.

As I allude to in other parts of my paradigm, I flow in excel in line by line fashion. I look at the speech doc purely while cards are being read (for clipping + to assess evidence quality) and will not reconstruct parts of a speech if I couldn’t understand an analytic argument or tag. Please number your arguments when you are the first responder (1NC on case, 2AC on DA), answer arguments in order, and refer to your previous arguments by name and number in the final rebuttals.

I'd prefer you not refer to me by any name at all, but if nothing else please do not call me "chat." You are not a twitch streamer and we are real people.

COLLEGE CLIMATE TOPIC ADDENDUM: If you are a team that reads carded evidence, I expect quality to be very high and will find it hard to vote for you if your cards are from Exxon execs or bloggers without degrees when up against an opponent of near-peer skill level with better/more specific/more qualified evidence. Every author on all sides has a take on climate change. Say something smart about it!

Paradigm:

Say what you want and defend what you say. I reward clash of all kinds and dislike cowardice more than almost anything. I will attempt to write down every argument presented in the way you present it, regardless of your argumentative or speaking “style”, to repeat it in my RFD. This means clarity, both in argument explanation and words coming out of your mouth, is imperative. Don’t over-adapt to what you (probably wrongly) think I want to hear. Debate is for the debaters, just have fun and say smart things and I’m your judge.

The only caveat to this is I have very little interest in parsing through interpersonal disputes between debaters over events that occurred outside of the debate round. I understand that sometimes we have personal disagreements with one another as a community founded on discord, and I also understand that sometimes we don't feel comfortable sharing how we feel with the people we disagree with in other interpersonal settings — and that is reasonable. But I struggle to find why the solution to this is to have that precise conversation during a debate round and for judges to insert their own interpretations over events they have little knowledge of. This applies doubly to high school debate. Given this, while I will not ignore any words you say in a debate, you will notice that my decision proper will not pertain to/include the content of personal disagreements tangential to the topics of the debate. To clarify, if you find something the other team has said or done in the debate round to be objectionable, this is obviously fair game and I am more than happy to hear reasons why it should be a voting issue. I think issues of disclosure fall into this category as well given that prep time is part of a debate round and proper disclosure is what enables proper pre-round preparation.

Also, say words if you want me to judge kick the counterplan. I’m indifferent personally, but prefer to go with what debaters say out loud in a debate. If neg conditionality is not contested, saying “the neg should never be stuck with an option worse than the status quo” is sufficient.

Speaker Points:

My speaker points no longer vary as widely as they once did. This is because despite the fact that the quality of debates I judge varies widely, I am much more invested in using speaker points as a carrot than a stick because I prefer (inevitably) imperfect participation over universalized burnout. From now on, my floor will be at a 27. I do adjust my points to the tournament and division, so for example if you got a 29 at a regional and a 28.5 at a major it does not necessarily mean you got worse (in fact, your performance may have improved!)

My approximate scale for the open division is as follows (does not apply to JV and Novice):

You will not get a 30 unless it's your last prelim debate ever -- and even then, it requires spectacular debating. If you ask for a 30, your speaker points will have a 3 in them, but it won't be the first digit.

A speaker whose performance, if replicated, would land them a Top 5 award + deep elims will receive between 29.9-29.7. Most proficient and well-executed winning performances receive between a 29.6-29.4. Most winning performances receive between 29.3-29. Above average execution with a chance at clearing receives between 28.9-28.7

Middle of the pack gets 28.6-28: speeches need work on technical proficiency, block writing, proper use and comparison of evidence, etc.

Lower than a 28 indicates some or all of the following: speeches and CX execution need work including time management, we're not effectively answering the opponent's arguments (if paying attention to them at all), speech order is messy and not cohesive, speaker is unclear and could benefit from speaking drills, dead speech time, ineffective use of prep, speeches leave time on the clock, CX is spent asking clarification or "wouldn't you agree that..." questions.

Any lower than a 27 means something interpersonal has occurred and we will talk about it prior to speaker points coming out -- whether that is in the RFD, in a talk with your coach, or both.

LD Addendum:

I've been out of the game for a few years now, but I did just teach three weeks at NSD, which gave me a deep refresher across the vast LD argumentative spectrum.

I will not constitutively rule out any particular style of argument, but I will apply a strict "makes sense" test to all arguments. This applies just as much to a sparsely-highlighted DA as to a misrepresented K or a poorly-explained philosophy argument.

I will not pretend that I understood your arguments if you were unclear in your speech. Clarity comprises both structure, in explanation of arguments, as well as my physical ability to hear and type words coming out of your mouth. If an argument in the first constructive was 5 seconds long, but it comprises several minutes of the rebuttal(s), it will be hard to convince me that it was structurally clear enough to warrant deciding the debate on it (I'm looking at you, "resolved a priori"). If an argument was analytically made at top speed with no pen time and it does not appear on my flow in an earlier speech, it will be near-impossible to convince me that it was physically clear enough to appear in my decision given that my decisions rely on repeating words flowed back to the debaters.

Despite my belief that debate is for the debaters and you should be able to make the arguments you want, I will not pretend that I don't have biases.

Regardless of style, I prefer arguments to be about the topic. I prefer advantages to be germane to the plan presented. I prefer criticisms, on both the aff and neg, to use topic language throughout the evidence presented (whether that's carded evidence or organic scholarship). I prefer Process Counterplans to compete off core resolutional mechanisms. I prefer philosophical syllogisms to reflect core topic controversy rather than rely on tricks or theoretically-justified standards. I prefer topicality arguments to be grounded in evidence interpreting words in the resolution.

This is not to say that I will not vote on your generic positions. I will vote on any argument executed proficiently. However, there is a proportional, linear relationship between the specificity of your arguments and the energy necessary for your opponent to defeat them -- as one goes up, so does the other; as one goes down, so does the other.

An aside is that I find "truth testing vs. comparative worlds" to be a false dichotomy. Consequentialist ethical frames simply say that the way to figure out if the resolution is true or not -- that is to say, whether or not the actorought to pursue said action -- is to compare the hypothetical world in which the resolutional statement is enacted to one in which it is not. Counterplan competition is a great example of this -- you define words to prove that the counterplan does not, in fact, prove the resolutional statement to be true and that it instead is a legitimate opportunity cost thatdisproves the question of the resolution. TLDR: less "truth testing good: jurisdiction" and more "our ethical system proves the plan is intrinsically bad, so it should not occur despite its hypothetical positive consequences." Or vice versa, obviously.

Won’t flow RVIs. Make real arguments.

Also unlikely to believe that most non-resolutional procedural arguments aside from condo or spec are “voting issues.” Arguments in favor of reasonability, proportional punishment (rejecting the argument, not the team), and substance crowd-out will be prevalent in my decisions in these debates if made — but you have to make such arguments somewhere for me to vote on it.

After judging, observing, and coaching a significant number of LD debates at the first tournament, I have concluded this activity has a specific dearth of knowledge surrounding counterplan competition on all sides. Teams who effectively exploit this -- on both sides -- will see an exponential increase in win-rate in front of me. Do with this information what you will.

Procedural Addendum:

I follow along with speech documents because I am curious about evidence quality, applicability, as well as your adherence to the text of the evidence. I have noticed an epidemic of clipping across all debate events that I judge at all skill levels. Clipping is generally defined as misrepresenting the words in your evidence you actually read by highlighting more than what is spoken. The brightline of this is contested, but the most lenient, universally-agreed-upon one is "five words skipped in a row in any card, even once."

To this end, if I notice this, I will apply a "yellow card/red card" method for dealing with speaking infractions. I very much understand it's possible a debater has clipped despite their trying not to/without their knowledge. They're stressed, trying to go fast, and sometimes are reading cards they haven't read before (in some instances, they've never read cards before!). Even more, sometimes people have trouble processing words quickly so they don't even know that they've skipped anything because their brain hasn't told them or they're scrolling too fast. I am sympathetic to all of this. Given that, if I notice that a team debating in front of me has clipped and it seems unintentional (it's less than 5 words in a row here or there, or it only happens once), I will let you know after the debate as a warning for the future. If it happens again in another debate, the debater who clipped will lose with 25 speaker points. If it is particularly egregious the first time around, you may lose the debate without a warning. However, for the educational merit of the activity, I will still flow and detail a decision I would have given if it was not decided on clipping.

Yay debate!

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

daviddosch@gmail.com

General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts of mine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isidore Newman '23 and Wake Forest '27

Debating for Wake + Coaching/Cutting Cards for Greenhill LD

send docs - greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com - make the email chain name descriptive ie. Tournament Name Round X Flt X - Team 1 [AFF] vs Team 2 [NEG]

TOC: Seniors who have committed to or are considering enrolling at Wake, please conflict me! If you have any questions, feel free to reach out.

---

Be a decent human being.

Tech >>> truth, but truth influences the amount of work it means to technically win something as well as your speaker points.

To vote on an argument, I must understand it and it must be on my flow. I flow and evaluate every speech. I flow straight down and do not flow author names. 80/20 on the question of paper vs laptop. I never flow from the doc. I will look at the doc at times to check for clipping (which if you do, you will loose without your opponent bringing it up).

I strive to make decisions without intervention, if I must intervene I will vote for the team that requires less.

You will like my decision more if you slow down.

You can insert rehighlightings of cards read in the debate and perm texts. However, inserting 10 rehighlightings will result in me missing things.

I am unpersuaded by a 30 speaks spike or eval. I will not disclose speaks.

I think zero risk is possible. I evaluate things probabilistically except for debates about models (ie. violations, framing, etc.) which are yes/no questions.

Evidence quality matters as much as debaters make it matter.

There is no flow clarification section in debate, take prep, or cx. Marked docs do not need to delete cards not read. Flow.

Arguments have a claim, warrant, and an impact. I will only vote on complete arguments. Topic research is good, slop is bad. Late-breaking debates are bad.

Post-rounding is good. Feel free to email me with questions (just make sure someone else (preferably a coach) is cc'ed for safety reasons).

Be nice to less experienced debaters or at the very least do not waste my time.

---

CP: No judge kick unless the negative says it. I am good for competition debates, worse for theory debates.

T/Theory: Bad for reasonability without a bright line, good for reasonability with a bright line. If I am using competing interps, you must have an interp which you meet.

Ks: Good for both sides. Framework is a yes/no question. Internal link comparison + explaining what offense matters under your model matters more to me than other judges.

Coach for Break Debate and Berkeley Prep.
LD: Please add breakdocs@googlegroups.com to the chain.

I will vote on any argument as long as it is won technically.

Please do weighing. I find many debates to be irresolvable because teams just assert past each other without any comparative analysis.

I am most competent when judging debates involving the K.

I am fine for policy vs policy, however I never think about competition. I am familiar with the technical terms, but have a higher standard of explanation.

Updated 2025, following Harvard

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

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

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

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

If you want a more fun presentation of all of the below, here's a thing: Judging Aphorisms (After Wilde).

TL;DR Summary of Everything in this Paradigm

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

Prefs

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

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

Philosophy

Policy (LOVE plan/CP debates)

Post-fiat K debates

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

Theory

Truth-testing

I Could Definitely Vote on these But My Threshold is Higher

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

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

Serious gaming

I Have Resistance to These Arguments but I Have Voted for Them At Least Once Before -- Try at Your Own Peril

Non-topical Affs

Pre-fiat Ks

Strike Me if These Are Your Thing

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

Tricks (indexicals, any argument predicated on blowing up something insubstantial in the AC as a "knockout" that precedes everything else in the round for some reason)

A Few Qualifications of the Above

*I will of course listen to substantive arguments about evidence ethics. But I put things like "URL theory" under the "frivolous" label because almost every one of these shells I've read/heard is incredibly thin on the ground, and they tend to make some pretty absurd claims. For example, on URLs: you're telling me a debater should be punished for going to the library and doing meaningful research with old books that haven't been digitized? ONLY digitized evidence counts? Or, on the most laughable one of these I've heard, "bracketing theory," which claimed that it's bad scholarly practice to bracket a quotation to adjust for tense, etc -- if that's true, then that's news to me and the authors of articles in peer-reviewed journals where bracketing is, in fact, a common and accepted practice. If your opponent meaningfully misrepresents evidence or plagiarizes, that is absolutely a key concern on which I would vote. But lots of the theory claims made about cutting evidence just amount to trying to win on the blippiest technicality rather than serious charges of scholarly malpractice.

*On pre-fiat Ks and non-topical AFFs: I have a pretty low threshold for voting for well-argued T violations against the AFFs, same for arguments from AFFs that the ROB shouldn't be about assessing pre-fiat states. I generally am of the belief that AFFs should be topical, and a debater would have to be particularly persuasive in convincing me otherwise. In my experience, these kinds of arguments make weird suppositions about what one can't do as a debater on a given side, which supposedly justifies the "rupture" of not affirming the resolution/not engaging the fiat of the resolution. I don't think a lot of the versions of these arguments I've heard have ever overcome the fundamental contradiction identified in one RFD at the end of thatResolved documentary from the 2000s: if debate norms are so procedurally corrupt/racist/sexist/ableist/etc that pre-fiat interrogation or norm-breaking through eschewing topicality is a necessary intervention, then one wonders why we keep doing this activity at all, in which topics are part of the game. Or, to put it succinctly: if the opponent to a pre-fiat K or a non-topical AFF makes the case that participation in this activity evidences a clear embrace of its values, I'm likely to vote them up, especially because -- as many debaters have successfully argued in front of me -- the profusion of these kinds of K cases since the 2000s has not, in fact, completely upended debate as an activity, and if anything debate has gotten *better* about inclusivity of ideas in the past decade and a half. (That said, I do need more from debaters opposing these kinds of cases than "vote for whoever's the better debater," which is on its own not a terribly helpful ROJ.)

Stray Things

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

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

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

Flex-prep: I’m cool with it.

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

RVIS?: Probably not.

Speaks: I don't disclose speaks, nor do I listen to any arguments about speaker point allocation. Trying "give me 30 speaks" arguments in front of me is a recipe for not getting 30 speaks. Here's how I allocate speaks unless a tournament gives me a bespoke speaker point scale:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25: You did something profoundly offensive.

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

What About Public Forum?

I believe that PF should be insulated from the "prog-ification" that's endemic to the other major debating formats. A PF round really should be viewable by all, including the mythical "average person on the street." This isn't because I'm against spread/prog debate -- far from it. Rather, I just think the strictures of the PF form (four minute speeches max, topics that change every month) make "prog PF" a kind of contradiction in terms. PF should be about a clearly defined and persuasively delivered (in the traditional sense) clash on a current events topic with which a parent uninitiated to debating could follow.

For PF, you don't have to go lay speed -- I'm fine with you going faster than conversational, it's the way I'd talk in debate rounds too -- but I'd prefer no spreading. I really think it is silly in this format. What's more, as an educator, I have for accessibility and variety reasons come to see a lot of value in having a debate format that (a) allows skilled debaters who like trad debate a venue where they can reliably debate in that mode, and (b) doesn't require the financial and time resources to devote to all of the camp/prep group things that tend to accompany debaters that are best at the prog-heavy formats.

Though PF doesn't have the value framework of LD, be absolutely clear with your weighing. Timeframe, probability, magnitude... I don't care which, but make the scale obvious and, if your side's the heavier of the scale, you'll get my ballot.

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

To illustrate, for PF, here's how I see it, using the aforementioned student loans topic:

PRO Advocacy (fine): The USFG should forgive all student loans, effective with the PRO ballot being signed.

PRO Plan (not fine): The USFG should pass Senator X's plan from 2021 to forgive all student loans.

CON Advocacy (fine): Though the US should not forgive ALL student loans, we would not be opposed to loan forgiveness as part of historical reparations programs for groups such as Black and Indigenous Americans. [In this circumstance, though, that alternative wouldn't be the whole case, but rather a counter-advocacy that the CON could prove avoids an opportunity cost of the pro -- i.e. doesn't even need to be a contention, just a qualifying statement in rebuttal or CX]

CON Counterplan (not fine): The USFG should pass Senator Kamala Harris' 2019 plan to forgive student loans for Pell Grant recipients who start a business in disadvantaged communities.

Playlist Update: TFA '25 - i like music a lot, it was going to be my career before debate ruined my life. i listen to a confusingly wide range of it. debaters and coaches can recommend me a song to listen to during prep or decision time - good enough songs may merit a small (+0.1) speaks bump for everyone in the room. a friend told me since i ask debaters to recommend me music, i should put the music i'm listening to here for reference. currently listening to Texas Flood - Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble.

TFA Rant - a few big updates that i think matter for strategy and speaker points. nothing new per se, but this season has accelerated my final metamorphosis into a grumpy old person judge and made a few tendencies that generally ring true to me stick out more than usual:

1. neg teams need to read better cards and read cards better. i am not the card machine i used to be, and i will never knock the 2n hustle - sometimes the 2nr just has to be slop by necessity - but i am increasingly frustrated by the absence of quality, aff-specific evidence produced by 1ncs - cutting 2-4 cards about the 1ac's legal framework being nonsense is a much more winning addition to neg strat than the third process counterplan. most affs on this topic do not solve, are not key to the impact, read cards that say nothing, and are an ungodly amalgamation of legal standards that were never meant to intersect in the way 2as are forcing them to - the number of advantages that can be reduced to zero by a smart cx and recuttings or even just close readings of 1ac evidence is only matched by the number of 2ns that fail to do it. i get this topic is rough for the neg, but it's not that rough - we can cut a real disad, a case turn, or a deficit every once in a while (or even, god forbid, go for the K). IP bad is not astounding by any means, but with smart debating and good cards it beats 80% of what qualifies as a neg generic on this topic (*cough*sui generis*cough*).

2. i am increasingly astounded by how good i am for the "soft left" aff. this may be related to the above, but most disads and net benefits have laughable internal links and in no coherent world are a higher risk than the aff. this is not carte blanche to say "menand 5" at the impact and move on, but it is to say that if you are reading a 1ac that is built to capitalize on defending an impact that is "smaller", but starts at 100% risk, you should take me extremely high and expect speaker points bordering on irresponsible if you can execute. i am in no way bad for extinction in these debates, but "util=trutil" is increasingly less an argument and more a dogma judges and debaters cling to, and quality evidence and smart cx beats nonsense 2nr ramblings about 1% risk + 10 cards citing Bostrom/MacAskill and the CSER that border on sociopathic. this could also be me just getting bored of abstractions like "try or die" vs "timeframe controls the direction of turns case" as a substitute for real impact calculus, though, so reading an aff with a real advantage and making smart answers to the disad likely helps you here as well.

3. clash debates suck and framework teams are getting worse. this is not to say i am worse for framework - i am as good, if not better for it, than ever - but it is to say that the 2ns who seem most committed to the idea framework is an engaging and responsive negative strategy are making the best possible case for why it isn't one. most 2ncs and 2nrs are scripted essays with zero allusion to the aff or it's evolution through the debate, and your blocks are brain-meltingly boring. if you gave the same 2nr impact overview on a disad regardless of what aff scenarios you were weighing it against it would be lazy and unstrategic debating (maybe a bad example, since 2ns do this one a lot now too), yet i have heard the same "clash turns the case" speech a billion times without explanation of the contours of said "clash" or what parts of "the case" it turns, which has led to an increasing aff win-rate. look, i'm maybe in the minority of "k people" at this point who actually agrees fairness is an impact and framework substantively answers these affs - but you gotta, you know, answer the aff with it. come on, gamers.

4. k teams are getting annoying again and 2as need to stand on business more. the first time i saw antonio 95 in a neg doc this year i almost had a stroke. 90% of 2ns who go for "microaggressions" as a framework angle couldn't define the term if pushed. i can't really blame neg teams though - the reason these strategies win is because 2as are failing to call stupid stupid and instead pretending calling tabroom over the imaginary microaggression that is "reading a plan" is a substitute for answering the K and forcing the neg to win a real link argument. if the 2nr is 5 minutes of ontology and fiat bad, the 2ar can and should punish them by straight turning this for 5 minutes straight. framework alone is not a neg win condition, it just sets one - 2as need to have the guts to win under it anyways or double down on setting their own so we can get out of this mess (because that's how the meta finally shifted away from this last time we were here). in general, 2ar brute-force against the K needs to make a comeback.

5. debaters should try to be jerks less. i'm not a decorum fiend by any means, and this isn't to say you can't have swagger or enjoy throwing down, but the level of outright posturing has far outpaced any justification for it from debaters. i was *also* annoyingly self-righteous earlier in my coaching and debating career and probably felt every debate was a chance to prove something or settle some imagined beef, so i really get it, but we all grow up eventually, and i cannot help but cringe at this sort of thing in retrospect. i promise you being level-headed and direct while simply debating better is far bigger aura than whatever is happening in most CXes these days. debate is a community of profound differences, but everyone i've ever met in debate tends to agree on a few things: none of us had to show up or do this on a random weekend, this whole thing kinda sucks when you take it too seriously, but we ultimately do it anyways for a shared love of the game. there are far too few rounds in a debater's (or even judge's) career to waste it on being annoying about nothing.

All chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com

and, please also add (based on event):

HSPD: dulles.policy.db8@gmail.com

HSLD: loyoladebate47@gmail.com

CPD: uhoustondebate@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

"takes his job seriously, but not himself."

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

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

overall, flexibility is king. on average, i'm happiest in debates where the aff says "plan, it's good", the negative says "disad" or "kritik", and lots of cards are read, but high-quality, well-warranted arguments + judge instruction >>> any specific positions - Kant, planless affs, process counterplans, and topicality can be vertically dense, cool debates. they can also be total slop. every judge thinks arguments are good or bad, which makes them easier or harder to vote on, usually unconsciously. i'm trying to make it clear what i think good and bad arguments are and how to debate around that. i'm a full time coach and i judge tons of debates (by the end of the 24-25 season, i will have judged 900 rounds since graduating in 2019), but my topic/argument knowledge won't save bad debating. i flow carefully and value "tech" over "truth", but dropped arguments are only as good as the dropped argument itself - i don't start flowing until i hear a warrant, and i find i have a higher threshold for warrants and implications than most. i take offense/defense very seriously - debating comparatively is much better than abstractions.

quoth Bankey: "Please don’t be boring. Your pre-written blocks are boring." increasingly annoyed at the amount of rebuttal speeches that are entirely read off a doc. a speech off your flow that is obviously based on the round that just happened with breaks in fluency/efficiency will get higher speaks than a speech that is technically perfect but barely contextual to the debate i'm judging.

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

"act like you've been here."

details

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

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

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

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

- case debates: miss them. advantages are terrible, easily link turned, and most aff's don't solve. solvency can be zero with smart CX, close reading of 1ac ev, and analytics. executing this well gets high speaker points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- aff on theory: “riders” to the plan, plan being "horse-traded" - not how fiat works. counterplans that fiat actors different from the plan (including states) - a misunderstanding of negation theory/neg fiat. will probably never drop more than the argument. neg on theory: literally everywhere else. arbitrariness objection strong. i don't think new affs justify neg terrorism - seems silly, 2ns should pre-emptively case neg things - but i do think being neg justifies it. i consider conditionality a divine right and will defend it with religious zeal. RVIs don't get flowed. these are the strongest opinions in this paradigm. i am an unapologetic hack on these matters.LD theory shenanigans: non-starter.

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

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

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

- if the above is insufficiently detailed, see: Richard Garner, James Allan, J.D. Sanford (former coaches), Brett Cryan (former 2A), Holden Bukowsky, Bryce Sheffield (former teammates), Aiden Kim, Sean Wallace, (former students) and Ali Abdulla (best debate bud). my ordinal 1 for most of college was DML.

procedural notes

- flowing: i do it on my laptop. i have pretty bad hearing damage in my left ear (tinnitus), and i don’t flow off the doc. i will occasionally open docs during CX or prep time if a particular card becomes important, but this is not something you should bank on to save you being incomprehensible. i consider myself really good at flowing, but clarity matters a lot – 2x "clear", then I stop typing, put my hands up, and stare at you uncomfortably until you catch on. debaters go through tags and analytics too quickly – give me pen time, or i will take pen time. you can ask to see my flow after the debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- when debating an opponent of low experience, i will heavily reward giving younger debaters the dignity of a real debate they can still participate in (i.e: slower, fewer off, more forthcoming in CX). if you believe the best strategy against a novice/lay debater is extending hidden aspec, i will assume you are too bad at debate to beat a novice without hidden aspec, and speaks will reflect that. these debates are negatively educational and extremely annoying.

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

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

closing thoughts

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

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

good luck! have fun!

- pat

Background

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

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

Randoms

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

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

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

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

Judge Commitments

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

- parent judges

- lay judges

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

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

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

Update for Online Debate

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

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

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

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

Short Version

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

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

T-USfg

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

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

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

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

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

LD

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

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

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

Parting Thoughts

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

Debates, at their core, are questions of models. I care about what you do and what you justify, but will allow you to tell me how I should perceive, structure and evaluate that. Email Chain: Kdebatedocs@gmail.com

For Woodward -- 3/13/2025

ask questions, I’m happy to answer things. Above all, I love good spirited debate, strong refutations, collapsing down of arguments, strategic concessions, comparative weighing and framing. Tell me how I should be seeing the round so I don’t have to intervene and frame it myself and your rfd will likely follow suit! I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story to resolve things and tend not to to have the energy to weigh alternative ways in which the round could’ve gone, but I’ll give you recommendations of what might’ve gotten my ballot or where I felt I could’ve been persuaded.

quals:

• Competed @Southwestern CC and Southern California in Policy (2021-2024)

• Coached LD, PF, Parli, @Flintridge Prep and Westridge School (2018 - 2023)

• Coaching Worlds and LD at Harvard-Westlake (2023-Present)

I'm happy to judge your debates. Below is a list of where I think I am great, good, and bad. Below that is generic thoughts you might need to know to get the highest possible speaks.

Debates I think I am great for

- Case vs DA (this is 90% of what I see nowadays)

- K v K (love good K debate, love bad K debate)

- Fw v Aff K / K vs Plan

- T vs Case (love a good t debate, fairness and edu are impacts, explain how clash or limits and other internal links connect to it, and I’ll vote on T)

Debates I think I’m good for

- Case v CP/DA (counterplan competition is something I’m trying to get into, but I really need you to walk me through competition and I’ll try to work with you here)

- Condo (not that im super sympathetic about condo, but I will vote on it if warranting and weighing is done well or dropped)

- Disclosure

- Ev ethics

- Non-res theory including and possibly limited to (Process CPs bad, Severance bad, etc)

Debates I know I am bad for

- Phil ( I find that debaters assume I am as familiar with their niche framework and do not explain what is offense for them or defense for them and I am very easily lost in these debates)

- Tricks

- Debates where the negative doesn’t collapse and expects me to make decisions for them

- Debates where the entire speech is read at the same speed without slowing down for areas that are of vital importance

Thoughts about debate:

- I love a good debate where the negative collapses and makes strategic decisions. I don’t like debates where I’m asked to do things like judgekick CPs.

- Theory threshold:

--- not high but I think blippiness is getting really out of hand, LD debaters need impacts to theory and clash is not an impact, it's a standard or an internal link to something -.- in policy, condo is cool. I will vote on condo in LD but have a reason why 1 condo is bad. 2 condo is probably bad.

--- Friv theory is also getting out of hand, if you read things like punching theory, debaters must not wear shoes, these better be like K impact framing args and not independent voters tbh.

- I have a research background and would like you to do some work with your evidence. I am a strong proponent of doing more with less. I will read along as it happens. That being said, my contemporaries are considerably better card people, I did a lot of performance. (translation: pls dont put me in a 2nr/2ar debate about competition theory about the counterplan)

- I prefer people tell me how to evaluate their debates, framing included, what matters, what doesn't -- filtering / sequencing etc

- debates are simplest and imo best executed when people reduce the number of args and clarify their argumentation and spend more time discussing the relation to the other teams args / participation in relation to their args, as well as making the link -> impact story more persuasive.

- slow down a bit for me, speak louder for me, pen time for tags will boost your speaks with me

- Lastly, I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story possible. Please collapse and make a choice. I think thats the beauty of debate is winning your argument rather than forcing me to have to do the evaluation of a number of sheets in the 2nr. Basically, if you go into the 2nr with 4 off case and expect me to judgekick things, and make decisions on how to evaluate all of them, I'm going to be really upset.

I'll do my best to explain the world you've laid out for me in the debate and how I came to my decision in my RFD but I will not likely explain the the entire world of the debate in relation to the implication of (x) unless it helps me vote differently.

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

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

+0.2 speaks for starting early when possible

CIRCUIT LD PARADIGM

1. Am very good for 'Phil' – it's my favorite part of LD debate. In my view, LD debate is supposed to be, at least partially, about the criterion.

2. Be clear, slow down on tags, and pause between separate arguments. I don't flow off the speech doc.

3. Am bad for policy v policy. If this is the debate you want to have, you should make the following adjustments:

a. Dedicate a portion of your rebuttal speeches to explaining the story of your advantage/disadvantage in the simplest possible terms.

b. Policy debates most of the time look like assertion wars to me. One side asserts this thing will happen if we pass the resolution, the other side asserts that it won't. Please address this problem by focusing on the warrants of the arguments. It will also behoove you to go more slowly as you're doing this so that things are maximally clear to me.

c. Policy debaters seem to hide behind cards a lot. They read a piece of evidence in the rebuttal and think that this is a substitute for making an argument. If you read a bunch of cards against the case and don't do any analysis or explanation of why your cards provide better warranting than the arguments being answered, the debate looks an awfully lot like a tie to me. In general, the primary job in a debate is to break ties and to explain why I should defer to you.

My view is that right after reading a piece of evidence, a debater should provide some explanation as to why the evidence is particularly good/specific/uses better warrants than the other side's evidence. Then in the next speech, when they extend the evidence, it has more weight, especially if their opponent conceded the analysis. If the first time you do comparison is in the final speech, I might just disagree with what you're saying, plus it's hard as a judge to defer to one side's comparison over another without intervening.

TLDR: don't treat LD like a policy round that gets cut off after the 1AR. If you do that, the debate will inevitably look late-breaking. Read fewer arguments and spend more time in that initial speech doing analysis/comparison.

d. If it hasn't been clear yet from the above, in front of me you should definitely do more judge instruction than you think you have to. Seriously, I have very little background with policy arguments. It isn't instantly obvious to me how things work.

4. I don’t vote on disclosure theory. There wasn't disclosure when I competed, and I thought that was a much better system, for many reasons –

a. It required both sides to actively pay attention during the debate, to flow diligently, to use their brains during prep time to come up with responses

b. Due to a., speeches were generally more responsive. Debaters did more signposting, explained things a lot more clearly, and were better at judge instruction because a rigorous flow was the reference point and not a speech doc.

c. The debates nowadays are super focused on evidence. I'd rather people read less evidence and spend more time explaining their arguments and making responses about what links/steps/warrants are missing in their opponent's case.

d. I have no idea why the aff should have to commit itself to reading a particular case or version of a case 30 minutes before the debate has even started.

e. In a world without disclosure, tournament environments are generally more relaxed. People socialize more and aren't spending 30 minutes freaking out before their round.

5. 1AR theory: if you want to be able to go for it later, you have to invest time developing it and pre-empting the 2NR. I very rarely vote on 1AR theory, not because I'm opposed to it, but because the 2AR almost always sounds new.

6. I almost never read cards after the round. This means 'inserting rehighlightings' is unlikely to be effective in front of me. Instead you should be reading aloud specific lines from their evidence that disagree with their claim.

7. Speaks: I usually give between 28 and 29.

Debated for and currently coach at Strake Jesuit

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Tech > Truth

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Do not read eval or give me 30 speaks I will not evaluate either

Additionally do not swear in round or use profanities it will effect speaker points.

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them but these are my preferences.

Tricks - 1

Larp - 3

Phil - 1

K - 4

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms being a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might read and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feelings about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

Synthesis

1. Paragraph - you lose. This does not need to be an argument in the debate.
2. Read tags that is some like ….” Therefore.” I won’t flow it
3. Read a card that does not include a read warrant. This is meaningless in the debate.
4. Claiming a card says something that it clearing does not 25 spk loss. This does not need to be an argument in the debate. I will intervene period as you have no ethics for an activity that I care deeply about.
   
   

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally to your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

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

Please just call me Hertzig.

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

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

BIG PICTURE:

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

SHORTCUT:

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

Trad debate - 1

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

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

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

*I will never give higher speaks/a 30 based on a "give me 30 speaks" shell.

GENERAL:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Update for Presentation 2024(updates to LD sections and overview)

Themost important thing you read from this paradigm is my view on speech docs. Do not assume at any point in time that I am on the speech doc. I will download it etc so I can use it if necessary, but I am absolutely not reading along your speech doc while you speak. I will listen to you and flow the best I can, but if it's not on my flow then it's not in the debate.

If you want me to look at your evidence for some reason, you can do that in a few ways. You can put the evidence at issue in some manner (author quals, evidence comparison, evidence indicts, evidence ethics, etc.) or you can literally just say "go look at the X card" (and not "go look at the entire affirmative case").

This is just forward notice! What this means is please do things like pause when transitioning between arguments or flows, indicating clearly when you are reading new evidence or analytics (examples below), and generally slowing down during analytics that are important for you to win the debate.

Update for MS TOC 2024 (the only important updates are PF-specific for MS TOC)

Updated March 2023 (note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview [updated MS TOC 24]

I've done debate for over a decade now, and I think it's a really awesome activity when we share similar value in the activity. Please be kind and respectful to each other, and have fun debating! Feel free to ask any questions/clarifications before you debate.

Some quick background, I competed the longest in LD in high school (elims of NSDA, 4th speaker / quarters at TOC, championed Greenhill, Co-championed Cal Berkeley Round Robin and Finals at Cal Berkeley Tournament my senior year). I've also competed in a lot of other events besides LD (WSDC, Impromptu, Extemp, Oratory, PF, Congress) and other notable achievements include being runner-up at NSDA 2013 in Extemp Debate and debating for the USA on the NSDA's inaugural USA Debate team my senior year in WSDC. I've coached a lot of students at this point, I was an assistant coach for Northland, Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, The Harker School for 3 years as the MS Director of Speech and Debate and currently as an assistant coach/law student, and am currently one of co-coaches for Team USA through the NSDA. Good luck, have fun, and best effort!

Paradigm[Updated October 2024]

[**Note I copied this paradigm from my colleague, Greg Achten at The Harker School when my paradigm was deleted in March 2023.]

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., LW (living wage) that are topic-specific or super niche Act titles)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Speaker Points:[Updated October 2024]

Biggest things to do while debating in front of me that will get you better speaker points and increase the chances I understand your arguments:

(1) SLOW on taglines, EXTREMELY slow on author names/dates, and I am flexible on top speed through text of cards if you are clear and emphasize key warrants

(2) I need to understand an argument, at least with some surface level understanding, to vote off of it. You can heighten the chance I can understand it by explaining the function of your arguments (perhaps this is "judge instruction" but if it's a way you canwin or a way your opponent canlose, it needs to be flagged)

(3) Have fun, establish your presence in the debate, and try not to be rude to your opponent! Even if they started it!

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.

Speaker points:for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi! I’m Suhani (she/her)!

Newman Smith ’23 (4 years of LD) , UT Austin ’27, I work for DFW Speech and Debate, & coach policy at Damien-St Lucys

Add me to the email chain— sujamps@gmail.com

If it's a policy round add the team-mail damiendebate47@gmail.com

stolen from nethmin -- I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

in general you can look to nethmin's paradigm for more understanding of how I evaluate rounds

Policy—

This is what I did majority of my senior year, and what I am most comfortable judging—but dont let this dissuade you from reading what you want in front of me—as long as its warranted I will evaluate it.

I love when people cut good prep! I love when you can actually explain and warrant arguments!—especially if your scenario is pretty nonsense (like me doing my com sci homework leads to extinction) having really good ev and a really good explanation will help a lot and beat back any skepticism I have for voting for a very silly scenario.

Plan affs are so fun!

I default to util and weighing impacts by probability*magnitude

K—

I can handle most k lit besides anything pomo tbh..

If you are gonna run pomo in front of me explain it to me like i'm 5.

I think aff gets to weigh case but can be convinced otherwise.

I am not voting for the k if a) I have no idea what the k is saying and/or b) your alt doesnt solve and im not sure what it does (examples are helpful!).

Reading afropess or queer pess when you are not black or queer is weird.

T/Theory—

Alot of these debates get really messy—collapse to one standard to make my life easier.

Im pro disclosure not pro nonsense disclosure shells (must disclose round reports, cites, new affs, etc).

(Policy specific) My threshold for voting on theory is somewhat lower than your average policy judge-however this doesn't mean reading your condo blocks automatically wins you the debate.

Phil—

If you’re reading phil in front of me, treat me like im 5 years old because if its not Kant or Rawls I probably have no idea what your framework is saying and I will be confused.

Tricks—

Tricks make my head hurt and it will be an uphill battle for you to try to convince me you should win the round on one especially because I have never seen a trick with an actual warrant.

The more nonsense the trick the lower the threshold for responding to it is.

Don't make me evaluate silliness your speaks will reflect it.

Speaks—

I give speaks based on strategic decisions and clarity.

Ill say slow/clear three times and so if I still end up missing args it is your fault.

If you have a speech impediment, let me know so clarity will not be evaluated for your speaks.

If you’re rude to your opponent or just do anything to make the round unsafe/exclusionary your speaks will be docked and you might just lose the round—this would obv be for more egregious things—ie maybe dont purposefully misgender people or say slurs etc if you want to win a debate in front of me.

My least favorite thing ever is doc bot vs doc bot debates and speaks will reflect it.

Misc—

I can handle speed, but don’t go your top speed in front of me, I can probably handle a 7/10 if 10 is the fastest person on the circuit.

PLEASE slow down on analytics.

I will not flow off the doc or back-flow.

Stop calling everything an IVI.

Don't make me intervene as a judge—extend warrants, weigh between arguments, do judge instruction.

I generally don't feel comfortable evaluating things that did not happen in round other than disclosure.

Lack of warrants in debate is annoying, I'm not voting on an argument that is not warranted, doesn't make sense.

I spend a lot of time with a lot of old grumpy policy coaches, and therefore judge similarly to old grumpy policy coach.

Prep time ends when the email is sent--stop stealing prep and wasting everyone's time.

Entertain me!

Plano Senior '20

Indiana University '23

3X NDT Qualifier (21,22,23)

Add me on the email chain ajasanideb8@gmail.com

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "Kentucky - Round 1 - Indiana JP (AFF) vs Indiana GJ (NEG)"

CONFLICTS: Plano Senior(TX), Southlake Carroll (TX) PF teams, Indiana University(IN), Greenhill (TX) LDers, Plano West AR, Plano West RC, Plano West NS, Jasper SG

TLDR: Flexible, but don't read anything that is offensive.

Largely agree with

-Brian Delong

-Jacob Bosley

-Adam Tomasi

-Jamie Davenport

-Matthew Bricker

-Alex Yoakum

-Rahul Penumetcha

Some Generic Stuff

1)I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other

2)No judge will ever like all the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate every argument fairly. I will always listen to positions from every angle. Be clear both in delivery and argument function/interaction and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story.

3) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, straw-manning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).

4)The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)

5) I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself.

6) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.

7) I care a lot about evidence quality. Use your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.

8) I can handle speed as long as you are CLEAR, BUT please accommodate for your opponents who have disabilities

9) Tech>Truth

10) NOTE FOR ONLINE: Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed. I would strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but I obviously recognize the very real and valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Policy Paradigm

K Affs: I don’t care whether you read a plan or not, but affs should have a specific tie to the resolution and be a departure from the status quo that is external from the reading of the 1AC. Impact turning framework is more strategic than counter-defining words or reading clever counter-interps, but you should have a clear model of debate and what the role of the negative is.

Framework: Affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic, even if not traditional endorsement or hypothetical implementation of a policy. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses. Teams should have a robust defense of what their model of debate/argument looks like and what specific benefits it would produce. Teams tend to do better in front of me if they control the framing of what I should do with my ballot or what my ballot is capable of solving. Whether it signals an endorsement of a particular advocacy, acts as a disincentive in a games-playing paradigm, or whatever else, my conclusion on what the ballot does often filters how I view every other argument. Teams tend to do better with me the more honest they are about what a given debate or ballot can accomplish."TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. I expect the block to provide an example plan text. Solvency evidence is ideal, but a warranted explanation for how the plan text connects to the aff's broader advocacy/impact framing can be sufficient. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.

Policy v K: Don't lose the specificity of the aff in favor of generic K answers. Reading long framing contentions that fail to make it past the 1AC and 2ACs that include every generic K answer won't get you as far as taking the time to engage the K and being intentional about your evidence. You should clearly articulate an external impact and the framing for the round. I'm more likely to buy framework arguments about how advocating for a policy action is good politically and pedagogically than fairness arguments.

K v Policy: Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff. Make sure to tell me why the impacts of the K come first and weigh the impacts of the K against that of the alt. Absent serious investment in the framework portion of the debate/massive concessions, the aff will most likely get to weigh the aff's impacts against the K so impact comparison and framing are vital. Framework arguments should not only establish why the aff's framework is bad but also establish what your framework is so that my ballot is more aligned more closely with your framework by the end of the debate. K's don't have to have an alt and you can kick out of the alt and go for the links as case turns.

K v K: Affs should have an advocacy statement and defend a departure from the status quo. Affs don't have to have a clear method coming out of the 1AC, although I am more likely to vote neg on presumption absent a method. I have a higher threshold for perms in debates where the aff doesn't defend a plan but just saying "K affs don't get perms" isn't sufficient for me to deny the perm.

Policy v Policy: Nothing much to say here, but please weigh!!

T: I enjoy a good T debate and think T is very underutilized against policy affs. Make sure you are substantively engaging with the interpretation and standards and aren’t just blitzing through your blocks. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

CP: Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. 2NCs/2NRs should start with a quick overview of what the CP does. Blazing through this at top speed will not contribute to my understanding. Fine with you reading PICS

DA: Framing is everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness, or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Theory: I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Conditionality is fine within reason. When it seems absurd it probably is, and it's not impossible to persuade me to reject the team, but it is an uphill battle. It's hard to imagine voting aff unless there are 4 or more conditional advocacies introduced.

LD paradigm

Theory: I believe that RVI is very illogical and non-sensical, thus I will not vote on RVIs. Everything else look at the policy paradigm.

Philosophy/FW: I really like a good framework debate. Please make all framework arguments comparative. I will default to truth testing unless told otherwise.

Tricks:After doing policy for a while, I just think tricks are silly and are usually very underdeveloped. If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or misallocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I won't vote on a trick that I don't understand or doesn't have a warrant. Please don't blitz through spikes. I am quite willing to give an RFD of "I didn't flow that," "I didn't understand that," or "I don't think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.

Policy and Kritik: Look at the policy paradigm.

PF Paradigm

I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus. I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.

1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus besides offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate the risk of offense claims.

2)The First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).

3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- don't try to respond in a later speech.

4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.

6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my Policy/LD paradigm above.

7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.

8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.

Speaker Points Scale

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

[[ ]] if you would like to play paradigm-ception, look here. this version is more detailed and i still think it's mostly accurate i just found it overly verbose and full of fluff.

[[ ]] updated pre-tfa 2025. life has been busy, debate hasn't been on the front of my mind and i dont know what the topic is. idk what this means to you but i thought it was worth knowing.

[[ ]] email: djdebatedocs@gmail.com

[[ ]] affiliations: plano west (grad 21), mcneil (23-24), dulles (24-25)

[[ ]] things you must know:

• be kind and professional (dont care if u curse but if you sound like tim robinson in the adult haunted house sketch you will lose speaks); violent ideologies will prompt a conversation with your coach and an L0. misgendering is included, regardless of intent, especially when there are multiple instances. i am deadly serious.
• i will read evidence without being prompted if i think you're lying because I think it's less interventionist than voting on unwarranted extrapolations.
• intervention is somewhat inevitable because nobody is telepathic and nobody can communicate their thoughts with 100% accuracy. what we think of as "paradigms" are just our (as judges) personal opinions on how intervention is best minimized. nothing after this is a "must know" other than i respect the game and will attempt to do my job as best as possible.
• people think of me as a clash judge, i think of myself as a creativity enjoyer with a slight bias toward policy actions. make of this what you will.
• yes zero risk
• please have topic specificity on either side of the clash debate
• 50/50 on topicality vs k affs
• if your only answer to negative kritiks is framework without engaging the substance/truth value of their argument, you will likely lose
• no rvis absent a concession/severe technical error. speaks will be abysmal. never rvis on topicality
• theory needs to explain material in round abuse. not very sympathetic to theory as norm-setting. low threshold for answering nonsense.
• bad for LD shenanigans. fine for analytic philosophy without the nonsense.
• will not evaluate arguments as to why i should change speaker points. you can improve them by being organized and making interactions clear and you can worsen them by making the debate messier and harder to evaluate. if you read the aforementioned arguments, you will likely fall into category 2.

email me with other inquiries although it is unlikely that i will see it since i never check the linked email outside of looking for speech docs. most important of all, have fun.

people i respect and agree with whose names may or may not mean anything to you: blake andrews, e. cook, holden bukowsky, eric schwerdtfeger

Email: dakshk97@gmail.com

About Me: I graduated from Kempner High School in 2015, where I debated LD for two years on the TFA/TOC circuit. I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas (Policy) till 2019.

YOU WILL TAKE AN L IF I HEAR ANYTHING MORALLY REPUNGENT

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so.

Theory: While reading your shell, slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell. Make sure there is abuse in the round.- please make sure real abuse exists. fairness is not always an independent reason. Spreading through t/theory debates is insane, slow down.

Speaks:I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I will say clear 3 times before docking points.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. ROB' are tight. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. Please explain the argument, reading the tag is not enough to extend, and just because you extend evd. doesn't mean you win the round, give reasons to why extending that piece of evd is instrumental in the round.

Kritiks: I love the K debate. Please be careful in cutting the cards. Should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it. Slow down and explain the story or I am not voting. Do read the K the right way or thats a good way of taking an L. Slow down on the tags and I should be good, if i say clear slow down and explain the K.

Extensions and Signposting:Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I am not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably shuffle my flows a lot if I'm lost.

Conflicts: Edina HS, Isidore Newman, University of Minnesota, Kenwood SW.

umnakdebate [at] gmail [dot] com -- add me to the chain please!

TOC Update:

The most important information about preffing me is that I believe that debate is a communication activity. If you're unclear, including during card text, I'll clear you, and I won't flow what I can't understand. If your card highlighting is incoherent fragments of words rather than sentences, I will not pretend that your arguments make sense. If you choose to abandon line by line refutation with signposting while giving your speeches, expect that I will do the same in your RFD.

NDT/CEDA Paradigm:

I believe debate is best when debaters give speeches using a line-by-line format. The way that many speeches are given now diverges from my understanding of how to evaluate debates technically. When debating in front of me, you should read in a way that is comprehensible, including card text. You should be flowing the debate. Answering arguments that weren't read guarantees low speaker points, and you must take prep or CX time to ask clarification questions about what was read from the doc. You should answer arguments in the order presented and use numbers or other signposts whenever possible. Avoid long overviews and cloud clash. As much as I believe in judge flexibility, you need to help me to give the decision that you would be happy with.

Flowing: I will flow either on paper or on my laptop, depending on the vibes that day. I have dysgraphia, so if I am flowing on paper, please be sure to slow down on analytics and give pen time. I will follow along on docs during the 1AC and the 1NC to check for clipping, and after that I will not look at docs at any point in the debate unless instructed to read evidence. For me, reading docs does not substitute for clarity; if you are so unclear that I can not understand the words coming out of your mouth, that constitutes clipping. I'll clear you twice, and then I will vote against you for clipping. I will attempt to line up arguments on my flow but will flow top down if your speech organization renders that impossible.

My convictions about debate:

Debate matters. What we do here has significance.

Debate is a game into which debaters put hundreds of hours. Debate to win, and try your best to have fun while doing it. Judges have the privilege of watching high quality debates and are trusted with the responsibility of adjudicating them, so I will put as much effort into making my decision make sense as possible.

Evidence matters. You should read high quality evidence, and you should understand the evidence that you introduce into the debate. You should debate about the qualifications of your evidence. Your evidence should be highlighted into sentences that make arguments, not incoherent fragments of nouns and verbs.

You should read good arguments. The debaters I enjoy watching the most make good arguments that show that they have researched and thought about the topic in depth. Of course, my decision will be based on the technical execution of arguments in the round, but bad arguments generally only necessitate bad answers.

Style matters. Judges are never just making their decisions purely off of the flow. You should debate like you want to win.

Debaters should treat each other with a modicum of respect. Every judge and opponent is a human being. I don't believe in enforcing notions of politeness or respectability, but you shouldn't needlessly make the debate a hostile place. If you behave in a way that is immediately hazardous to the safety of other debaters or say that racism is good, you will lose.

Relevant information about preffing me:

The style of debate that I spend the most time thinking about is critiques. I pretty much only ever read Ks while doing college policy, and most of my coaching since then has either been coaching critiques or coaching policy debaters on how to answer them. Given my background, that's the style of debate where I am most comfortable adjudicating debates and offering high-quality feedback. Don't let that deter you from doing you though. I have voted on all styles and types of arguments and I care more about proficient execution than seeing debaters pander to me based on how I debated.

I definitely wouldn't consider myself an expert on the topic. Most of my research has been on the critical side of the topic. I have a surface level understanding of the popular affs and off-case positions, but I probably won't understand all your acronyms or topic norms. Tread lightly.

I'm not a huge fan of generic counterplans that could be read identically from topic to topic, and usually I think that if evenly debated, they would not establish an opportunity cost to the aff. I understand concepts in counterplan competition like mandates of the plan, intrinsicness, limited intrinsicness, etc. but I probably judge less than 10 debates a season that involve these concepts.

Topicality is a relevant concern and should be debated against policy affs. I tend to view topicality as a question of interpreting the words in the resolution, and I won't check out on reasonability just because a bunch of other teams also read this aff.

Debates with planless affirmatives are often challenging for me to evaluate when the negative goes for topicality. Procedural fairness can be an impact, but you need to convince me that is the case by doing more than spamming "fairness paradox". I am increasingly frustrated in debates where the 2AC or 1AR catastrophically fumbles an off-case position that is not topicality, and the 2NR is T anyways. Don't introduce off case positions if you can't credibly go for them. I struggle to understand how to evaluate topicality without comparing different models of debate.

LD-style phil/tricks arguments: I am conversant in these given my LD background. I would strongly prefer not to adjudicate a debate where you read these arguments without understanding what they actually say, and I will hold you to a high standard in explaining them. Ethical questions around consequentialism vs. deontology are obviously relevant to the topic, but if you don't understand how to execute these arguments, don't read them.

I will not adjudicate arguments about conduct outside of the round I am presently judging.

Gordon Krauss

Add: gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Background: Claremont '21, UCLA '25

Affiliation: Peninsula, ModernBrain.

Main

Debate would be incoherent and boring if every argument was evaluated as a yes-no question, e.g. "does the bill pass?" or "is there a link", and it leads to absurd outcomes, like judges voting on dropped "link turns case" when the aff has link defense and the neg does not have a reason the plan can't solve. Thus, I will evaluate debates probabilistically and will not grant zero or one-hundred percent risk to an argument, even if dropped, unless the full theoretical weight of the argument is explicitly conceded by the other team.

This means that if you're extending a permutation (that's not 'do counterplan'), you need a deficit. If counterplan, need a net benefit. If normative philosophical framework, need a reason the plan is good or bad according to that framework. It also means that kritik links need impacts--proving that the aff can't solve anything and doesn't make sense is important, but I won't vote on presumption, so you're better off developing offense.

The exception to this is topicality and other procedurals, like truth testing. I think that these are not like other arguments because they provide the neg with an escape hatch to avoid substantive debates. I am therefore persuaded by arbitrariness/reasonability arguments against these but will obviously vote for a topicality argument that's well supported by the topic literature.

--generally, an argument like "and/or" or "the s at the end of 'states' is a blare plural" are non-starters, unless dropped.

Outside of my strong preferences (1. offense-defense; 2. most neg theory/topicality arguments are cowardice), I will try to evaluate the debate as technically as possible, based on the arguments made in the debate and how well they line up with each team's evidence set. That said, I do care quite a bit about evidence quality. I wish more teams talked about it and did explicit evidence/warrant comparison but usually end up reading evidence to see if it actually says the things the debaters are saying. If it does not, I will reduce its risk significantly.

I'm a Master's student at UTHealth Houston.

I did LD at Westwood from 2015-2019.

I have been an active judge since then. From 2019-2022 I coached debaters from Westwood and DebateDrills (but am no longer affiliated with either program), as well as other independents. I've also taught at TDC and UTNIF.

Email: trumantle@gmail.com, but I prefer speech drop.

Kandi King RR Note: This is likely the last tournament I’ll ever judge at. I will probably care more about good vibes than I normally do (sassiness in CX is fine this is more about unnecessary hostility/rudeness), and I’ll boost speeds accordingly. If you’re a senior and/or I’ve judged you a good amount, you should let me know and I’ll also boost speaks/make some nod to your career/accomplishments.

---

2025 Update:

1] I'm significantly more impressed with debaters that don't require a laptop to give rebuttal speeches. If you give a good rebuttal speech without a laptop in your face and off paper, I'll give you a 30. Obviously I'm the judge of what a "good" rebuttal is but there'll probably be a boost regardless. I am not a fan of debaters reading off a script for an entire rebuttal at top speed.

2] I will follow along the doc to check for clipping/read evidence, but I am not flowing off the doc. Debaters have gotten extremely unclear and it's become unflowable. It should be pretty obvious if I am not flowing/unable to flow a part of the debate. Adjacently, it would greatly benefit debaters to slow down and explain things, you will like my decision more.

3] I am not a good judge for tricks debates and would prefer not to see it, as I'm bad at catching hidden tricks and bad at flowing a bunch of tricky args bundled together. This, however, does mean I'm more ok with substantive/less tricky stuff (log con, falsifiability NC) as opposed to one-liners intended to avoid clash/debate (condo logic, indexicals). I evaluate every speech.

---

Main things:

1] I am most comfortable judging policy-style debates and T/theory debates, though the worse the shell gets, the more unhappy I am. I am comfortable judging phil and kritik debates if they don't get too advanced for my brain (which also seems to happen when debaters over rely on buzzwords to explain their arguments). I am not comfortable judging tricks debates, and though I will still evaluate those debates, your speaks will likely take a hit and my threshold for answering those arguments is much lower than other arguments.

2] My views on debate have mostly been shaped by Rodrigo Paramo, Morgan Grosch, and Jugal Amodwala. What you choose to do with that information is up to you. I also agree with Rodrigo Paramo on evidence ethics and trigger warnings.

3] Your chance of getting a ballot significantly goes up if you write my ballot for me somewhere in your speech. Whether that means framing arguments at the top or slowing down on key things or making things simple at the end of your rebuttal is up to you.

4] My perspective on tricks is the more I believe the argument is used to avoid clash the less I like it and the less likely I'll vote on it. This seems to exclude a lot of arguments debaters tend to read now, including but not limited to "evaluate the debate after the 1AC," indexicals, tacit ballot conditional, and various other paradoxes/1AR restart strategies. This is in large part because I just don't understand these arguments, but also because of my belief these arguments are not beneficial or educational to the activity. If you're not sure whether an argument is too tricky to read in front of me, err on the side of caution, or just email me pre-round.

5] I believe in open-source disclosure. I think most disclosure arguments that go beyond this are bad (contact info, round reports, actual tournament name, etc.).

6] I give speaks based on how far I believe your performance would get you at the tournament I'm judging at (which also tends to mean I give generally lower speaks at octas bid tournaments compared to finals bid tournaments). Yes I will disclose speaks if requested.

7] I require much more explanation for arguments than you think I do. Many 2AR's that I've judged go for a 3-second argument in the 1AR that I did not catch/have an understanding for, and many 2NR's that I've judged blitz through overviews of the theory of power/philosophical position that I cannot keep up with. Either slow down or be clearer in explanations, especially in online debates. You will not be happy with my RFD if I don't catch something because you're blitzing too fast.

8] I am extremely visually expressive. You should almost always be able to tell if I like something/find something confusing.

9] I don't know anything about this topic. Err towards overexplaining and try not to use too many acronyms.

Lexington '22. Qualified for the TOC twice.

Email: breakdocs@googlegroups.com

Policy: I am more comfortable with this style of debate than some may assume. I err towards more impact calculus and judge instruction. I enjoy election and PTX debates. I'm fine with T and process CP debates since it forces better AFF writing. For a DA to turn the case, it must turn the affirmative's internal links. I am generally persuaded that the link controls uniqueness, but for less probabilistic uniqueness claims (elections, politics, etc.), I can be convinced by the inverse. I am a fan of smart UQ CP's that artificially create DA's and/or side step impact turns. Default to judge kick.

Phil: Please read framework hijacks. Don’t shoehorn in bad offense just to read the philosophy you want—you’ll likely lose. I prefer carded philosophy over analytical justifications, but either is fine. Frameworks are an offense filter but if you’re reading epistemic modesty, be sure to explain how I should correctly resolve the round under that framework. "Extinction outweighs" is a contention level argument that needs to be paired with a warrant for consequentialism. Skep vs K Affs is legit.

Theory: There’s no such thing as "frivolous" theory but I am great for reasonability and drop the argument. Weighing and judge instruction are critical because theory debates can easily turn into a wash. I enjoy creative combo shells and unorthodox interpretations.

Tricks: This is a broad category. I like philosophical tricks and skepticism but dislike underdeveloped spikes and paradoxes. Stick to a few tricks and be ready to defend them when answered. Arguments start from 0 to 100, so ensure they include a clear claim, warrant, and impact.

Kritik: I’m persuaded by plan focus and extinction outweighs. I favor fairness arguments when going for T-Framework, though I am willing to vote on clash as well. I am quite terrible for K v. K debates.

Add me to your email chain - colleyvilledebatedocs@gmail.comOR add me on your speech drop.

My name is William Mathison. I'm the coach at Colleyville Heritage High School. It's my second year coaching at Colleyville. I have no debate experience as a competitor. Because of this fact; the less jargon you use, the better. I understand the basics but don't be surprised if I ask you what ____ means because I am still getting used to the debate jargon. Point is, just because I don't understand it right away doesn't mean it's bad. I try to be open minded, even if I don't understand the wording of something right away,

If you spread make sure to add me to your SpeechDrop or email chain. I can flow the 1AC or 1NC off of the doc but if I can't understand you during any rebuttal speech and don't slow down at 'Clear', you'll definitely lose speaker points and there's a good chance I'll miss it on my flow.

I'm the most familiar with PF and LD since that's what I've judged the most of. I've judged IE's before as well.

Preferences for LD (in this order)

FW Debates -I do enjoy a good FW debate. At the very least you need to weigh yours against your opponent's, but if you want my vote oftentimes you'll need to tell me why yours is to be preferred or it's a prereq, etc.

CP/DA/Advantages - I'll definitely evaluate these as long as there's some strategic net benefit to the CP.

T, Theory - If you can explain it for a middle schooler, then I'll be just fine. Otherwise, there's a chance I will not evaluate it either from a lack of understanding or because it's abusive.

Non-T Affs - It's my opinion that the resolution is as stated for good reason and there's a lot of benefits to gain from remaining topical, such as the educational value of the topic. If you decide to run a non-topical affirmative, I believe it does need to have some semblance of relevancy to the topic. That might seem like a backwards way of thinking but I think there's more value to gain from having some sort of link to the topic. This does not mean I'm going to vote them down immediately, it just means I'm less likely to vote on them if I don't see any shred of relevancy.

Kritiks -This is pref'd lower simply because I have not read the literature on the most common K's and don't feel entirely comfortable evaluating these. I'm open to hearing the argument but if I have to vote on it that could be tricky for both of us. I certainly doubt my ability to provide feedback on them as well. Definitely simplify K FW. Point is; if you’re wanting to run a K, I’m likely the wrong person to pref or ask for in depth feedback.

Friv Theory, Spikes, Tricks - I simply have not heard enough of these, I don't understand them well enough, and have not been apart of enough discussions to feel confident enough to vote on these, so run them at your own risk. I try to be open minded in general, but if I simply don't understand something I don't feel as though I can vote for it. Don't be afraid to ask me about something specific, but also don't be totally shocked if you run these and lose. I will not vote on Eval.

Speaker Points for LD and PF

30: Perfection

29-29.9: Great with a couple notes

28-28.9: Good but needs some work

27-27.9: Needs significant work

26.9 or less: offensive comments or other in-round abuse took place

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD Coach for Peninsula HS

Offense-defense - arguments are evaluated probabilistically.

Exclusive framework interps are unpersuasive, I generally think the aff should get the plan and the neg should get links, but I am willing to evaluate either.

I feel somewhat comfortable evaluating deontological frameworks. I have less experience with other frameworks but will do my best to assess them fairly. However, I'm not the judge for strategies that rely heavily on 'tricks' or 'a prioris.'

I think most skepticism or 'permissibility' arguments are defense. I do not vote on defense.

I’m convinced by reasonability against all 1NC theory arguments.

I try to stay non-expressive during rounds. If I show any facial expressions, it is most likely unrelated.

There is no designated time for flow clarification during a debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was or wasn't read, you must do so during cross-examination or use your prep time. If you mark cards during your speech (i.e., if you start reading a card but do not finish it), you should clearly state where you marked it and send a marked document immediately after your speech. You are not required to include cards you did not read.

I do not have a specific metric for speaker points, but demonstrating a clear understanding of the topic and minimizing dead time are effective ways to improve your score.

I prefer adjudicating thoroughly researched arguments related to the topic.

Eastern Hills LD Debate coach 18-20

New Tech at B.F. Darrell LD/WS Coach 22-24

Hillcrest High School Debate coach 24-current

kellmoore@dallasisd.org

Most of my experience has been judging and coaching LD. Below are my guiding principles for judging, how I view the activity, and my role as a judge.

World Schools:

I prioritize strategy and content over style.

You will be rewarded for extending out arguments your team made, engaging with the opposing side's arguments, and comparative analysis. For me, content is determined by how well you generally understand the motion, arguments in the round, and how well you can respond to PoIs. Strategy will be determined by how successfully you extend out offense through out the round, when you accept PoIs, and when you ask PoIs.

Style: I try my best to discount things like appearance and enunciation and instead focus on things like how you much you are emphasizing specific points. Likewise, I will award points in this category for speakers who are kind and compassionate while debating (aka, speakers who acknowledge nuance and take their opponent at their highest ground) and will deduct points for blatant mischaracterizations or overly hostile rhetoric.

LD:

I will vote for theory or fairness arguments; however, I will not vote for them if they are in bad faith. Generally speaking, theory arguments should be responded to.

K and Phil are my stronger areas and I enjoy hearing them in a rounds. LARPing is fine, but do not expect me to know all of the lingo-- I started out as a trad LD and WS judge, I will miss policy-specific lingo.

You should debate how you want and not over-adjust for me. The debate space is yours. This is your time to speak about things you care about.

Generally speaking, I am concerned about my flow during a round. If I am not making eye-contact, that is not a negative sign.

Speaker points -A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear.I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive.

Each side must establish how they interpret the resolution and which framework is the best for evaluating the round. From this, I judge on the impacts that are relevant under the winning framework.
I can only consider arguments that are presented in the round. It is my view that it is the debater’s responsibility to adequately communicate and warrant their arguments and why those arguments matter for that particular round. When competing claims occur, I will weigh the arguments/evidence/impacts presented in the round and through the “instructions'' students have given me. Ideally, debaters will make clear comparisons, lay out the order of operations, provide even/if statements, and tell me how to weigh. This makes my job a lot easier and requires less intervention on my end. Please do not assume that your argument speaks for itself. Even if I understand the aim of your argument, I cannot vote on it if you do not clearly extend it, and its impact on the round, through your speeches. Going fast and covering the flow is not an excuse to avoid explaining your arguments - collapsing effectively and introducing weighing early will make it easier to flesh them out. If neither debater has met their burdens, then I will vote for the side that requires the least intervention on my end.

For arguments that ask me to use my ballot in some other way, the burden is on the debater to explain why my ballot ought to be used in this alternative way and why this matters for the round.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the fastest debater on the circuit I am comfortable with 7. I am fine with a number of communication and speaking styles. I am generally fine with fast rates of speech, but if you are speaking so fast your arguments are blurred together, it will be highly difficult for me to flow. Clarity is the larger issue here. If I cannot flow your argument, I cannot vote on it.

It is my personal belief that LD not only coaches students to think critically, but is also a place for students to contemplate their own morals and relation to the world. It is a space for debaters to think through the implications of actions, including their own. As such, I believe that debate ought to always be an inclusive space. Things like kindness, respect, humility, a genuine interest in learning, and a desire for growth, are all things I expect from debaters. Please be sure you are engaging in these types of behaviors and actions during the round.

I’m most comfortable with traditional LD, but open to nontraditional arguments and frameworks. I’ll be listening for judge instruction and weighing in your last speech: tell me why I should vote for you and what the reason for decision should be.

I have limited ability to keep up with spreading: moderate your speed. If it’s too fast for me to flow I’ll tell you “clear”.

By default, I assume that affirming the resolution calls for a change from the status quo.

When awarding speaker points, I’ll consider quality of argumentation over style.

Please be considerate of fellow debaters.

I competed in high school LD and Parli and graduated in 2013.

Ask me before the round to add me to the email chain.

Yes email chain. No SpeechDrop. greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

Label email chains. Preferred naming convention -- "Newark Invitational R5 F2: Newark Science TO [AFF] v RU-N TO [NEG]"

-----

I always have a headache. I am always tired. My back always hurts. Please don't make my suffering worse.

My job is to listen, flow, and adjudicate. Your job is to win, take notes, and leave. Both of our jobs should be done as efficiently as possible.

-----

Notes based on various articles to set community norms:

• Many of you don't even deserve the speaks you ask for lol. I will not grant speaker points based on asks/in-round arguments.
• I will not disclose speaker points.
• I flow by ear, not by doc (ever unless I'm excruciatingly tired and I will warn everyone). I was trained to flow as a HS freshman by listening to college policy so I think I'm uhhhh pretty good.

Actual content:

• Do what you prepared to do. I want to see the best version of you. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask whenever; I love a good "I'm going to see you again, how do you feel about X?". My "hard no" is tricks and I know you know what that means.
• "It's not tech over truth. It's tech and truth." - some wise old Black man. Win the flow and don't have bad vibes.
• I think strategic/critical thinking is good, we're in an academic activity. I want to leave the room thinking "woah, everyone should debate like that kid."

Temitope as a person things:

• Be good people. I hate being in awkward situations and it seems that "you" being weird/a bully/generally unlikeable lmao would in fact create, an awkward situation.
• Do not try to appeal to me as a person. I'm but a soulless being forced by the entourage rule to adjudicate (I'm serious). Don't treat this as an invitation to also be soulless though. If you act like you don't want to be there my ears are going to close as a function of evolutionary defenses built up against being bored to death and your speaker points will suffer.

CONTENT WARNING: GRUMPY. FRUSTRATED

PREP TIME ENDS WHEN THE DOC IS SENT. NOVICES GET GRACE. VARSITY DOES NOT. WORK ON SENDING DOC SKILLS IN PRACTICE. I WILL START YOUR SPEECH TIME IF YOU'RE OUT OF PREP.

IF ROUNDS START LATE BECAUSE OF YOU I WILL DEDUCT 1.5 SPEAKER POINTS 3 SPEAKER POINTS IF ITS A FLIGHT 2 DEBATE.

DON'T STEAL PREP. IF A TIMER IS NOT RUNNING (speech, cx, prep time) YOU SHOULD NOT BE PREPPING (looking at docs, typing, writing)

HONESTLY I LIKE GOOD DEBATES NOW. GOOD POLICY, KRITIK, TOPICALITY DEBATES. PHIL DEBATES THAT ISN'T 100 SHORT UNWARRANTED ANALYTICS WITH 50 HIDDEN TRICKS IN SIDE READ AT 600 WORDS PER MINUTE. I AM TIRED.

Email: okunlolanelson@gmail.com [Add me to the chain]

About me: I debated in Texas mostly in LD and did a little Policy. Had a short stint for Northwestern debate (GO CATS). If you're reading quickly before a round, read the bold.

General/Short version:

- No you cannot "Insert re-highlighting." This is an awful practice. Don't do it.

- Tech > Truth

- Line by line > Overviews but the best debaters will combine both.I'm not a good judge for debaters that don't engage in the line by line.

- Asking for a marked doc comes from your prep if it wasn't egregious, but their prep if it was (i.e they marked 15 cards without saying what words they marked it at). Please get better at flowing. Free game: You should be flowing by ear and not off the doc and the doc should be used for reference and evidence validation.

- Judge instruction GOOD. REALLY GOOD.

- I will evaluate the debate objective but assume I know very little about ANYTHING. It is your obligation to extend and explain your position. Not my job to read it and explain it for you.

- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to *AND JUSTIFY* why I should.

- If its a Policy throwdown, please slow down a bit in those final speeches. Remember I know little about ANYTHING. This is mostly for LD since shorter speeches/rounds means less time to explain those [internal] links.

- I'm not flowing of the doc. I only even glance at the document in 2/100 debate. Doc flowing has destroyed this activity incentivizing ATROCIOUS clarity and rhetorical practices and bad flowing skills for debaters. It is YOUR job to extend and explain your evidence, not my job to read it Clarity is axiomatic.

- PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SLOW DOWN on analytics, tags, interpretations, plan/cp text, theory. You can go as fast as you want on the card body. You folks are UNFLOWABLE (see above)

- Debate whatever and however you want. Go all out and do your thing, just DO NOT be violent or make the space unsafe.

- Frame your impacts and weigh your impacts. No one wins their framework anymore. Its a shame. It would make debates atleast 37% easier to decide.

- Errr on the side of explanation and slow down a bit for dense [analytic] philosophical debates. I do not have a PhD in philosophy.

- I don't care to see a bad theory debate. I do not want to invest mental or physical energy deciphering an incoherent bad theory debate. i.e "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" be forreal. You still have to respond to bad theory arguments though (shouldn't be terribly hard)

- You will auto-lose if you clip cards or falsely accuse. You will auto-lose for evidence ethics violations

- A good speech consists of judge instruction, overview, line by line, and crystallization (and obviously strategy). Good speeches = good speaks. Rhetoric and Persuasion is important.

- I don't care how far away or close to the topic you are but you must justify your practice. Skills, fairness, impact turns, all that is cool.

- For "non-T" affs vs T, I need you to account for/interact with your opponents impact. If I am simply left with a fairness/skills impact vs the impact turns and no interaction between the 2 and no Top Level framing issues, I will be forced to intervene. (This is bad for affirmatives because fairness is *probably* *somewhat* good)

- I zone out alot in CX. Please grab my attention for an important concession.

- For Policy debate, just don't assume I know some jargon, norm, or innovative strategy and err on the side of explanation.

- Don't get too **graphic** on descriptions of antiblack violence (or any violence for that matter). Trigger warnings are welcomed and encouraged.

- Referencing college teams or other teams doesn't really get you anywhere, "our models allows for Michigan vs Berkeley debates" I simply do not know or care about these teams

- If you need to know something specifically ask before the round.

• Good luck, do your thing, and have fun!

0. General:

chain for policy/general questions

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

chain for ld (pls add both)

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Coaching: Isidore Newman, Coppell, IVA High

Conflicts: a few LAMDL teams.

Debate Shoutouts: Deven Cooper, Dayvon Love, Diego "Jay-Z" Flores, Erika Linares, Geo Liriano, Jaysyn Green, Daniel Medina, Destiny Popoca, Lauren Willard, Cameron Ward, Isai Ortega, Andres Marquez, Elvis Pineda, J-Beatz, Dorian Gurrola, Aless Escobar, Jean Kim, and all of #LAMDLGANG.

"IR topics are cool bc we learn abt the world and stuff" - E.C. Powers, Wyoming Debate 5/22/23.

1. Pref Guide:

General: Currently entering my junior year and currently debate for CSULB (2 years of NDT-CEDA debate, 3 1/2 of LAMDL Debate) and have about 2 years of circuit judging experience. I care a lot about debate. Whether or not I should can be changed by persuasive argumentation.

Judging Style: I judge based what's on the flow, and the flow only. Judge intervention is silly and I try not to do it unless I absolutely need to fill in the gaps. Offense/Defense paradigm is how I evaluate debates, and will vote for the team that did the better debating unless told otherwise. Dropped args are true args, but need to be impacted out. No judge kick, make your own decisions and for the love of god start the round on time. Speaks will reflect all of these instances.

There are little predispositions that I have about debate that cannot be changed by good debating. Any endorsement of violence/racism/homophobia/transphobia is an auto-L + nuked speaker points. Ev-ethics includes shifty citational practices/ev misconstruction or clipping. All ethics challenges stop the debate with no room for continuation. In most scenarios I'm not looking at the doc, which means you should probably have a recording of the speech as proof.

I care about evidence quality far less than most judges. In most instances, substantive debating overrides bad debating with assertion of (X) piece of evidence or (X) author, however I prefer both a good combination of both. I care more about line by line, 3rd/4th level testing, and in-depth clash as opposed to just "how good evidence is". If I wanted to read evidence, I would read a book. I judge debates to see debaters debate out arguments, and reading evidence as a starting point for an RFD when not contested seems paradoxical to the activity.

I do not yell clear during C.I.A. level ear-torturing tactics. Clarity is important, and if you are unclear, the decision and speaks will reflect such. If you ask me about an argument that you "made" that didn't have the effect on a decision you thought it did, it's because you either a. did not explain it well enough to make it that way or b. it was absolutely incoherent and I did not hear or understand it.

LD Specific: Do what you want, everything else applies from above applies.

2. Random/Misc:

Good Speaks Guide: Please do not delay the round/lallygag around, be excessively rude to your opponents, or endorses/argue for any isms. If you start the round on time, set up the email chain before I get into the room, and be generally funny/charismatic, you will get good speaks.

Song Challenge: I usually start speaks at 28.5 and move up/down depending on performance. On a softer note, I usually will listen to music while I write my RFD. Most times, I already have decided a winner after the 2AR has ended, but I always go over my flow/notes one last time before I write or submit my ballot. I love listening to new music, and I listen to every genre imaginable. That being said, I love to hear the tunes y'all have been jamming to recently. To encourage such behavior, debaters have an opportunity to garner extra speaks based on their music suggestions. Each team is allowed to give me one song to listen to while I write my RFD. It cannot be a song I've heard before. If I like the song, you will receive a +.1 to your speaker points. If I don't like it, you won't receive any extra, but I also won't redact any from your original score.

Advice/Help: If you are from LAMDL, debate for a UDL or public school without coaching, I'm willing to help with advice or questions y'all may have.

Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and ldemailchain@gmail.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth

My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.

I am a good judge for you if/A bad judge for you if not

1. You cut good cards and highlight them to make complete arguments in at least B- 7th grade English, which is approximately my level. Read uniqueness. If your disad is non unique, not putting a uniqueness card in the 1NC is not cute, its a waste of time. If your best answers to an IR K are Ravenhall 09 and Reiter 15 you are not meeting this criteria, ditto answering pessimism with "implicit bias is malleable".
2. You debate evidence quality/qualifications and read evidence from academic sources rather than twitter/forum posts. If you are responding to a zany argument not discussed in academia, blog/forum away. If that is not the case I implore you to ask why these sources are the only ones you can find.
3. You listen to what the other team is saying and give a speech that demonstrates that you did by answering all of their arguments correctly and in the order in which they were presented . Do not read a collection of non responsive blocks in random order. And then in follow up speeches you compare/resolve those arguments rather than repeating yourself.
4. You make smart analytics against arguments with obvious weaknesses. Most 1NC disads and 1AC advantages in current debate are incoherent/missing several pieces. You do not have to respond to an incomplete argument, point out it is incomplete and move on. Once completed you get new answers to any part of it.
5. You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
6. You understand your arguments/can explain things. In CX and speeches you should be able to explain words/concepts from your evidence correctly, and be able to apply them. If your link card says "the aff is not disarm" thats not a link, thats an observation
7. You can cover/don't drop things. Grouping things is fine. Making a philosophical argument for why line by line debate is bad, and instead making your argument in the form of big picture conceptual analysis is fine. Randomly saying things in the wrong place, dropping 1/2 of what the other team said and then expecting me to figure out how to apply what you said there is not. I will not make "reject argument not team" for you.

I operate on a "3 strikes" rule: each side gets up to 3 nonsense arguments- a CP that is just a text, a bad disad or advantage, an unexplained perm etc. After that your points and credibility plummet precipitously. If I'm reading your card doc I will stop reading your evidence after 3 cards highlighted into nothing. If you include 3 "rehighlightings" of the other teams evidence that are obviously wrong I will ignore all your evidence/default to the other sides.

If debated by two teams of equal skill/preparation, the following arguments are IMO unwinnable but I vote for them more often than not because the above suggestions are ignored.

-please let us weigh our case or we said the word extinction so Ks don't matter

-the framework is: object of research, you link you lose, debate shapes subjectivity, ethics first without explaining what ethics are/mean

-War good, pollution good, renewables bad- it doesn't matter if these are in right wing heritage impact turn form or academic K form

-the neg needs more than 1cp and 1K for debate to be fair. Arguments like "hard debate is good debate... so make it hard for them" are so bad you should be able to figure it out/not say them

-PICS that do/result in the whole plan are legitimate. The negative can actually win without these, especially on a topic where there are 3 affs.

-counterplans that ban the plan as their only form of competition are legitimate, especially on a topic with only...

hello, i'm enya. i debated for southlake carroll in LD for 4 years, TFA Qual 4x, TOC qual 2x, and broke at the TOC my senior year. i am familiar with both local and national circuits. i'lltry and keep this short.

chain: enyapinjani@gmail.com (prefer speechdrop!!)

quick pref sheet:

theory/topicality - 1

policy - 1

phil - 2 (kant is 1)

tricks - 2-3

k - 4 (cap and security is a 1, pomo is a 4). do NOT pref me for a k v k debate.

i primarily debated policy style arguments until my senior year. my senior year i explored kant, theory, and tricks. i am comfortable evaluating almost every type of debate.

policy: this is fine. i did policy style debate for most of my career. i am not going to be familiar with core topic prep so refrain from buzzwords or at least explain them. i believe condo is good but until a limit. i will evaluate condo bad shells and am not dogmatic about those. i'm also sick and tired of judging tricks debates where the debaters clearly have no critical thinking skills, just technical ability. so a policy v policy debate is greatly appreciated. default judge kick.

theory: also fine. i will evaluate the shell no matter how frivolous it is. however, if your A strat is to read 4 shells against a novice your speaks will be reflected poorly. i default competing interps, drop the debater, and no rvis. i expect you to weigh in a theory debate. i do not know whether stat skew outweighs ground if it not implicated to me. if there is no weighing, i default fairness first.

phil: i am also fine with anything here. if your philosophy is niche, just explain a bit more. i expect warrant explanation (ie idk what conceded degrees of wrongness means in the debate). straight ref debates can get confusing, so weighing is crucial.

k: these are the types of debate i am the worst at evaluating. i read the cap k a lot so that is an exception. i can evaluate the following k debates from best to worst

policy v k

cap v k

phil v k

k v k

additionally, i am not a huge fan of non-topical kritikal affirmatives. if the entirety of your strategy is based on "vote for my aff because of my identity" i am not the judge for you. i find as a judge it is almost impossible to evaluate pre-fiat offense without some level of intervention. i'd prefer a well thought out & topical k aff. additionally, i am starting to see a trend in the circuit where we read non-t k affs with ontology warrants without even justifying ontology. this mainly applies to immigration, feminism, and dalit affs. these barely have real ontology warrants and i need a robust explanation of it for you to convince me otherwise. sorry!

tricks: every argument needs a claim warrant and impact. not voting on it otherwise. same rule applies if you are extending a conceded argument. i do not enjoy aprioris and paradoxes, but like creative substantive tricks. i will still vote on both however. i dont wanna judge a tricks debate though theyre annoying to resolve.

final thoughts:

i'd like to think i'm a pretty fair judge. i believe it is not my place to tell debaters what to read or hack against certain arguments because i don't like them.

lastly, i am pretty generous with speaks. however, as much as i increase them, i can also decrease them. i expect clarity, respect, and some level of ethos. that being said, i will never base my ballot off of how well you spoke (because in that case you should go to speech) so i am comfortable handing out low-point wins. add some cute pictures of your pets for a boost!

random notes:

• i will never vote on eval after "x speech" arguments. these are contradictory because in order for me to evaluate that argument, i need to evaluate the response to that argument in the next speech, which contradicts the original statement. HOWEVER, i will vote on arguments like "evaluate x layer after x speech."
• tech > truth but doesn't mean i don't have a BS meter.
• cx isn't binding unless you tell me it is
• make the round easy for me to evaluate
• don't extend a bunch of arguments and expect me to piece them together
• don't steal prep
• be nice to novices and don't read arguments u don't understand
• be respectful to your opponents and me
• if you’re a girl/gender minority in debate - please dont hesitate to reach out to me for advice, a person to vent to, or reporting bad behavior.

Hi, I'm Breigh!

Legacy Christian '21; UT Austin '25

platbreigh@gmail.com

I qualified to the TOC twice with 6 bids. I mostly read postmodern Ks, theory, and topicality; but I'd strongly prefer if you debated your best layer, the way you'd like to (and will be disappointed if you read something just because you think I'll like it).

UPDATE (9/3/24):

I haven't judged in the last year. Slow down, especially for tags. I am less equipped to evaluate the intricacies of tricks, triggers, etc than I was when I was 18 (not to say don't read them, but to say that you should err on the side of over-explaining if you collapse to them). Nowadays, I spend most of my time thinking about Deleuze and psychoanalysis. None of these things should determine your strategy but just give you some context on where I'm coming from.

Prefs Shortcut

1 – pomo/high theory, theory, T

2 - id pol Ks, phil

3 – cp/da/pics, security/IR Ks

Ks

I think the most important part is the framing — ROB/J need to defend your theory with the same rigor as a dense phil framing.

I feel comfortable adjudicating: Baudrillard, Deleuze, Bataille, Glissant, Yancy, Weheliye, Hardt + Negri, Muñoz, and Ahmed. I have sufficient knowledge about: Foucault, set col, Virilio. I have the least knowledge about: ableism lit, security, anthro, and IR Ks.

K Affs (non T/performance) + T-FWK

Reading K Affs: These affs need an explanation of why the topic is bad, why debate is the space for the aff, and why I should vote aff. Make sure when answering framework to have both a counter interp and impact turns, not just the latter.

Answering K affs: T-FWK is fine but I find it kinda unimpressive. I’ll strongly reward a good case press!

Theory

I like it as a time suck, as an integral part of your strat — whatever you want it to be. I tend to think most shells aren't frivolous, so take that as you will. The only shells I don't like are those that comment on a debater personally (e.g. formal clothes).

I think disclosure debates are a little annoying but I'll vote on them.

I’m think most evidence ethics challenges should be debated out in round; however, if the accuser wants to stake the round on it, I’ll stop the round, read the ev, and decide w the correct debater getting a W30 and the opponent an L20.

Phil:

I’m most familiar w most conventional phil frameworks (Kant, Hegel, existentialism, Levinas etc.) and feel fine adjudicating more nuanced frameworks. Triggering skep is fine + so are calc indicts.

Tricks

I prefer theory tricks (winning one layer to affirm, one uncondo route, etc.) to substantive tricks (trivialism, condo logic, etc.), but I’ll vote on either.

I won't vote on arguments that don't warrant their conclusion (e.g. "the sky is blue so vote aff"). However, even if tricks are silly, that just means it is your job to call them out.

Policy Arguments

I know the least about policy arguments but responded to them more often than virtually any other style of debate. I'm not a fan of doc bots and strongly think smart analytics can often beat cards.

Other -

Robby Gillespie coached me so naturally, I did a lot of thinking about debate with him/he informed 90% of my debate opinions.

Content warnings are not only good, but necessary. I have a zero-tolerance policy on this — ask before round and/or choose your words carefully in round.

If you're debating someone significantly worse than you — you can read basically anything you want as long as [1] you go slowly and explain your positions clearly and kindly in cx [2] you make a genuine effort to make the round educational.

I'll boost your speaks +.3 if you send a nice/encouraging message to someone else in the community and lmk before round — debate is super toxic and we should do everything to make it a kinder space.

Likes!:

- Nebel!!!! good semantics 2ns!!!!

- theory underviews with creative 1ar implications

- making k fwks like analytic phil fwks

- judge instruction, especially in the following areas: fiat/circumvention, 2nr/2ar weighing

Dislikes:

- arguments that disparage the legitimacy of another style (“bad tricks,” “dumb policy args,” "Ks are cheating")

- conceding the aff

- "gut check"

- reading "let us weigh case" in the 1ar v a K when the 1NC didn't preclude you from weighing case

Email: jack.quisenberry.debate@gmail.com

Overall: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy judging policy arguments

Defaults:

- Tech > Truth

- Fairness > Education

- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory

- T/Theory > K

- Comparative Worlds

- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD

- Presumption flips neg unless they go for an alternative advocacy

- No judge kick

I'm not voting on:

- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure)

- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater

- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR

Miscellaneous:

- Email should be sent at the start time - I'll dock .1 speaks for every minute it's not sent

- Prep ends when the email is sent

- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks

Note: Once my timer goes off, I am no longer flowing what you say.

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

I want to be on the email chain: kamorav10@gmail.com

I debated College Policy for 4 years at NYU. Earlier in college I read more soft left Affs with performative elements, but I got more performative and more kritical as my college career progressed. That means I'm open to hearing whatever arguments you want to read as long as you're able to defend them. In terms of policy, I've never read a strictly "policy" AFF, but I've coached teams reading them and am familiar with that style. With this in mind, you should read whatever makes you most comfortable and confident and I'll vibe with you.

Flow - I will flow what I hear. If you're fast, I can keep up as long as you're clear. If I can't understand you I will say "clear." I flow performative elements (music, poetry, dance), but if you think I might not flow something, flag it for me. It's your job to tell me what is most important, I won't do that work for you.

Flashing/email chain - Be organized. I don't want to wait 5 minutes for you to reply to the email chain or flash files. If I feel like you're taking too long prep time will start again. Don't waste my, your opponents’, or your partner's time. Stealing prep is disrespectful and if I see it, your speaker points will be docked. That applies to Novices too (although my threshold is a bit higher) because it's important to get into good habits from the beginning.

Speaking/CX - Be respectful. I love sass and attitude in CX and in speeches, but be aware of where the line is between sass and disrespect. This includes being disrespectful to your own partner (don't talk over them during CX). Debate should be a community and space where we all feel safe, if you jeopardize that and the other team problematizes and impacts this out, I am willing to vote on that outweighing all of your hypothetical policy impacts. If you make me laugh your speaks are going up.

FW/T - I will vote on T and FW, so feel free to read it in front of me. For both AFFs and NEGs, you need to have a clear abuse story and explain to me why your interpretation creates a better model of debate. Don't just say "our model of debate is better for fairness and education," you must also prove to me why those things are necessary and good and why the counter-interp is insufficient.

K - I mostly read them in college and they are my favorite arguments in debate. THERE SHOULD BE CLASH WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE. You need to link specifically to something in the AFF, not the squo. Even though I am familiar with K lit, I'm not going to do work for you. Explain clearly and have a compelling story. You need to show me the world of the Kritik. If at the end of the debate I don't understand what your alt is (how it functions, what it looks like, how it resolves the links, how/if it solves the AFF), I probably won't vote for it. You should be giving explanations that compare the world of the AFF and the world of the K.

NOTE: Be careful if you read anthro against anti-blackness teams. I find it is often argued in very problematic ways and I typically hate hearing anthro in those rounds. I have, however, voted for anthro many times in these rounds (unfortunately), so it can be done successfully, just TREAD CAREFULLY.

DA - Here, it's all about the link and impact debate. Have specific links to the plan and have a cohesive impact story. If you're going for the DA, I want to hear in depth impact comparisons. If everyone is claiming the same impacts or everything leads to extinction, you will need a more robust story to get me to prioritize the DA. My preference is that you read a CP that solves for the DA. If you're not reading a CP that can overcome the DA, make it clear to me why this is worse than the squo.

CP - It's all about solvency and competition. That means you need to have a net benefit.

If I clear you, be clear.

Assistant Coach for Immaculate Heart

Speech Drop > email chain but if you must: passionfruit11905@gmail.com

Policy

CP competition cards need to be in the 1nc

Zero risk is not a thing

Ks
Not very familiar with most K literature so don’t assume I know anything

Fairness is important and I am often persuaded by a case outweighs 2ar

Link walls and framework interpretations need to be in the 1nc— links should also be very specific to the affirmative

The words "post" and "pre" fiat are meaningless to me

Phil

I find it hard it vote for aprioris, paradoxes, etc. unless you have won truth testing, but truthfully I find it hard to vote for those arguments at all. Unsure as to why I find myself judging tricks debates and would prefer not to judge them

I have a strong distaste for analytically justified frameworks — I will hear out your phil AC/NC (I do enjoy philosophy debate), just please read cards

Theory

The more frivolous the shell, the lower the threshold for response

I'm not a fan of Nebel T, impacts that have to do with "novice inclusion" and nit-picky disclosure arguments. I do not feel confident in my ability to evaluate frivolous theory debates and would prefer not to judge them

K Affs & T FW

Neg leaning in these debates, fairness is the best impact

I am unfamiliar with k v k debate

Random

Read offensive re-highlightings, insert defensive ones. Link walls should never be inserted

I flow cx, it's binding

Flow clarification happens during prep/cx

If you are reading an ev ethics violation/clipping stake the round on it and have proof/a recording. Don't read this as a theory argument.

yes, add me to the email chain: claudiaribera24@gmail.com

I've worked/taught at camps such as utnif, stanford, gds, and nsd.

overall thoughts: I believe it's important to be consistent on explicit labeling, generating offense, and extending some sort of impact framing in the debate because this is what ultimately frames my ballot. Debate is a place for you to do you. I will make my decisions based on what was presented to me in a debate and what was on my flow. This means I am unlikely to decide on debates based on my personal feelings about the content/style of an argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance. It is up to the debaters to present and endorse whichever model of debate they want to invest in. Have fun and best of luck!

Case

-- Case is incredibly underutilized and should be an essential part of every negative strategy. You need to have some sort of mechanism that generates offense/defense for you.

Policy affs vs. K

-- I am most familiar with these types of debates. With that being said, I think the affirmative needs to prioritize framing i.e. the consequences of the plan under a util framework. There need to be contestations between the aff framing versus the K's power of theory in order to disprove it, as not desirable, or incoherent, and why your impacts under the plan come first. Point out the flaws of the kritiks alternative and make solvency deficits. Aff teams need to answer the link arguments, read link defense, make perms, and provide reasons/examples of why the plan is preferable/resolve material conditions. Use cross-x to clarify jargon and get the other team to make concessions about their criticism.

CP

-- CP(s) need to have a clear plan text and have an external net benefit, otherwise, I'm inclined to believe there is no reason why the cp would be better than the affirmative. There needs to be clear textual/function competition with the Aff or else the permutation becomes an easy way for me to vote. Same with most arguments, the more specific the better.

-- The 2NR should generally be the counterplan with a DA/Case argument to supplement the net benefit. The 1AR + 2AR needs to have some offense against the counterplan because a purely defensive strategy makes it very hard to beat the counterplan. I enjoy an advantage counterplan/impact turn strategy when it’s applicable. Generally, I think conditionality is good but I can be persuaded otherwise.

DA

-- Please have good evidence and read specific DAs. If you have a good internal link and turn case analysis, your speaker points will be higher. For the aff, I think evidence comparison/callouts coupled with tricky strategies like impact turns or internal link turns to help you win these debates.

Theory

-- I don't really have a threshold on these arguments but lean towards competing interps over reasonability unless told otherwise.

-- When going for theory, please extend offense and weigh between interps/standards/implications.

-- When responding/going for theory, please slow down on the interps/i-meets.

Topicality

-- Comparative analysis between pieces of interpretation evidence wins and loses these debates – as you can probably tell, I err towards competing interpretations in these debates, but I can be convinced that reasonability is a better metric for interpretations, not for an aff. Having well-explained internal links to your limits/ground offense in the 2NR/2AR makes these debates much easier to decide, as opposed to floating claims without warranted analysis. A case list is required. I will not vote for an RVI on T.

T-FW

-- I prefer framework debates a lot more when they're developed in the 1NC/block, as opposed to being super blippy in the constructives and then the entire 2NR. I lean more toward competing interps than reasonability. Aff teams need to answer TVA well, not just say it "won't solve". Framework is about the model of debate the aff justifies, it’s not an argument why K affs are bad or the aff teams are cheaters. If you’re going for framework as a way to exclude entire critical lit bases/structural inequalities/content areas from debate then we are not going to get along. I am persuaded by standards like Clash and topic education over fairness being an intrinsic good/better impact.

K affs vs. T-Framework

-- There are a couple of things you need to do to win: you need to explain the method of your aff, the nuanced framing of the aff, and the impacts that you claim to solve. You should have some sort of an advocacy statement or a role of the ballot for me to evaluate your impacts because this indicates how it links into your framework of the aff. If you’re going to read high theory affs, explain because all I hear are buzzwords that these authors use. Don’t assume I am an expert in this type of literature because I am not and I just have a basic understanding of it. If you don’t do any of these things, I have the right to vote to neg on presumption.

-- You need a counter-interp or counter-model of debate and what debate looks like under this model and then go for your impact turns or disads as net benefits to this. Going for only the net benefits/offense without explaining what your interpretation of what debate should look like will be difficult. The 2AC strategy of saying as many ‘disads’ to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out is likely not going to be successful. Leveraging your aff as an impact turn to framework is always good. The more effectively voting aff can resolve the impact turn the easier it will be to get my ballot.

Kritiks

-- I went for the Kritik in almost every 2NR my senior year. I have been exposed to many different types of scholarship, but I am more familiar with some critical race theory criticisms. This form of debate is what I am most comfortable evaluating. However, it is important to note I have a reasonable threshold for each debater's explanation of whatever theory they present within the round, extensions of links, and impact framing. I need to understand what you are saying in order for me to vote for your criticism.

-- You should have specific links to affirmatives because without them you will probably lose to "these are links to the squo" unless the other team doesn't answer it well. Link debate is a place where you can make strategic turns case/impact analysis. Make sure you have good impact comparison and weighing mechanisms and always have an external impact.

-- The alt debate seems to be one of the most overlooked parts of the K and is usually never explained well enough. This means always explaining the alt thoroughly and how it interacts with the aff. This is an important time that the 2NR needs to dedicate time allocation if you go for the alternative. If you choose not to go for the alternative and go for presumption, make sure you are actually winning an impact-framing claim.

K vs. K

-- These debates are always intriguing.

-- Presumption is underutilized by the neg and permutations are allowed in a methods debate. However, it is up to the teams in front of me to do this. There needs to be an explanation of how your theory of power operates, why it can preclude your opponent’s, how your method or approach is preferable, and how you resolve x issues. Your rebuttals should include impact comparison, framing, link defense/offense, permutation(s), and solvency deficits.

Tricks/frivolous theory/skep

-- I am not the best at evaluating these types of arguments. It is important to extend the claim, warrant, and impact of your argument and WEIGH. Please slow down on analytics that are important, especially in theory debates.

Hello there! My name is Bodhi (Bo-Dee) Rosen -- I did LD debate during the '23-'24 season and got four bids.

Email:
rosenbodhi@gmail.com
breakdocs@googlegroups.com
If you could put both on the chain that would be wonderful!

I'll try to keep this paradigm as short as possible for pre-round convenience. If you have any additional questions, feel free to email me before the round.

I am a first-year out; thus, my judging skills are still very amateur.

Link to my case list: If you want to see what arguments I am extensively familiar with, https://opencaselist.com/hsld23/JamesBowie/BoRo

Defaults:

Competing Interps, No RVI, Comparative Worlds, Util, Epistemic Certainty.

Argument Preference:

Simply put, I have no preference for what you read as long as the argument is sufficiently warranted.

Phil---Yes (I love an excellent Phil debate), Real warrants germane to the Phil > analytic Phil brain-rot with tons of warrants unrelated to the frwk. I will love you if you decide to just take the k up on the link debate instead of going for 1AR restart mumbo jumbo.

K---Yes, I should be able to decipher the K given 1AC/1NC articulation. Also real evidence >>>.

Policy---Of course, Yes intrisicness, condo, pics, but I'm open and willing to buy theoretical objections. I think Lokis wager applies to 2NR evidence, that being if the evidence is used in a response setting against something where it’s needed, e.g, an answer to a poll or a 1AR impact turn then it’s ok, however I’ve seen a decent amount of debaters read entirely new impact and booster evidence in the 2NR which I almost never will evaluate.

Theory/T---Yes, I default to T>Theory, but I'm a blank slate in these debates. Also, -- Actual shells with warranting > “condo is a voter: strat skew, time skew, dispo solves” (aka non-substantiated warrants). Out of round violations are icky, but disclosure is usually an in round issue. Creative counter interps are awesome. 1AR shells in the 2AR should mainly be weighing focus not response focused insofar as the neg doesn’t have a 3NR.

Tricks---Yes, but my willingness to vote on it/give decent speaks is scaled to how much the argument was read to avoid clash. Tricks vs. Tricks and technical rounds are fun. But a Novice/Policy debater vs Eval is pretty sad. Speaking of eval -- lets play a game. If you go for eval, I'll flip a coin and if it lands on heads then you auto L25, tails - the round goes on. I preserve the right to do this since eval indicts my ability to judge the round at all.

Trad/Lay---Yes, but if you pref me high be prepared for the above arguments.

Speaks:

It's hard to have any objective metric for speaks. All I can say is debate as best you can, avoiding clash/winning off your opponent's inexperience instead of the quality of your debating may not warrant the highest speaks. To clarify -- I believe in Tech>Truth to the fullest extent, however: if you either (a) cant just go for substance, or (b) cant give a clean and super quick speech to end the debate earlier, then I calculate this as a lack of technical skill.

I will grant speaks boost to debaters who bring personality into the round, i.e humor or creative ways of spinning your arguments.

Won't grant 30 speaks spikes, sorry.

debatesheff@gmail.com

If policy ALSO add lcandersoncx@gmail.com

If LD ALSO add breakdocs@googlegroups.com

Policy debater at the University of Houston '26

Coach for Seven Lakes HS, LC Anderson WS, and Break Debate

Basics

1. I flow top down on an excel template and do not have the document opened during speeches. I will read evidence while making my decision, but my decision lay solely in the words the debaters use on my flow. I will email debaters a copy of my flow if requested.

2. I am deaf in my left ear which makes clarity very important. If I cannot hear every work in the card text, then I will say clear. If I say clear twice and nothing changes, I will stop flowing.

3. I do not like wasting time in debates. 1AC should be sent before start time. You must use either prep or cross if you seek to ask flow clarification questions.

4. Don’t misgender people.

5. Tech over truth, but dropped arguments are only as good as the dropped argument itself. I have a higher threshold for a warrant than most i.e. If someone makes the argument “Severance is a voting issue pink fuzzy monster”, I will not vote on the argument because there is not a warrant attached to the claim that makes logical sense.

6. The people who receive the highest speaks from me are the people who do good judge instruction, clean line by line, smart strategic decisions, and are generally pleasant in round. My speaks start at 28.5. If you want an easy 27.5, answer a position that was not read in the 1NC.

7. when debating an opponent of low experience,i will heavily reward giving younger debaters the dignity of a real debate they can still participate in(i.e: slower, fewer off, more forthcoming in CX). if you believe the best strategy against a novice/lay debater is extending hidden aspec,i will assume you are too bad at debate to beat a novice without hidden aspec, and speaks will reflect that. these debates are negatively educational and extremely annoying. (Thanks Pat)

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

9. I have been most influenced in the way I think about debate by the following people: Michael Wimsatt, Patrick Fox, Sripad Yadagiri, and Brett Cryan.

Details:

The burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder

Most of my expirence debating is in policy and I have equally gone for planless affirmatives and framework Ks as I have plan affs and process counterplans. This means for LD that I am not great for a lot of detailed phil debates outside of Kant v. Util, in depth theory debating, or moral skepticism.

Evidence-

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

I normally read the important pieces of evidence that the 2NR/2AR tell me to read while making my decisions. I really enjoy quality evidence that looks good and makes the argument you tell me it does. However, as stated above, this does not make up for evidence comparison.

Counterplans-

I default judge kick unless argued otherwise. I am firmly neg on condo and thus have an extremely low bar for answering it. If the negative somehow messes up condo it can still be a 2AR.

I lean neg on most questions of counterplan theory outside of I-fiat, private actor fiat, and multi actor fiat. However, I feel like all these arguments are better made as competition arguments rather than theory arguments.

Equally fine for text and function vs just function. Textual alone doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

I love quality advantage counterplan writing. Most affs do not have a plan-key warrant in 90% of their scenarios, and negative debaters should exploit this fact far more than they are currently doing.

Disadvantages-

Please stop putting together slop and calling it a DA. I think 1NCs can sacrifice their throwaway DA that they will never go for in favor of more cards on their good DAs.

2NRs need more big turns case pushes on both the impact and link level. 2NRs also need more time on the comparative level of internal link and impact scenarios. Simply saying the DA is faster than the aff does not mean anything absent judge instruction tied to why that matters.

Kritiks-

I am unsure of what the words role of the judge/role of the ballot means outside of framework justifications. I am best for delete the plan and plan focus.

I am not great for performance teams. I am good for more “techy” teams that read good evidence.

Policy Aff v. K

Aff: Talk about the aff more, read less generic cards, No you probably didn’t do a microagression, Go for what the aff is built to defend, the more defensively you debate the more likely the negative will get a link.

Neg: Talk about the aff more, read less generic cards, no the aff probably didn’t do a microagression, Apply the theory of power more, det rid of the overview and do line by line.

K v. K

I go for Maoism 99% of the time when I negate K teams. I think K teams are bad at responding to the Cap K and people should be far more comfortable going for it.

Aff: Apply the theory of power to explain the links, make framework arguments, read better cards, explain the net benefit to the permutation

Neg: Do the theory of power debating on the link debate and delete your overview, pull more lines from the aff, explain how the alt solve the links, explain why the links are DAs to the permuations.

Planless affirmative v. topicality

Aff: Biggest problem aff teams have is lack of picking a strategy and instead just trying to throw everything at the wall and hope it sticks. You should delete the fluff from the 1AR and over develop the strategy you want to go for in the 2AR.

Neg: Fairness is good, do the explanation of why fairness matters/outweighs, better for carded skills than whatever clash means. I think of T as a DA to not reading a plan, explain it that way.

Hi!

My name is Alexis Sibanda (she/her)

Education:

Coppell High School '23 (Debated policy for 3 years and LD for 1 year)

RPI '27 (pursuing a B.S in Physics and Mathematics with a Pre-Law minor)

Debate Teaching/Coaching:

• Middle School Debate Instructor at Coppell Debate Academy (22-23)
• LD Instructor at Mean Green Comet Debate Camp (23-24)

Please add me to the email chain: ratisibbs@gmail.com

General Info:

Firstly, BE RESPECTFUL — Don't do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or un-inclusive - Debate should be a space in which people feel comfortable to exist as themselves and put themselves out there. I will not hesitate to take action if it gets out of hand whether that means docking speaks, voting a team down, or reporting behavior, but y’all should be fine as long as you keep respect in mind. :)

Speaks:

Feel free to spread, just make sure you’re clear. I'll say clear if I can't understand. I’m not too much of a stickler with speaks just keep clarity, organization, and good argument engagement in mind and high speaker points will likely follow.

Notes:

Feel free to ask any questions you want in round or even through email. I will make sure to answer to the best of my ability! All in all, just make sure you’re having fun! That’s the most important part. :)

Policy Debate/LD:

Topical Policy AFFs:

I completely understand these debates, so go for it! I’m chill with any type of argument as long as they are articulated well. Make sure to weigh the arguments and explain the story of your impacts under your articulated framework. Telling a clear link story is key to these debates!

T:

Go for it! I’m very middle of the road on this. Whoever does the better articulation of why their interp and impacts are better gets my vote on this flow. Don’t just assume that because you win the flow you win the debate. Make sure to articulate as to why this matters and affects the rest of the debate if you want a ballot off of this flow as I am less likely to vote solely on T w/o any type of explanation of that.

Kritiks:

I enjoy K debates! Feel free to go for it (as long as you know what you are doing). I'm a K debater and read policy positions so I get both. I run Black nihilism, afropess, black fem, afrofuturism, etc. but I’m pretty well versed in most lit bases that people tend to read with more familiarity in identity ks but I can still evaluate most others too. Make sure to explain to me what ur scholarship says in your rebuttals especially: I won’t do the work for u. Articulating the story of the K in context with the debate is vital to a ballot.

World Schools:

In WSD, I am a pretty neutral judge. Though most of my debate experience is in policy debate and LD, I also have some experience with judging WSD rounds from working at Coppell Debate Academy and stuff over the years so I have a decent understanding of it. Honestly, just do you and you should be fine.

Style: keep clarity, organization, and good argument engagement in mind and you should be fine. Be persuasive.

Content: TL;DR - Warrant/Claim/Impact, extensions, weighing, and clash. Every argument has to be fully formed and made explicitly. Don't make me have to intervene in order for the argument to make any type of sense. Explain what it is why it will happen and why I care (heavy on the why I care as that piece will implicate its level of importance on my flow and how I formulate my ballot). Make sure that we are extending our arguments throughout the debate. I don't want to have just random floating arguments on my flow by the final speech I should be able to draw a line back to wherever they came from.

Strategy: Everyone should engage in POIs. Take at least 1-2 per speech and the opposing team should be asking multiple. However, don't be asking them so many that they are unable to complete their speech. Be intentional about the POIs you're making. Make sure you are actively doing something to poke holes in your opponents' arguments or set up your own arguments, etc. Make sure that they are doing something. World Building and world comparison is key.

For the most part, these are my thoughts but feel free to ask me any questions and I would be happy to clarify my stance on anything. Thanks so much. All in all have fun!

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

email: s.stolte33@gmail.com

**prep time stops when the email is sent, stop stealing prep**

Updates 24-25 (more recent towards top)

-I did not spend my summer looking at IPR evidence or cases coming out of camp.Like zero.Do not assume based on past knowledge that I know what the acronyms you are using or what your plan does. You should be explaining things as you would to any other judge who did not work a summer camp/does not know the topic well

-maybe this is really "get off my lawn" of me, but the correlation between teams who under-highlight evidence and who are incomprehensibly unclear is becoming increasingly frustrating to me. It won't necessarily lose you the debate, but surely these practices don't help anyone

-LD living wage: See above ^ It feels like almost every "give a living wage to XYZ worker" aff has some 'creatively' highlighted ev that more often than not indicates a lack of competitive wages, but not lack of living wages

_________________________________________________________________

Do what you do well:I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do best and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates:No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. See above statement about highlighting, but it's hard to buy an argument when the card read supporting it consists of like 3 disparately highlighted sentences and no warrants read. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate. Things you can do to fix this: pen time on theory args, numbering responses, not making a bunch of blippy analytical arguments back-to-back-to-back.

-Inserting evidence/CP text/perms: you have to say the words for me to consider it an argument

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates. I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that K debate has stagnated to the point where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

FOR LD PREFS (may be useful-ish for policy folks)

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters.

3) I'll be honest, if you're going to read 10 blippy theory args/spikes, I'm already having a bad time

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) If you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you (read phil tricks/justifications to not answer neg offense). I'll try my best, but I often find myself struggling to find a reason why the aff/neg case has offense to vote on. I don't offhandedly know what words like 'permissiblity' or 'skep' mean and honestly everytime someone describes them to me they sound like nonsense and no one can actually articulate why they result in any sort of offense for the team reading them

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can *seriously* be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range28.4-28.5average;28.6-28.7should have a chance to clear;28.8-28.9pretty good but some strategic blunders;29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

Updated 1/28/2024

Quick Q&A:

1. Yes, include me on the doc chain – mrgrtstrong685@gmail.com

2. No, I am not ok with you just putting the card in the text of the email. Even if it’s just one card

3. Idk if the aff has to read a plan. I went for framework and read a plan, so I'm definitely more versed in that side of the debate, but I'm frequently in support of identity-based challenges to framework. I went for framework because it was the best thing I knew how to go for, not because it was objectively the best

4. No, you should not try to read Baudrillard or other post-modern theories against me. (Yes. Against me.) This is not a challenge. It's not a threat, it's a warning, be careful with me. I am admitting insurmountable bias.

5. Yes, you should (please) slow down while debating (ESPECIALLY) if you are online. There are glitches in streaming and it’s hard enough to understand you. For a while, I tried following along with the docs when I missed something, but we all know that leads to more errors. This is your warning: if you are not clear enough to flow I will not try to flow it. I will give two warnings to be clear (and one after your speech in case you didn’t hear me). If you choose to keep doing you, don’t expect to win or for me to know what you said. On the flip side, if you are actively slowing down to make the debate comprehensible, you will be rewarded with a speaker point bump. I am not asking for a conversation speed debate, I am asking for you to be sow enough that you are clear. If that is super fast, good for you. If that is slower, sorry but that's the speed you should go.

6. JESUS CHRIST PLEASE stop trying to debate how you think I want you to. It's never a good look to over-adapt. The only exception is if you want to go for Baudrillard and somehow ended up with me as a judge. Then please over-adapt. I cannot stress enough the importance of adaptation if you are trying to tell me post-modern theory or that death is cool.

7. I don't like to read cards as a default because decision time is 20 minutes assuming there were no delays in the round. If a card is called into question or my BS meter is going off, I will read the card. Absent that, I'm mostly about the flow and ethos. Tell me what warrants in your card you want me to know about. Point out the parts in the other team's evidence that are bad for them. That makes my judging job easier, causes me to read the card, AND gives you a sick speaker point boost.

8. AI-generated cards are an auto -2.5 speaker points. This is embarrassing. I'm open to hear it's a reason to reject the team.

9. DISCLOSURE IS GOOD

WARNINGS:

1. I am chronically ill. If you pref me, there is a chance I have a flare up while judging you. This means I will finish the debate with my camera off but am still there. I just want some privacy while sick/you really don't want to see my face if I turn my camera off. If we are in person this may mean a slight delay in the debate. One time and one time only I have gotten so sick in a debate that a bye was given to both teams. So pref me if you want the chance of a free win!
2. I am a blunt judge. When I say that I mean I am autistic and frequently do not know how to convey or perceive tone in the way that other do. If you post-round me, I wont call you out of your name, but I will be very clear about your skills (or lack thereof) in the debate.
3. I also might cry...I'm clinically hypersensitive from CPTSD. Sometimes people assume I have a tone and "match" or "reraise" what they think I'm doing. If I cry and you weren't being a total jerk, don't over-apologize and make the RFD about me, lets just plan on a written RFD in that case.
4. I appreciate trigger warnings about sexual abuse. I will not vote on trigger warning voters because it's impossible to know everyone's trigger and ultimately we are responsible for our own triggers. All debaters who wish to avoid triggers should inform opponents before the round, not center the debate on it. I'd rather use "tech time" for the triggered debater to try to get back to their usual emotional state and try to finish the round if desired.
5. If the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to sexual harassment/abuse, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.

• This does not include self-expression. I would prefer not to see an erotic performance from high schoolers as an adult, but I am able to do so without sexualizing said debaters. There are limits to this, as you are minors and this is a school activity. Please do not make me have to stop the round because you exposed yourself to the other team, or something similar. If you are in college I still feel like you are a student, but I will honor that you have the right to express yourself without sexualizing you. Please no "flashing" without consent - that is sexual harassment/assault.
• This also does not include a Black debater using the N-word.
• When in doubt, don’t make it your goal to traumatize the other team and we will all be fine.
• If you ask a team to say a slur in CX I will interrupt the debate to change course, though I will not auto-vote against you. I don’t think we should encourage people to say slurs to try to prove a point. Find another way, or don’t pref me.

The longer version:

Speaker points:

I've been told you need to average a 29.2 to clear nowadays. Because of that:

-a learning speech will be 28.4-28.7,

-an average speech will be 28.8-29.1,

-a clearing level speech will be 29.2-29.5,

-a top ten speaker will be 29.6-29.9.

I'm not giving 30s. Ya gotta be perfect to get a 30, and Hannah Montana taught me that nobody's perfect.

If you get below a 28.4 you probably severely annoyed me.

If you get below a 28, you were probably a problem in the debate, ethically.

I have yet to give a low point win, to my memory. I generally think winning is a part of speaking well. If you cause your team to lose the debate, you’re likely to get lower points.

Speaker-point factors:

- Did you debate well?

- Were you clear?

- Did you maintain my attention?

- Did you make me laugh, critically think, or gasp?

- Did your arguments or behavior in the debate make me cringe?

- Were you going way too hard in a debate against less experienced debaters and made them feel bad for no reason?

K STUFF:

Planless Clash debates:

-I’ve rarely judged a planless debate where the neg has not gone for framework. In instances where I have, the neg was policy style impact turning a concept of the aff, not going for a K based on a different theory of the world.

-I generally went for framework against planless affirmatives when I debated, and therefore am a bit deeper on the neg side of things. That being said, I also have a standard for what the neg needs to do to make a complete argument.

-I don’t think topicality, or adhering to a resolution, is analogous to rape, slavery, or other atrocities. That doesn't mean arguments about misogynoir, pornotroping, or other arguments of that nature don't work with me. I understand the logic of something being problematic. It's just the oversimplification of theory into false comparisons I take issue with.

-I don’t think that not being topical will cause everyone to quit, lose all ability to navigate existential crises, or other tedious internal link chains. That being said, I love an external impact to framework that defends the politics of government action.

-I would really prefer if people had reasonable arguments on topicality for why or why they don’t need to read a plan, rather than explaining to me their existential impact to voting aff or neg. In the same way that I'm not persuaded the neg will quit or extinction will happen if you don't read a plan, I also don't think extinction will happen if you lose to topicality. Focus instead on the real debate impacts at hand. Though, as said above, I love a good defense of your politics, and if that has a silly extinction impact that's fine.

-I find myself persuaded that the case can not outweigh topicality. Arguments from the case can be used to impact turn topicality, but that is distinct from “case outweighs limits” in my mind. T is a gateway issue. If the neg goes for T, that's what the debate is about. This is why I think many planless 1ACs are best when they have a built-in angle against framework.

-indicts to procedural fairness impacts are persuasive to me.

-modern concrete examples of incrementalism failing or working help a lot

-aff teams need to explain how their counter interpretation solves the neg impacts as well as their impact turns.

-neg teams need to turn the aff impacts and have external offense of their own. Teams frequently do one or the other

Neg K v plans:

-Generally, the alt won’t solve when the aff does a serious push, but the aff will let the neg get away with murder on alt solvency.

-Generally, the alt doing the plan is a reason to reject the alt/team absent a framework debate, which is fine.

-Generally, contradictions justify severance

-Always, the neg is allowed to read Ks

-I'm getting more and more persuaded the neg needs a big push on framework to beat the perm. If the alt is fiated and not mutually exclusive with the plan, there is almost no way to convince me that the perm won't solve. This is not true on topics where the alt impact turns the resolution. You truly can't do both sometimes.

-Framework debates are won by engaging the theory aspect and is pragmatism/action desirable, not just one. Typically the neg spends a bunch of time winning the aff is an unethical method, while the aff is talking about fairness and limits.

-please slow down on framework blocks!

K v K debate:

I tend to find myself thinking of things in terms of causality, so if that’s not your jam you gotta tell me not to think in that way. I have *technically* judged a K v K debate, but I'm pretty sure it was a cap debate that was more impact turn-y than theory of power-y.

I'm interested in seeing debates like this despite my lack of experience.

K stuff in general:

-My degree is in math. While y’all were reading a lot of background lit, I was doing abstract algebra. You might have to break it down a bit. I'm reading a bit more of the stuff y'all debate from in grad school, but it's still safe to eli5. My masters work is mostly on pop culture, hip-hop, and Black Feminist literature. If you want to debate about Megan Thee Stallion, I should be your ordinal one because it is the topic of my thesis.

-I am more persuaded by identity or constructivism than post-modernism. I am the opposite of persuaded by post-modernism.

-I DO NOT recommend reading Baudrillard, Bataille, etc. You might think "but I'm the one that will change her mind;" you aren't. I will be annoyed for having to judge the debate tbh. You have free will to read it if you want, but I have free will to tank your points with ZERO remorse. If this third warning doesn't do it for you, you are responsible for your speaker points. If I was swapped in to judge your debate last minute, I won't tank your speaks. I only clarify because this happened to a team once.

PF/LD:

I have coached LD and PF for years, but it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates. I was trained for 8 years as a policy debater and continue to coach that format. I have participated in both LD and PF debates a few times in high school, so I’m not a full outsider

LD

I’m not a trickster and I refuse to learn how Kant relates to the topic. Similarly, theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are silly to me. Plan flaws are better when the aff results in something meaningfully different from what they intend to, not something that an editor would fix. I’m not voting/evaluating until the final speech ends. Period.

Dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

PF:

Do not pref me if you paraphrase evidence.

Do not pref me if you do not have a copy of your evidence/relevant part of the article AND full-text article for your opponent upon request.

Do not pref me if you don't want to disclose your arguments.

Please stop with the post-speech evidence swap, make an email chain before the debate, and send your evidence ahead of time. If your case includes analytics you don’t want to send, that’s fine, though I think it’s kinda weaksauce to not disclose your arguments. If the argument is good, it should withstand an answer from the opponent.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be an untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

No need to knock on the table when time runs out for the other team. I come from policy and I don't think it's rude to have a timer go off. I think it's more rude to have your time go over while speaking, than to tell someone they are over time.

POLICY STUFF:

CPs:

-Tell me if I can (or can’t!) kick it for you. I may or may not remember to if you don’t. I may or may not feel like you are allowed to if you don’t.

-Reading definitions of should means the perm or theory is in tough shape. It's not unwinnable, but I was a 2A… Tricky process counterplans that argue to result in the aff by means of solvency, but are *actually* competitive (more than just should and resolved definitions), game on. If that means you have to define some topic words in an interesting way, I'm fine with that. Also, despite being a classic 2A, I find myself holding the aff to a higher standard sometimes. Maybe it's because I went to MSU, but a lot of times I find myself thinking "this CP obviously doesn't solve. why doesn't the aff just say that or try to cut a card about it???"

-Make the intrinsic perm great again!

-Links to the net benefit is usually a sliding scale. But sometimes links have a certain threshold where it doesn’t matter which links less. Please consider this nuance when debating.

Theory:

-TBH – y’all blaze through theory blocks with no clarity and then get confused when I have no standards written down. These debates are bad. Be more clear. Speak at a flowable pace. Maybe make your own arguments. Idk.

-It is debatable whether an argument is a reason to reject the argument or team.

-2ACs that spend 15-plus seconds on the theory shell will see a lot more mileage and viability for the 2AR. One-sentence blips with no warrants and flow checks will be treated as such.

-impact comparison and turns case are lost arts in theory debates.

DAs:

-Yes, there can be zero DA. No, it’s not as common as you think.

-answer turns case!!!

Hi! I’m Lizzie Su (she/her). I'm currently an assistant coach for Immaculate Heart.

lizziesu425@gmail.com - reach out w/ qs

TLDR: second year out, mostly read policy but dabbled in phil. will vote on any complete argument (bar the -isms) but you should err on the side of over-explaining something if you don’t think I’m familiar

visit ld.circuitdebater.org and share with your friends

important things

--defaults/changed with a sentence: permissibility negates, policy presumption, 1ar theory is dta

--no strong argumentative preferences but I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. I will give the rfd that says "I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr" or "this is not on my flow" if needed. If you would like to thoroughly explain why skep is true/a reason to negate or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of "they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff" isn't going to cut it.

--related list of non-arguments: "aspec they didnt," "no 2nr i meets" + 1ar shell they don't violate, eval after the 1ac, no aff args, no neg args. subject to change without notice!

--flow. take prep/cx for clarification (re: marked docs - minimize dead time!)

--i flow straight down in Excel by ear only. Speech docs will not be open during a speech. i shouldn't need to read evidence if you do enough comparison in round. it's on you to catch your opponent clipping with a recording.

--feel free to respectfully disagree with my decisions

argument 'preferences'

--very good for policy stuff.

--good for phil v util or phil v k

--fine for the k if you talk about the aff.

--not great for phil v phil or k v k but walk me through it and we’ll probably be fine

re: speaks

--boosted for strategic pivots and good ethos (read: smart CX, not distasteful zingers). If I enjoy watching/judging the debate, you will enjoy your speaks.

--docked for splitting the 2NR/2AR 5 different ways or otherwise making the debate irresolvable.

--docked if you ask for 30 speaks

--it has come to my attention that i was a speaks demon/goblin this past year. i'll try to be nicer.

--give me like an extra .5s to get to the counterplan flow before you say permdobothpermdothecounterplan. thanks!

--reading a 2NR off a doc full of cards you did not cut yourself is probably the least persuasive thing in debate

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

Affiliation: Marlborough (CA), Apple Valley (MN)

Past: Peninsula (CA), Lexington (MA)

Email: ctheis09@gmail.com — but I prefer to use speechdrop.net

Big Picture

I like substantive and engaging debates focused on the topic's core controversies. While I greatly appreciate creative strategy, I prefer deeply warranted arguments backed by solid evidence to absurd arguments made for purely tactical reasons.

I find the tech or truth construction to be reductive — both matter. I will try to evaluate claims through a more-or-less Bayesian lens. This means my knowledge of the world establishes a baseline for the plausibility of claims, and those priors are updated by the arguments made in a debate. This doesn’t mean I’ll intervene based on my preexisting beliefs; instead, it will take much more to win that 2+2=5 than to prove that grass is green.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" — Carl Sagan

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" — Christopher Hitchens

Default Paradigm

I default to viewing resolutions as normative statements that divide ground, but I’m open to arguments in favor of alternative paradigms. In general, I believe the affirmative should defend a topical policy action that's a shift from the status quo. The negative burden is generally to defend the desirability of the status quo or competitive advocacy.

Affirmatives should advocate a clearly delineated plan or advocacy, which can be the resolution itself. The aff's advocacy text is the basis for negative competition and links, and as such, it must contain any information the aff feels is relevant to those discussions. Affs cannot refuse to specify or answer questions regarding elements of their advocacy and then later make permutations or no-link arguments that depend on those elements. "Normal means" claims can be an exception but require evidence that the feature in question is assumed. Proof that some possible version of the aff could include such a feature is insufficient. Refusal to answer direct questions about a particular element of the advocacy will likely take "normal means" claims off the table.

I prefer policy/stock arguments, but I’m certainly open to critical or philosophical positions and vote for them often.

If you refer to your arguments as “tricks,” it’s a good sign that I’m not the best judge for you. Debaters should, whenever possible, advance the best arguments at their disposal. Calling your argument a "trick" implies its value lies in surprise or deception, not quality.

Note: an odd topic construction could alter these priors, but I'll do my best to make that known here if that's the case.

Topicality

Generally, affirmatives should be topical. I have and will vote for non-topical positions, but the burden is on the aff to justify why the topicality constraint shouldn't apply to them.

Topicality is a question of whether the features of the plan/advocacy itself being a good idea proves the resolution. This means I will look unfavorably on a position that is effects topical, extra-topical, or related to the topic but doesn't in and of itself prove the resolution.

In topicality debates, both semantics and pragmatic justifications are essential. However, interpretations must be "semantically eligible" before I evaluate pragmatic advantages. Pragmatic advantages are relevant in deciding between plausible interpretations of the words in the resolution; pragmatics can't make those words mean something they don't. I will err aff if topicality is a close call.

Theory Defaults

Disclosure is good.

Conditionality is good.

Default to judge kick.

No inserting evidence. Re-highlights should be read aloud.

Kritiks

I am open to Ks and vote on them frequently. That said, I’m not intimately familiar with every critical literature base. So, clear explanation, framing, and argument interaction are essential. Likewise, the more material your impacts and alternative are, the better. Again, the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof. It will take more to convince me of the strongest claims of psychoanalysis than that capitalism results in exploitation.

Establishing clear links that generate offense is necessary. Too often, Ks try to turn fundamentally defensive claims into offense via jargon and obfuscation. A claim that the aff can’t or doesn't solve some impact is not necessarily a claim the aff is a bad idea.

It's essential that I understand the alternative and how it resolves the harms of the Kritik. I won't vote for an advocacy that I can't confidently articulate.

Arguments I will not vote for

An argument that has no normative implications, except in situations where the debater develops and wins an argument that changes my default assumptions.

Skep.

A strategy that purposely attempts to wash the debate to trigger permissibility/presumption.

A contingent framework/advocacy that is "triggered" in a later speech.

Any argument that asks me to evaluate the debate after a speech that isn't the 2AR.

Arguments/Practices I will immediately drop you for

Mis-disclosing/disclosure games. I believe a few emerging practices cross the line into mis-disclosure and intentional deception, they will result in a loss:

• Hiding/adding theory arguments or tricks in the constructive without including them in the doc that's disclosed pre-round and/or the doc sent out in the debate. This is intentional deception.
• Disclosing AC cards that you don't intend to read. It's intentional deception that sucks up prep time and skews NC strategy. It's understandable if it's a card or two, but I routinely see debaters disclosing 10+ cards they don't read.

Clipping. (There is an emerging practice of including long descriptive tags in the docs sent out during debates but only reading truncated versions. I consider this clipping adjacent. By sending analytics, you're representing that they were read in the round.)

Any argument that concludes that every action is permissible.

Any argument that creates a hostile environment for either myself, the other debater, or anyone watching the debate.

Any argument that explicitly argues that something we all agree is awful (genocide, rape, etc.) is a good thing. This must be an argument THAT THE DEBATER AGREES implies horrible things are ok. If the other debater wins an argument that your framework justifies something terrible, but it is contested, then it may count as a reason not to accept your framework, but it will not be a reason to drop you on its own.

Public Forum

I only judge PF a few times a year, mostly at camp. Arguments are arguments regardless of the format, so most of my typical paradigm applies. The big caveat is that I strongly prefer teams read actual cards instead of paraphrasing evidence. I understand that there are differences of opinion, so I won't discount paraphrasing entirely, but I'll have a lower bar for indicts. Also, I'm not reading ten full articles at the end of the debate, so I'd appreciate it if you could prepare the paraphrased portions in advance.

UPDATED: 4/6/2025

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest. I have a particularly difficult time hearing and flowing fast analytics, particularly when they are blippy, so deploy this strategy at your own risk.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence and Speech Document Sharing

Barring extenuating circumstances (e.g. a tech meltdown), speech documents should be shared with your opponent and me electronically. I will not evaluate arguments shared with me but not your opponent.

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red-flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. Reading 30-speaker-points theory will result in a severe reduction in your speaker points.

I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. A false accusation of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

The Kinkaid School, Vanguard Debate

'24 NDT Doubles

ptraxlerdebate@gmail.com

HSLD: vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

Basics

1. I will flow on paper and then decide the debate based on the arguments on said flow, conditioned by the caveats and biases delineated further below. If I do not have paper, I will flow on Excel.

2. My hearing is bad. Clarity is extremely important. If you're unclear, I'll yell "clear" twice, and then play games on my phone.

3. I prefer clash. I detest tricks, RVIs, and most non-resolutional theory. If you're wondering whether your argument constitutes a "trick", you probably shouldn't read it.

My desire to vote for you goes down the more I believe you are just trolling. If you don't care, I won't either.

4. If you ask for a 30, I will give you the lowest speaker points permitted by the tournament.

5. Introducing a callout, character assassination, or otherwise unverifiable beef will result in an auto-loss, the execution of rule 4, and the contacting of Tab and/or coaches.

6. There is no flow clarification period. Asking for a marked doc or "what was X argument" is CX or flex prep.

7. Inserting is fine until someone makes an argument about it.

Plans

Your advantage(s) are probably bad. However, the neg rarely takes time to explain why, and frequently opts to only meekly extend impact defense. A neg that can exceed this practice will be rewarded.

Counterplans

Judge kick unless argued otherwise or the CP is unconditional. "Conditionality bad" is a non-starter and will be met with a verbal interruption.

Fine for both "must compete functionally" and "must compete functionally and textually". Textual competition seems difficult, but I am not diametrically opposed to it.

I dislike recycling. Most process CPs probably fail to resolve their net benefit, solve case, and are structurally incoherent.

Theory is best when couched as a competition argument and is never a reason to reject the team. I am frequently persuaded by neg appeals to arbitrariness - "process CPs bad" is untenable. "Must only fiat the resolutional actor", however, is fine.

Intuitive analytic advantage CPs are under-utilized. The glaring lack of "plan key" is astonishing and should be punished more frequently.

Disadvantages

Your politics DA is likely an incomplete 1NC argument and can be quickly vaporized with well-informed analytics.

Impact calculus is, by definition, comparative. Explaining your impact and sprinkling in terms like "magnitude" without referencing the advantage probably does not constitute comparison.

Topicality

I don't have a strong opinion on reasonability vs. competing interpretations. Reasonability should have offense that can outweigh the neg's gut check/arbitrariness standards.

Kritiks

I am very bad for "middle ground", but good for either "no K" or "no plan".

The neg should explain how they generate uniqueness for their offense, whether that is via an alternative or framework argument. However, I can be persuaded by "reject things that are bad".

The aff frequently forgets that they read an advantage, which causes the 2AC to debate on the neg's playground. Less generic card reading and more leveraging the aff vs. their theory of power, links, alternative, and framework arguments.

Planless Affs

Framework is an argument that demonstrates the utility of debate, i.e., why debate is good (and ideally, why it is good for the aff).

Fairness is good, but there is no reason it should be the entire 2NR. The substantive justifications for fairness are compelling, but are too simple to require 6 minutes.

I think about framework very similarly to a disadvantage - the opportunity cost to voting aff is topical debates. The neg should utilize turns case language, which is best accomplished via skills, not fairness.

Very rarely is "subject formation" explained. I am bad for "debate can change your opinion/turn you into an activist", and very bad for "debate can't change subjectivity at all". There is a middle ground that naturally favors the neg.

The TVA/SSD are overestimated in their ability to mitigate impact turns, but excellent at demonstrating turns case/offense (when explained meaningfully). The TVA is also not a CP.

I am not very good for kritik vs. kritik debates (yet).

Email chains: vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

Inquiries: lydiawang327@gmail.com - I do not check this one during tournaments, so please do not send email chains here.

Sammamish '23, University of Houston '25

Coaching Kinkaid & Vanguard Debate

Top level:

Shortcut---Policy/Theory/K>Phil>Tricks

Callouts, Ad homs, screenshots = auto loss. I am not here to evaluate the character of the debaters in the round, just the arguments that are made. If there is an issue with safety in the round, you should contact your coach. This doesn't mean no disclosure theory, screenshots here are fine if you also forward the email chain to me/ link to wiki.

Explain the rehighlighting if it is important---debate is a communicative activity, if you say "insert rehighlighting" with no explanation of the evidence, it will not end up on my flow.

---There are only speech time, cx time, and prep time, there is no such thing as flow clarification time---this is either prep or CX.
I try to pay attention in CX but honestly my attention span sucks, if something is important tell me during CX.
I don't open the doc when I flow, so if there are contestations over extemped arguments then you also need to flag it because I honestly don't know if an argument is in the doc or not until it's mentioned or after the debate.

Policy:

- Default judge kick unless it's contested.

- Condo is good, Dispo does not mean you can set whatever condition you want, it means the NEG can't kick it if the AFF has straight turned the net benefit.

- Love a good politics debate - better for spin on evidence here than most others. However, smart AFF analytics can take out poorly constructed politics DAs.

Planless AFFs:

- Prefer AFFs that clearly defend and commits to a concrete action/advocacy out of the 1AC.

- It will be hard to convince me that framework is "psychological violence".

- Dislike framework 2NRs that assume every 1AR DA is the "policing DA", I feel very comfortable voting AFF on a DA to framework if the 2NR doesn't interact with it or do judge instruction about why other arguments on the flow takes it out.
- Fine for intrinsicness debates against disads, would rather the AFF justify this earlier in the debate rather than later.

Ks:

- Should prove that the plan is a bad idea.

- Prefer Ks that are functionally DA+CP that turns and solves case, but am also fine for framework Ks when done well.

- Uninterested in listening to super long overviews that don't serve any strategic purpose.

LD:

- Strike me if you plan on spreading through 30 lines of analytics the same way you spread through a card, if you are unflowable I will just flow in my head. (People seem to be ignoring this recently, slow down on analytics or you will get 27 speaks.)

- "Debate is hard" is not a real warrant for theory. Default DTD, No RVIs, and Competing Interps on theory. I actually enjoy a good theory debate but the second it becomes affirming harder vs negating harder I will be sad.

- Evidence matters---I will not follow along during your speech but will look at evidence that is debated out in the round. Good research will be awarded with good speaker points.

- Been judging alot of phil rounds recently, I'm not good for these debates so err on the side of more judge instruction.

- No new 2NR cards unless you can point to which 1AR argument it directly answers. There is NO 2NC in LD.

- If your argument relies on your opponent dropping it for you to be able to win on it, then I probably will not like it - Clash is necessary for good debates. I do not vote on: Eval after 1AC/1NC, 30 Speaks theory, "I'm the GCB", No AFF/NEG analytics,

She/Her

alice.debatedocs@gmail.com

Affiliations: Heights '23, Coaching Harker LD

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

TL;DR

My two goals when I judge are to (1) ensure that the space is safe for everyone and (2) evaluate the debate in front of me as neutrally as possible so long as it is not one of the 7 things below.

I strongly dislike intervention, but also think that, to some degree, it is inevitable regardless of the judge. I have tried to structure this paradigm to explain how to predict when/what intervention may occur + how to prevent it/overcome my natural intuitions.

I believe that debate is a research AND communication acitivity. This means I want to understand your arguments as you are reading them, I want you to tell me how I should be evaluating parts of the debate and evidence, and I do not want to (and will not) read documents to help me understand what is going on in the round.

Debate should be fun!!! :)

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

PF Update (Bellaire):

Please do not paraphrase evidence. Additionally, please make sure to have the full information available when citing a source in a speech (see below for evidence ethics).

Send each other evidence at the beginning of speeches, NOT between speeches during an untimed period.

I have not judged PF before and my background is only in LD and Policy, therefore I will not understand many structural things.

Kritiks, CPs, and theory do not make much sense to me in PF unless they are reasons the resolution are true/false.

If you want me to evaluate something it MUST be in a final speech. Additionally, you must answer arguments following the speech they are originally made. The only exception is the first two constructive speeches since I believe the norm in these speeches is you can introduce new arguments and are not required to contest arguments directly in the speech before. If your opponent does not extend offense in the speech following your defense against it, you do not have to extend the defense because I will stop evaluating the offense.

In PF, I understand the affirmative burden to prove the resolution true and the negative to prove the resolution false. The "burden of rejoinder" for the negative does not make sense because sometimes the negative goes first and I am not sure how you predict the aff plan and then rejoin it if you do not know what it is?

Non topical affirmatives for the reason above are a non-starter in PF.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Will not evaluate:

(1) ad homs/ arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you talk to a coach)

(2) any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, etc.) The round will end.

(3) eval after [x] speech

(4) give me/my opponent [x] speaks

(5) no aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument.

(6) arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

(7) anything I did not flow and understand the implication of in the original speech. This means if you HIDE arguments you run a HIGH risk of them not being evaluated. Even if I do catch them, speaks will be lowered because I will be annoyed by your unwillingness to fully read and defend your arguments.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

General Thoughts:

(1) When I make decisions I first think about the following things in the following order to determine what piece of offense I am voting on: (a) the highest layer based on arguments in the round, (b) the winning framework, and (c) the winning offense under that framework.

(2) If you talk to me like I know nothing/very little you will be happier with my rfd. Not only does this increase the likeliness that I understand each of your arguments, but it also increases the likeliness that the round breaks down/is evaluated in a similiar way to how you thought about it.

(3) I will vote for any argument with a claim, warrant, and impact/implication (so long as it is not something on the list above). Obviously true arguments have a lower threshold to win than obviously false arguments simply because the burden to warrant the argument is much lower if it is already something I believe. To clarify: when I say "obviously true" arguments I do not mean arguments I personally believe, but arguments that a majority of people generally agree on as fact, such as "the sky is blue".

Here is a list of arguments that if evenly debated will be hard to convince me of. I understand it is kind of unclear what "even debating" is, but you can minimize the risk that I think something is evenly debated by doing judge instruction or explicit evidence comparison, which I will use even if it goes against my intuitions:

- the aff cannot weigh case
- extinction does not matter at all (especially vs phil positions that seem to care about preventing bad consequences to some degree)
- the affirmative cannot read plans
- the best model of debate is not one where the aff is at least tangentially related to the resolution
- 2nr/2ar theory is legit

(4) It greatly annoys me when debaters read arguments they misrepresent. For example: (see the explanation of what indexicals actually are)This does not mean that I will vote against arguments that you misrepresent, but know that you are responsible for warranting every part of the argument and cannot just rely on name-dropping the argument, literature base, or author in place of a warrant. Additionally, I reward well researched and properly represented arguments with better speaks.

(5) I WON'T flow off the doc and will only pull it up in constructives to check randomly and make sure you aren't clipping. I have gotten very comfortable recently "clearing" people and that is because debaters have gotten particularly unclear during long analyic blocks and the bodies of cards. I understand going faster during the text of cards BUT you should not become mumbly/unflowable. I am not reading off the document and want to understand the warrants of your arguments/evidence as you read them.

(6) I will only go back to read evidence once the entire debate is over if (a) I need to because there is a lack of comparison or (b) you tell me to (which you should do if your evidence is very good or your opponents is worse!). If I have to read evidence because of (a) I will likely be upset because I will feel like I had to intervene somewhere to determine what the better arguement was. Additionally, if you are telling me to read evidence, it is in your best interest to tell me what part of the evidence is really good or why the evidence is better to increase the likelihood I view the evidence in the same way you do.

(7) Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as I can understand the specific implication of the rehighlighting from listening to your speech. For example: "[x card] concludes [explanation of different conclusion from original argument], INSERT REHIGHLIGHTING" is okay, "they are wrong, INSERT REHIGHLIGHTING" is not.

(8) The following is a list of "defaults" I have about debate. I think that every default on this list can change as a result of the debate and there should not be an instance when I need to use a "default" because you should be warranting these arguments in the round if they are relevant.
- presumtion negates unless the negative reads a cp, in which case it affirms

- permissibility negates

- comparative worlds

- I will NOT judge kick unless I am told to. Preferably you would do more than say the words "judge kick" and also justify why it is good.

- competing interps, dta, no rvi on theory

^ Note: I still think terminal defense is possible vs an interp... ie even if you win competing interps, theres no counter-interp, but the other side wins an "i-meet" I will not vote for the shell because an "i-meet" is terminal defense since the shell no longer has a violation.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Disclosure

The disclosure norms in debate are out of hand. I think disclosure is good. That does not mean you have to disclose if I am judging you but know if you are shifty, lie, or avoid questions I have no problem (a) tanking your speaks (<27) or (b) if you lied, automatically voting against you. Lying is unethical in a similar way to evidence ethics are and I have no problem voting against you if you lie. If you are shifty/avoid questions I will vote on the flow but know your speaks will be ruined and I will be sympathetic to the shell.

- I have judged 5+ debates in the past month where someone makes the argument “screenshots are unverifiable.” If someone says this the answer should not take more than 5 seconds and should just be “they are verifiable in the same way evidence is”. Along these lines – I have added a screenshots section to evidence ethics.

- You should be disclosing over some form of messages. If someone insists on disclosing in person/refuses to over messages, you should still ask over messages and screenshot them not answering. I don’t care if you then went and disclosed in person, send it over messages or you are not getting the I-meet.

- If you don’t want to disclose you should just say you aren’t disclosing and be willing to defend that model of debate. Don’t do things like say the aff is new when it isn’t, say you will disclose and then not, lie about which aff is being read, be unclear what is changing in the aff, etc.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Evidence Ethics

- I think that evidence ethics are a stop round issue, though if you want to just read it as a shell that's fine too and I’ll evaluate it on the flow. If you want it to be a stop round issue say something along the lines of “I want to make an evidence ethics claim, here is what happened” If you are correct W, if you are wrong L with lowest speaks

- Screenshots should not be fabricated. If a screenshot is fabricated, you should treat it as evidence ethics, and it is a stop round issue. I will verify screenshots the same way evidence is verified—by going to the source. This can be one of two things depending on the fabrication a) checking the laptops of the email or b) checking the wiki website

- The following are things I will vote on as a stop-round issue

* clipping (this includes verbally cutting your cards in a different place than your updated doc indicates… I will flow where you say “cut”)

* Citations that are missing or incorrect in one or more of the following parts (given that the information is available): Author name, year, article/book title, URL

* deleting text from the middle of the card/article (this includes replacing it with ellipsis)

* not including full paragraphs/ only having cards with partial paragraphs

* brackets that change the meaning of the text

* including/adding text into the card not from the original article

- If I catch one of these things but no one else does, I won't vote against you, I'll just lower your speaks.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Speaker Points

- I'll start at a 28.5 and work up/down from there. 28.5 is average.

- I find myself bumping speaks for: being particularly nice in round/to your opponent, reading an argument/a strategy I haven't seen in a while/ever, creative 2nr/2ars, giving a winning 2nr/2ar I did not think of during prep, rehighlighting evidence, efficiency.

- You will lose speaks for: being overly rude/aggressive, splitting 2nr/2ars unnecessarily, going for the incorrect 2nr/2ar, misexplaining arguments, an unstrategic cx, reading bad arguments (1 line tricks!), poor time allocation, if I feel like I have to intervene because of lack of evidence comparison/weighing.

- I try to base speaks primarily on strategy & execution.

hi! my name is leah and i used to be a debater at garland high school. i semifinaled the TOC, accumulated 6 bids, and won TFA state. im a captain for harvard's policy team (contact me if ur interested on applying/joining the team!). first-round and octofinalist at the NDT as a freshman, took a break, and now im debating again (go harvard GY!)

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN - leahyeshitila03@gmail.com

*updated notei was asked in an email if im cool with nonblack people reading pess -- the answer is always no and i will have a very low threshold for the independent voter. read at your own risk!

my experiences

i am most comfortable with LARP/K/T/Theory positions. the kritiks i know best are afropess, warren, spillers/hartman of course, however positions like deleuze, baudrillard, grove, psychoanalysis, honestly pretty much any k lit base are positions i have learned enough to evaluate these debates well enough, just be sure to explain everything well. ive gone for t/theory alot to so do your thing : )

theory/t debates writ large are fine! i dont like friv theory. genuinely, the more frivolous, the lower your speaks will be and the lower my threshold gets to responding to it.

non t affs (esp from black debaters) are super dope and i love to hear them! dont forget about your aff and/or performance!!! when going for these affs in front of me, a good collapse in response to framework/the 2nrs best case argument in the 2ar will be rewarded with high speaks!

please dont make me evaluate tricks or the tricky phil vs phil debates LDers do

disclosure is probably good, but i definitely err on the side of black debaters not needing to disclose their positions.

write my ballot for me in the 2nr/2ar!

happy debating!

Georgetown'24

Oak Hall'20

komi.zaidi@gmail.com

Updates

I feel like in most debates I'm judging coaches blocks regurgitated by kids off a laptop. If you give your rebuttals entirely off paper without a laptop in your face the whole time, and give a good speech, I will be giving an egregious, ungodly, criminal boost to speaks.

Things to Keep Top of Mind

1] Strategy is King --- My ideological predispositions have become more viscous over time as I’ve gained familiarity with a variety of different styles of debate, literature, and argumentation. From high school through my short stint in college debate, I've read and researched arguments on all sides of the kritikal/policy spectrum. At this point, I have much more appreciation for strategy over style of argumentation. What this means is that you should read whatever argument you think will give you the highest chance of winning the debate. This is perhaps the most important takeaway from my paradigm. In some debates, that option might be T-FW vs a K aff, in another it could be process counterplan, psychoanalysis, Moten, a floating PIK, China heg good, or theory. The point is, I don’t particularly care what flavor of argument you read. What I care about is execution and strategic choice. I cannot stress this enough, it frustrates me more than anything when debaters try to "adapt" based on (often flawed) assumptions about how you think I feel about arguments. Do what you're good at, debate is a game for debaters.

2] Speaker Points --- Debate is a game of rhetoricians. Winning the room is how you get decisive wins, high speaker points, and perform like a top debater.(Tasteful) Pettiness gets you speaker points. But being a bum certainly won't.

3] "Instead of focusing only on extending and answering arguments, it would behoove debaters to begin their final rebuttals by clarifying what the comparative RFD for the Aff/Neg should be,identifying the key questions to be resolved in the debate, and then going through the process of resolving them. You can think of this asproviding me a roadmap for how I should approach adjudicating the debate once it ends."

4] Folks have been incredibly unclear over the past few years. I strongly believe that debate is an oral/rhetorical game as much as it is technical. If your strategy relies on reading a slew of analytics while simultaneously slurring every other word in an attempt to make up for a grave lack of speaking drills, I will be displeased and you will be too after the decision.

5] Dropped argument is a true argument. HOWEVER, an argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. You must also explain the implications of an argument/how it relates to the rest of the pieces in the debate. New implications to extended arguments are fair game for new responses.

K Aff vs Fwk

I've thought far too much about both sides of this debate and don't have a proclivity one way or another. I genuinely enjoy both sides of the debate and especially love new spins on arguments rather than a regurgitation of blocks.

K affs: I'm fine for anything, whether that be impact turns, counter-models, re-defining words etc. Please just think through the strategy beforehand its shocking how many 2ACs to framework are lazily slapped together these days. There's so much room for creativity in terms of what topical affirmation/negation looks like which is underutilized these days. If you put the requisite amount of thought into the construction of your K aff, I'm probably good for you. If your approach to framework relies on an impact turn, I would like to see some work definitively closing the door on why it is good/beneficial to abandon ANY notion of stasis etc in debate. Or at least have some mechanism of resolving your offense.

Framework: Go for whatever flavor of framework/impact scenario you want. Articulating a clear impact scenario is critical. A lot of debaters tend to spend sooo much time explaining why fairness/clash/competition etc matter, but remarkably little time explaining WHY the affs model/orientation to debate is unfair/bad. Framework teams very let the aff get away with murder in terms of shallow impact turns or nonsensical counterinterps, and I think a lot of that could be resolved rather easily. A lot of my recent thought's on what good framework debating looks like has been influenced by many conversations (and arguments) with Tyler Thur and BK, so do refer to those paradigms for additional insights.

Stealing this line from BK's paradigm as I think it's instructive: "I find "fairness" unpersuasive as a terminal impact. However, this is primarily a function of Negatives explaining it poorly, because I am extremely compelled by the argument that an axiomatic precondition for debate to operate is that the Affirmative must meet their burden of proof arising from the resolution, and that until they do so there is no logical basis for the Negative having any burden of rejoinder. All of which is to say: definitely feel free to go for fairness, BUT please take care to explain why it logically precedes everything else, AND to explicitly no-link the Aff's various lines of offense, rather than just making assertions about "procedural fairness."

For K teams --- the flipside of this is that I am extremely compelled by hyper-specific impact turns to the negs articulation of concepts like fairness in a world where they have not done the proper explanatory work for the fairness impact.

Misc Other Thoughts

1] Impact turns in general are heavily underutilized in case debating. Extinction good, heg good, Interventions good, AI development bad, take your pick. High quality evidence is essential.

2] Fine for CP competition debates

3] Heavily persuaded by reasonability style arguments on frivolous theory (LD).

4] Fine for Phil - I find myself quite enjoying phil vs policy/K debates.

About Me

(he/him)

10 years in debate

Background in political science (democratic legitimacy/decline, religion and politics, antisemitism) and philosophy (Rawls, Kant, virtue ethics)

Conflicts:

- Varsity LD Coach, James Logan High School

- former Director, The Delores Taylor Arthur School

- Mavericks RS, University AN

Email Chain: bzdebatedocs@gmail.com(Subject: TOURNAMENT---ROUND---AFF vs NEG)

Disclaimer

Before anything else, I’m an educator and mandatory reporter. Debate is an extension of the classroom. I view my ballot as an endorsement of whatever strategy I vote for. If I find your strategy morally repugnant, problematic, or not conducive to educational debate, I’ll vote it down without hesitation. In addition to bigotry, this includes arguments in the 5/S category below. Additionally, if I find or am told that any behavior threatens someone’s physical or mental safety, I’ll end the round and report it appropriately.

Email chain/pre-round stuff should be done before the start time. The 1AC should begin at the start time.

Spreading is fine, but please start slow and build up. I’ll say “clear” twice before I stop trying to flow.

I'm flowing off my laptop but am not flowing off the doc.

Pref Shortcuts

1 - Ks, K-affs/topicality, trad

2 - policy args, soft left affs

3 - phil* (read below), theory

5/S - tricks, friv theory, wipeout/spark, death good

General Thoughts on Debate

The aff’s burden is to resolve some harm through a change in the status quo that matters under some framing mechanism. The neg’s burden is to meaningfully engage the aff and show that it’s a bad idea. Run whatever you’re comfortable with and please don’t overadapt. I genuinely enjoy judging debates where the competitors are meaningfully engaging on an important issue, regardless of the content. I don't think it's productive when the round is treated as a "joke," arguments are not produced with the intention of educational clash, or the debate devolves into high school drama. I like good arguments and below are what I consider to be qualities of good arguments.

Every argument should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact. The larger the impact, the higher the threshold for the evidence. I think it’s a missed opportunity when debaters don’t address their opponents on the warrant or structural levels. Please weigh.

I tend to evaluate K rounds in terms of an ethical binary. If the K's theory of power is true, the round is a question of whether the aff links to the K's structural analysis. As such, you should make the link debate as clear and specific as possible (rehighlights, specific behavior, etc.). Generic links likely require overexplanation and you should give a strong reason why some larger structure being true is a problem for the aff. The alt doesn't necessarily have to solve, but the perm may take out the flow.

*Phil debate is good, but mainstream approaches to it are disappointing. There's significant misrepresentation/misinterpretation of the literature that indicates debaters aren't reading their source material. That frustrates me and is why I put phil at a 3. If you haven't read your literature or can't explain the theory without buzzwords, this applies to you. If you think this doesn't apply to you, I'm likely a 1 or 2 for you. I also find phil debaters generally run phil to confuse their opponents or as a joke, which I discourage. My philosophy background is thinking seriously about how we teach philosophy and its influence on subjectivity, so something like skepticism isn't persuasive to me as an educator with morals.

Theory is only for legitimate abuse. I won't evaluate blippy shells and will only consider interpretations that are in the file or email chain. These debates honestly get confusing for me, so please be clear and slow down on judge instruction. I find this is especially true when a bunch of standards get extended or answered, but I'm not told how they interact with each other.

I think stock T positions are good. I don't find T-FWK as a viable route to test a non-topical aff unless it's an "option of last resort" (Smith, 2021). If this is your strategy, you need a robust defense as to why you're not engaging the aff. With that said, if you're running a non-topical aff, you should have a clear explanation as to why wemust reject the topic (e.g., no TVA), what the ballot does to resolve your harm, and how offense gets weighed under your framework.

Don’t run tricks - auto loss and 20 speaks. In general, I consider tricks to be blippy arguments intentionally tailored to deceive your opponent and avoid engagement to generate independent offense.

Disclosure is good. New affs don't need to be disclosed.

I don't see how the neg can substantively engage the aff with more than 4 off.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

debate is a performance

tech > truth within reason

brief off-time roadmaps please

>30 seconds to send the dock = running prep + docking speaks

flex prep = dock speaks

going over time = dock speaks (finish your thought, but don’t push it)

judge kick = dock speaks

People who’ve significantly influenced my views on debate: Byron Arthur (especially), Aaron Timmons (especially), Jonathan Alston (especially), Bennett Eckert, Colton Gilbert, Chetan Hertzig, Anna Myers, Temitope Ogundare, Chris Randall, Elijah Smith, Hannah Stafford, Chris Vincent, Ed Williams

Speaker Points

30: Flawless argumentation, solid delivery, and I learned something from the debater

29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery

29-29.4: Same as above but needs work on delivery

28.5-28.9: Good debate skills and decent delivery; shows promise

27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills

<27: You did something morally repugnant or concerning.

Stop Entering Unqualified Judges

I'm increasingly frustrated by the lack of quality judging that some programs provide to cover their obligation. Debaters work hard for high-level competition and that effort becomes futile when the judge pool lacks quality judging. If you're a progressive debater or your team regularly competes on the national circuit, but your judges are not of that level, expect me to give less in terms of my investment in judging you. Yes, some programs cannot provide these judges for a variety of legitimate reasons, but the lack of training or preparing the judges you do provide irks me. If you are providing judges for a national tournament that have little experience in debate, especially circuit debate, and it is clear they are not properly trained, this note applies to you. I will invest in judging you as much as you invested providing quality judging for the tournament. If you have a problem with this, please strike me.

A non-comprehensive list of judges like this include (from Colton Gilbert):

- parent judges

- lay judges

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

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

I am NOT against parent/lay judges in progressive debates, IF they are trained to adjudicate that type of argumentation. If you want to talk about it, I'm happy to have a civil discussion about it AFTER the RFD.