I graduated from Cypress Bay in 2020, and have coached their LD squad since.

I would like to be on the chain: garrett.bishop2577@gmail.com

I'm probably pretty good for anything.

In order:

K, LARP, existentialism, other philosophy, theory-dense positions.

> Post-Yale update: You gotta understand that it's like, K > Policy >>>>>>>> Existentialism >>>>>>>>>>> Other philosophy >>>>>>> theory-dense positions.

Yes, I'm probably good for it, but it seems like I voted twice on phil positions and suddenly everybody has me down as a phil judge

>Bronx 24:If disclosure theory is a part of your main strategy, i should not be a high pref for you. it's a true argument but oh my god im so tired of listening to it. i'm also absolutely just about never persuaded by 1ac disclosure theory.

>SUNVITE 24: I'm in the policy pool. I am not often in the policy pool. I haven't done anything with the current topic. You should presume I know nothing (I don't know anything). I'm better for the K than for policy. I love the impact turn.

My disclosure of speaks depends entirely on my mood at the time, and if you ask me after I've already closed my laptop, I will not tell you (I forget about speaks, give or take, a single second after I submit my ballot).

If you care, I'm more of a high theory guy than an identity politics guy.

If you're super fast, feel free to tell me that I should flow on paper (before the round). I recently started flowing on my computer and I'm not super fast with it yet.

I've only made one decision that I didn't entirely agree with, and I'm unlikely to make a second.

PF

I don't care what you read, as long as you read it well. If you expect me to judge your debate based on my circuit experience, then you should probably try to meet my circuit expectations. This means I'm particularly persuaded by disclosure and paraphrasing theory. The Bronx update doesn't really apply here - it isn't yet a norm in public forum to disclose and it definitely should be, so it's above my threshold of importance in this event.

nothing is sticky

Policy

This is kind of where my heart is tbh. I'm good to go for whatever goofy argument you want to read.

Any other event (speech)

I'm a big debate guy, please treat me like a parent lol.

Old paradigm here

the big cheese

Cade, he/him

competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present

coach @ NSU University School: '24-Present

Past Affiliations - debated @ Topeka High School: '17-'21, coached @ North Broward Prep: ‘22-‘24

Don't be mean, this should be a fun event for everyone. People who are mean will be punished via lower speaks. People who are actively awful (discriminatory, violent, or hateful to no end) will be punished via a combination of lower speaks, an L, and a discussion with relevant coaches/adults affiliated with your school.

cade.blenden03@gmail.com

Policy

- Style

Not very good at flowing theory/T debates executed at full speed - anything with lots of analytics should be slowed down a decent bit. In general, anything you want me to get down verbatim should have a corresponding shift in speed and intonation that allows me to write it all down - make it seem like it matters!

I find that I am often compelled by good judge instruction. Doing it increases the likelihood that I pick up what’s being put down. I think solid 2NR/2ARs are intentionally persuasive and spend time doing non line-by-line things - such as describing how the ballot should be written and why - that make getting me on your side much easier.

I am very happy when the final rebuttals are given off of paper/'the flow.'

I appreciate well-organized speech docs/efficient use of Verbatim, and have a equal disliking toward poor doc formatting or incredibly inefficient use of Verbatim.

I am unable to resolve or engage issues that occur outside of the debate round. If there is a concern about someone's behavior/conduct outside of the debate round itself, it should be handled with tab and other relevant adults.

If I notice clipping in a debate, I will decide the round against the team committing the violation. I may or may not stop the round, depending on how egregious it is - perhaps the educational value of the debate itself still exists if the infraction is more minor. If I do not notice, an accusation must be supplanted by evidence, and in the case of an ethics challenge I will default to tournament procedure/NSDA rules where applicable.

- Argument

In terms of argument preference, I am willing and able to listen to anything. Strongly tech > truth, though an argument being on the side of truth makes tech much easier to explain and win. Below are things I enjoy or think about different arguments.

Call out bad evidence---old internals that don't make sense anymore, impacts that should have been triggered, things under highlighted, etc.---I am super on the level there and think UQ, internal link scenarios, etc., mostly for policy affirmatives and DAs, should be updated.

-- T: not many preferences, not really a big fan of "whole res" type arguments, I like when procedural impacts come with examples of what a harmful/unfair/antieducational model of debate produces/looks like. If someone can explain how reasonability works to me, and wins that it is better than competing interpretations, then perhaps I will be reasonable. Otherwise, competing interpretations seems to make sense.

-- other NEG procedurals (ASPEC, plan flaws, etc.): I believe plan texts should be well-written, and am happy to listen to procedural arguments about affirmatives or counterplans where that is not the case. Acronyms and a lack of periods seem to be two common problems I see. Unless its an objective problem with how the plan text is written relative to the resolution, or a grammatical error in the plan itself, I am probably not down.

-- K: links should be specific to some part of the AFF. definitely in the camp that links premised on the AFF not having done something are not links at all. alternatives seem like they would have to 'solve the aff' in some sense to be competitive, but what that means I am unsure of, since critiques could solve the affirmatives harms in myriad ways that policy alone could not. I think AFFs should get to weigh their impacts. I am more likely to be excited voting NEG for the K with lots of 'link uniqueness' articulations---winning that the AFF meaningfully makes the status quo worse is where a lot of critiques fall flat in my eyes.

-- CP: I dislike lengthy multi-plank advantage counterplans. fan of silly process counterplans and PICs, and am generally of the belief that any counterplan can be read given the team is willing to defend against theory. judge kick seems to be valid if the NEG wins condo is legitimate, and condo itself seems fine, but the more positions/conditional planks we start adding, the more amicable I am to theory about it.

-- DA: the more generic the link/application of the link, the more likely I am to believe AFF link defense. old evidence sucks, and analytics about how world events disprove the DA because [x] thing happened and the link didn't, is compelling to me. do impact calculus! politics DAs trend toward annoying when there is not a substantive link given the resolution, and lots of debate's pseudo political theory [e.g., "winner's win"] seem bunk without lots of corresponding analysis about why it is true for the political scenario of the DA.

-- case: I like 1NCs where case is more than an afterthought/impact defense platter. I am theoretically game for sillier impact turns, however, I dislike old evidence. Wipeout from 2014 isn't my speed, but perhaps new takes or new cards - if they exist - would make me see it and similar positions in a better light.

Public Forum

Cards should be in Word documents preferably. If you have Google Docs I am pretty sure they can be converted (and shared) in Word still, and you should do that if that is the case. No PDFs. Also, learn to use the very helpful organizational tools provided by Verbatim. Broken docs or nav panes result in massive losses in vibe points.

Below is a living, breathing list of words, fake concepts, bad practices etc. that I have heard/seen used in PF rounds I've judged - saying/using/deploying any of the whatevers below is frustrating and probably hampers your chances of success with me in the room.

"delink"
any thing flagged as impact calculus which does not start with "timeframe, magnitude, probability" - idk what a scope is or any of the myriad other pf words out there mean, but all of them seem to be poor abstractions of these core three.
paraphrased evidence
cards with non-existent tags
cards with tags that are a transition word and a comma - "accordingly,...", "thus,..." and anything similar fit the bill
"uplayering"
asking for disclosure at the start time of the round - not disclosing at all - disclosing nonsense documents without tags or citations clearly labelled
failing to send speech documents before speeches start
confusing framing (an addendum to impact weighing) with framework (the procedural question of how a judge should evaluate substantive questions within the debate)

“metaweighing”

NoBro '24

Harvard '28

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

HS Topic Knowledge: none.

Debate Influences: Shree Awsare and Gabe Jankovsky

Dropping arguments = L

Every framework DA, card, link, turn, etc., should be answered by the relevant name, or you are likely to lose.

I wouldn’t recommend putting me in for policy v policy. I was never taught CP competition so over explain.

In other words, if I were debating in a close policy v policy debate, I wouldn’t want myself in the back.

T v K Affs - Drops determine who wins - will vote on Aff tricks or FW tricks.

Just debate. Good luck, have fun!

Debate Coach at NSU University School

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

1---Big Picture

"Bosley" preferred, "Jacob" is fine, "Mr. Bosley" if you must for comfort.

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. My CX research is generally K-oriented and my PF research generally topic-oriented, but I'd like to believe I can grasp a wide range of debates.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly.

Flowing---I flow on a computer without much shorthand. I will have the document open, but use it for either reading evidence I am not familiar with or checking when I thought I caught an argument/tag and am confirming. If you are incomprehensible in the first place, I will not use the doc to fill-in.

Evidence---I read it during debates. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Intellectual Property" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer. Despite judging more than last year, I still don't have strong views on the most common issues, e.g. "courts only," "scope vs enforcement," "subsets," etc. Caselists and examples of specific ground lost/gained is always helpful.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. The two recent times I was asked to vote on conditionality bad/dispositionality-only good, I voted neg. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

Debate success doesn't matter! Have fun and do what you love! Be a good person!

Hello! My name is Anna Dean (she/her). I will default to (they/them) if I don't know you.

Bentonville West High School '21 (AR) | Harvard '25

I currently debate at Harvard. In High School, I did: Policy (Bentonville West DR FOREVER.), Extemp, World Schools, a little bit of Congress/ LD.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic/etc I will vote you down, end of story. Your rhetoric and how you treat your opponents matter.

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain: annadean13@gmail.com

Time yourself.

Do what you do & do it well.

Be kind- to your opponents and partner!!

Speed is fine (in CX/LD) (slow down a bit online & emphasize clarity)

Truth over Tech

If you read 40 cards in the block = fascism

I love a good cross-ex :)

Win an impact.

Number your args... please.

You have not turned the case just because you read an impact to your DA or K that is the same as the advantage impact.

Don't clip cards.

If you're unclear I won't yell "clear" I just won't flow well...

Updated 2023: DO NOT GO FOR THEORY. Don't read tricks. I don't buy the bs. Win your arguments without tricking your opponents.

I do not like disclosure. I won't vote for it. You should be able to win without knowing exactly what your opponents are going to say(can't believe I have to even write this)

Policy:

KvK:

I like them if they're well done. I ran Fem, Fem Killjoy<3, Queer, Set Col, Cap in high school. In college, I've done Afropess, SetCol, and Fem stuff. I evaluate method v. method.

*I study Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. I have knowledge about gender/ feminism/ race critical theory and loveeeeee these arguments!

Plans:

Yes! I love a soft left AFF. My ideal round is a soft left aff and 3-6 off.

T:

I love T. Go for it. I think it's underutilized. I like procedural fairness impacts (when it's clearly an impact). If you want to win my ballot, paint a picture of what your vision of the topic is and what happens in debates on it, which matters much more to me than conceded generic blips and buzzwords.

Framework:

I lean more neg (60/40). IMPACTS.

DAs:

Yes, but they can get boring and overdone. I would rather read 5, solid, well-highlighted UQ cards than 10 poopy cards that say "it'll pass but it's cloooooseeee!" without ever highlighting anything beyond that sentence. Uniqueness controls the direction of uniqueness and the link controls the direction of the link.

CPs:

I tend to think condo bad (55/45). Some teams try to get away with murder. Yes, I will vote on 'condo bad'. I lean neg when the CP is based in the literature and there's a reasonable solvency advocate. I lean aff when the CP meets neither of those conditions.

Ks:

Focus on arg development & application rather than reading backfiles.

If your strategy involves going for some version of "all debate is bad, this activity is meaningless and only produces bad people" please consider who your audience is. Of course, you can make arguments about flaws in specific debate policies & practices, but you should also recognize that the "debate is irredeemable" position is a tough sell to someone who has dedicated 8+ years of her life to it and tries to make it better.

Examples are incredibly helpful in these debates, especially when making structural claims about the world.

LD:

I am policy debater at heart. I will flow every word you say. Speed is a weapon in debate.

I don't love theory/meta-theory/tricks. I find a lot of Philo debates have tricks. Please just win your arguments and do not trick your opponents. It is extremely rare I vote on it.

I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

See above for more specifics.

PF:

Send your docs and create an email chain from the get-go! Every other debate style has managed to learn this. Stop asking for evd without taking prep, just send everything and be fair.

I'm not flowing off the doc and probably won't look at it unless I have to.

Act as if I don't know the topic

I'm good for speed/ more policy like args BUT I do think that PF is changing in a negative way, if you want to do policy why are you in PF...

Congress:

Speak well. You are role-playing a policymaker... act like it.

Be prepared to speak on both sides of the bill.

I value evidence and credible sources.

DO NOT re-hash args.

Extemp:

I love good intros and transitions! I love to laugh a lil in an extemp round!

Organization is key!

I value evidence and credible sources.

I stay very up to date on current events... I will know what you're talking about... take that as you wish:)

Best of luck to you! If you have questions feel free to ask me before a round or email me!

Cypress Bay High School

Wake Forest University

Baylor University

Good speaks for good debating, great speaks for being funny and/or just great debating.

I'll vote for anything, just turn up. What follows are my existing thoughts/biases on how to win in front of me in policy debates, please scroll to the bottom for LD and PF.

Email: robertofr99@gmail.com

CX Paradigm: NDT Updates 3/29/23

T: I don't hold strong enough opinions about topic wording and plans to stand by in a debate so judge direction on what SHOULD matter is critical. I don't judge many though and because of that I'd say I'm more likely to default to competing interpretations than not. It would have to be a pretty clear case for me to vote on reasonability. End of year thoughts: nothing is AI and everything is nature; T-subsets is mostly valid.

FW: You can go for it. Thoughts: Unlike other judges, I think to win you need to prove your model is strictly better than a model that includes the aff, which means you should probably be able to prove that a solely plan-based model would be better than the mixed status quo.

I default to thinking of these as debates about models and not about interpretations of the wording of the resolution. That means I prefer that the aff have a counter-interp, even if that counter-interp is totally unlimited. What matters is that both teams have a vision of what their model looks like. No counter-interp is also valid and often strategic so feel free to do that too.

I won't say whether fairness is an impact because that depends on what is said and won in any given debate, but what I will say is that proving that debate is a game does not, on its own, strongly imply that fairness is an intrinsic good. Fairness is also a sliding scale, so I expect nuance about the magnitude of the internal link between the violation or the counter-interp and the fairness impact.

I think that FW teams would benefit from incorporating some kind of uniqueness argument or warrant into their skills modules that substantiates why the skills we learn from plan-based debating are valuable in the current political moment. I often find that teams lose debates where they are winning their limits arguments by failing to justify the value of THIS fair game.

K: Do whatever, odds are I've read something you are reading or someone citing else citing the same people as your authors. That means jargon is fine as long as it's used meaningfully. Big words are meant to convey even bigger ideas in less time so using jargon precisely can really elevate the quality of your speech, but on the other hand, just stringing words together without much thought may really hurt your speech. Performance debate is great, all kinds of art can be evidence as long as I can see/hear/flow it (unless there's a reason I shouldn't I'm up for that too, but I won't stop flowing your opponents speeches during the debate even if you ask me to, that is up to them).

CP: I guess this is more about conditionality than anything, I'd rather not have to deal with more than 4 or 5 conditional advocacies or I might actually vote on condo. I think most counter-plans should have solvency advocates, I can't think of an example that wouldn't off the top of my head but I'm hesitant to say I wouldn't be convinced by ANY CP without one.

DAs: I think the spill-over DA is just a bad argument. If you win it you win it but I feel like I have to be upfront about thinking this argument is garbage.

LD Paradigm:

I'm down with anything, except for really outlandish tricks and some frivolous theory. You could still win "Topic auto-affirms/negates because of definitions" in front of me but my bar is as low as "even if that's true we should ignore it and debate a common understanding of the resolution for X, Y, Z reasons" for me to throw away those kinds of arguments. I have a very deep background in critical theory and philosophy so Phil, K debating, and Skep are all fine by me as long as you remember to explain why I should vote for you rather than just exposing on an argument and hoping that will translate to a win. I like evidence, but evidence can be poetry, music, art, memes, etc. as long as it's used to substantiate something and not just presented without argument.

PF Paradigm:

You should read my other paradigms to get an idea of what I think of different types of arguments, this section is mostly dedicated to what I think of PF norms.

I care about evidence more than most PF judges, I don't think you shouldn't be allowed to reference current events to make points but I think having evidence prepared is definitely more convincing than listing off things that I may or may not have heard of to prove a point. I will want to receive any evidence you use in the debate, so that I can evaluate the comparative quality of evidence when deciding things after the debate. I will prefer low quality delivery of high quality arguments over high quality delivery of low quality arguments.

I will not deduct speaker points for superficial things like profanity or dress, I care about rhetoric as a tool of persuasion and information exchange not as a show of pageantry. Be intentional about what you are saying and why are you are saying it, and I will reward you based on the persuasiveness of that delivery.

Please be respectful to your opponents, your partner, and me in debates, and that means being respectful of our time during prep and cross-examination. If people ask to see your evidence, don't make them waste prep time for you to send it to them, they should already have it.

If you have any specific questions about types of arguments in PF or norms, please feel free to ask me. As a general rule, if it exists in policy or LD I'm willing to vote for it but also willing to vote against it on the basis that these arguments are illegitimate in PF, you just have to actually win that.

jeremy.hammond@pinecrest.edu, pinecrestdebatedocs@gmail.com (please put both).

I have experience judging most policy debates that would occur. I have found that there is really only one argument type that I currently won't evaluate which are wipeout based arguments which prioritize saving unknown life to that of saving known life (human/non-human life).

I haven't calculated the percentages but I below are some feelings of where I am in various types of debates.

Policy aff v Core DA - Even

Policy aff v Process CP - 60% for the neg (mostly due to poor affirmative debating rather than argument preference)

Policy aff v K - Probably have voted neg more mostly due to poor affirmative debating or dropped tricks. Side note i'm pretty against the you link you lose style of negative framework, but I have regretfully have voted for it.

Theory v Policy Neg - Probably voted more neg than aff when the aff has a non-sense counter-interpretation (i.e. CI - you get 2 condo). When the aff is just going for condo bad with a more strict counter-interpretation I have voted aff more.

K aff v FW - Probably even to voted aff more (like due to poor negative debating)

K aff v K Neg - Probably judged these the least honestly they don't stick out for me to remember how I voted. I have definitely voted for the Cap K against K affs but I don't know the percentages.

K aff v Policy Neg - (Think State good, Alt Bad, or CP) have judged but can't remember.

I have plenty of more specific thoughts about debate, but mostly those don't play into my decisions. I will add more as the year progresses if something bothers me in a round.

Just call me Calvin.

Of course I want to be on the email chain –

chwangdebate@gmail.com

mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

ipostround@googlegroups.com

If you send me an email and I do not respond, send me another one. I either forgot or it got lost in the sea of emails that I receive.

HS Debate: Walter Payton (2019-2023)

College Debate: University of Michigan (2023-present)

Debate Coach: Walter Payton (2023-present), Mamaroneck (2024-present).

IP Specific Thoughts:

Moderate-good topic knowledge. I have cut a lot of cards on this topic and have done a good amount of research, so I know a decent amount about this topic. It seems like this topic is generally worse for the negative, with no unifying negative ground. I think that patents bad is false on a truth level, but is strong in debate because "ban patents" is probably competitive and the AFF needs to do a lot of work to overcome it. Monopolies are not as bad for innovation as a lot of people think.

Top Level:

My judging record provides more realistic information than what is typed in my paradigm. Judging Record

I flow on computer, but I will never flow off the doc. Unless it is the 1AC or the 1NC, I will not even have the doc open. If I can't understand you then you have failed to persuade me.

I am obstinately tech over truth. I will judge the round with the absolute minimum amount of intervention that is needed. Everything in my paradigm is how I view debate generally; in round, it is easily overcome by uttering a singular word on the flow. I do not sympathize with versions of technical adjudication that maintains caveats for ad homs, death good, wipeout, kritiks, or process CPs, nor will I immediately disregard something because it is “stupid” or “offensive".

Have done both policy and K strategies, and both as a 2A and 2N. Ran soft-left, big stick, and kritikal affs, as well as both 10 and 1-off 1NCs. While I coach both policy and K teams, most of my thoughts and cards I cut are rooted in the policy side.

I don't care if you take cross as prep. I don't flow cross.

I do not care if you post-round me, nor do I believe post-rounding is "bad" or "rude"; I firmly believe that debaters have an intrinsic right to justify why they have won the round. Debaters invests a lot of time into winning, and I think it disingenuous to deny them the opportunity to explain why they think that the time that they invested should have resulted in a win. If you think that part of my decision is wrong, feel free to express so; I actively welcome it and will not hold it against you in any way.

AFFs

Do whatever you want.

There's probably more strategic utility to reading a soft-left aff. I'm not part of many soft-left debates anymore, in either coaching or debating.

In my experience, 2ACs on the case page are making arguments that lack warrants, and that negative teams are letting them get away with it. Almost every 2AC case flow sounds like "1NC is wrong, doesn't assume x," even when the 1NC card does in fact assume x.

K-AFFs

Framework debates are some of my favorite debates to watch and judge. I will vote for the team that is winning the flow; if you read a planless aff and believe that you can out-tech your opponent, you should pref me. If you are unable to, but instead rely on vague assertions with minimal application to the arguments in the round (usually done in the first 2 minutes at the top of the speech), I am probably not the best judge for you.

In front of me it makes more sense to go for impact turns to the negative model of debate rather than a counter-interpretation.

Fairness is almost certainly the best impact to go for in front of me, but I can be persuaded that it is an internal link with proper debating.

Teams do not go for presumption in the 2NR (at least part of it) even if it is the objectively correct 2NR according to the flow. I am more than willing to pull the trigger on presumption should the 2NR be winning on it technically, and varying inconsistencies between affirmative speeches makes me all the more willing to pull the trigger on presumption.

I have a little experience with KvK debates. You should err on the side of overexplanation.

My understanding of post-modern/post-social theory is lacking, so you should err on the side of over-explaining.

Kritiks

Similarly to above, I am good if you are able to out-tech your opponent, and comparatively worse if you fail to do so.

Fine for the fiat K, floating PIK, whatever strategy you are deploying.

I will decide FW dependent in favor of one team; I will never default to an arbitrary middle ground if it is not either teams interp. I am best for kritiks that defend a model of debate that moots the 1AC; it is structurally difficult to win "we meet." I like creative framework interpretations that attempt to deviate from "weigh the 1AC as an object of research."

Topicality

Fine for the neg. I do not share in the sensibilities for creating an arbitrarily high threshold for the negative to win. I go both ways on plan text in a vacuum, but I think that the negative needs to present an alternative interpretation other than the aff's model being bad.

I have no preference for one standard over another. I sympathize with precision outweighing limits, but I am fine for one outweighing the other.

Reasonability is winnable but requires significant investment to overcome the debatability push. Going for the aff being "reasonably topical" is probably not a winning strategy when perfectly debated.

I am almost certainly more open to evaluating a T - subsets than most judges are. That does not mean that I lean neg, but rather that I do not hold T - subsets to a different, more arbitrary standard of evaluation that precludes it from being the 2NR. This is all just to say that if you are winning it, you should go for it.

Theory

Similarly to topicality, there are people that assert they are tech over truth but instead maintain caveats and preconceptions on theory that signal that it is unwinnable. I am receptive to good theory debates. That being said, it is probably true that most theory arguments are better used as competition rather than reasons to reject the team.

It would be arbitrary for me to instantly reject hidden ASPEC. If the affirmative team drops it, it is their burden to prove why they get new answers. If I miss it, I won't vote for it. This goes similar with AFF theory violations.

Perfectly debated, I think arbitrariness is a difficult standard for most affirmative interpretations to defeat, but it still conquerable with proper debating.

Very open to a good conditionality debate, and am more than willing to vote either way for it. I think that conditionality is good, but I have spent a lot of time considering and going for condo bad. While I think particularly egregious CPs like 2NC CPs out of a straight turn are probably on the more illegitimate side, the stronger violation is probably not conditionality but 2NC CPs are bad. People automatically assume that new AFFs justify infinite condo. While I understand the justification, I don't think it to be as true or strong as most believe.

If it's a crush, it doesn't have to be all 5 minutes of the 2NR/2AR. I'd probably prefer if it wasn't.

Counterplans

Better for process and competition debates than most, but admittedly am not super caught on nuances like "textual topicality". I’d advise slowing down a little and explaining your warrants to concepts like that.

“Textual” alone is hard to debate and I am significantly better for “text and function” or “function only.” In a vacuum I think that function only is probably the best, but am easily persuaded otherwise.

I enjoy new process CPs. That is not to say I dislike "generic" or "reused" process CPs, or that I will vote them down because they are "generic/reused", but that new process CPs are simply more fun.

Disads

Zero risk is almost certainly real, and I have not heard a convincing reason for why it is not. That being said, I think that it is hard to reach.

There is not much else that can, or should be said. There is a strange repulsion to politics and “generic” DAs which I really don’t get. A disad is just a negative implication to the plan, there realistically shouldn’t be this much hemming and hawing to what that means. Read the disads you think will win.

Impact Turn

I am incredibly fond of these debates. While some impact turns are quite stupid, they allow for the opportunity to research and deploy arguments that defy conventional wisdom, and are thus fun to evaluate.

I have no strong preconceptions on either side of any impact turn. Obviously there are some sides that are truthfully correct, but I won't carve out a caveat for or against your favorite impact turn like wipeout, spark, russia war good, warming good, etc.

Of all the impact turns, the one that I have done the most research for is heg good/bad. Whether that is a good or bad thing for you is up for debate, but it is the lit I have the most experience with.

Online Debate

While I believe that online debates are a nuisance, I think that they make it significantly easier for teams (especially smaller ones) to attend tournaments. I don't care if you have your cameras on or off, it provides minimal value. My camera will probably be on for the entire debate, including if I am not currently at my computer.

It would be wise to noticeably slow down. If you are spreading at full speed I will pick up less of your arguments. This is especially true if you are not clear in-person.

Speaks

Theoretically the mean speaks should be 28.5, and I try will give speaks around there. The chance that (unless something went terribly astray) you get a 27 or a 30 is basically 0 (the only time I have given a 30 is not because of the quality of the debate itself but rather a mandate from tab that I give a team that clipped normal speaks). I have and will give substantially different speaker points between partners if it is fitting, and I think low point wins are more common than documented.

I will not give increased speaks for things like "make me laugh" or "mention x debater,” which I think is dumb. I also think that taking away speaker points for doing things like calling me judge is really dumb. If you are a funny debater that probably already affected the speaks I am giving you positively, so adding more just artificially inflates speaks.

Misc. Thoughts

I don't even know what an LD trick is.

I have a basic understanding of Kant. It comes from The Good Place and a week of Philosophy 101. I have voted on it, and I expect that I will continue to vote on it, but explain it more than you probably think that you should.

While I think that author indicts are fine, the way that most people are using them is unpersuasive. Generally, I will raise the question of the impact that the indict has on the evidence that you are presenting. Arguments like "x person has financial incentives to misrepresent facts" carry a certain impact to why I should prefer your evidence instead, and obviously I think that attached to epistemological indicts are fine, but indicts that are just "x person supports x country/organization or said something mean on twitter which means you strike the card" are nonsense and probably carries little to no weight to the rest of the card.

I have judged policy debate at national/regional levels. I expect clear articulation of arguments, reasoning & fully audible. Be respectful & have good spirit of debate. If you are going fast, I would prefer to have analytics so I can follow along better.

For me to evaluate debate, I need to understand arguments made.

Please add my email to the email chain jonathanlewin0@gmail.com

I debated Policy for Pine Crest School in HS for 4 years

I am comfortable with policy and easier/more common Ks (Cap, Set Col etc..) but may need more explanations on others

Theory (topicality, condo etc..) are ok, need to explain well why I should vote on it

For novice, avoid reading Ks, your speaker points will be lowered

K affs need a good reason to ditch topic focus

Tech > truth but I won't vote on args like death good etc...

Dropped args = conceded

I will vote based on the flow

Good impact framing can sway my vote but only when extended throughout the debate

Clarity > speed, needs to be flowable

I will vote on anything but needs to be well reasoned out

Word > Google Docs > PDF

I am not super familiar with this year's topic so at least say what each acronym means once

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Name: Shobha Viramgama

School: Pine View School

Email: shviramgama@hotmail.com

-I am a lay parent judge, treat me as you would.

-DO NOT SPREAD, if you are speaking too fast to the point where I can't understand you, you will get dropped.

- I will vote for any argument as long as it has a strong warrant and you effectively prove it.

-If you want to bring something to my attention that has happened in cross, refer back to it in a speech.

-Bad evidence=Bad case

- Keep it simple and on topic, no progressive debate.

- Make my job easy as a lay judge, the side that clearly proves to me why they win is the one that makes it onto my ballot.

- Don't be nervous, and have fun :) Everything will be fine!

I am a parent judge who has judged for 2 years. I've judged multiple LD, PF, and Policy rounds. I do not care for spreading as I cannot follow it so I would advise heavily against it. I will not give an automatic loss if you do decide to spread but I will take off speaker points and will take it into consideration when deciding which side to vote for. I prefer arguments with evidence to support it so it would be against your best interest to just provide card after card. Going over time in any way will result in a loss of points. I am not ok with off the clock road mapping. I absolutely do not tolerate any abuse in the round and any abuse will result in a large deduction of speaker points. Please be on time to the room. I do not tolerate any competitors showing up late. I prefer when competitors stand when presenting as well as steady eye contact. If competitors decide to share cases in the round, I would prefer to be on this chain.

LD:

V/VC: I hold the value and value criterion to a high standard as it is the framework of the debate. In turn, you can win or lose on just the frame work so I would advise making sure you have a sufficient argument to convince me why yours is better than your opponents'. I hold the V and VC at the same level of the argument/evidence itself.

Tricks: I do not take into account tricks

PF/Policy:

When judging, I consider both team members when deciding the win. This means that if one team has 1 good speaker and 1 ok speaker while the opposing team has 2 good speakers, I am more likely to vote for the opposing team.

As a parent debate judge, my goal is to ensure fairness, transparency, and an educational experience for all participants.

General Philosophy

• I approach the debate without preconceived notions or biases. I evaluate arguments based on how they are presented and defended in the round, not based on my personal preference.

Preferences on Arguments

• I reward rounds that demonstrate strong engagement with opposing arguments. The more a team directly engages their opponent’s points, the better.
• I value arguments that are well-supported with evidence and logical reasoning. While persuasive delivery matters, the substance of arguments carries more weight.

Speaker Points and Style

• Clarity, organization, and rhetorical will be considered.

Evidence and documentation

• Speed (Spreading): I am comfortable with speed but prioritize clarity. If I cannot understand an argument due to excessive speed, it will not be evaluated. Debaters should ensure taglines and key points are clearly articulated.
• Professionalism: Respect and decorum are non-negotiable. I will penalize behavior that is disruptive, offensive, or dismissive.
• Engagement: While I don't weigh style as heavily as content, confident and compelling delivery can enhance persuasion.

Role of Judge

• My role is more close to tabula rasa. I do not see my role as endorsing any particular ideology or policy outside the scope of the round.