Tabroom.com

2025 Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV

2025 — Las Vegas, NV/US

POLICY Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Adrian Kyle Abdul Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 5, 2024 at 1:17 AM PDT

Have questions? adriankyleabdul@gmail.com

Yes, I'd like to be added to the email chain. I do prefer SpeechDrop as an easier, faster alternative.

Anything listed here is subject to change.

tl;dr: Jokes are cool and appreciated as long as we aren't punching down. Speed is fine as long as I have the cards in front of me, but ensure that you slow down for any analytics. The smartest things said in round are said outside of cards, so don't let me miss it. Otherwise, have fun and be good people.

Experience: (I cycled through debate formats due to circumstance, but Policy was my main debate)

LD (~2 Years)

PF (~1 Year)

Congress (One Tournament)

Big Questions (~1 Year)

Policy/CX (4 Years)

I went to nationals for Policy after my sophomore year. I have a serious love/hate relationship with Policy; I love the format, but hate how certain jargon/techniques have stifled real learning opportunities and discouraged new debaters.

That being said, here is how I evaluate specific arguments.

K: Despite what I just said, I enjoy K debate conceptually. If you are reading this trying to decide if you should run a K in front of me, you may. That being said, unless you are prepared and understand the material, running a K will not impress me anymore than a stock issue. However, exceptional understanding and usage of the literature absolutely will. High risk/High reward.

T: If you are trying to win on T, I expect you to go for it. Arguing that abuse has occurred/abuse is possible sounds less credible when you run it with a half-dozen additional off case arguments. If you don't think your T arguments are strong enough to warrant an entire rebuttal speech, I'd suggest going for something else or at least making it the majority of your speech instead of a footnote.

Theory: I love Theory, it's an incredibly useful toolkit in a debate format that grows increasingly faster/more technical every tournament. That being said, I will totally vote on reasonability if you don't properly describe your abuses/voters/impacts.

Else: Tell me how to vote and what to consider significant. I will vote on risk of an impact, unless you properly weigh the impacts of the debate during your speeches. Please point out when your opponent drops an argument; I will notice it but it is your job as a competitor to explain the significance of it.

WSD (Nats '18)

I expect you to embrace the conversational nature of WSD and deliver informational speeches in language and style that can be understood by a layman.

--Definitions--

The adjudicator guide to WSD states: "The Proposition must present a reasonable definition of the motion:-Choose the obvious meaning of the motion -Reasonable parameters are okay (ex. excluding burn victims from a cosmetic surgery ban); unreasonable parameters are not (tautologies, truisms, time/place set)"

From this, it is clear that both NSDA and I want to uphold the accessible and non-squirrely debate spirit in WSD. I believe that definitions should be the most logical and easily understood meaning by a layman.

Don't give some strange quantum science definition for the word "immediate" and say that immediate can't happen because it's already past.

--Scoring--

If your side has the most points overall at the end of the round, you win. The rubric is broken down into content, style, and strategy. Therefore, any team that offers stellar arguments but bland style will probably lose to a team that has decent arguments and decent style.

64 - 67: A speech below standard. This range doesn't say that a speaker gave a bad speech, just that the speech was either underwhelming or had some problems.

68 - 70: A fine speech. This was either a performance that was neither particularly good nor bad, or had some really good moments mixed with some really bad moments.

71 - 75: A great speech. The speaker hit good points, spoke well, used their time well, etc.

75+: Showstopper. I will be thinking about your speech for days. Difficult to describe what kind of speech belongs here, but it will generally require tying your content and style together very neatly.

Below 64 is reserved for a speech with serious mistakes. The most likely is a speech that is off topic/framework and thus suffers on the content and strategy score.

--POIs--

Answer at least two or three POIs during your speech, and make sure they aren't just the first two or three that pop up. When given the opportunity to deliver POIs, stand frequently or I will assume that you have little issue with what your opponent is saying.

Dylan Amo OES 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 10:44 AM PDT

For email chains ... my email is amod (at) oes . edu

I am a former the HS policy debate coach and CEDA Coach. Founding member of the Portland Urban Debate League - expanding debate opportunities to underserved schools in Portland Metro.

I was a policy/LD debater for Lincoln High School in the early 90s and CEDA debater for The American University in Washington, DC. Upon graduation, I returned to coach the American CEDA program for three more years. After a long hiatus, I’ve been called back to the activity that I love. Beyond my coaching experience, I am a founder of the Portland Urban Debate League.

Debate is awesome! But … it’s only as good as we, as a community, make it. I am coming back to the activity to make sure that it continues for future generations. Teams that disrespect their opponent, or this activity, will be dealt with severely on my ballot. Integrity is not something to trifle with for short-term strategic benefits.

1. Homophobic, racist, religiously intolerant, or sexist language and/or behavior will not be tolerated.

2. Rudeness, dishonesty, cruelty and vulgarity devalues the activity.

3. Have fun! Strive for creativity, humor, debate scholarship, humility, compassion, and being strategic.

Stylistic Overview

1. CLASH!

2. Quality over quantity. Just because I can handle a faster round doesn't mean that it impresses me.

3. Smart analytics is always better than lazy warrantless evidence.

4. Debates about evidence QUALITY and CONTEXT are to be encouraged!

5. I am ok with tag teaming during cross ex so long as it provides greater clarity and isn’t abused.

6. So long as it’s not a new case, advantage/scenario or neg position. The negative and affirmative positions should be disclosed pre round, if asked.

7. If asked, evidence must be made available to the opposition.

8. Provide a clear decision-making calculus from the start throughout the round and please do all the impact analysis for me.

9. I believe one or two prestandards (a propri) arguments are sufficient, anything more and I lean towards abuse.

10. I've been away from the activity for a few years and online debating creates some clarity issues. Let's bring it down a notch or two while my ear gets retrained to the activity.

Positions

Kritiks

I’m more than open to them. But know that I’d probably rather judge just about anything … than a postmodernism debate. Even if you argued this in front of me 5 times this season, debate a K as if I’ve never heard the topic before.

Topicality/theory debates

Slow down for clarity, these debates tend to be nuanced. Try to limit these positions to only abusive situation

Disadvantages

Not shockingly, case specific disads are better than generic.

Counterplans

Competition is key. Aff leaning on Conditionality. Legit perms must include all of plan and part of the counter plan.

I will try to judge whatever you want, within reason, so long as you justify it.

Anirv Ayyala Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu July 25, 2024 at 10:59 PM PDT

anirv.ayyala@gmail.com add me to the chain, he/him

Debated at James Logan HS currently debating for CSUF

TLDR

tech>truth

Read whatever best for you and I'll judge accordingly. There are inevitable argument preferences that infect my thought process but good debating and technical skills will always beat pandering to my debate beliefs. The 2nr/2ar decision should be what the best option on the flow is every time.

1. Policy v K

2. KvK

3. Policy v Policy

Policy

Plan affs - good for anything, better ev comparison gets you out of most problems. Strong specific internal links are great and the best offense against process or adv cps.

DAs - best for straight turns over turns case. Aff specific links and ev comparison gets you through most debates. DA + case 2nrs are some of my favorite to judge but I'm often convinced by case o/ws in these debates. Clear impact scenario comparison is the best judge instruction in these debates.

CPs - not the best for process, I've judged a minimal amount of competition debates but I've generally leaned towards functional competition as the best standard. Technical concessions make this debate a lot easier than I'm making it seem so if you are fully winning the competition flow explain what establishes competition and what the best standard is. Clever perms are appreciated and often easier to understand than 10 new definition cards. I love specific adv cps and rehighlighting 1ac ev goes a long way for you. Adv cps solve most affs I judge but often lose against good aff internal link analysis. Respond to deficits sufficiently and it should go your way. I default judge kick unless told otherwise.

For the aff, offensive DAs are always better than defensive arguments on CPs. Strong deficits cross-applied from case solvency/impact cards are my favorite responses and help a lot during time pressure.

T - Love and hate it. Can be great but is very often not, call out nonsensical interps and most evidence on T is atrocious. Predictable limits is prob my fav standard but anything goes. I assume models unless said otherwise and I don't weigh reasonability significantly but I can be convinced it matters.

Read Ks on the neg exclusively in hs but have become a lot more flex in college

I'm most familiar with setcol, afropess, cap and security Ks.

Links to the plan are amazing but not required - I tend to lean towards middle ground interps but direct comparison of the impacts of your model vs their model helps you when trying to refuse fiat. I tend to prefer subjectivity shifts over only this round matters but I find a lot K teams are insufficient at answering no shift or alt causes. Long overviews are a waste of time and contextualizing your offense makes me really happy - specific empirics are great link warrants.

Affs best option is to just directly answer the links and is the best perm arg you can give me. I love impact turn 2ars and most K teams aren't ready to go card for card on heg. Extinction o/ws is very convincing if you weigh the aff but answering the death K with 'being alive is a prereq' misses the mark entirely. Just because you believe extinction is prior doesn't make the aff morally bankrupt, contextualize your response to your scenarios and weigh consequences as an ethical filter. 2ar theory against the alt is great with me and often underutilized.

Kaffs

Read these all of my career. Debate is a game but how we play the game is up to you. Use your case as offense on other flows and remember that the aff is more than just an impact turn - im voting aff because I think it's a good idea not because a certain model of debate is worse.

v FW - My debate experience shows aff preference but I find my judging record to be heavily neg favored. I'm good for both sides and have been in these debates more than enough times to make the correct decision.

I prefer impact turn 2ars and am often left unconvinced on aff counter interps - they are almost always arbitrary and never solve limits. This is not to say it's an unviable strategy in front of me, but I do by a large margin prefer interps that are reasonably attached to the rez than some self-serving interp. Affs need both content and form level impact turns - smart cross applications of them win you these debates.

For the neg, sufficient defense to the impact turn usually wins you these debates. I am often unconvinced of affs pushes to deem every topical aff as violently unethical and you should exploit this. Clever TVAs and clear warrants for the possibility of good topic/policy engagement are very convincing to me. T with a strong reform good push on case almost always results in a neg ballot from me.

Fairness and clash are both impacts and can be internal links - I don't have a preference towards either but I think smart 2nrs do better by making a decision on procedural fairness vs the clash internal link turn instead of splitting time on both. If you are going for fairness the top of the 2nr should be why procedural fairness o/ws everything else.

Katie Baxter-Kauf St. Paul Central HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 10:24 AM CDT

Katie Baxter-Kauf (she/her pronouns)
2024-2025 Notes
St. Paul Central / Minnesota Urban Debate League
Chain emails: katebaxterkauf@gmail.com, stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com

Past useful info: I debated in high school in Kansas (Shawnee Mission East, 1995-1998), and in college for Macalester (1998-2001) (all policy plus a semester of HS LD and rogue college parli tournaments). I coached at Blaine High School (2000-2002), then the Blake School (2002-2003), some freelancing for Mankato West, Shawnee Mission East, and others (2003-2007), then for Como Park briefly when I came back to work for the UDL (2007-2008) and some side helping as needed at St. Paul Central. I coached college at the University at Buffalo and the University of Rochester (2003-2007). I ran logistics for the MNUDL from 2007-2011, when I graduated from law school and became a lawyer. I have judged 5-10 middle school or high school debates a year since 2011, and judged 25 policy debates in 2022-2023, and 50+ rounds in 2023-2024. I also serve as the Vice Chair of the Minnesota Urban Debate League Advisory Board.

General notes and TLDR version: (1) don't be a jerk; (2) I don't care about tag-team cross-ex, just don't yell at each other; (3) don't steal prep; (4) debates are public and that means that everyone is welcome, I will always defend what I do, people should feel safe, and I'll answer whatever questions anyone has afterwards; (5) fundamentally do what you want and I'll follow along; and (6) debate is fun and I'm so glad you get to experience doing it, and I'm honored to get to participate with you.

Argument notes after a couple years judging/coaching policy debate after a dozen years off: Debates are fundamentally the same as the way they were when I last coached and if anything I am surprised at how little argument and structure have evolved. I have no problem keeping up with you all and I have an exceptionally good memory. I at least sort of read along with speech docs and that seems to make it so that I filter my fundamental feeling that tech comes before truth through a lens of the quality of your evidence. I find the practice of interspersing theory arguments with substantive arguments a little hard to follow at times, especially when you put the substance parts in your speech docs but not the fast theory parts. If you want me to actually vote on these arguments or use them as direction on how to evaluate other arguments, like a permutation or a CP (instead of just using them for the time tradeoff or to make sure you don't drop something) you would be well served to make sure I can understand you. I have a fairly expressive face and am fairly chatty.

If someone who knew me a long time ago is giving you advice on how to debate in front of me, I will say that I am fundamentally the same person I have been since my very first day of debate practice but that the main way I have probably changed is that I have a higher voting threshold on arguments that are either blippy theory or fundamentally stupid (and recognized by all parties as such). I am a hard sell, for example, on the concept that the cap kritik that people read when I was in high school is still cheating 25+ years later, or that dumb unexplained voters mean that teams should lose absent some compelling justification. I also think that framework and conditionality debates are, at their core, boring, though I understand both the necessity and utility. If push comes to shove, I would always rather people talk about substance.

2024-2025 Topic Notes: I am a practicing litigator, primarily doing plaintiffs' side complex class action work (mostly data breach/cybersecurity/privacy, antitrust, and consumer protection). I am not an IP lawyer. What this means for you: I understand legal concepts and especially the process of litigation exceptionally well and I will know if you describe it incorrectly (and will probably tell you). This should not affect whether I vote for your incorrect argument, and I know more than anyone that a lot of these concepts are pretty esoteric, but accuracy will certainly get you higher points.

BUT, and MOST CRITICALLY: Fundamentally, I don't care what arguments you read. I want you to do what you think you do best and have a good time doing it. I would DRAMATICALLY prefer to watch a good debate on your preferred argument than a bad one on stuff you think I'd like. I am generally very well read and aware of stuff going on in the world, but have a humanities/literature/law school and not a realist foreign policy/science/economics background. I am fine in a heg/DA/CP debate. I have read a lot more of the critical literature than you think I have. I have general proclivities and stuff I know better than other stuff or literature I've actually read (and I have a fairly low threshold for gendered/racist/hate-filled/exclusionary behavior and/or language), but it's your debate, and I will do my absolute best only to evaluate the arguments that get made in the debate round. If you have questions about specific arguments, I'm happy to answer them.

POINTS: SORRY, I KNOW MY POINTS ARE TOO LOW. Am going to try adjusting up the half point I seem to be behind at circuit tournaments for the rest of the year and see how it goes. I follow instructions from Jake Swede at UDL tournaments. PLEASE don't take this personally - I think you're all great. Edit 1/6/25: this seems to have worked? Will keep doing it.

Raymond Stephen Behnke Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 2:41 AM PDT

here is my email: raymondbehnke4@gmail.com

Hi my name is Raymond Behnke and I'm currently a debater at UNLV in LD.
Short version: I've judged and coached policy for a few years, debated in policy debate all 4 years of high school. I do not know at all about the current topic, I haven't judged a single round of policy on this topic but i'm confident that as a prospective law student who has experience in copyright, ip law research that I can catch on quickly. My judging philosophy is similar to Will Katz, debate is an activity meant to investigate the nitty gritties of the topic and works best when there is in-depth clash and evidence comparison. Further, I love philosophy and political theory, I invite both k debaters and policy debaters to pref me although I will say im not good for most K's. Please be respectful, I don't tolerate ad-homs, bigotry, racism, sexism, ecetera.

Long version:

My experience in debate has actually mostly been formed through policy, NFA LD even being a refitted version of policy into a one on one format. Therefore, it should go without saying my judging experience in policy is quite extensive, i've coached and judged policy in the 3 years i've been in college and out of policy debate. In hs I spent 4 years in policy debate, several years in total dedicated toward this activity has made this culture close to my heart. I am a big research and evidence person, I love debates that focus on evidence and impact comparison along with in-depth clash on how to evaluate these arguments in their probability and usage of reasoning in the internal links. This is why case-turns, da turns the case, case turns the da or solves the da, internal net benefit turns the case, and so on all are entertaining arguments to me.
On DAs: Wax poetic to me on any link story, politics das continue to be my favorite type of disad but of course it has to have a decent link! Generics aren't created equally and I like teams that try to use new information and corelate recent events with the plan. These arguments with case or a cp are very powerful if you can do the proper impact work.
On CPs: Throw anything at me, throw the worst cheating procedural counterplan, fiat trump getting assassinated or being flung into the moon. Im not gonna say i'm gonna vote for these if the aff makes the common sense theory args or proper permutation. I'm apt to vote on condo, 50 states fiat bad, ecetera. Just know that i'm open to everything and i'm not gonna think a PIC is like murdering a puppy and ruins debate. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to. Please just be clear with how the cp should be competitive with the aff, functional versus textual, and both the aff and neg should be evaluating the consequences to using such a standard.
On T: Topicality is a extension of theory, therefore I treat topicality as a very dense argument. You should be using recent and specific evidence to the topic to justify why your version of the topic should be preferred. Since I don't have a great grasp on topic literature for IPR I am very open to limiting T definitions but I often vote for aff in cases where I think they're reasonably under the topic.
On Ks: I am not good for k's, you need to prove the aff is doing something bad not just link to the topic. K's need alts, although framework can fill in this role that increases the risk of a aff perming it and integrating it as a actionable part of the plan.

How to get good speaker points:
I want to emphasize I prioritze respect and dislike any form of insulting, ad-hom, personal attacking type of behaviour in the debate. Don't excessively swear or tell inappropiate stories... I'm open to questions and comments after I make my decision. What i'm not open to is rude, nasty behavior from you afterwards. Please as a organizer of the tournament clean up after yourselves, don't bring food into the round, you should be leaving the room set up as you found it.

Tech > Truth

Ian Beier College Prep

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 5:02 PM UTC

**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character or on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. i forgot what eight was for.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

Dillon Brouwer Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 27, 2024 at 12:17 PM PDT

For cases we use speechdrop. - I don't shake hands.

Me: Current Assistant Coach at UNLV. NFA top 11 speaker. Comm TA at UNLV. Theater undergrad. 9+ years debate experience

TLDR: Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. This being said, I have been more truth over tech lately. Some arguments are so bad I'm inclined to do work against it. If its cold conceded I will go with it, but if its a truly bad interpretation/argument, it won't take a lot to mitigate risk of it happening. I have responded well to sensible 'gut check' arguments before.

- I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat. You need to have clear tags on your cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence.

- I can handle about a 7/10 with speed. I'll vote on anything but make sure the K makes sense.

Debate is as much much as a performative game as it is a argumentation game

Argumentation

Prefer standard Advantage v Disad debate but I'm fine on the K. Need in round abuse for T. K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred. Avoid running away from arguments. Actual dropped arguments will win you the round. I vote a lot on good CP/DA combinations.

For LD I believe that fundamentally

1) Good FW is an ultimate truth and is the most important thing of the round.

2) it is the debaters job to prove a general principal. I am generous with AFF fiat but not unrealistic

3) the proof is in the logic, plans cant be proven and so use your skills to explain it to me with logical lines of thinking. Go over the line by line, give me good overviews and explain where your winning and why.

Safety

If you feel as though you cannot continue the round for any reason and have the ability to knock on the table 3 times please do so and the round will end immediately and a discussion can occur about where to go from there. (I get it, my anxiety attacks freeze me up entirely)

Jared Burke Peninsula High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 8:03 AM PDT

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

Cade Cottrell The Meadows School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 7:10 AM PDT

cadecottrell@gmail.com

Updated November 2024

Yes I know my philosophy is unbearably long. I keep adding things without removing others, the same reason I was always top heavy when I debated. But I tried to keep it organized so hopefully you can find what you need, ask me questions if not.

For the few college tournaments I judge, understand that my philosophy is geared towards high school students since that is the vast, vast majority of my judging/coaching. Just use that as a filter when reading.

Seriously, I don't care what you read as long as you do it well. I really don't care if you argue that all K debaters should be banned from debate or argue that anyone who has ever read a plan is innately racist and should be kicked out of the community. If you win it, I'm happy to vote for it.

***Two Minutes Before A Debate Version***

I debated in high school in Utah, and in college for UNLV. I coached Green Valley High School, various Las Vegas schools, as well as helping out as a hired gun at various institutions. I have debated at the NDT, was nationally competitive in high school, and coached a fair share of teams to the TOC if those things matter for your pref sheet (they shouldn't). I genuinely don't have a big bias for either side of the ideological spectrum. I seem to judge a fairly even mix of K vs K, Clash of Civs, and policy debates. I can keep up with any speed as long as its clear, I will inform you if you are not, although don't tread that line because I may miss arguments before I speak up. If you remain unclear I just won't flow it.

Sometimes I look or act cranky. I love debate and I love judging, so don't take it too seriously.

My biases/presumptions (but can of course be persuaded otherwise):

- Tech over Truth, but Logic over Cards

- Quality and Quantity are both useful.

- Condo is generally good

- Generic responses to the K are worse than generic K's

- Politics and States are generally theoretically legitimate (and strategic)

- Smart, logical counterplans don't necessarily need solvency advocates, especially not in the 1NC

- #Team1%Risk

- 2NC's don't read new off case positions often enough

- I believe in aff flexibility (read: more inclusive interpretations of what's topical) more than almost anyone I know. That is demonstrated in almost every aff I've read or coached.

- I'll vote for "rocks are people" if you win it (warrant still needed). Terrible arguments are easily torn apart, but that's the other team's duty, not mine.

***

A Few Notes You Should Know:

Speaker Points: Firstly, I compare my speaker points to the mean after almost every tournament, so I try to stay in line with the community norm. I have had a dilemma with speaker points, and have recently changed my view. I think most judges view speaker points as a combination of style and substance, with one being more valuable than the other depending on the judge. I have found this frustrating as both a debater and coach trying to figure what caused a judge to give out the speaks they did. So I've decided to give out speaker points based solely on style rather than substance. I feel whichever team wins the substance of the debate will get my ballot so you are already rewarded, so I am going to give out speaker points based on the Ethos, Pathos, and Logos of a debater. Logos implies you are still extending good, smart arguments, but it just means that I won't tank speaks based off of technical drops (like floating pics, or a perm, etc) as some judges do, and I won't reward a team's speaker points for going for those arguments if I feel they are worse "speakers", the ballot is reward enough. Functionally all it means is that I probably give more low-point wins than some judges (about one a tournament), but at least you know why when looking at cume sheets after tournaments.

Debate is a rhetorical activity. This means if you want me to flow an argument, it must be intelligible, and warranted. I will not vote on an argument I do not have on my flow in a previous speech. I am a decent flow so don't be too scared but it means that if you are planning on going for your floating pic, a specific standard/trick on theory, a permutation that wasn't answered right in the block, etc. then you should make sure I have that argument written down and that you have explained it previously with sufficient nuance. I might feel bad that I didn't realize you were making a floating pic in the block, but only briefly, and you'll feel worse because ultimately it is my responsibility to judge based off of what is on my flow, so make those things clear. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

(*Update: This is no longer true in online debate tournaments, I look through docs because of potential clairty/tech issues*: I don't look at speech docs during debates except in rare instances. I read much less evidence after debates than most judges, often none at all. If you want me to read evidence, please say so, but also please tell me what I'm looking for. I prefer not to read evidence, so when I do after a round it means one of three things: 1. The debate is exceedingly close and has one or two issues upon which I am trying to determine the truth (rare). 2. You asked me to read the evidence because "its on fire" (somewhat common and potentially a fire hazard). 3. The debate was bad enough that I am trying to figure out what just happened.)

Prep time: I generally let teams handle their own prep, I do prefer if you don't stop prep until the email is sent. Doing so will make me much happier. If you are very blatantly stealing prep, I might call you out on it, or it might affect speaker points a little.

***

Neg: I am very much in favor of depth over breadth. Generally that doesn't affect how I feel about large 1NC's but it means I find myself thinking "I wish they had consolidated more in the block" quite often, and almost never the opposite. If you don't consolidate much, you might be upset with the leeway I give to 1AR/2AR explanations. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate. Pick your best arguments and go to battle.

DA's: I love in-depth disad debates. Teams that beat up on other teams with large topic disads usually have one of two things: A. A large number of pre-written blocks B. A better understanding of the topic than their opponents. If you have both, or the latter, I'll quite enjoy the debate. If you only have the former, then you can still get the ballot but not as much respect (or speaker points). Small disads very specific to the aff are awesome. Small disads that are small in order to be unpredictable are not. I am of the "1% risk" discipline assuming that means the disad is closely debated. I am not of that discipline if your disad is just silly and you are trying to win it is 1% true, know the difference.

CP's: I have a soft spot for tricky counterplans. That doesn't mean I think process/cheating counterplans are legitimate, that just means I'll leave my bias at the door more than most judges if you get into a theory debate. That said, theory is won or lost through explanation, not through having the largest blocks. Generally I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive, that doesn't mean you can't win of yours isn't, it just means if it is then you probably have some theoretical high ground. I also think if you have a specific solvency advocate for the counterplan (meaning a piece of evidence that advocates doing the counterplan, not just evidence that says the counterplan "is a thing" [I'm looking at you, Consult CP people]) you should utilize that both as a solvency argument and as a theoretical justification for the counterplan. I am neutral on the judge kick question. If you want me to judge kick, say so in the 2NR/2NC, and if you don't then say so in the 1AR/2AR, that's an argument to be had. However, if no one makes an argument either way, my default is if the 2NR is DA, CP, Case, then I think there is an implicit assumption in that strategy that the squo is an option. If the 2NR is only CP & DA, I think the implicit assumption is aff vs. CP. Advantage counterplans are vastly underutilized. Logical counterplans probably don't need solvency advocates.

T: I think the way reasonability is construed is sad and a disservice to the argument. I perceive competing interpretations as a question of whose interpretation sets the best standard for all future debate, and reasonability as a question of whether the aff harmed the negative's fairness/education in this specific round. Under that interpretation (Caveat: This assumes you are explaining reasonability in that fashion, usually people do not). I tend to lean towards reasonability since I think T should be a check against aff's that try to skirt around the topic, rather than as a catch-all. T is to help guarantee the neg has predictable ground. I've voted neg a few times when the aff has won their interp is technically accurate but the neg has won their interp is better for fairness/limits/ground, but that's mostly because I think that technical accuracy/framer's intent is an internal link, rather than an impact. Do the additional work.

Theory: This is a discussion of what debate should look like, which is one of the most simple questions to ask ourselves, yet people get very mixed up and confused on theory since we are trained to be robots. I LOVE theory debates where the debaters understand debate well enough to just make arguments and use clash, and HATE debates where the debaters read blocks as fast as possible and assume people can flow that in any meaningful fashion (very few can, I certainly can't. Remember, I don't have the speech doc open). I generally lean negative on theory questions like condo (to a certain extent) and CP theory args, but I think cp's should be textually, and more importantly, functionally competitive, see above.

Framework/T against Non-Traditional Aff's: I have read and gone for both the Procedural Fairness/T version of this argument and the State Action Good/Framework version of this argument many times. I am more than willing to vote for either, and I also am fine with teams that read both and then choose one for the 2NR. However, I personally am of the belief that fairness is not an impact in and of itself but is an internal link to other impacts. If you go for Fairness as your sole impact you may win, but adequate aff answers to it will be more persuasive in front of me. Fairness as the only impact assumes an individual debate is ultimately meaningless, which while winnable, is the equivalent of having a 2NR against a policy aff that is solely case defense, and again I'm by default #1%RiskClub. "Deliberation/dialogue/nuanced discussion/role switching is key to ____________" sorts of arguments are usually better in front of me. As far as defending US action, go for it. My personal belief is that the US government is redeemable and reformable but I am also more than open to voting on the idea that it is not, and these arguments are usually going straight into the teeth of the aff's offense so use with caution. TVA's are almost essential for a successful 2NR unless the aff is clearly anti-topical and you go for a nuanced switch side argument. TVA's are also most persuasive when explained as a plan text and what a 1AC looks like, not just a nebulous few word explanation like "government reform" or "A.I. to solve patriarchy". I like the idea of an interp with multiple net benefits and often prefer a 1NC split onto 3-4 sheets in order to separate specific T/FW arguments. If you do this, each should have a clear link (which is your interp), an internal link and impact. Lastly, I think neg teams often let affs get away with pre-requisite arguments way too much, usually affs can't coherently explain why reading their philosophy at the top of the 1AC and then ending with a plan of action doesn't fulfill the mandates of their pre-requisite.

K's: These are the best and worst debates. The bad ones tend to be insufferable and the good ones tend to be some of the most engaging and thought provoking. Sadly, most debaters convince themselves they fall into the latter when they are the former so please take a good, long look in the mirror before deciding which you fall under. I have a broad knowledge of K authors, but not an in depth one on many, so if you want to go for the K you better be doing that work for me, I won't vote for anything that I don't totally understand BEFORE reading evidence, because I think that is a key threshold any negative should meet (see above), so a complex critical argument can be to your advantage or disadvantage depending on how well you explain it. I also think the framing args for the K need to be impacted and utilized, that in my opinion is the easiest way to get my ballot (unless you turn case or win a floating pic). In other words, if you can run the K well, do it, if not, don't (at least not in the 2NR).

Edit: I think it usually helps to know what the judge knows about your critique, so this list below may help be a guide:

I feel very comfortable with, know the literature, and can give good feedback on: Nietzsche, Wilderson, Moten (& Harney), Security, Neoliberalism, Historical Materialism, Colonialism (both Decoloniality and Postcolonialism), Fem IR, Deleuze and Guattari (at least relative to most).

I have both debated and read these arguments, but still have gaps in my knowledge and may not know all the jargon: Hillman, Schmitt, Edelman, Zizek cap args, Agamben, Warren, Ableism, Kristeva, Heidegger, Orientalism, Virillio, Lacan, Anthro, Ligotti, Bataille, settler colonialism metaphysics arguments.

ELI5: Baudrillard, postmodern feminism arguments, Killjoy, Bifo, Zizek psychoanalysis, Object Oriented Ontology, Spanos, Buddhism, Taoism, your specific strain of "cybernetics", probably anything that isn't on these lists but ask first.

***

Aff:

Bad aff teams wait til the 2AR to decide what their best arguments are against a position. Good aff teams have the round vision to make strategic choices in the 1AR and exploit them in the 2AR. Great aff teams have the vision to create a comprehensive strategy going into the 2AC. That doesn't mean don't give yourself lots of options, it just means you should know what arguments are ideally in the 2AR beforehand and you should adapt your 2AC based off of the 1NC as a whole. Analytical arguments in a 2AC are vastly underused.

Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I'm fine with these. They don't excite me any more or less than a topical aff. I think the key to these aff's is always framing. Both because negatives often go for framework but also because it is often your best tool against their counter-advocacy/K. I often am more persuaded by Framework/T when the aff is antitopical, rather than in the direction of the resolution, but I've voted to the contrary of that frequently enough. This won't affect the decision but I'll enjoy the aff more if it is very specific (read: relevant/jermaine/essential) to the topic, or very personal to yourself, it annoys me when people read non-traditional aff's just to be shady. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

Answering K's: It is exceedingly rare that the neg can't win a link to their K. That doesn't mean you shouldn't question the link by any means, permutations are good ways to limit the strength of neg offense, but it means that impact turning the K/alternative is very often a better strategy than going for a link turn and permutation for 5 minutes in the 2AR. I think this is a large reason why aff's increasingly have moved further right or further left, because being stuck in the middle is often a recipe for disaster. That said, being able to have a specific link turn or impact turn to the K that is also a net benefit to the permutation while fending against the most offensive portions of negative link arguments are some of the best 2AR's.

Last Notes:

I prefer quality over quantity of arguments. If you only need a minute in the 2NR/2AR then just use a minute, cover up any outs, and finish. I believe in the mercy rule in that sense. I will vote against teams that clip and give the culprit 0 speaker points, however I believe in the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", so be certain before levying accusations and make sure to have a recording. (Explicitly tell me that you want to issue a clipping challenge, I've had debaters email me and I don't see it, or wait until after the debate. Don't do that.)

I'll give you +.1 speaker points if you can tell me what phrase appears the most in my philosophy. Because it shows you care, you want to adapt to your judge, and maybe because I'm a tad narcissistic.

Things I like:
- A+ Quality Evidence (If you have such a card, and you explain why its better than the 3+ cards the other team read, I accept that more willingly than other judges)

- Brave (strategic) 1AR/2AR decisions

- Politics disads that turn each advantage

- If you are behind, I'd much rather you cheat/lie/steal (maybe not steal, and cheat within reason) than give up. If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'.

- Neg blocks that only take 1-2 flows and just decimate teams.

- Controlling the "spin" of arguments (I'll give a lot of leeway)

- Energy Drinks/M&M's/Candy (Bringing me any of these will make me happy, me being happy generally correlates to higher speaker points)

Things I don't like:
- Not knowing how to send speech docs in a timely manner!

- Debaters that act like they are of superior intelligence compared to their partner/opponents

- Reading arguments with little value other than trying to blindside teams (timecube, most word pics, etc.) Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

- Being unclear

- Horses (Stop acting like they're so goddamn majestic, they're disgusting)

- Toasted Coconut

Molly Cozzens Rowland Hall 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 15, 2024 at 11:17 AM MDT

Molly Cozzens

Assistant Coach at Rowland Hall

Add me to the email chain: mollycozzens@((gmail))

Experience

I competed successfully in high school LD (trad) and extemp, college parli and impromptu. I won nationals in impromptu and placed 3rd in parli. I coached all events for a high school team and taught public speaking and argumentation at a university. I have judged since 2004.

Key Preferences & Beliefs

Nothing makes me happier than a round where everyone in the room enjoys the debate. I reward sincerity, respect toward others, good research, and original analysis that keep the conversation intellectually fresh.
Extremely low tolerance for ethical violations, non-inclusive behavior, and intellectual shortcuts.
Speaker points start at 28 as a baseline. Extra points for those who demonstrate humor, clever analogies, a vivid vocabulary, etc.

Policy Paradigm

Open to various arguments and ideas, love weird innovative Ks with strong links, etc. Surprise me!
Speak as quickly as is comfortable for you. Don’t yell.
Truth vs. Tech is a strange framing and it’s making debate worse. I won’t intervene on behalf of competitors as if I know The Ultimate Truth. But please don’t use technical strategy or theory to the exclusion of engagement with the substance of the round (exception: theory genuinely used to address an egregious problem is always welcome).
Make high-quality arguments using the Toulmin model. This means focusing on articulating your warrants and internal links - the bread and butter of argumentation. Don't just say "extend” or “turn” or “de-link” and leave it for me to fill in the blanks as to how and why.

LD/PF Paradigm

Open to prog or trad. Whatever you do, do it well.
You have much more space for beautiful speaking compared to Policy, so make the most of this opportunity.
Make high-quality arguments using the Toulmin model. This means focusing on articulating your warrants and internal links - the bread and butter of argumentation. Don't just say "extend” or “turn” or “de-link” and leave it for me to fill in the blanks as to how and why.

Kyle Delgado West Campus (Sacramento) 6 rounds

Jeshua Evans Univ Of Chicago Lab School 6 rounds

Stephen Goldberg West Campus (Sacramento) 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 4:20 AM PDT

I am a coach at C.K. McClatchy West Campus, and Ghidotti Early College High Schools, and the Board President of the Sacramento Urban Debate League. My general philosophy is run whatever you want, do it as fast as you want, just be clear. I will vote on just about anything except racist, sexist, homophobic etc arguments. I see my job as a judge as evaluating the evidence in the round and deciding the debate based on what is said without my intervention to the greatest degree possible.

That said, I do have a few notions about how I evaluate arguments:

Topicality -- I vote on it. I do not have any "threshold" for topicality -- either the aff is topical or it is not. That said, for me in evaluating topicality, the key is the interpretation. The first level of analysis is whether the aff meets the neg interpretation. If the aff meets the neg interpretation, then the aff is topical. I have judged far too many debates where the negative argues that their interpretation is better for education, ground etc, but does not address why the aff does not meet the negative interpretation and then is angry when I vote affirmative. For me if the aff meets the neg interpretation that is the end of the topicality debate.

If the aff does not meet, then I need to decide which interpretation is better. The arguments about standards should relate to 1) which standards are more important to evaluate and 2) why either the negative or affirmative interpretation is better in terms of those standards (for example, not just why ground is a better standard but why the affirmative or negative interpretation is better for ground). Based on that, I can evaluate which standards to use, and which interpretation is better in terms of those standards. I admit the fact that I am a lawyer who has done several cases about statutory interpretation influences me here. I see the resolution as a statement that can have many meanings, and the goal of a topicality debate is to determine what meaning is best and whether the affirmative meets that meaning.

That said, I will reject topicality on generic affirmative arguments such as no ground loss if they are not answered. However, I see reasonability as a way of evaluating the interpretation (aff says their interpretation is reasonable, so I should defer to that) as opposed to a general statement without grounding in an interpretation (aff is reasonably topical so don't vote on T).

I will listen to critiques of the notion of topicality and I will evaluate those with no particular bias either way.

Theory -- Its fine but please slow down if you are giving several rapid fire theory arguments that are not much more than tags. My default is the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument and not the team. If you want me to put the round on it, I will but I need more than "voter" when the argument is presented. I need clearly articulated reasons why the other team should lose because of the argument.

Disadvantages and counterplans are fine. Although people may not believe it, I am just as happy judging a good counterplan and disad debate as I am judging a K debate. I have no particular views about either of those types of arguments. I note however that I think defensive arguments can win positions. If the aff wins there is no link to the disad, I will not vote on it. If the neg wins a risk of a link, that risk needs to be evaluated against the risk of any impacts the aff wins. Case debates are good too.

Ks: I like them and I think they can be good arguments. I like specific links and am less persuaded by very generic links such as "the state is always X." Unless told otherwise, I see alternatives to K's as possible other worlds that avoid the criticism and not as worlds that the negative is advocating. With that in mind, I see K's differently than counterplans or disads, and I do not think trying to argue Kritiks as counterplans (floating PIC arguments for example) works very well, and I find critical debates that devolve into counterplan or disad jargon to be confusing and difficult to judge, and they miss the point of how the argument is a philosophical challenge to the affirmative in some way. Framework arguments on Ks are fine too, although I do not generally find persuasive debate theory arguments that Kritiks are bad (although I will vote on those if they are dropped). However, higher level debates about whether policy analysis or critical analysis is a better way to approach the world are fine and I will evaluate those arguments.

K and Non-traditional affs: I am open to them but will also evaluate arguments that they are illegitimate. I think this is a debate to have (although I prefer judging substantive debates in these types of rounds). I tend to think that affs should have some connection to the topic (not necessarily a plan of action) but I have and will vote otherwise depending on how it is debated. I do remain flow-centric in these debates unless there are arguments otherwise in the debate.

Rosalind Goldman Notre Dame High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 1, 2024 at 4:23 AM PDT

Please add me to the chain: rosgoldman8@gmail.com

Notre Dame '23, UCLA '27

She/her

I was 2N who went for primarily policy args, but I will work to evaluate all arguments fairly and without predisposition.

Tech > truth

Ev quality is VERY important to me. Cards with 6 words highlighted out of context and/or grammatically incorrect are highly unpersuasive. The other team pointing this out will be rewarded with high speaks and most likely a win (presuming they have better cards).

Be clear!!! Slow down on analytics/tags/overviews/anything you really want me to understand and number your arguments (in every single speech). I am not the most exceptional flow in the world, so prioritizing clarity of a few good args over proliferation of lots of meh args will work in your favor.

I have no topic knowledge, so do not assume I understand your acronym or jargon and please err on the side of over-explanation of topic specific stuff, like mechanisms, norms, and processes.

I am super comfortable in these debates.

I love thorough, well-researched advantage CPs and agent CPs. I do not love process CPs with contrived internal NBs, but I understand that they are sometimes necessary. If you must, please reads cards that are actually about the process you fiat in the context of the topic and do your best to explain why the INB links to the aff. If you are aff in these debates, I am most likely to be persuaded by an intrinsic perm, but you must have a theoretical justification for it and explain how it resolves both the aff and the NB.

I lean heavily neg on theory and think most theory args vs CPs are meaningless affirmative whining. Condo is good probably up to 5 and then I maybe start to become more sympathetic to the aff, so long as they can explain the impact of IN-ROUND abuse. Even then, I will vote for whoever does the better technical debating. You need to explain your model of the topic and what impact it solves (and ideally, how it also resolves the other side's offense). Do not speed through a prewritten condo (or any) block at top speed; I won't be able to flow it. I find this is often a problem more for the 1AR, but all rebuttals from both sides need to have a clear interpretation, internal links to impacts, and answers to the other side's offense. Lastly, I'll probably default to judge kick unless the aff wins a theoretical reason I should not. It's better for the neg to start these debates early rather than say one line in the 2NR and let the 2AR quadruple your time here.

Please make a complete argument. DAs need UQ, a link, an internal link, and an impact. Every single part needs to be present in the 1NC and clearly extended throughout each speech, with evidence to support ALL of it.

The neg should make as many turns case args as possible, at each level of the DA (i.e. link turns case, IL turns case, impact turns case) and the aff needs to answer all of then or it's a pretty rough recovery.

Do impact calc and do it well

I am comfortable in K v Policy debates, but will be least qualified in K v K debates.

It will probably be best for you to assume I am unfamiliar with your args and lit base and so you should clearly explain your theory of power, why the aff/topic is bad, how you resolve impacts, etc.

I don't think a strong link wall necessarily needs a ton of cards(although it won't hurt), but does need to be very specific to the aff's cards, scenarios, and CX explanation.

I am probably pretty neg leaning in FW vs K aff debates. I often struggle to understand how the aff can resolve the material impacts explained in the 1AC without material change in or beyond the debate space. This means the aff needs to be very clear on what change to the squo they defend and how it overcomes structural problems in debate and the world. The neg team should always go for some sort of presumption argument on case. I also think a TVA is great defense on FW, but the neg needs to explain why it means the aff can engage under their model. Likewise, the aff cannot neglect the TVA portion of the debate.

Both sides must have a case list and explain why their list creates a better topic.

PTIV is a bad arg and a cop out, but the neg needs to explain why. Also, the neg should check that the word is, in fact, in the plan text, because I've seen this happen too many times.

I honestly really love a short (but competent) T extension in the block because I think it puts a disproportionate amount of time pressure on the 1AR. But, it's a fine line; please don't spend 45 seconds spewing through nonsense words without establishing proper offense or defense.

Misc

You cannot insert rehighlightings unless the words you have rehighlighted have already been read by the other team.

Time your own speeches and don't steal prep

Be nice, but not too nice: there is zero reason to yell at or attack your opponents, but assertive and sassy debaters are fun to watch.

Corrine Gormley Notre Dame High School 1 rounds

Gibran Hassan Sonoma Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 23, 2024 at 11:27 AM PDT

Judges for: Sonoma Academy (2019-present)

Previously judged for: Peninsula, MBA, Meadows

UCLA '23

Add me to the email chain: gibran.fridi@gmail.com

Email Chain Format: [Tournament Name Round # : Aff Name vs Neg Name]

Speed is fine, but clarity over speed. I will yell clear, but after the second time if I don't understand what you're saying, I won't flow it. Also please disclose on the wiki.

St Marks Update: I have been absent from the debate community for a while. I have zero topic knowledge but I have been judging for 6 yrs now. Explain your acronyms and let me get accustomed to spreading speed again and you should be set.

Some Clarifications for this year because these things keep happening in round:

-cross-ex is not prep

-sending marked docs if it takes more than a minute is prep.

-marked docs don't need to have cards that weren't read taken out, that is your job to flow. The only time u should be sending out marked docs is if you actually mark a card.

- if we are having tech or wifi issues, try to resolve it best before the round starts. I would rather start late but everything working than stop after every speech due to wifi issues.

TLDR

Do what you do best. Trying to adapt to me as a judge is a waste of time. Although I am more familiar with policy arguments, I will vote for any argument you run as long as you do it well. K v K, Policy v K, K v FW, Policy v Policy.... i will vote for anything.

Arguments are claims, warrants, and impacts -- means that "dropped" arguments are true only if you explain why they matter and the reasons they're true. I need more explanation than just "they dropped the DA- we win!"

Tech>Truth

Topicality

I'm down to see a good T debate. I think T is vastly underused by 2Ns. If your 1N is a killer T debater, use it to your advantage. Most affs to some extent are untopical, so make them stop cheating. Have a good interp/counter interp and give me some good clash on the standards debate. I don't defer to reasonability or competing interps, so I will be convinced by both.

Theory

If condo is a legit strat for you it should be a big part of the 1AR and all of the 2AR. I will vote on condo, but there has to be in round abuse. If they read states and neolib, I will not be very convinced to vote on condo. And I definitely believe that neg should definitely have condo to test the aff. Other theory args aren't as convincing to me unless the other team completely drops it.

Probably my favorite debate argument. I love a good CP/DA neg start.

A good advantage CP with a sick DA can be a killer neg strat. But have some good evidence on how and why the CP solves. Usually, 1AC evidence can be used as solvency advocates for ADV CPs. Also, the CP better be competitive, cause then I have no reason to vote for it.

Yes, most K's are cool and I will definitely still vote on the K even though I'm most familiar with policy arguments. I think Ks are very interesting and probably produce the most real-world change. But if you don't understand your K and can't explain it to your opponents, I will have a hard time voting for it. Have some good links that you can explain. Also, the alt better solve or at least do something. If you can't explain what the alt does and what voting neg does, then please don't read that K. There's nothing more embarrassing than watching a K team not know what they are talking about in cross-ex. What K lit I know well (Cap, Set Col, Gnoseology, Security, Orientalism, Foucault). Bad K debates are worse than bad policy debates.ngl if ur a POMO team, don't pref me lol. I really don't want to listen to Bifo, Baudrillard, D&G etc debates.

Policy Affs

Do what you do best. Have solvency advocates, win the case solves something.

K Affs

Used to err neg on these debates, but as I judge more and more rounds, I feel differently now lol. I don't really have a preference anymore and yes I will vote for K affs. I am more experienced with policy but recently I have really enjoyed K aff rounds. Same rules apply as the K above.

Case

Destroy them on case. Nothing makes the 1AR harder than amazing case debate in the block.

Speaks

Don't steal prep. Flashing/emailing isn't prep unless it becomes an issue in the round. If you're very unclear, I will dock your speaks. Please don't clip. That's the last thing I want to deal with. You will lose the round, get a 0 and I will have to have a conversation with your coach. Also please don't make sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic etc. comments. You will lose the round and get a 0. Don't be mean to the other team. Friendly banter is always welcome.

Jayati Hazra Westlake High School 3 rounds

Craig Hennigan Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:57 AM UTC

Updated for IPDA and Policy judging

Craig Hennigan
University of Nevada Las Vegas

TL/DR - I'm fine on the K. Need in round abuse for T. I'm fine with speed. K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred. Avoid running away from arguments. Actual dropped arguments will win you the round. I vote a lot on good CP/DA combinations.

I debated high school policy in the early 90’s and then college policy in 1994. I also competed in NFA-LD for 4 or 5 years, I don't recall, I know my last season was 1999? I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 8 years. I coached for 5 years at Wayne State University. I was the Director of Forensics at Truman State University for 7 years and now am the Director of Debate at UNLV and started in 2022.

Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. This being said, I have been more truth over tech lately. Some arguments are so bad I'm inclined to do work against it. If its cold conceded I will go with it, but if its a truly bad interpretation/argument, it won't take a lot to mitigate risk of it happening. I have responded well to sensible 'gut check' arguments before.

I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat. You need to have clear tags on your cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence.

With regard to specific arguments – I will vote seldom on theory arguments that do not show significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless it’s really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. Showing an abuse story should come well before the last rebuttal. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate." Intrinsic and severance perms I think are bad if you can show why they are intrinsic or severance. Again, I'd drop argument before team.

I don't judge kick. If the CP is in the NR, the SQ isn't an option anymore.

I don’t like round bullys. If you run an obscure K philosophy don't expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a ‘good’ person who wants to enhance the education of all present. I have voted for a lot of K's though so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. I will have a preference for K alts that actually "do" something. The influence of my ballot on the discourse of the world at large is default minimal, on the debate community default is probably even less than minimal. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome. I have found clarity to be a premium need in LD debate since there is much less time to develop a K. Failing to explain what the K does in the 1AC/NC then revealing it in the 1AR/NR is bad. If the K alt mutates into something else in the NR, this is a pretty compelling reason to vote against the K.

Never run from a debate. I'll respect someone that goes all-in for the heg good/heg bad argument and gets into a debate more than someone who attempts to be tricksy in case/plan writing or C-X in order to avoid potential arguments. Ideal C-X would be:

"Does your case increase spending?"

"Darn right, what are you gonna do about it? Catch me outside."

I will vote on T. Again, there should be an in-round abuse story to garner a ballot for T. This naturally would reinforce the previous statement under theory that says potential abuse is a non-starter for me. Developing T as an impact based argument rather than a rules based argument is more persuasive. As potential abuse is not typically a voter for me and I'll strike down speaker points toward RVI's based on bad theory. Regarding K's of T, it is a high bar and you probably shouldn't do it.

Anything that you intend to win on I need to have more than 15 seconds spent on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner.

Performance: Give me a reason to vote. Make an argument still with the performance. I don't typically want to do extra work for a debater so you need to apply your performance to arguments your opponent makes. I don't place arguments on the flow for you through embedded clash.

Small note: If you're totally outmatching your opponent, you're going to earn speaker points not by smashing your opponent, but rather through making debate a welcoming and educational experience for everyone.

Policy:Most of this is the same. Know that I'm getting older. I used to be around an 8 on the scale of speed and its probably dropped down to a 7. This means don't spread analyticals if you want me to vote on them. If you group 4-5 perms at once very quickly I may not get them all. I'm only in the game 2-3 times a year so some of the newer terminology or tricks I may not be as up to speed on. I won't vote on short blip arguments. Not the biggest fan of too many conditional worlds, 1 K and 1 CP is my default. I don't do judge kick either. I'm probably a bit of a dinosaur in this area now.

IPDA: IPDA is not policy nor should it resemble policy. I'm much less flow oriented. I'm of the belief that IPDA is far more of a speech activity and judge it accordingly. Dropped arguments carry weight, but less weight for me if they aren't really quality arguments. I'm of the opinion that a debater can win even if they aren't winning "on the flow" by being persuasive and speaking well. This is a publicly oriented event, so being cordial and good natured is important. This is a showcase to what debate ought to look like for the public, so treat it that way. I aim to be a judge that tries to leave behind my Policy/LD experience to substitute my speech experience and quality argumentation knowledge.

Card Clipping addendum:

Don't cheat. I typically ask to be included on email chains or ideally a speechdrop so that I can try to follow along at certain points of the speech to ensure that there isn't card clipping, however if you bring it up I in round I will also listen. You probably ought to record the part with clipping if I don't bring it up myself. Also, if I catch clipping (and if I catch it, it's blatant) then that's it, round over, other team doesn't have to bring it up if I noticed it. If its obviously unintentional then I'll warn you about it. (like you're a novice or you skipped a non-strategic line by mistake).

Jesus Jimenez Hire 6 rounds

Brit Johnston Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 5:06 AM PDT

Do a speech drop, I beg of you.

However, if you have no idea what speech drop is, I still want to be on the email chain.
johnsb43@unlv.nevada.edu

I do debate, I do speech, I do it all. Don't lie please, I'll know.

My quals:

Seven of competitive debate experience, 3x Nat Qualifier hs level/2x at college level, 2x NIETOC Qualifier, and currently doing LD collegiate debate at UNLV.

I've competed at both the local and nat circuit, so I'm familiar with a wide variety of debates.

Basic stuff,

1. If you're hateful or discriminatory in any way, I'm not scared to report it and give you the autoloss.

2. Keep the round fair and safe. If I notice anything out of the ordinary, it won't look good on you.

3. I understand phones are a part of our livelihoods, but only use them for time, nothing else. I will also be keeping time, but I won't call you out if you go over; you should know, and my speaker points will reflect that if you continuously go over.

4. I've been known to have an rbf in round, but idk what to say. That's just my face at a 12-hour debate tournament. I genuinely have nothing against you or your partner or anyone except the wifi when it doesn't work. Whatever questions y'all have, don't be afraid to ask them. I have a lot of experience and a lot of knowledge in my noggin, I will gladly help you with anything you need. Especially if you're a small school, I'm always open to showing some great resources to expand your debate abilities.

5. Your health doesn't know what a debate round means. For any reason you need to leave the room during a round, you can do it without much explanation. I ask that you leave your phone on the table and shut your computer so your competitors can't make any claims, but other than that, leave if you have to. If you are gone for too long, though, without explanation, I'll go hunting for you to make sure you're okay. And for any reason, if you need to stop a round, stop the damn round. Your health comes first, not a win.

Now specific thingies:

First, I can follow your spreading as long as I'm in a speech WORD doc. I'm not going to try to flow your speeches if I have no feasible way to read your cards.

Second, I don't typically vote on theory but especially not disclosure theory. While your case should be on your Wiki, an entire debate that's not even about the topic at hand is not going to be beneficial for any party.

Congress-

Talk frequently, ask good questions, be courteous, and let me know that you're there. If I don't remember your name by the end of the round, you will not be anywhere near the top 9. Clash is a big thing and if you're able to use it effectively and appropriately, it will be huge bonus points for you. Decorum is a vital part of this event so please maintain it.

LD/Policy-

I hate flex prep. Don’t do it in front of me. Prep is not another cross x lol. While I’m not necessarily against trad debate, I have a strong preference towards prog. Now, onto prog. On the aff side, I need your link chains to function. Your advantages need to be cohesive enough that I can follow your line of reasoning, and it doesn't seem like a stretch. You must also stick to your stock issues for the flow to favor you; your plan needs to solve for all of them, and if it doesn't, you don't have a likely chance of winning. Also, stick to your case throughout the round; a lot of times, off-cases won't function. If you have a clear flow on case, I will have a very easy time voting for you. Also, on that matter, have clear impacts. I need to know the big bad thing that will happen if we don't pass the aff's plan. On the neg, I love turns, CPs, and DAs are cool, and if compelling, they're good offs for the neg. I have definitely noticed myself voting for T-args a lot more, but if you go for T, you have to go all the way. I'm not going to vote on T if you're still running another off. Like I said previously, I don't typically vote on theory unless it's a MAJOR rule violation, so do with that what you will, and I don’t like K’s (this includes K affs). I am a big policy debater and would like to keep the world in the realm of the resolved. I would recommend avoiding Theory and K’s with me as your judge.At the end of the day, though, both sides need to weigh their impacts. I'm a big fan of impact calc, and I am often swayed to the competitors with the better weight. Cross gets heated and I don't flow it but don't start yelling and insulting your competitor. I'm also chill with speed, but a tip for novices: if you don't know how to spread, don't risk it. Give me VOTERS! By the end of the round, if I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, I won't be voting for you.

Public Forum-

Please make sure you impact weigh, I need to know your weighing mechanism by the end of the round. I know when args and cards have been dropped. Explain to me what the round comes down to; the summary and final focus are the most important speeches, and it's where my vote usually lies. I go by what my flow says, and I will vote for the more compelling arguments if both sides flow well. I like line-by-line since it's more organized and makes everyone's life easier. Signpost pleas. Cross is for clarification; use it to forward your case more effectively. I don't love speed in public forum, but I can follow it. Ultimately, I leave the round very much in the competitors' hands, have fun, and convince me to give you my ballot.

SPEAKER POINTS (this is where cross is important):

24- You violated one of my basic rules!!! (Going over time won't get you a 24 but using your phone illegally will D;)

25- You still violated one of my basic rules but it wasn't too bad

26- Your speeches were really over or under time and you weren't a strong debater in the round; attitude may also be a factor in a 26

27- Your speeches were poorly structured, your arguments weren't the most understandable, and your speaking style could be improved

28- You were a great debater and you showed strength in all areas but there's room for improvement

29- You were close to a perfect performance but you had a couple of errors that dropped you down

30- Perfect.
(I have a hard time giving low speaks to people but I will if y'all push my buttons.)

Alright y'all, that's really all that I have, remember that most importantly debate is supposed to be fun, so let's have a good round!

Serena Jones CK McClatchy High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 29, 2024 at 9:31 AM PDT

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at Ghidotti, CKM, and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: Do whatever is best for you on how many you want to bring into the round.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

Mishelle Kamyshnikov Notre Dame High School 5 rounds

Gavin Kung The Meadows School 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 7, 2024 at 8:10 PM EDT

Meadows '25 Northwestern '29

Chain: godogk50@gmail.com

Top Level

Tech>Truth but untrue/fake args will be harder to win.

Arguments must have a claim and a warrant. Dropped args need extensions and explanations of implications.

Evidence quality is important, but that's your job to prove and explain why that matters.

Judge instruction/framing is probably most important part of the last few speeches.

Being shady is bad. You know who you are (sending out the wrong docs/shells/hiding stuff on "accident"). It might win you some debates against weaker opponents, but better teams will catch it. Lowering speaks is my way of trying to deter it.

Be funny- it'll help your speaks and make me like you more.

I wish everyone would disclose and open source. Not doing it means small schools just have to write another email to get the chain anyways. Big schools will have your speech docs anyway, so you're not really getting a competitive advantage. Definitely justifies condo and maybe other theory stuff.
+0.2 speaks if you disclose all evidence with highlights up to the 2AR

+0.4 if you also disclose all pre-written blocks

Evaluation

Here is an explanation of how I evaluate debates at a meta-level:

While I think there is value in the offense/defense framework for evaluation, for me to vote on offense there has to be substantive risk. Second, quality trumps quantity.

Where does the evidence come from? there are not enough debaters talking about the quality of research their opponents are quoting.

Get to the point. On any given controversy in debate, there are relatively few arguments at play. Get to the core issues quickly. Point out the central logical/argumentative problems with a given position. I am much more compelled by a speaker’s ability to take the 2-3 core problems with their opponent’s position and use those fallacies to answer all of the other team’s advances. It shows you have a grip on the central issue and you understand how that issue is inescapable regardless of your opponent’s answer

Flowing

If you don't flow, I WILL NOTICE and your speaks will probably reflect that.

Case

I will vote on presumption- 0 risk of case is possible

If they have bad solvency - talk about it - its an easy arg to win, but if you ignore it, I'm likely assuming they solve

"Make alt causes great again!" - Malcolm Gordon

Theory:

- Condo's probably good, but reading 4 cheaty CPs doesn't help the neg and can be a persuasive voter.

- Both teams should point out when interps are arbitrary.

- If you are actually considering going for theory at the end of the debate, don't just re-read 2ac theory shells. You need to engage with and answer the other team's offense

- Why does everyone spread theory like their life depends on it? Being unflowable just makes me more sympathetic for the other team.

Topicality:

- Giving a case list of unpredictable affs that the aff's interp justifies is convincing

- Impact calc is really important. Just saying "limits" or "ground" isn't enough to convince me that I should vote down the other team

- You should 100% read t against plans you know are obviously untopical

- Topicality should be about in-round abuse.

Ks:

- Don't restrict yourself on what k's you are reading, but err on the side of explanation. Flowery language in my eyes is an elitist heuristic to confuse others.

- In my entire career as a 2N, I've gone for policy args 4 times.

- The more generic your K, the less educational offense you're going to win

- "state bad" or "reform bad" links in addition to plan specific links must be contextualized to the aff

- Reading a K isn't cheating- just prove that they should need to defend an alt to access an impact. Why should the neg get to weigh it if they can't solve it?

- I won't vote on a perm, or an alt for that matter, if I don't know what it is- aff teams should explain how a perm overcomes the links rather than reading 5 perms in the 2ac that aren't explained. That being said, perm do both is probably the only legitimate perm.

- Winning framework isn't enough - k teams should have specific links to the aff (whether that's their plan, advantages, etc) and an alternative that resolves their links/impacts

- Framework is probably where every K debate devolves down to, so impact calc, impact calc, impact calc. It's much easier for me to weigh substantive reasons why one model of debate is good

- The aff should never ignore good root cause debating- it can serve as terminal solvency deficits to the aff if it's substantiated by proper alt explanation

- K debates that are very specific to the 1AC are my favorite debates to watch- but if your 2nc or 2nr could be read for multiple different affs on the topic - that's a problem

CPs

- Counterplans probably need to be both functionally and textually competitive.

- Counterplans that compete off certainty/immediacy/normal means are probably cheating, but it's the aff's burden to prove that.

- Word PICs are hard to vote on- the word needs to be VERY BAD for me to vote on it

- Cps that are competitive and actually solve the aff are great

- Aff teams should extend theory on cheaty CPs more often

- Strong solvency deficits o/w a small risk of a net benefit

- I don't like debates about the same 8 generic CPs that are read every year, but understand generics are generics for a reason

DAs

- DAs with strong link stories and good ev are great, but spending 4 minutes on impacts doesn't make sense if there isn't an I/L (this probably means topic DA > politics)

- Aff teams - cross x of the 1nc is a good time to squash stupid da's

- Defensive arguments that are executed well can take out a da - uq overwhelms the link, no i/L, aff not key, etc are all good if well explained and contextualized

-It’s all about probability- magnitude is ok but only in terms of “our impact causes yours."

-Extinction outweighs is trite because by the end of the debate all impacts are extinction or nuclear wars that easily result in another impact in the debate that has been claimed as extinction (nuke war hurts the environment, aff said that causes extinction).

-Probability is key. Establishing risk is where it’s at. A higher risk trumps a higher magnitude in most instances.

Politics

-The story must matchup. I will vote on such non-offensive arguments like: your uq and link evidence don’t assume the same group of politicians, you have no internal link, passage of that bill is inevitable, Trump has no PC etc.

-Of course I don’t vote on these in isolation-once again, refer back to the top of the paradigm-you need to explain why that core defensive argument trumps everything else the neg is saying.

K Affs:

- K-affs should defend an advocacy at the minimum but you should be able to explain what you solve (otherwise presumption args can be very compelling)

- Really esoteric 1AC tags won't get you anywhere

T FW

For the aff: the biggest problem I've noticed is that the 2ar just re-reads 2ac/1ar blocks in the 2ar on framework - so make sure you are actually being responsive to the 2nr. Impact turn the neg's standards.

For the neg:

- I think fairness can be an impact, but you should prove that your interp gives access to the type of education the aff advocates for (that's probably more of a portable impact). You should also explain how fairness is an i/L to other benefits that are unique to debate.

- TVAs are almost necessary. Given that most impact turns to T come from pedagogical reasons, you need to prove that your interpretation provides space for the ‘good education’ the aff thinks is key to stop genocide/war/racism/turkeys. Then it’s just a matter of proving that competitively the K-aff hurts the neg.

- Also, prove how your competitive equity impacts implicate their education impacts.

KvK

- K v K is cool, but only when both teams actually engage with each other's arguments

- Strong links (about method, theory, or another aspect of the 1AC) are reasons why I'm less likely to buy a perm, but they must prove why the aff is bad. Otherwise every k v k debate becomes both cap and racism are bad, etc.

- Explain how the alternative takes a different approach to resolving both team's impacts.

- I'll be less likely to vote on the perm than most judges. This is mostly because K-affs never explain what the world of the perm looks like more than surface level (We reject capitalism/colonialism/anti-blackness/turkeys too is not an explanation).

Cross X:

- Be respectful or you lose speaks.

- I pay attention and flow questions

- CX is underutilized - Ask questions that actually help your arguments (otherwise it's just a waste of 3 mins)

- Being funny is always a plus

Speaker Points

Minimum 28 unless you did something really wrong

Jack Lassiter Sonoma Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 6:35 PM CDT

Berkeley Prep Assistant Coach - 2017 - Present

10+ years experience in national circuit policy @ Damien HS, Baylor University and other institutions

Email: Jack.Lassiter4@gmail.com

I default to offense-defense: you can persuade me to evaluate otherwise.

I am flowing the speech, not the document.

I am making my decision based on the flow.

Truth throughout tech.

Framework

I have an appreciation for framework debates, especially when the internal link work is thorough and applied to pivotal questions on the flow that you resolve through comparative arguments. On framework, I personally gravitate towards arguments concerning the strategic, critical, or pedagogical utility of the activity - I am readily persuaded to vote for an interpretation of the activity's purpose, role, or import in almost any direction [any position I encounter that I find untenable and/or unwinnable will be promptly included in the updates below]

The Kritik

I have almost no rigid expectations with regard to the K. I spent a great deal of my time competing reading Security, Queer Theory, and Psychoanalysis arguments. The bodies of literature that I am most familiar with in terms of critical thought are rhetorical theory (emphasizing materialism) and semiotics. I have studied and debated the work of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze, to that extent I would say I have an operative understanding and relative familiarity with a number of concepts that both thinkers are concerned with.

Topicality:

I think that by virtue of evaluating a topicality flow I almost have to view interpretations in terms of competition. I can't really explain reasonability to myself in any persuasive way, if that changes there will surely be an update about it - this is also not to say nobody could convince me to vote for reasonability, only that I will not default in that direction without prompt.

Counterplans:

Theory debates can be great - I reward strategic decisions that embed an explanation of the argument's contingent and applied importance to the activity when going for a theory argument on a counterplan.

I believe that permutations often prompt crucial methodological and theoretical reflection in debate - structurally competitive arguments are usually generative of the most sound strategic and methodological prescriptions.

Updates:

Judging for Berkeley Prep - Meadows 2020

I have judged enough framework debates at this point in the topic to feel prompted to clarify my approach to judging framework v. K aff rounds. I believe that there are strong warrants and supporting arguments justifying procedural fairness but that these arguments still need to be explicitly drawn out in debates and applied as internal link or impact claims attached to an interpretation or defense of debate as a model, activity, or whatever else you want to articulate debate as. In the plainest terms, I'm saying that internal link chains need to be fully explained, weighed, and resolved to decisively win a framework debate. The flipside of this disposition applies to kritikal affs as well. It needs to be clear how your K Aff interacts with models and methods for structuring debate. It is generally insufficient to just say "the aff impacts are a reason to vote for us on framework" - the internal links of the aff need to be situated and applied to the debate space to justify Role of the Ballot or Role of the Judge arguments if you believe that your theory or critique should implicate how I evaluate or weigh arguments on the framework flow or any other portion of the debate.

As with my evaluation of all other arguments, on framework a dropped claim is insufficient to warrant my ballot on its own. Conceded arguments need to be weighed by you, the debater. Tell me what the implications of a dropped argument are, how it filters or conditions other aspects of the flow, and make it a reason for decision.

Judging for Damien Debate - Berkeley (CA) 2016

In judging I am necessarily making comparisons. Making this process easier by developing or controlling the structure of comparisons and distinctions on my flow is the best advice I could give to anyone trying to make me vote for an argument.

I don't feel like it is really possible to fully prevent myself from intervening in a decision if neither team is resolving questions about how I should be evaluating or weighing arguments. I believe this can be decisively important in the following contexts: The impact level of framework debates, The impact level of any debate really, The method debate in a K v K round, The link debate... The list goes on. But, identifying particular points of clash and then seeing how they are resolved is almost always my approach to determining how I will vote, so doing that work explicitly in the round will almost always benefit you.

If you have any questions about my experience, argumentative preferences, or RFD's feel free to ask me at any time in person or via email.

Jenny Liu College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 29, 2024 at 9:25 AM PDT

lowell '24 cal '28

put lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com on the email chain

tldr: first year out policy debater and very flexible, comfortable with ks, theory, policy, whatever you want

my only accomplishment is breaking at the toc as an at-large team ^^

my biggest inspiration is debnil sur

i probably think of arguments similarly to him, since he's coached me for all of my debate career

general background: im currently an undeclared liberal arts major at uc berkeley and hoping to go into law. in high school, i debated with many many many partners (basically the whole team) and that taught me the art of adaptation- i ended up debating with dora, where i got most of my legitimate varsity experience... i read both impact filled policy affs and an asian women k aff which i LOVED reading. on the neg i have gone for the classic states cp ptx, econ adv cp, as well as race ir, psychoanalysis, and a silly nommo cp. as u can tell, i have experience debating a variety of arguments and will prob be comfortable with essentially anything.

topic background: zero. sorry :*( i am very interested in ip rights and will def learn more about it thru out the topic.. pls explain things clearly bc i do not get things sometimes. if i don't understand ur aff by the end of the round, ur much more likely to lose... and that's a u problem, not mine!

flowing/evidence: i will definitely NOT going to read u into a decision (unless i have zero clue what is happening) i will take your word for whats in your evidence and the warrants UNLESS the opposing team points it out. which means... if the other side is completely lying abt the evidence and ur not pointing it out, u will probably lose bc what are u doing. with that being said if u lie abt ur evidence i will lower ur speaks if i find out!

k affs and framework: i have debated on both sides of this debate, and i feel comfortable voting for either side. i went for a k aff with an impact turn style on framework and that worked out... okay? i understand how these debates turn out and it's often just reading blocks without much impact comparison. please explain things clearly instead of just dropping jargon, i'll still get it, but its just a lot more persuasive if there's an explanation. refer to debnils paradigm for detailed thoughts.

k v k:i will probably be aff leaning if i do not understand what the k is. i have gone for cap k and this baudrillard k against k affs but its like not really complicated. if u are confident that u can write me an rfd at the top of ur 2nr that makes sense, then yes, go for it! but i am not deep into k literature so u cannot rely on me to do the background information for u. i think k debaters win too much by relying on k hacks that just do the thinking for them. pls learn how to think!

policy v ks: i have a lot of experience debating ks with a policy aff as well as the neg so i understand the usual framework tricks etc etc. similar to what i said above, i think k debaters often turn off their brain and read blocks and rely too much on k hack judges. if u are going to spread thru blocks, at least slow down occasionally so u can explain to me what exactly ur win condition is and ur main pieces of offense. yes, the world is racist, but why does the aff make it worse? u cannot be upset at me if i vote aff if u just spent the whole debate spreading thru analytics with big words with zero specific analysis abt the aff. for me its better when ks are dumbed down, like yes the opponents won't understand it, but what makes u think the judge does too? u don't need to use big boy words u found from searching up "ways to describe racism"

topicality: i think these debates are interesting if debated well. it's not just comparing which author is more qualified, but more abt the model of debate that your definition justifies. give examples, point out in round abuses that would make you much more persuasive. i am not very familiar with the topic still and would appreciate if examples are explained and contextualized.

theory: im okay for this.. condo is good ! stupid theory arguments are stupid. i will still vote on it if horribly mishandled. but it must obviously have warrants. debates with less comparison are hard to resolve for me and more analysis and explanations will only help you.

counterplans: i default to judge kick. i don't think i have judged a counterplan competition round yet but i think im ok for it? just dont spread thru analytics plz

disads: please over explain and slow down disad stories! this topic is really confusing for me and im probably exhausted so i need you to slow down and explain to me. do impact calc, tell me how to evaluate them, contextualize them! good impact calculus usually wins you this debate. however even if i dont completely understand your disad but if i have a vague picture and you're winning impact calc then i'll probably vote for you. love aff straight turns btw, so strategic.

misc:

i am very expressive so do ur best to guess what im thinking

unless i am visibly in distress or deep in thought, im probably not taking a long time to decide, im just writing down comments

i hope you all know i am as stressed as you are while waiting for my decision. i know how it feels and it only makes deciding more stressful

Nethmin Liyanage Damien-St. Lucy's 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 9:14 AM PDT

tldr - do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; topic-specific research is good; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

about me:

she/her

i coach policy debate at damien-st. lucy's

i'm not a full-time debate coach (i'm a full time data scientist), but i'm at a tournament almost every weekend. this means most of my interaction with debate is at tournaments and/or when i'm contributing to team research. more importantly, this means i care a lot about the debate community. i come to so many tournaments because i want to make debate better and i care about students -- i have almost zero tolerance for teams who are mean, actively try to make the activity worse, etc. so, be nice!

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments. I am good for teams that do topic research and not the best for teams whose final rebuttals sound like they could be given on any topic/against any strategy.

Topic Knowledge: I don't teach at camp but I do keep up with the topic. I'm involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research. My topic knowledge for events that aren't policy debate is zero, but I'll rarely be judging these events anyway.

email chains:

damiendebate47@gmail.com

nethmindebate@gmail.com

please add both

non-negotiables:

1 - speech times - constructive are 8 minutes, rebuttals are 5, each partner must give one constructive and one rebuttal, cx cannot be transferred to prep.

2 - evidence ethics is not a case neg - will not vote on it unless you can prove a reasonable/good-faith attempt to contact the other team prior to the round.

3 - clipping requires proof by the accusing team or me noticing it. i'll vote on it with no recording if i notice it.

4 - i will not evaluate out-of-round events. this means no arguments about pref sheets, personal beef, etc. i will evaluate disclosure arguments.

flowing from the speech doc?

i will not flow from the speech doc.

i will only open speech docs in the middle of a debate for the following purposes:

1 - checking for clipping (i'll do this intermittently throughout the debate)

2 - to look at something that was emailed out and flagged as necessary for my understanding of the debate (rehighlighted evidence, disclosure screenshot, chart that's part of a card, perm text with certain words struck out, etc)

i will download speech docs at the end of the debate to read all relevant evidence prior to submitting my ballot

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:) you must show me your flows before i enter the ballot!!

Some general notes:

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve theory arguments about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. Going fast is fine, being unclear is not. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate is still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

Disclose or lose. Previously read positions must be on opencaselist. New positions do not need to be disclosed. "I do not have to disclose" is a losing argument in front of me 100% of the time.

Evidence -- it matters and I'll read it. Judge instruction is still a thing here. Don't just say "read this card" and not tell me why. Ev comparison is good. Cutting good cards is good. Failing to do one or both of those things leaves me to interpret your bad cards in whatever way I want -- that's likely to not be good. The state of evidence quality these days is an actual crime scene. If you read ev that is better than the national-circuit average, I will be so happy and your points will reflect that.

Technical debating matters.I have opinions about what arguments in debate are better/worse. I think things like the fiat k and process counterplans probably produce less in-depth and educational debates than positions that require large amounts of topic research. I've still voted for these positions when the team reading these arguments executes a technical win. This means that you should not be too stressed about my predispositions -- just win the debate and you'll be fine!

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

2ac add-ons must be coherent in the speech they are presented. You don't get to turn a random card on a random sheet into an add-on in the 2ar.

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have some kind of relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

I think framework is true but I will do my best to evaluate your arguments fairly.It is easier to win against framework when affirmative teams explain the warrants for their arguments and don't presuppose that I immediately agree with the warrants behind their impact turns to framework.

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am better for the neg. However, either team/side can win my ballot by doing better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness. I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponent's strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

Theory arguments other than conditionality are likely not a reason to reject the team. It will be difficult to change my mind on this.

Theory arguments must have warrants in the speech in which they are presented. Most 2ac theory arguments I've seen don't meet this standard.

Conditionality is an uphill battle in front of me. If the 2ac contained warrants + the block dropped the argument entirely, I would vote aff on conditionality, but in any other scenario, the aff team should likely not go for conditionality.

Please weigh! Many theory debates feel irresolvable without intervention because each team only extends their offense but does not interact with the other team's offense.

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are very helpful.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

"Plans bad" is pretty close to a nonstarter in front of me (this is more of a thing in LD I think).

Kritiks (neg):

I am best for K teams that engage with the affirmative, do line-by,line, and read links that prove that the aff is a bad idea. Good k debating is good case debating!

I am absolutely terrible for K teams that don't debate the case. Block soup = bad.

I vote for K teams often when they are technical and make smart big-picture arguments and demonstrate topic knowledge. I vote against K teams when they do ... not that!

In general, clash-avoidant K strategies are bad, K strategies that involve case debating are good.

Disads:

Nothing revolutionary to say here. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare betterin close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about counterplan theory other than that condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

Competition debates have largely become debates where teams read a ton of evidence and explain none of it. Please explain your competition evidence and I will be fine! I'll read cards after the debate, but would prefer that you instruct me on what to do with those cards.

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra points for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus points for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-"tricks"

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

-new affs bad

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Alyssa Lucas-Bolin Sonoma Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 8:25 AM CDT

Top shelf:

Pronouns are she/her

Just call me Alyssa or ALB - do not call me judge and dear debate Lord do not call me ma'am.

TOC 25 UPDATE:Literally all I care about is that you flow and do line by line. If you are actually debating I will be good for you. If you are just going to read blocks without engaging your opponents please have mercy and do not put me on your pref sheet.

RE: Truf's flowing off the doc post - times I look at the doc:

-I typically will read the plan text and CP texts during the round in the sense that if I mis flow those we are all kinda cooked. I spot check for clipping on cards every once in a while. If there is an ornate perm text I will check that during the debate. If a specific piece of evidence is called into question during CX or during a speech I may check that piece of ev during CX or during prep. Besides that I will not under any circumstances flow off the doc. If you are unclear and I therefore do not understand your argument I could not expect your opponents to and therefore I will not vote for you.

Email chains: SonomaCardsCardsCards@gmail.com AND alyssa.lucas-bolin@sonomaacademy.org AND ipostround@googlegroups.com I strongly prefer email chains over speech drop etc.

I deleted most of my paradigm

...Because I have run into way way way too many situations where people wildly misinterpret my paradigm and it leads to a rather miserable situation (mostly for myself.)

Debate well and we'll figure it out.

I'd prefer you talk about the topic and that your affirmative be in the direction of the topic. I could not possibly care less if that is via policy debate or K debate. False divide yada yada. Both policy teams and K teams are guilty of not actually talking about the topic and I am judging ALL of you.

Speed is fine but I need clear distinction between arguments and I need you to build up your speed for the first 10 seconds.

Tag team is fine but I'd prefer that the designated partner handle most of the cross ex - only intervene if it is absolutely necessary. I am an educator and would prefer to see each student develop their skill set.

Stop stealing prep.

Please make as many T Swift references as possible.

Have solvency advocates - plz plz plz don't read a cardless CP :(

Heavy stuff:

*No touching. Handshakes after the debate = fine but that is it.

*I am not the right judge for call outs of specific debate community members

*I am a mandatory reporter. Keep that in mind if you are reading any type of personal narrative etc in a debate. A mandatory reporter just means that if you tell me something about experiencing violence etc that I have to tell the authorities.

*I care about you and your debate but I am not your debate mommy. I am going to give you direct feedback after the debate. I won't be cruel but I'm also not a sugar coater. It takes some people off guard because they may be expecting me to coddle them. It's just not my personality - I deeply care about your debate career and want you to do your best. I also am just very passionate about arguments. If you're feeling like I'm being a little intense just Shake It Off (Lauren Ivey.)

*Clipping = zero points and a hot L. Clarity to the point of non-comprehension that causes a clipping challenge constitutes clipping.

*I am more than fine with you post rounding as long as you keep it respectful. I would genuinely prefer you understand my decision than walk out frustrated because that doesn't help you win the next time. Bring it on (within reason). I'm back in the ring baby.

Let's have a throwdown!!! If you're reading this before a round I am excited to see what you have to offer.

Matthew McFadden Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 15, 2024 at 2:26 AM PDT

matt mcfadden
matt.mcfadden.99@gmail.com - email chain - please put me on it

---update - 2025 ---

i will give the next 2n to go for the security k or a derivation of it well in front of me 30 speaks

---end of update---

IF YOU ARE NOT TAKING PREP FOR THE 1NR, THE SPEECH SHOULD BE SENT BEFORE THE 2N SITS DOWN.

YOU CANNOT SOLELY EMAIL PERM TEXTS. THE 2AC MUST READ THEM.

YOU CANNOT 'INSERT' RE-HIGHLIGHTINGS. YOU MUST READ THEM.

---update - 2023 ---

if you want to read a k on the aff, i'm not the judge for you

if you want to read a k on the neg - and do it well - i am the judge for you

---end of update---

---update - 12/5/2021 ---

Acceptable:

- All impact turns

- Specific, well-researched K's

- Condo

Unacceptable:

- AFFs without a plan text

- Talking about your identity, race, sexual orientation, class, kinks, or anything of the sort

- Untopical AFFs

- Generic, unapplied arguments

- GBX-style process CPs

---end of update---

---update - 11/7/2020 ---

reasons to strike me:

-you read a 1ac without a plan text

"27.5 if you think the 1ac is a strategy to survive."

-you talk about your identity in debates

-you read baudrillard

-you have 3-minute-long 2nc overviews

-you think a good 1nc can be made by a conglomeration of generics

---end of update---

---update---

vote from my flow |--------------------------------------X| read every card at the end of the debate

the 1ac can be whatever you want it to be |--------------------------------------X| read a plan

the cp needs a solvency advocate |------------------------X--------------| the cp doesn’t need a solvency advocate

pics are bad |--------------------------------------X| pics are good

condo is bad |---------------------X-----------------| condo is good

go for t |---X-----------------------------------| don’t go for t

k’s that link to every aff |--------------------------------------X| k’s that link to this specific aff

---end of update---

predispositions – if you accurately describe your evidence as phenomenal, i will reward you with extra speaks in proportion to how good your cards are. if you oversell your sub-par cards, i will be thoroughly disappointed. regardless of my biases, please just go for what you are prepared to execute and have the research on.

there are really only 2 things you need to take from this –

1 – do what you're good at
2 – do LINE BY LINE
"i vote on dropped arguments that i don't believe" -ian beier

things that bother me -

prep: please have the 1nr emailed out before 2nc cross-ex is over. you can go get water for -.5 speaks or you can use prep to do it.

topicality – love it. please read a good amount of cards. if you've done the research to support a well-articulated t argument, i will be overjoyed to judge the debate. although i generally default to competing interpretations, after thinking about it, reasonability is compelling if the 2ar accurately articulates why the neg interpretation is unpredictable and overly burdensome for affirmatives, which outweighs 2nr offense – this is especially persuasive if you have aff-specific cards in relation to the topic literature or legal question of the resolution. negatives that 1 – do thorough impact calculus external to ‘they explode limits – limits are good’ and 2 – give overwhelmingly extensive lists of the absurd affs their interp justifies are crucial. limits is an internal link to the topic-specific expertise the resolutional question is designed to impart.

theory – can be tedious to resolve, but i'm intrigued. 1ar's do not extend this enough. 2ar's that do the impact comparison, turns case analysis, and offense/defense framing on theory as if it were a da are very enjoyable. if theory arguments aren't well-articulated and are overly blippy, i am fine with simply dismissing them.

must disclose judge prefs theory – no, thank you. i am not sympathetic.

kritiks – the most intricate debates or the most mediocre debates – i mean this sincerely. if you are good at making a real argument, yes please. specific link work with intricate turns case analysis and examples relating to the aff win debates. reading a new phenomenal critical theory card will make my day - ie if you have done the research to support your argument, let's go. the more generic your k is, the less inclined i am to vote for you. if you are a team that goes for the k like a disad (techy, line-by-line, interacts with the case) i'll be happy to judge the debate; the inverse is true as well.

cp – wonderful.

counterplans with long texts – my favorite.

pics – they're the best. HOWEVER – they should be substantively different than the aff and have a solvency advocate.

process cp's – you're probably cheating.

states cp – teams overestimate the impact of their solvency deficits and underestimate the efficacy of theory as an answer. aff – please go for theory.

da – yes, please.

well-researched link evidence works wonders. taking a minute of the 2nr to detail turns case analysis puts you in a great position.

if you don't have a da, you don't have a da. 1% risk calculus won't make your link for you.

impact turn – please go for these if your evidence is recent and of high quality. this means not spark. doing thorough comparison between the data and qualifications of your cards versus theirs is how these debates are won.
"people should impact turn.... everything" -ian beier

neg v. k affs – if you're neg and don't win these debates, you're the exception. these are the hardest 2nr's, so i'm willing to grant some leeway.

presumption – make this argument.

framework – yes. compare your impacts at the internal link level and do intricate turns case analysis. i enjoy institutional engagement arguments vs identity affs and truth testing/fairness against more abstract affs.

the k – though i think it is an admirable strategy, unless you have hyper-specific evidence about the aff or its mechanism, you are highly susceptible to the perm.

k affs – good luck.

aff v. the k – you have an aff; that's all you have to defend.

affs lose to the k when they don't answer offense that is embedded in link arguments, lose the framework debate, letting them get away with broad and absurd generalizations, and going for too much.

execution – evidence quality doesn't replace the necessity of good debating. but i really do love good evidence.

zero risk – it’s not possible strictly in the sense of ‘zero risk’, because there is inherently a possibility of all events but it is possible to diminish the risk of an advantage or da to such a degree that it is not sufficiently significant to overcome from the noise of the status quo. i think the new fettweis card is pretty devastating impact defense. lots of neg da's are utterly ridiculous.

cx – if their cards are awful, or their da is incoherent, pointing it out is fun. being strategic in the rhetorical method you use to get the other team to say what you want, then referencing their answers in speeches to warrant arguments is persuasive and gets you additional speaks if what they said is truly applicable.

"be snarky if you want" -grace kuang

judges/people i admire - dheidt, tallungan, khirn, tyler peltekci, dan bannister, grace kuang, spurlock, matt munday, tucker carlson, forslund, scott brown.

bad args – 'racism/sexism good' args are obviously non-starters. i won't immediately dismiss 'death good' but if this is really the position you're in, you have more immediate problems than my judging preferences.

Jonathan Meza Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 23, 2024 at 12:34 PM PDT

Add me to the email chain: Speechdrop@gmail.com
Affiliations: Harvard Westlake (2022-)

TLDR: the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want. Don’t call me judge Jonathan and/or Meza is fine.
Shout out: CSUF Debate, CSULB Debate, LAMDL

specific thoughts:

FW: Clash > Fairness, but you can go for any impact you want. I appreciate carded TVAs. (K v FW) should center competing models, aff teams should have a counter interp and role of the negative as defense to T even if going for the impact turns. More convinced by impact turns than we meet. K affs should be in the direction of the topic but can be persuaded otherwise.

DAs: Should be fast and turn case. Strategic straight turns in response to disads are appreciated

Counter plans: I appreciate good competition debates. Functional > textual competition. Counterplans probably should have a solvency advocate but it is what it is. Good advantage counterplans are good.

K: Please have a link. Framework heavy strategies have value but I am more convinced by a bigger link debate than framework no plan. That being said I don’t default to weighing the aff, or plan focus. Both sides should be able to win on either framework. Good K debating is good case debating when going for the kritik make sure to include how your links turn the case. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

T: Aff probably needs a counter interpretation. Standards should be impacted out

Theory: I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance. Splitting isn't horrible but extend warrants and the story of abuse. Up layer arguments must be clearly warranted out.

LD Specific:
Phil: it is a valuable aspect of LD, that being said over explanation and Judge instruction is very important for me in these debates. I lean towards epistemic confidence. phil innovation is cool.

Trix: be clear on warrants in order to beat the inevitable gut check. When answering trix calling out the silliness is fine but shouldn't be the only answer.

Speaks: I give them fr.

Sania Mujtaba The Meadows School 5 rounds

Chris Paredes Damien-St. Lucy's 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 9:00 AM PDT

Speed-Run Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school's teammail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien '05, Amherst College '09, Emory Law '13L. This will be my eighth year coaching in debate, and my third year doing it full time. I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) were shaped before today's Michigan-style meta.

IP Topic Knowledge: I studied IP law while at Emory and was the recipient of an IP law scholarship, so I should be a pretty good judge for evaluating topic specific arguments. True analytics that rely on topic knowledge are likely to be super persuasive to me and easy to win. I am very unsympathetic to neg gripes about this topic. I believe case specific research should be the default model of debate so 1) lack of generic neg ground is not a problem, 2) I think there's plenty of neg ground but most teams have not done the pre-requisite research to find it.

Debate Philosophy: Debate is a game. That game can take many forms depending on how the players engage with it. I believe the ideal form of the game is one in which the debaters gain resolutional knowledge by arguing the desirability of proposed hypothetical government action by the aff. The best debaters are ones who develop good topic knowledge and do the research necessary to defend their case or make nuanced objections to the opponent's aff case. Debates about the meta of the game, both the topic (T) and what community norms should be regarding certain tactics (theory), are also a valuable endeavor. I am much more open than a normal judge to decide the round on these issues, and I think that too few teams are brave enough to engage in that discussion vs. making the arguments as a time sink.

Judging Philosophy: The prime directive in every game is to win. Consequently, I will interpret all your choices in debate as tactical decisions attempting to secure maximal chance of victory and will not hold them against you. All of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents and I will vote for almost any argument so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. You can minimize intervention against you by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions. The best 2NRs and 2ARs are pitches that present a fully formed ballot that I can metaphorically sign off on. I am extremely averse to deciding the round on any non-argument norms (how debaters should behave in round), and Iwill not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the game (whether that was at camp or a previous round).

I run a planless aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am very firmly neg on framework, but tech over truth means that I usually end up voting aff close to half the time. Insofar as debate is a game, I draw a distinction between rules and standards. The rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, the standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate compared to your opponent's. What counts as better is determined in round through debate, but is usually a question of debate that is more fair or more pedagogically valuable. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated these questions better. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K's alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack out" on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) start as non-factors until the aff contextualizes them as solvency mechanisms in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however once start reading the critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off with one "painted" card than several under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, beats bad/under-highlighted cards.

Accommodations: External to any debate about my role that happens on framework, I treat my function in the room as judge first and facilitator of education second. Therefore, any accommodation that has potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary. Failure to adhere to proper accommodation request procedure heavily impacts whether I give any credence to in-round voters attached to failure to accommodate or other exclusion based arguments.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive internal link debating. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the superior internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to the more important terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive to reasonability as a filter (when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable) versus reasonability as a weighing mechanism ("Good is good enough.")

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that topicality should be a viable generic negative strategy. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think that it is the proper/only mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually, or extra topical ground proves limits explosion). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments of the flow. The TVA is terminal defense on education; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or is a better type of education itself). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but explain why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, I am fine with clash as an internal link, but I am very receptive to just internal link turning the aff model and arguing that plan-based debate creates more positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why counterplans are competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew);

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness while the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition;

- Aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity;

- the neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies);

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding;

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity);

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors);

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth);

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg;

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments;

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round;

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric (you can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo);

- ASPEC is checked by cross (the neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC; if the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse including potential ground loss).

Kritiks

TL;DR: If you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the specific aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid clash and rely on links of omission and criticisms about the state/fiat, then I am a bad judge for you. If you ended up with me in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs and/or strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance to the aff (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt).A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for disregarding the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I would much rather, and am more likely to, give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than weeding through the epistemology and pedagogy debate to determine that your theory of power comes first.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan. Generics start as very vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and have a much higher threshold on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

Neg ground should be a product of research, not spray and pray checks on the 2AC. I amextremely unfriendly to process counterplans with internal net benefits that are entirely intrinsic to the process; I have a very low bar for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases. A team that understands these differences and can impact them usually wins my ballot.At the same time, an intentionally vague plan text should not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). If the aff is vague, then the neg can and should define normal means then defend the competitiveness of the CP vs. normal means. The aff can win an entire solvency take out if there is a structural defect created by deviating from normal means (which is the case with most process CPs).

I do not judge kick by default absent instruction to do so. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I believe that a lot of issues with debate today is the quest to avoid the hard work of research with universally applicable generics (kritiks, K-affs, and process CPs with internal net benefits). The thing that all of these things share is a lack of uniqueness, therefore I am pre-disposed to value uniqueness whereas most teams undervalue it because uniqueness cannot be turned. This means I generally value defense more than most and I will assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. While I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense, having a good counterplan is the way for the neg has to leverage itself out of flawed disads.

Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average and not everyone being actually average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Strategy & Clash Points: Debaters have increasingly adopted a variety of bad habits. To counter this, I reward good practices -- those that demonstrate research and preparation with a willingness to engage in clash -- with bonus speaks. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Politics on a Courts CP is a disad; "CP gets circumvented" is not a disad). Negative teams with case specific strategies (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks. I will punish teams whose behavior minimizes clash and shows a disdain for research and preparation (hiding ASPEC, misplacing arguments on other flows, etc.) with lower speaks. This is especially true if I am forced to vote on a neg position that I cannot understand when the only neg justification is that pure technical concession means it solves.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Sonny Patel Univ Of Chicago Lab School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 1:23 PM CDT

UPDATED FOR THE BLAKE 2024

uclabdb8@gmail.com for speech docs

spatel@chicagodebates.org for anything else

**background**
i identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. i direct programming for Chicago's urban debate league. my academic background is medicine. you may be counseled on tobacco or marijuana cessation. relax, have fun!

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates (Chicago's urban debate league): 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- Chicago Debates Summer Institute - lecturer
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***paradigm***

- i view the speech as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- judge instruction is great - if you put me in a box, i'll stay there
- i like k v k or policy v k debates, as i read critical lit for enjoyment. however i end up with more judge experience in policy v policy rounds as it's north shore debate
- pen time matters. slow down a tick on your scripted analytics, overviews, theory subpoints, etc. if you want me to vote on it. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful.
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters.
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your volume and your music's volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing the debate

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. if you spam a wipeout file, go away. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate. my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.8 & above means I think you belong in elims. 2ARs: do not abuse the 2NR with new arguments.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from "Classic mode" Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i have voted several times for why that's a terrible idea. i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack! So much love for T! nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better. examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik. i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a social court, or use the ballot to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice.a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail isinvisibilia: the callout.

i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to their chaperone & tab. it's a prior question to the round.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more likely to vote on your theory argument if contextualized to the round. i want clash to be developed instead of vomiting blocks at each other.

**disads/cps/case**
i am not a legal scholar and the world of PICs on this topic is dizzying; and i'm here for it! >:D if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- chicago's urban debate leauge
- medical school, medicine
- hinustani classical music, flute
- clinical trial research
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught

**Public Forum - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

Dwayne Paul Brophy College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 11:18 AM MST

Email Chain

Add me: dgpaul8@gmail.com

Please include tournament and round number in the subject line of the email.

T/L

Tech > Truth always - There is a lower threshold for refuting an "argument" that is clearly untrue, but it is your burden to clearly explain why it should be evaluated as false

I will make the least interventional decision, meaning:

T is the highest layer - the rest is up for debate, but you better deliver a very solid T
What's conceded is true, but will only have the implications as argued by you
More judge instruction - Communicate the locus of your offense and defense clearly. If the final rebuttal is thoughtlessly extending and answering arguments without a unified argument, your likelihood of winning is low. Have intent - I will not grant any logic or rational to you if not explicitly said.
My vote is always influenced based on how the round goes down - I have no preconceptions

DAs

U/Q is up for debate - my vote is influenced based on how you debate

No preference over specific links vs. generic ones - just tell me why your link is relevant

Don't drop straight turns, and don't double turn yourself - that being said, you have to tell me they did it for me to evaluate

As the affirmative, if you drop a disadvantage, I'm still willing to hear weighing arguments from the rebuttals as to why you outweigh, but I will assume 100% risk of it happening

CPs

I think sufficiency framing is a valid argument - that being said, you must explicitly make it, and if you can't defend it, I won't buy it

'Judge kicking' the counterplan is merely to evaluate the disadvantage against the plan, in order to test whether the plan is in fact better than not only the counterplan but also the status quo. The ONLY burden of the negative is to disprove the desirability of the plan. The desirability of the counterplan should be irrelevant if the status quo is better.

I will assume judge kick, but if presented with reasons not to, it's up for debate

The threshold for winning against frivolous T-interpretations is lower, but you better be sure that it really is frivolous

Won't vote on RVIs

I'll view your standards however you debate them - ie. show me why fairness o/w education

T v. K-Affs

The negative needs to have good reasons, argued effectively, why being topical is a good thing. Consequently, the affirmative needs to have good reasons, argued effectively, why it's not - I'm not preconditioned to vote either way.

Ks On the Neg

I'm fine with all kritiks - whatever you want to argue, argue it - my only brightline is that you argue it better than the other side

Argue whatever framework you want to - the team that wins framework decides how I view the kritik debate - doesn't equate to an automatic win or loss - just depends on the framework interpretation

Extinction o/w is a good debate - show me why it does, and show me it why it does not - I'm open to swinging either way

What matters most is that you make your point - these debates boil down to a battle between positions

Theory

No preconceptions on whether conditionality is a good or bad thing - A good affirmative can explain why it's bad, and a good negative can explain why it's not - if it is completely 50/50, which I personally do not believe it, that means the negative won on conditionality - the affirmative is burdened with proving it is bad (51/49).

Most condo 2ARs are new - if you really want to go for it, make sure your 1AR sufficiently covered it - blowing up a a little blip in the 1AR is a hard sell

Debate the standards - don't just read down blocks

All other theory arguments are fine - exception to incredibly frivolous theory arguments - even if dropped, if they hold no arguable, serious, realistic weight, I'm not going to vote on it

Cross-Examination

I do not flow cross-x

It can be fun to watch

Bring up anything you would like me to evaluate from cross-x in your later speeches - I won't automatically assume anything

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being engaging to watch, being smart, being clear = higher speaks

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making bad arguments, not being clear = lower speaks

30 = best debater I've seen

29.6 - 29.9 = top debater at the tournament

29.1 - 29.5 - break deep into outrounds

28.6 - 29.0 - capability to break

28.0 - 28.5 - solid team, some learning to do

< 28.0 - some work to do

Ethics

Being racist, sexist, or violent in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate is bad.

Role as an educator outweighs role as a disciplinarian - I err on the side of letting things play out and correcting ignorance after the fact - This ends when it threatens the safety of round participants

You should give this line a wide berth

Christina Phillips Notre Dame High School 1 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:01 AM PDT

Experience

Current Affiliation = Notre Dame HS (Sherman Oaks, CA)
Debates Judged on this topic: about 40 Rounds (UMich Debate Institute)
Prior Experience: Debated policy in HS at Notre Dame HS in Sherman Oaks, CA (1992-1995); Debated NDT/CEDA in college at USC (1995-1999); Assistant debate coach at Cal State Northridge 2003-2005; Assistant debate coach at Glenbrook South HS Spring of 2005; Director of Debate at Glenbrook North HS 2005-2009; Director of Debate at Notre Dame HS Fall of 2009-Present.

General Note

My defaults go into effect when left to my own devices. I will go against most of these defaults if a team technically persuades me to do so in any given debate.

Paperless Rules

If you start taking excessive time to flash your document, I will start instituting that "Prep time ends when the speaker's flash drive is removed from her/his computer."

Major Notes

Topic familiarity

I am familiar with the topic (4 weeks of teaching at Michigan at Classic and involved in argument coaching at Notre Dame).

Delivery

Delivery rate should be governed by your clarity; WARRANTS in the evidence should be clear, not just the tagline.
Clarity is significantly assisted by organization - I flow as technically as possible and try to follow the 1NC structure on-case and 2AC structure off-case through the 1AR. 2NR and the 2AR should have some leeway to restructure the debate in important places to highlight their offense. However, line-by-line should be followed where re-structuring is not necessary.

Ideal 2AR Structure

Offense placed at the top (tell me how I should be framing the debate in the context of what you are winning), then move through the debate in a logical order.

2NR's Make Choices

Good 2NR strategies may be one of the following: (1) Functionally and/or textually competitive counterplan with an internal or external net benefit, (2) K with a good turns case/root cause arguments that are specific to each advantage, (3) Disadvantage with turns case arguments and any necessary case defense, (4) Topicality (make sure to cover any theory arguments that are offense for aff). My least favorite debates to resolve are large impact turn debates, not because I hate impact turns, but because I think that students lose sight of how to resolve and weigh the multiple impact scenarios that get interjected into the debate. Resolving these debates starts with a big picture impact comparison.

Evidence Quality/References

Reference evidence by warrant first and then add "That's [Author]." Warrant and author references are especially important on cards that you want me to read at the end of the debate. Also, evidence should reflect the arguments that you are making in the debate. I understand that resolving a debate requires spin, but that spin should be based in the facts presented in your evidence.

I have been getting copies of speech documents for many debates lately so I can read cards during prep time, etc. However, note that I will pay attention to what is said in the debate as much as possible - I would much rather resolve the debate on what the debaters say, not based on my assessment of the evidence.

Offense-Defense

Safer to go for offense, and then make an "even if" statement explaining offense as a 100% defensive takeout. I will vote on well-resolved defense against CP, DA's and case. This is especially true against process CP's (e.g., going for a well-resolved permutation doesn't require you to prove a net benefit to the permutation since these CP's are very difficult to get a solvency deficit to) and DA's with contrived internal link scenarios. Winning 100% defense does require clear evidence comparison to resolve.

Topicality

I like a well-developed topicality debate. This should include cards to resolve important distinctions. Topical version of the aff and reasonable case lists are persuasive. Reasonability is persuasive when the affirmative has a TRUE "we meet" argument; it seems unnecessary to require the affirmative to have a counter-interpretation when they clearly meet the negative interpretation. Also, discussing standards with impacts as DA's to the counter-interpretation is very useful - definition is the uniqueness, violation is the link, standard is an internal link and education or fairness is the impact.

Counterplans

Word PIC's, process, consult, and condition CP's are all ok. I have voted on theory against these CP's in the past because the teams that argued they were illegit were more technically saavy and made good education arguments about the nature of these CP's. The argument that they destroy topic-specific education is persuasive if you can prove why that is true. Separately, the starting point for answers to the permutation are the distinction(s) between the CP and plan. The starting point for answers to a solvency deficit are the similarities between the warrants of the aff advantage internal links and the CP solvency cards. Counterplans do not have to be both functionally and textually competitive, but it is better if you can make an argument as to why it is both.

Disadvantages

All parts of the DA are important, meaning neither uniqueness nor links are more important than each other (unless otherwise effectively argued). I will vote on conceded or very well-resolved defense against a DA.

Kritiks

Good K debate should have applied links to the affirmative's or negative's language, assumptions, or methodology. This should include specific references to an opponent's cards. The 2NC/1NR should make sure to address all affirmative impacts through defense and/or turns. I think that making 1-2 carded externally impacted K's in the 2NC/1NR is the business of a good 2NC/1NR on the K. Make sure to capitalize on any of these external impacts in the 2NR if they are dropped in the 1AR. A team can go for the case turn arguments absent the alternative. Affirmative protection against a team going for case turns absent the alternative is to make inevitability (non-unique) claims.

Aff Framework

Framework is applied in many ways now and the aff should think through why they are reading parts of their framework before reading it in the 2AC, i.e., is it an independent theoretical voting issue to reject the Alternative or the team based on fairness or education? or is it a defensive indite of focusing on language, representations, methodology, etc.?. Framework impacts should be framed explicitly in the 1AR and 2AR. I am partial to believing that representations and language inform the outcome of policymaking unless given well-warranted cards to respond to those claims (this assumes that negative is reading good cards to say rep's or language inform policymaking).

Neg Framework

Neg framework is particularly persuasive against an affirmative that has an advocacy statement they don't stick to or an aff that doesn't follow the resolution at all. It is difficult for 2N's to have a coherent strategy against these affirmatives and so I am sympathetic to a framework argument that includes a topicality argument and warranted reasons to reject the team for fairness or education. If a K aff has a topical plan, then I think that framework only makes sense as a defensive indite their methodology; however, I think that putting these cards on-case is more effective than putting them on a framework page. Framework is a somewhat necessary tool given the proliferation of affirmatives that are tangentially related to the topic or not topical at all. I can be persuaded that non-topical affs should not get permutations - a couple primary reasons: (1) reciprocity - if aff doesn't have to be topical, then CP's/K's shouldn't need to be competitive and (2) Lack of predictability makes competition impossible and neg needs to be able to test the methodology of the aff.

Theory

I prefer substance, but I do understand the need for theory given I am open to voting on Word PIC's, consult, and condition CP's. If going for theory make sure to impact arguments in an organized manner. There are only two voting issues/impacts: fairness and education. All other arguments are merely internal links to these impacts - please explain how and why you control the best internal links to either of these impacts. If necessary, also explain why fairness outweighs education or vice-versa. If there are a host of defensive arguments that neutralize the fairness or education lost, please highlight these as side constraints on the the violation, then move to your offense.

Classic Battle Defaults

These are attempts to resolve places where I felt like I had to make random decisions in the past and had wished I put something in my judge philosophy to give debaters a fair warning. So here is my fair warning on my defaults and what it takes to overcome those defaults:
(1) Theory v. Topcality - Topcality comes before theory unless the 1AR makes arguments explaining why theory is first and the 2NR doesn't adequately respond and then the 2AR extends and elaborates on why theory is first sufficiently enough to win those arguments.
(2) Do I evaluate the aff v. the squo when the 2NR went for a CP? - No unless EXPLICITLY framed as a possibility in the 2NR. If the 2NR decides to extend the CP as an advocacy (in other words, they are not just extending some part of the CP as a case takeout, etc.), then I evaluate the aff versus the CP. What does this mean? If the aff wins a permutation, then the CP is rejected and the negative loses. I will not use the perm debate as a gateway argument to evaluating the aff vs. the DA. If the 2NR is going for two separate advocacies, then the two separate framings should be EXPLICIT, e.g., possible 2NR framing, "If we win the CP, then you weigh the risk of the net benefit versus the risk of the solvency deficit and, if they win the permutation, you should then just reject the CP and weigh the risk of the DA separately versus the affirmative" (this scenario assumes that the negative declared the CP conditional).
(3) Are Floating PIK's legitimate? No unless the 1AR drops it. If the 1AR drops it, then it is open season on the affirmative. The 2NC/1NR must make the floating PIC explicit with one of the following phrases to give the 1AR a fair chance: "Alternative does not reject the plan," "Plan action doesn't necessitate . Also, 2NC/1NR must distinguish their floating PIK from the permutation; otherwise, affirmatives you should use any floating PIK analysis as a outright concession that the "permutation do both" or "permutation plan plus non-mutually exclusive parts" is TRUE.
(4) Will I vote on theory cheap shots? Yes, but I feel guilty voting for them. HOWEVER, I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A REVERSE VOTING ISSUE EVEN IF IT WAS DROPPED.

Who is a Good Debater

Anna Dimitrijevic, Alex Pappas, Pablo Gannon, Stephanie Spies, Kathy Bowen, Edmund Zagorin, Matt Fisher, Dan Shalmon, Scott Phillips, Tristan Morales, Michael Klinger, Greta Stahl, George Kouros. There are many others - but this is a good list.

Respect

Your Opponents, Your Teammates, Your Coaches, Your Activity.

Extra Notes CP/Perm/Alt Texts

The texts of permutations, counterplans, and alternatives should be clear. I always go back and check the texts of these items if there is a question of a solvency deficit or competition. However, I do feel it is the burden of the opposing team to bring up such an argument for me to vote on it - i.e., unless it is a completely random round, the opposing team needs to make the argument that the text of the CP means there is a significant solvency deficit with the case, or the affirmative is overstating/misconstruing the solvency of a permutation because the text only dictates X, not Y, etc. I will decide that the aff does not get permutations in a debate where the affirmative is not topical.

Technical Focus

I try to follow the flow the best I can - I do double check if 2AR is making arguments that are tied to the 1AR arguments. I think that 2AR's get significant leeway to weigh and frame their impacts once the 2NR has chosen what to go for; however, this does not mean totally new arguments to case arguments, etc. that were presented before the 2NR.

Resolve Arguments

Frame claim in comparison to other team's response, extend important warrants, cite author for evidence, impact argument to ballot - all of these parts are necessary to resolve an argument fully. Since debate is a game of time management, this means going for fewer arguments with more thorough analysis is better than extending myriad of arguments with little analysis.

Disrespect Bad

Complete disrespect toward anyone who is nice; no one ever has enough “credibility” in this community to justify such actions. If there is a disrespectful dynamic in a debate, I ALWAYS applaud (give higher speaker points to) the first person to step down and realize they are being a jerk. Such growth and self-awareness should rewarded.

Fear to Engage Bad

Win or lose, you are ultimately competing to have the best debate possible. Act like it and do not be afraid to engage in the tough debates. You obviously should make strategic choices, but do not runaway from in-depth arguments because you think another team will be better than you on that argument. Work harder and beat them on the argument on which she/he is supposedly an expert. Taking chances to win debates good.

Fun Stuff

And, as Lord Dark Helmet says, “evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb.”

Banecat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ywjpbThDpE

Dimarvin Puerto Sonoma Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 1, 2024 at 7:29 PM EDT

Dimarvin (Dah-MAR-Vin) > Judge

Email Chain: puerd20@wfu.edu , wfudbt@gmail.com

TA: Wake Forest, Assistant Coach: Niles North

Nobel '16, Lane Tech '20, Wake Forest '24, Wake Forest M.A '26, Patterns of Movement '∞∞

Forever indebted to Black and Native Debate

The Goats; Amber Kelsie, Daryl Burch, Ignacio Evans, Taylor Brough, Kenny Delph, Ari Collazo, Aysia Grey, those unnamed...and Nate Nys (honorary white man).

TLDR;

Since high school, I have been a "K debater". I focus on arguments such as Afropessimism, Black Performance, Black Baudrillard, and other forms of black studies. I think debate should be a space for critical thinking skills and the production of strategies/performances. This mostly implies K v policy debates or KvK debates. You should win that your model of debate over the other team.

FRAMING IS KEY (judge framing, impact framing, link story, etc.)!!! You should prioritize the offensive you want to go for and make sure you are implicating the other side's arguments. For example, framework and the impact debate, disproving ontology and saying progress is possible, or proving why antiblackness is the paradigm that determines everything and proves why the aff reproduces cruel optimism and how it makes your impact.

K aff vs K:

Prove to me why your model is better, whether that means framework (either), the perm (aff), or the link story and alt (Neg), etc.

FW vs K Affs:

Honestly, this can go either side. It depends on what happens in the debate. But I think the question both sides need to engage with, is how your model of debate produces the best form of education/critical thinking skills, or what (un)limitations there should be to make the best engagements in debate.

Policy:

I didn't do policy land, but I have judged them. Take that whatever way you want for prefs.

Speaker points:

I prefer clarity over speed. Ethos moments are fire too.

Theory:

I haven't been in the back for a lot of these debates.

LD:

Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact. "Vote Neg after the 1nc because it's reciprocal, we both have one speech" is not a complete argument.
Not a good judge for Phil and/or Trix - Don't pref me
I am new to LD; however, I have extensive experience in the highest levels of high school and collegiate debate.

Even though I was debate partners with Sebastian Cho and close with Raunak Dua, I do not believe in the same argumentations that they do, but hopefully, I'll be a new judge for you. Thank you!

Misc:

Even if I have a certain style of debating, if the flow differential is mad different, then GG.

Don't be anti-black, say racism good, etc.

If you make an anime reference like One Piece, DBZ, JoJo's, Blue Lock, JJK, My Hero, Attack on Titan, HXH, Tokyo Ghoul, 7DS, etc; (Mainstream) expect a speaker point boost (.1-.3). Don't overuse them unless they fire.

Just have fun.

Giorgio Rabbini Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Eshaan Rawat Damien-St. Lucy's 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 1:31 AM PDT

Overview

Hey, I'm Eshaan.

Debated at James Logan (RS) - arms sales, cjr, water, nato

Currently at UC Irvine, not debating

Logistics

Please add me to the email chain: eshaandebate@gmail.com

Also please format the chain [TOURNAMENT --- ROUND # --- AFF vs NEG]

Send the 1ac before round start

Time your own prep / speeches

* congress paradigm is at the bottom

TLDR

1 - K v policy / policy v K

2 - K v K

3 - policy v policy (more below)

Specifics

Tech > truth no matter what. I'll pull the trigger on any argument if you can debate it. This includes death good, tricks, hidden aspec, etc. The only caveats are arguments regarding the personal qualities of other debaters.

I am a second-year out and do not consider myself to be a perfect judge. There will be a time when I make a wrong decision. Please postround me if you disagree with it. It can't change my ballot but I'll try my best to understand why the decision is incorrect and learn from it in the future. I also have no problem admitting that a decision is wrong if it is.

That being said, while I can't promise to always give the most correct decision, I will always try my best to render the best decision solely based off my flow. I will never vote against an argument because it's "bad" or because I don't ideologically agree with it.

I will not stop a round unless I am told to by a debater, tab, the law, or whatever higher power or if something happens concerning the safety of the debaters in the room.

Clarity >>>>>> speed. I will not have docs open during your speech. If I miss an argument on my flow I can't vote for it.

Judge instruction is highly appreciated. I try to do as little intervention as possible, so if you write my ballot for me I'll be pretty happy and your speaks will reflect that. Especially in clash rounds - I usually find myself voting for teams with better judge instruction and ballot proximity arguments.

New arguments need to be identified as new to be struck, the only exception is the 2ar.

Policy v Policy

Added because I've been judging a lot more of these rounds recently.

I was a K debater in high school. I am really not well versed in these debates and will probably not be the most qualified judge in high-level policy debates - mainly due to lack of debate experience in both judging and debating policy args. I'm not familiar with blips / acronyms or community consensus on certain args. I'm a decent flow but these debates tend to be a lot blippier than clash rounds. Try to spend a little bit more time explaining things you might find obvious and go a little slower on your blocks.

* Regarding hidden aspec since it seems to be popular? I will vote on it but if you speed through it so fast (especially in the 1nr) that your opponents miss it, there is a good chance that I do too - run it at your own risk.

Congress

Mainly looking for clear framing, impact comparison, and speaking. Early speakers should set a clear framework for the rest of the round identifying key points. Late round speakers should consolidate issues and have refs to other senators.

Good POs will usually get in the top 5 (3-4). A large part of my ranks are determined off the flow and technical abilities of debaters. However excellent speaking usually separates good from great. This includes humor, powerful intros/conclusions, good tonal fluctuations, smart use of CX, and other smaller things.

Mike Shackelford Rowland Hall

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:48 AM MDT

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Claire Shank Notre Dame High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 10:41 AM CDT

she/her

northside college prep '24- 1N/2A

ucla ‘28

claireshankdebate@gmail.com

Top line

If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise you will be voted down and given the lowest speaks possible idc.
tech> truth
Frame the round for me in rebuttals- explain why i should vote for you and why you're winning the round. Judge instruction makes both of our jobs easier.
Arguments need to be warranted out- I will not vote on "they dropped this so we win" without a full explanation of what that argument is and what the implication of dropping it means for the round.
please flow. i will scream if you ask in cx "what did you read".

CPs

A smartly crafted advantage CP is one of the best things in debate. Solvency advocates ARE necessary, even if it's 1AC rehighlighting.
I like process CPs but they have to have some relation to the topic for me to buy that an intrinsic perm doesn't solve. If you write a creative perm i will be happy.
I won't judge kick unless you tell me to

DAs

I will vote for the team that does the better comparative impact analysis that implicates the case and incorporates quality evidence and defense. These are some of my favorite rounds to judge, but can also be my frustrating if a team doesn't provide me with a full story and gets too caught up in the impact.

T debates can either be very quality or very frustrating. It's important to explain how the aff exactly violates with engagement with the other teams definitions. A good T debate includes topic specific caselists, impact debating to the model the aff creates, and evidence comparison.
The best standards are limits, predictability and ground probably, and it's important that both teams are not just reading blocks but actually comparing their standards and explaining why theirs are better.
Explain your violations to me as if I don't know the topic, because I haven't done a ton of research on what exactly the resolution means.

I’m probably not the best judge for K affs- ofc you do you and i will do my very best to evaluate the round but you are going to have to over explain the aff especially on framework. I think the best K affs are ones that have some topic link.
I went for the Cap K v K affs a lot of the time, so those debates are probably where I am most comfortable, but I can judge framework or whatever generic K aff strat as well.
I like Ks more on the neg but I'm not super well versed in high theory stuff- if you're reading baudrillard, deleuze, or some other philosophical frameworky K, you're going to have to be really specific. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't read the K. I love myself some fem IR, Cap , antiblackness, set col, all the basic stuff. It's super important to explain your K's story and links should be articulated and used as offense.

Theory

I'm good for theory debates- esp ones like condo, PICs bad, perm theory, etc. However, it's super important to explain impacts and interps. If theory is your strategy, you have to go all in on it in final rebuttals for me to vote on it. I'm also going to be hard to convince that stuff like agent CPs, multiplank CPs or utopian fiat are abusive unless they are completely dropped.

BE NICE AND HAVE FUN!!!

Julia Sidley Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 1, 2024 at 11:21 AM PDT

Pronouns: she/her

Email: julia.sidley.debate@gmail.com (pls put me on the chain)

Read bold if you’re short on time

Experience: Broke at NFA nationals, 8 years in the activity (5 policy, 3 LD), political science graduate focusing in public policy.

So to start this whole thing off. You do you. Y’all should debate how you see most fit in the round. If done well, I will vote on anything.

Tldr: will vote on literally anything, the following are some preferences I have, but if you debate smart enough, you can get around any of them.

2025 update: I haven't judged much this year but I am pretty up to date (polisci student and all, pretty good at acronyms but explain weird ones).

I am a recent graduate from the University of Nevada Las Vegas and a current NFA LD debater with 5 years of policy experience, 8 years total in debate. So to start this whole thing off. You do you. Y’all should debate how you see most fit in the round. If done well, I will vote on anything.

Here are some specifics:

Quick delivery note: speed is good but please do not go past your limits, will call clear thrice.

LD: I am primarily a policy debater with some kritikal experience, Check my policy paradigm for more specifics.

Topicality: I love T so much, I go for it all the time and think there are lot of good T args to make. Fairness and education are voters but not if those 5 words are all you say about it. Otherwise do what you want

CP: Counterplans are good, having a net benefit is great

DA: I enjoy DA debate. I will vote on any disad if argued sufficiently

Framework: I fw a good FW debate

K: I thoroughly enjoy K debate, I will vote on a K. you should be able to articulate your advocacy and what it accomplishes.

Theory: Theory is very important and fun. Don't be afraid to slow down to cover it all clearly.I will vote on it.

Some important preferences of mine:

SLOW DOWN ON TAGS AND ANALYTICS

I lean slightly more towards truth over tech. Sound logic and truth of a claim is still crucial to a debate that fosters critical thinking. I will not drop a team over dropped minutia unless there is absolutely nothing else to judge the debate on. I will respond to a "gut-check" call on a bad interpretation/argument.

Also try to avoid "my opponent completely dropped" when they did not, listening best as possible to each other is the easiest way to keep clash alive

I prefer the quality of evidence over quantity. I’d much rather see 1 or 2 great cards and explanations instead of 6 garbage cards.

CX is binding

Flashing your doc isn’t prep

As Rachel Halbo said best: Please be nice. Be nice to me, be nice to your opponents, be nice to your partner, and coaches be nice to your kids. Being a jerk can dock your speaks. To quote Molly Martin,we are people before we are debaters.

Iris Sim The Meadows School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 2:09 AM PDT

Email Chain: irissim0730@gmail.com

The Meadows School (Class of 2025)

she/her

T/L-

General Rule, be nice and civilized- we're not animals screaming at each other. Any offensive statements that are homophobic, sexist, racist, etc., and personal attacks are an automatic loss- no question.
tech > truth; Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means you have to give warrants and not j say it, but explain, compare, and impact them with the other team's ev.
warrants- make sure it's in the card and not j tags. It's really dissatisfying when debates operate on a solely claim/tag base level with no deep evidence-based analysis.
discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are important and I think it can become quite interesting.

Case-

Love, Love, Love a good case debate.
Make sure to make good turns on case as a neg and create offense against it- I tend to lean on Neg when they are able to make great offense and kill the Aff with the strat.
It's not about card dumping but extending and refuting to the main points- You don't need a card for everything they say.
I'll vote on complete defense if the arguments are vry well spoken.

Topicality/Theory-

Personally, I don't like T.
tend to err Aff on this because I agree that debating regarding specific words or non-substance parts of the plan doesn't reinforce the educational aspect students get from speech and debate.
well-explained impacts.
“limits good” and standards are not impacts and valid reasons.
“They unlimit the topic by justifying x types of affs that we cannot hope to prepare for” is an impact.
important to have conciseness within your args and connections between the 1NC way of explaining till the 2NR's way of interp, standards, etc.

I think Theory is just a spice to debate, and prefer a more substance debate.
still open to it and will adjust :)- When going for it, just make sure to impact it (fairness and education) everything else are internal links to these impacts. Make sure to explain everything concisely. Err Neg on Condo.

DA -

Probability is key.
Establishing a risk for the Aff is key- specifically why the Aff causes the risk and impact calc the ! of the DA to the ! of the Aff.
Pretty much open to anything

CP-

Make sure you have a net benefit
it's okay if its not functionally or textually competitive, but I will prefer if you don't run it.
V Cp, Start by pointing out solvency deficits and distinctions between the Cp and plan that undermine the neg's net benefit- internal links and solvency cards are good for this.
Open to anything as long as you answer and explain args well (solvency)

K-

Experienced in Cap, Mil, Fem, Set Col, Fem Ir, Disability, Race, etc
As long as you can explain the cards well I will be open to it
I don't really compelled by the framework as a voter and a solely framework-based debate is not fun. Thus, I have a low threshold for voting Aff solely on fw.
Make sure Ks should have alternatives that actually resolve link arguments.
I'm not going to weigh a K impact against the aff if the K can't resolve it and especially if they can't explain it.
The alt is typically the weakest part, so the Aff should definitely attack it.
never ignore good root cause debating - I think it can serve as terminal solvency deficits to the aff and a reason why the alt is better
don’t make a bunch of perms you have no hope of winning unless they are conceded.
Perm do the alt is not a perm.
Make 1 or 2 permutations and EXPLAIN IN THE 2AC how the permutation overcomes neg links/risks of the impact.

Speaker Points-

Minimum 27.5 unless you did something really wrong

+.4 points if you rap ur speech, +.2 points if you sing a verse of a bruno mars song

(If you have any questions feel free to email me; A lot of my philosophy and opinions are influenced by Malcolm Gordon so you can check his paradigm as well)

Andrew Sinsioco Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 9:08 AM PDT

Email:a.sinsioco1@gmail.com

-Peninsula' 21 - USC' 25

Have fun. Be nice.

Outside of the occasional tournament I judge at, I think very little about the topic. Slow down and don’t take for granted I understand any topic specific jargon

tech>truth generally, although some arguments, of course, require more tech to win than others

I’ll try to find the simplest way to the ballot which requires the least work

Very hard pressed to vote on presumption type arguments. Absent any offense, even the smallest chance that the aff does something positive for the world is enough reason to vote affirmative

Other than that, any opinion I have about arguments can be overcome by better debating.

Thoughts

The first 30 seconds of the final rebuttal should write my RFD.

K Affs:

Probably read a plan tbh, but I will enjoy K affs with a strong explanation of what the aff actually does clear articulation of how debate operates under their framework.

I often find defensive arguments weaker and think the counter interpretation solves little of the actual neg offense. impact turn framework standards and the neg's model of debate. Have better answers to fairness. I think most 2ac’s lack here

Fairness >>>>>>> Education/Skills > whatever else. Please go for some combination of fairness and strong defense (SSD, TVA, no subjectivity shift, etc, especially if the aff is designed to impact turn education. My voting record in these debates is pretty aff favored despite argumentative preferences, and it’s because 2n’s fail to recognize how K affs are designed to beat certain strategies. Go for a framework impact which is better insulated from case.

However, if going for an education type impact, at least go for an impact related to the intrinsic critical thinking skills we gain from debate versus anything that requires you to win the state is good. Again, you can do whatever you want, but policy education good strategies require you to decisively and substantively engage with case which is often very difficult.

I really enjoy and prefer judging substantive offense against the K itself. Don't be afraid to go for the heg da or cap good or whatever.

If your K is able to disprove thesis of the aff and the assumptions it relies upon, I will love your K.

I will default to weighing the aff versus the K.

I have an aversion to strategies that solely rely upon winning framework and arbitrarily disregarding huge swaths of the debate. I will assign less weight to these arguments unless they are dropped. K debate is case debate. The kritik should engage with the affirmative and disprove its thesis.

Your links should reference a specific line/assumption which the affirmative's scenario relies upon, explain why that line/assumption is flawed, impact out why I should care/the material implications of that flawed assumption, and how the alternative resolves the link. The more specific the better.

Ideally, you should be leveraging your answers on case to bolster your argument otherwise I'm willing to grant the aff the truth of their scenario which makes it difficult to win that their assumptions are flawed.

CP: I dislike cp's that compete off immediacy and certainty. Tbh the more time I spend out of debate, the less I understand functional vs textual competition and the other issues that come up during these debates. Given that please err towards over explanation and clarity

DA's: Enjoy most flavors of disads, but generally dislike ones whose links are predicated on silly interpretations of fiat.

T: Slow down and clearly explain what debate looks like under each interpretation and the implications of your impacts, as well as how your interpretation solves your impacts. I generally feel predictability and precision often guides the way I adjudicate these debates on a top level. What I should prioritize is certainly debatable

Case: I find well-researched, dissections of the affirmative case to be the coolest things to judge and will reward the effort.

Theory: Condo is good, and I don't see value in interps that numerically limit the number of conditional advocacies. Either all condo or no condo

Most theory arguments are reject the argument unless you specifically explain otherwise

LD: Will judge this like a policy round. Same predispositions as before. Won’t vote on presumption. Bad for frivolous theory. Might be better for phil than I think I am?

Anything Else: will judge like a policy round including biases towards a consequentialist (Risk*Magnitude) unless otherwise stated. Definitely may make me more likely to give the extinction outweighs even assuming a low risk of a smaller impact type decision. To avoid me giving a decision which is too policy pilled, do comparative impact calc and proper weighing! Not sure what the norms are for new arguments so justify if it’s unclear.

don’t use debate jargon incorrectly lol. If you’re not fully sure what a debate word means, just use the plain English replacement.

Ira Sirulnick The Meadows School 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 8:17 AM PDT

hey! i'm ira (he/him) add me to the chain: irasirulnick1219@gmail.com

Meadows ('25) Brown University ('29)

4th year nat circuit varsity debater

primarily a 2N but I 2A from time to time

***Please send out 1AC before round starts

t/L

you do you, judge adaptation is important but don't change your core strat for me. I want to see what you do best!

tech >>> truth

yes tag team cross

be respectful, creating a hostile environment will reflect in your speaks or possibly your ballot

organization is key! Flow, Flow, Flow

judge instruction + impact calc + line by line = WWW

I won't flow cx, but it's binding. bring up substantial errors or contradictions in ur speech

you got this, feel free to ask questions!

speaking

smart analytics >>> card dumping

spreading is good BUT clarity >>> speed

please differentiate your tag from the actual card (SLOW DOWN!!!)

show me your flows RIGHT after the 2AR - i may boost ur speaks

strong case debating and impact calculus is key

turns case args are more compelling

good story telling makes up for mediocre evidence

my favorite debates

contextualizing solvo to the specific aff makes these debates 10x more interesting

alt!!!! i have a low threshold for voting affirmative if the neg just goes for framework

not extremely well versed in k lit, but im familiar with cap, set col, fem, etc.

contextualized, specific link debating key

these debates get messy, focus on staying organized and flowing

explain your violation

"limits good" is not an impact, "they unlimit the topic by justifying x types of AFF that we can't hope to prepare for" is an impact.

i default to competing interps unless convinced otherwise

won't buy "on packet, no abuse"

Theory

go for it! if its well debated, I'll vote on it

everything but condo is prolly reject the arg

making sure args aren't too new in the last rebuttals are key

Case

YES, LOVE

having 0% risk is nearly impossible, having offense on here is helpful

Abigail Spencer Univ Of Chicago Lab School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 1:45 PM CDT

Updated 01/07

Prefs TLDR---I have a lot more experience judging K rounds. I read a K aff and a policy aff as a result of being on a lot of hybrid teams. I would say I read K affs more due to coming from a small school than feeling stronger they were better for debate. I alternated KvK and framework/cap good style debates depending on the partner. You'll prob pref me for K rounds - fwiw, I have nothing against policy rounds and I'm fine to judge them.

I generally don't judge that often these days because I teach online classes on Sundays. And maybe because having a picture of a furby in your paradigm affects your prefs.

Hey Furby! Did the popular 90s toy influence the chatbot timeline?

About me---
Coaching: University of Chicago Lab, South Shore, Potomac Debate Academy
Formerly: McDade Classical, Lindblom, Phillips Exeter, SWSDI, CDSI, CSSI

abigailnspencer[at]gmail.com.

I also started this debate sticker shop in HS people keep buying from.

Things that I give high speaks for----
1. Argumentative and strategic consistency and awareness - in every cross or speech you give, I can identify a clear understanding of your case and strategy. You're not just reading each speech in front of you, you're thinking about the round as a whole. For Varsity, my threshold is a bit higher - I'm impressed by quick explanations in response to specific questions about your evidence/mechanics of your arguments. For Novice, I'd say I value decent topic knowledge.

2. What I consider to be good for "professionalism" is being accountable for prep time, speech times, and cross times. I won't be upset if you take a second to get ready when you are about to start your speech. But if you're consistently ending prep and speaking very promptly after, I will reward that with higher speaks since I do dislike when people "end prep" just to then very clearly continue to read through their speech and mentally prep until they start talking.

3. Be kind to your partners. Do not be overly cocky. The most confident and intelligent debaters I've ever seen didn't need to be rude to get that across.

Other things---

1. Speed's cool with me if it's cool with all debaters in the round. I'd personally send out a speech doc after 300wpm because of the likelihood of lag in online settings. In general, if you want your arguments on my flow make sure you're loud and clear. I flow everything on its own sheet, so off-time road maps are cool. Signposting is even cooler.

2. Don't use unnecessary jargon in novice. Unless this is visibly a higher level tech round, I do believe you should be doing everything in your power to make sure everyone in round has access to the same education you do.

3. Make debate educational, above all else. Accessibility is a pre-requisite to education. Exclude, you lose.

Marshall Steele St. Paul Central HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 2, 2024 at 10:51 AM CDT

Head Coach for St. Paul Central(MN) from 2021(water topic)->present

Pronouns are they/she

I would like to be on the email chain @ stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com

Email for questions/contact @ marshall.d.steele@gmail.com

For 24-25 --- Serving as Program Development Fellow at the MNUDL so judging a little less than past years on local circuit

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

Used to have a much longer paradigm but I'd rather just give some short thoughts on debate and have y'all debate whatever you want. I appreciate good judge instructions and am neutral on most arguments. My fav debates are usually KvK but I'm down for whatever and I always like creative args/stuff I can tell you put a lot of time into making. Will vote on just about anything that isn't you being overtly hostile to your opponents.If you just wanna know my K aff thoughts I will happily vote on em and find those debates very interesting. As a default I wont check speech docs until the end of the round so clarity is your friend on blocks. I am mostly a clash judge but will still consider/would like to see good 2R top level conceptualization of the round. I value technical drops and all that fun clash debate stuff, it's just to say that actual persuasive argumentation and analysis are probably very important.

slow down for dense analytic blocks especially / fw / theory. If you want me to flow every warrant you should probably not be going at the pace and intonation of the body of a card.

Don't have strong preferences about how you refer to me but "Judge" or "marshall" are always good defaults

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

Random Notes

Plan flaws are awesome and under-utilized

Don't insult your opponents

Prep stealing is not epic

how is farm bill still a DA - this was "Unique" when I started debating(I don't actually care if you read farm bill)

A CP without cards for solvency advocates probably doesn't require cards for each solvency indict, doing so is taking the time skew bait

CX is binding

prob ask if you wanna read a spec arg

Debnil Sur Lowell High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 3:45 PM PDT

he/him/his

Pronounced phonetically as DEB-nil. Not pronounced "judge", "Mister Sur", or "deb-NEIL".

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains. If you have my personal email, don't put it on the email chain. Sensible subject please.

Lay Debate: I care deeply about adaptation and accessibility. I find "medium" debates (splits of lay and circuit judges) incredibly valuable for students' skills. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread. If both teams explicitly tell me they want a lay debate before hand, I will gladly toss out all my knowledge about debate and judge like a parent (think San Jose Indian father). Speaks will range from 28.5 to 30, and like a lay judge, I will choose random numbers in that range based on your aesthetic appeal.

Resolving Debates: Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor.

I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. In most debates, voting for either team is defensible; I will likely vote for the team that does more comparison and requires less intervention in terms of resolution. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the 1AC and the 1NC. Subsequent evidence is only read when deciding the debate. (When online, I always have docs open.) I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.

I take an above-average time to decide debates. My decision time has little relationship with the debate's closeness, and more with the time of day and my sleep deprivation. (I am typically the sole coach and judge with my teams, so I'm quite tired by elim day.) I usually start 5-10 minutes after the 2AR, so I can stretch my legs and let the debate marinate in my head. Debaters work hard, and I reciprocate that effort in making decisions. My decisions themselves are quite short. Most debates come down to 2-4 arguments, and I will identify those and explain my resolution. You're welcome to post-round. It can't change my decision, but I want to learn and improve as a judge and thinker too.

General Background: I work full-time in tech as a software engineer. In my spare time, I have coached policy debate at Lowell in San Francisco since 2018. I am involved in strategy and research and have coached both policy and K debaters to the TOC. I am, quite literally, a "framer", as a member of the national topic wording committee. Before that, I read policy arguments as a 2N at Bellarmine and did youth debate outreach (e.g., SVUDL) as a student at Stanford.

I've judged many excellent debates. Ideologically, I would say I'm 60/40 policy-leaning. I think my voting records don't reflect this, because K debaters tend to see the bigger picture in clash rounds.

I am judging some college debate, mostly to help the return of Stanford's team. No topic knowledge or college judging experience. I'm likely a policy-leaning clash judge in college prefs?

Topic Background: I judge and coach regularly and am fully aware of national circuit trends. I'm not super in the weeds as a researcher. I don't cut as many cards as I did in the pandemic years, and I don't work at debate camp.

I do work in software and have applied for patents on my day-to-day work. This personal experience will make me more skeptical of sweeping innovation or tech impacts. But if you're detailed, granular, and apply technical knowledge well, your speaks will benefit.

Voting Splits: I haven't updated these in a couple of years. I've been too busy with my non-debate life post pandemic. I think the trends exhibited on water are likely still accurate.

As of the end of the water topic, I have judged 304 rounds of VCX at invitationals over 9 years. 75 of these were during college; 74 during immigration and arms sales at West Coast invitationals; and 155 on CJR and water, predominantly at octafinals bid tournaments.

Below are my voting splits across the (synthetic) policy-K divide, where the left team represents the affirmative, as best as I could classify debates. Paradigm text can be inaccurate self-psychoanalysis, so I hope the data helps.

I became an aff hack on water. Far too often, the 2AR was the first speech doing comparative analysis instead of reading blocks. I hope this changes as we return to in-person debate.

Water

Policy v. Policy - 18-13: 58% aff over 31 rounds

Policy v. K - 20-18: 56% aff over 38 rounds

K v. Policy - 13-8: 62% aff over 21 rounds

K v. K - 1-1, 50% aff over 2 rounds

Lifetime

Policy v. Policy - 67-56: 55% for the aff over 123 rounds

Policy v. K - 47-52: 47% for the aff over 99 rounds

K v. Policy - 36-34: 51% for the aff over 70 rounds

K v. K - 4-4: 50% for the aff over 8 rounds

Online Debate:

1. I'd prefer your camera on, but won't make a fuss.

2. Please check verbally and/or visually with all judges and debaters before starting your speech.

3. If my camera's off, I'm away, unless I told you otherwise.

Speaker Points: I flow on my computer, but I do not use the speech doc. I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.

Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

2. I will vote for the team whose impact comparison most clearly answers the debate's central question. This typically comes down to the affirmative making negative engagement more difficult versus the neg forcing problematic affirmative positions. You are best served developing 1-2 pieces of offense well, playing defense to the other team's, and telling a condensed story in the final rebuttals.

3. Anything can be an impact---do what you do best. My teams typically read a limits/fairness impact and a procedural clash impact. From Dhruv Sudesh: "I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments."

4. Each team should discuss what a year of debate looks like under their models in concrete terms. Arguments like "TVA", "switch-side debate", and "some neg ground exists" are just subsets of this discussion. It is easy to be hyperbolic and discuss the plethora of random affirmatives, but realistic examples are especially persuasive and important. What would your favorite policy demon (MBA, GBN, etc.) do without an agential constraint? How does critiquing specific policy reforms in a debate improve critical education? Why does negative policy ground not center the affirmative's substantive conversation?

5. As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote affirmative. This especially happens when impact turning topicality---negatives do not seem to catch on yet.

6. I quite enjoy leveraging normative positions from 1AC cards for substantive disadvantages or impact turns. This requires careful link explanation by the negative but can be incredibly strategic. Critical affirmatives claim to access broad impacts based on shaky normative claims and the broad endorsement of a worldview, rather than a causal method; they should incur the strategic cost.

7. I am a better judge for presumption and case defense than most. It is often unclear to me how affirmatives solve their impacts or access their impact turns on topicality. The negative should leverage this more.

8. I occasionally judge K v K debates. I do not have especially developed opinions on these debates. Debate math often relies on causality, opportunity cost, and similar concepts rooted in policymaking analysis. These do not translate well to K v K debates, and the team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus typically wins. While the notion of "opportunity cost" to a method is still mostly nonsensical to me, I can be convinced either way on permutations' legitimacy.

Kritiks:

1. I do not often coach K teams but have familiarity with basically all critical arguments.

2. Framework almost always decides this debate. While I have voted for many middle-ground frameworks, they make very little strategic sense to me. The affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge actually compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? As a result, I am much better for "hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik.

3. I will decide the framework debate in favor of one side's interpretation. I will not resolve some arbitrary middle road that neither side presented.

4. If the kritik is causal to the plan, a well-executing affirmative should almost always win my ballot. The permutation double-bind, uniqueness presses on the link and impact, and a solvency deficit to the alternative will be more than sufficient for the affirmative. The neg will have to win significant turns case arguments, an external impact, and amazing case debating if framework is lost. At this point, you are better served going for a proper counterplan and disadvantage.

5. I will not evaluate non-falsifiable statements about events outside the current debate. Such an evaluation of minors grossly misuses the ballot. Strike me if this is a core part of your strategy.

Topicality:

1. This is about the plan text, not other parts of the 1AC. If you think the plan text is contrived to be topical, beat them on the PIC out of the topic and your topic DA of choice.

2. This is a question of which team's vision of the topic maximizes its benefits for debaters. I compare each team's interpretation of the topic through an offense/defense lens.

3. Reasonability is about the affirmative interpretation, not the affirmative case itself. In its most persuasive form, this means that the substance crowdout caused by topicality debates plus the affirmative's offense on topicality outweighs the offense claimed by the negative. This is an especially useful frame in debates that discuss topic education, precision, and similar arguments.

4. Any standards are fine. I used to be a precision stickler. This changed after attending topic meetings and realizing how arbitrarily wording is chosen.

5. From Anirudh Prabhu: "T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet." Topicality 101---the violation is a negative burden. If there's any uncertainty, I almost certainly vote aff with a decent "we meet" explanation.

Theory:

1. As with other arguments, I will resolve this fully technically. Unlike many judges, my argumentative preferences will not implicate how I vote. I will gladly vote on a dropped theory argument---if it was clearly extended as a reason to reject the team---with no regrets.

2. I'm generally in favor of limitless conditionality. But because I adjudicate these debates fully technically, I think I vote affirmative on "conditionality bad" more than most.

3. From Rafael Pierry: "most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. ... Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome." For me, this is especially true with counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy. While I do not love the delay counterplan, I think it is much more easily beaten through competition arguments than theoretical ones.

4. If a counterplan has specific literature to the affirmative plan, I will be extremely receptive to its theoretical legitimacy and want to grant competition. But of course, the counterplan text must be written strategically, and the negative must still win competition.

Counterplans:

1. I'm better for strategies that depend on process and competition than most. These represent one of my favorite aspects of debate---they combine theory and substance in fun and creative ways---and I've found that researching and strategizing against them generates huge educational benefits for debaters, certainly on par with more conventionally popular political process arguments like politics and case.

2. I have no disposition between "textual and functional competition" and "only functional competition". Textual alone is pretty bad. Positional competition is similarly tough, unless the affirmative grants it. Think about how a model of competition justifies certain permutations---drawing these connections intelligently helps resolve the theoretical portion of permutations.

3. Similarly, I am agnostic regarding limited intrinsicness, either functional or textual. While it helps check against the truly artificial CPs, it justifies bad practices that hurt the negative. It's certainly a debate that you should take on. That said, if everyone is just spreading blocks, I usually end up negative on the ink. Block to 2NR is easier to trace than 1AR to 2AR.

4. People need to think about deficits to counterplans. If you can't impact deficits to said counterplans, write better advantages. The negative almost definitely does not have evidence contextualizing their solvency mechanism to your internal links---explain why that matters!

5. Presumption goes to less change---debate what this means in round. Absent this instruction, if there is an advocacy in the 2NR and I do not judge kick it when deciding, I'm probably not voting on presumption.

6. Decide in-round if I should kick the CP. I'll likely kick it if left to my own devices. The affirmative should be better than the status quo. (To be honest, this has never mattered in a debate I've judged, and it amuses me that judge kick is such a common paradigm section.)

Disadvantages:

1. There is not always a risk. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, and we cannot determine its sign or magnitude.

2. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad advantages can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.

3. Shorten overviews, and make sure turns case arguments actually implicate the aff's internal links.

4. Will vote on any and all theoretical arguments---intrinsicness, politics theory, etc. Again, arguments are arguments, debate them out.

Ethics:

1. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points.

2. You need a recording to prove the other team is clipping. If I am judging and think you are clipping, I will record it and check the recording before I stop the debate. Any other method deprives you of proof.

3. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX in constructives or the other's team prep time in a rebuttal. You do not need to remove cards you did not read in the marked copy, unless you skipped a truly ridiculous amount. This practice is inane and justifies debaters doc-flowing.

4. Emailing isn’t prep. If you take too long, I'll tell you I'm starting your prep again.

5. If there is a different alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team alleging the violation if they want to stop the debate. If so, I will ask the accused team to provide written defense; check the tournament's citation rules; and decide. I will then decide the debate based on that violation and the tournament policy---I will not restart the debate---this makes cite-checking a no-risk option as a negative strategy, which seems really bad.

If you could have emailed the other team about your ethics violation, I will only evaluate it if there's proof you contacted the other team. Prepping ethics violations as case negs is far worse than any evidence ethics violation I've seen.

Note that if the ethics violation is made as an argument during the debate and advanced in multiple speeches as a theoretical argument, you cannot just decide it is a separate ethics violation later in the debate. I will NOT vote on it, I will be very annoyed with you, and you will probably lose and get 27s if you are resorting to these tactics.

6. The closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument, the more likely you should be reading it instead of inserting. If you are point out blatant mis-highlighting in a card, typically in a defensive fashion on case, then insertion is fine. I will readily scratch excessive insertion with clear instruction.

Miscellaneous:

1. I'll only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence.

2. Dropped arguments should be flagged clearly. If you say that clearly answered arguments were dropped, you're hurting your own persuasion.

3. Please send cards in a Word doc. Body is fine if it's just 1-3 cards. I don't care if you send analytics, though it can help online.

4. Unless the final rebuttals are strictly theoretical, the negative should compile a card doc post 2NR and have it sent soon after the 2AR. The affirmative should start compiling their document promptly after the 2AR. Card docs should only include evidence referenced in the final rebuttals (and the 1NC shell, for the negative)---certainly NOT the entire 1AC.

5. As a judge, I can stop the debate at any point. The above should make it clear that I am very much an argumentative nihilist---in hundreds of debates, I have not come close to stopping one. So if I do, you really messed up, and you probably know it.

6. I am open to a Technical Knockout. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, not yours) and explain why it is unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out.

Be mindful of context: calling this against sophomores in presets looks worse than against an older team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

7. Not about deciding debates, but a general offer to debate folk reading this. As someone who works in tech, I think it is a really enjoyable career path and quite similar to policy debate in many ways. If you would like to learn more about tech careers, please feel free to email me. As a high school student, it was very hard to learn about careers not done by my parents or their friends (part of why I'm in tech now!). I am happy to pass on what knowledge I have.

Above all, be kind to each other, and have fun!

Chris Thiele The Quarry Lane School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 6:44 AM PDT

Big picture:
- I don't read/flow off the doc.
- no evidence inserting. I read what you read.
- I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author/date + claim + warrant + data + impact" model) over breadth (the "author + claim + impact" model) any day.
- Ideas communicated per minute > words per minute. I'm old, I don't care to do a time trial of flowing half-warrants and playing "connect the dots" for impacts. 3/4 of debaters have terrible online practices, so this empirically applies even more so for online debates.
- I minimize the amount of evidence I read post-round to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). Don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
- I care a lot about data/method and do view risk as "everyone starts from zero and it goes up from there". This primarily lets me discount even conceded claims, apply a semi-laugh test to ridiculous arguments, and find a predictable tiebreaker when both sides hand me a stack of 40 cards.
- I'm fairly flexible in argument strategy, and either ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some highlights: wipeout, foucault k, the cp, regression framework, reg neg cp, consult china, cap k, deleuze k, china nano race, WTO good, indigenous standpoint epistemology, impact turns galore, biz con da, nearly every politics da flavor imaginable, this list goes on and on.
- I am hard to offend (though not impossible) and reward humor.
- You must physically mark cards.
- I think infinite world condo has gotten out of hand. A good rule of thumb as a proxy (taking from Shunta): 4-6 offcase okay, 7 pushing, if you are reading 8 or more, your win percentage and points go down exponentially. Also, I will never judge kick - make a decision in 2NR.
- 1NC args need to be complete, else I will likely buy new answers on the entire sheet. A DA without U or IL isn't complete. A CP without a card likely isn't complete. A K with just a "theory of power" but no links isn't complete. A T arg without a definition card isn't complete. Cards without any warrants/data highlighted (e.g. PF) are not arguments.
- I personally believe in open disclosure practices, and think we should as a community share one single evidence set of all cards previously read in a single easily accessible/searchable database. I am willing to use my ballot to nudge us closer.
-IP topic stuff - I have a law degree and am a tech geek, so anything that absolutely butchers the law will probably stay at zero even if dropped.

Topicality
-I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
-I'm extremely unlikely to vote for a dropped hidden aspec or similar and extremely likely to tank your points for trying.
-We meet is yes/no question. You don't get to weigh standards and risk of.
-Aff Strategy: counter-interp + offense + weigh + defense or all in on we meet or no case meets = best path to ballot.

Framework against K aff
-in a tie, I vote to exclude. I think "logically" both sides framework arguments are largely empty and circular - the degree of actual fairness loss or education gain is probably statistically insignificant in any particular round. But its a game and you do you.
-I prefer the clash route + TVA. Can vote for fairness only, but harder sell.
-Very tough sell on presumption / zero subject formation args. Degree ballot shapes beliefs/research is between 0 and 1 with neither extreme being true, comparative claims on who shapes more is usually the better debate pivot.
-if have decent k or case strat against k aff, usually much easier path to victory because k affs just seem to know how to answer framework.
-Aff Strategy: Very tough sell for debate bad, personalized ballot pleas, or fairness net-bad. Lots of defense to predict/limits plus aff edu > is a much easier path to win.

Framework against neg K
-I default to (1) yes aff fiat (2) yes links to 1AC speech act (3) yes actual alt / framework isn't an alt (4) no you link you lose.
-Debaters can debate out (1) and (2), can sometimes persuade me to flip on (3), but will pretty much never convince me to flip on (4).

Case Debate
-I enjoy large complex case debates about the topic.
-Depth in explanation and impacting over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant or card comparison will do far more damage to the 1AR than 3 new cards that likely say same warrant as original card.
-the current D tier link/solvency to core IL to greatest hits of all time impact spam 1AC construction makes me sad. The resolution as plan text model also does. Am happy to zero (or near zero) affs in these debates if the neg comes prepared.

Disads
-Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments less so.

Counterplans
-I think literature should guide both plan solvency deficit and CP competition ground.
-For theory debates (safe to suspect): adv cps = uniqueness cps > plan specific PIC > topic area specific PIC > textual word PIK = domestic agent CP > ban plan then do "plan" cp = certainty CPs = delay CPs > foreign agent CP > plan minus penny PICs > private actor/utopian/other blatant cheating CP
-Much better for perm do cp (with severance justified because of THEORY) than perm other issues (with intrinsicness justified because TEXT/FUNCT COMP english games). I don't really believe in text+funct comp (just eliminates "bad" theory debaters, not actually "bad" counterplans, e.g. replace "should" with "ought").
-perms and theory are tests of competition and not a voter.
-debatable perms are - perm do both, do cp/alt, do plan and part of CP/alt. Probably okay for combo perms against multi-conditional plank cps. Only get 1 inserted perm text per perm flowed.
-Aff strategy: good for logical solvency deficits, solvency advocate theory, and high level theory debating. Won't presume CP solves when CP lacks any supporting literature.

Critiques
-I view Ks as a usually linear disad and the alt as a CP.
-Much better for a traditional alt (vote neg -> subject formation -> spills out) than utopian fiated alts, floating piks, movements alts, or framework is my second alt.
-Link turn case (circumvention) and/or impact turns case (root/prox cause) is very important.
-I naturally am a quantitative poststructuralist. Don't think I've ever willingly voted on an ontology argument or a "zero subject formation" argument. Very open to circumvention oriented link and state contingency link turn args.
-Role of ballot is usually just a fancy term for "didn't do impact calculus".
-No perms for method Ks is the first sign you don't really understand what method is.
-Aff strategy: (impact turn a link + o/w other links + alt fails) = (case spills up + case o/w + link defense + alt fails) > (fiat immediate + case o/w + alt too slow) > (perm double bind) > (ks are cheating).
-perms generally check clearly noncompetitive alt jive, but don't normally work against traditional alts if the neg has any link.

Lincoln Douglas
-no trix, phil, friv theory, offcase spam, or T args written by coaches.
-treat it like a policy round that ends in the 1AR and we'll both be happy.

Public Forum
-no paraphrasing, yes email chain, yes share speech doc prior to speech. In TOC varsity, points capped at 27.5 if violate as minimum penalty.
-if paraphrase, it's not evidence and counts as an analytic, and cards usually beat analytics.
-I think the ideal PF debate is a 2 advantage vs 2 disadvantage semi-slow whole rez policy debate, where the 2nd rebuttal collapses onto 1 and the 1st summary collapses onto 1 as well. Line by line, proper, complete argument extensions, weighing, and card comparisons are a must.
-Good for non-frivilous theory and proper policy style K. TOC level debaters usually good at theory but still atrocious executing the K, so probably don't go for a PF style K in front of me.
-prefer some civility and cross not devolve into lord of the flies.

Malone Urfalian Notre Dame High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 17, 2024 at 3:33 PM PDT

add me to the email chain - maloneurfalian@gmail.com

Notre Dame high school - 2018

The burden of the affirmative is to interpret the resolutional question and the burden of the negative is to act as the rejoinder of the aff. This can be whatever you want it to be if it is both flowable and making a clear argument that I can evaluate.

Clear, both argumentatively and speaking wise, debates are good. Unclear and not ideologically consistent arguments are not as good. Teams that tell good stories, see how arguments interact with each other, and contextualize warrants to the round are winning more debates. Debaters that are having fun are also probably happier and gaining more from the activity.

There is an inherent risk in presenting arguments, that is a good thing. Taking these types of intellectual risks helps you grow both in what you know and how you have come to know it. Leaving your argumentative comfort zone is the only way to improve these skills, wether you are reading the new argument or a new argument is presented to you in round.

Debate is fun and also silly! Everyone is doing silly things. It is good to laugh about it.

I have no ideological disposition against any argument. Debate is a free for all. If you think you can win on it, you should go for it. Particularly fond of impact turns and any arguments that challenge an assumption of the argument it is in response to. My version of the truth of an argument has little bearing on my decision, but evidence quality has a high bearing on how the argument is evaluated. Arbitrary line drawing of what I 'will or will not' vote on seems silly, but not in the good way. If had the inverse of this paragraph that said, 'the fifty states counterplan is a non starter for me' I would not be in the back of your round and you would not be reading this.

So, I do not tend to believe that arguments should be dismissed on the grounds of not being 'real', 'practical', or 'worth talking about.' I do not think that a jobs guarantee solving a wage spiral has anymore truth to it than china war good. I do not think that any argument that is not directly personally violent to another debater is a non starter. Autodrop L + ratio for offensive conduct. Judged more than one debate this year where the response to a word pic was to double down on that word. Not a winning strategy. I believe in a good faith apology as defense and some form of offense is a sufficient response. Good faith apology sounds subjective, I think there is a bright line that can demonstrate wether or not an act was intentional and malicious or a result of ignorance and a opportunity to learn. This should be established in the link debating. I would prefer the ballot not be a referendum on someones character. I believe an accusation of a clipping or evidence ethics auto ends the round and supersedes the content of the debate.

I find arguments that exist on polar ends of a bellcurve are more convincing to me because the larger the gap between what my ballot is endorsing and/or resolving the easier it is to think about i.e. heg good vs decol is easier to resolve to me then the perm of a soft left aff about the BIA's failings. I've probably voted for Ligotti and X country first strike about the same amount of times. Both many more than any 'soft left' aff vs a disad or a k. It is not as I don't find these arguments 'real', but that it is rarely debated out to the be the 'best' option to resolve the harms or framing of harms they have presented. I think these fail to capitalize on the benefits of either a critical or policy aff, but they have strategic value in theory. I think soft left aff's sweep non specific links or alts that don't access the impact. But that seems to be reflective of a skill issue on the negatives construction of the link debate more so than endorsement of middle ground strategies. Inversely, meeting on the bottom between poles makes a lot of sense to me and is under represented in negative strategies against arguments on either ideological end. I do think that debate is a util based game, and that winning the framing page thoroughly is the only way to get my ballot in these debates.

In the vein of critical affs I believe debate is a game. I find k affs interesting, strategic, engaging, and fun to think about. When the timer goes off it is still a game to me. I give my rfd, I talk to my debaters about what happened in the round, what we can learn from it, and I move on. Maybe I download some PDF's, cut responses, or pull backfiles if it is particularly compelling. It can be a good game with a code that can be modified round by round, but it is insulated to the 8 speeches. I think tying a personal endorsement to the ballot can be parasitic and result in a negative experience with the game. This can be debated and changed of course, but when I walk into the round I am under the assumption I am adjudicating a game with four players. The way to play that game is up to you. Some rules are negotiable. Some aren't. I think the negative is best serve disproving case in the 2nr when they are going for education/clash impacts. I find it unconvincing that a critical aff is 'unfair and impossible to debate', most of them are not very good. Most of them can be dismantled by reading the book or grad thesis their solvency card comes from. Invest the time do that once and it will change your relationship to the argument. Ballot can solve fairness. Reflecting on past RFD's I have given, to win the fairness impact you need to win that stasis is good and/or their overarching impact turn to fairness is wrong. Usually when I vote against fairness it is because the negative team has not articulated what that means. If your args on case in the 2nr are consequence focus good and pragmatism good, you need to prove why the aff doesn't access these framing arguments. Also why do you? Whats the internal link between consequences and fairness? Why is fairness something that is pragmatic? Why do games nessitate equal starting points? You get to chose where you jump off the battle bus. What is the impact I am evaluating the consequence of when you are going for fairness? Where are analogies and examples that demonstrate how it would materializes in or out of debate?

Where is the global south?

I enjoy reading cards. I enjoy cutting cards. That being said you do not need more than 5 cards to win a debate. If you send me a card doc and I did not hear those author names in the 2nr/2ar something has gone wrong in your construction of that card document. Technically conceded warrantless claims unrelated to the content of the debate do not earn ballots, but this does not mean an argument should not be answered because you think it's 'stupid'. If you cannot beat bad arguments you should not win.

Wether you chose to go for a strategy that centers around material action, epistemological framing, or theoretical illegitimacy, you need to resolve the arguments you are going for. The speech you give should be responsive to the speech before you, not just what you have written on your blocks.

I value technical debate, but I think the energy of a round is inescapable. That energy, moments on the flow, is something lost with eyes locked on the screen. Hundreds and hundreds of individual memories scribed onto long paper. Worlds. Moments. Captured. Even if I never look at them again. There is a reason I wrote it down and I think that is valuable. I'll believe anything.

Is it more truly more efficient to get your 27th condo subpoint out? Maybe it is. But I do not find that style of debate as convincing as taking up the opponent on their position on any level and having it out with them over the course of the round. Trying to win versus trying not to lose seperates the middling to higher teir of speaker points for me.

judge kick -- seems scared when people ask me to judge kick i think that it is an extension of conditionality.

multiplank counterplans -- each plank is conditional unless in a set. These probably also need solvency advocates if they are more than 'ban x' Also when it is 'ban x' arguments in the 2ac as to why banning x might be a bad idea are good and only require evidence in a reciprocal manner.

I remember the rounds I have judged, rooting for you all to get smarter, stronger, and faster when I am in the back of your rounds again !!

Evelyn Valencia Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 15, 2022 at 1:26 AM PDT

UPDATE:1/27/2025

I have had time to rethink a lot of my paradigm. I have included my old paradigm after I returned back to debate. I am a huge proponent of accessibility and inclusion and if you need any accommodations, please let me know. I love this activity and believe everyone should have access to the same kind of love/stress. I still hold a lot of my beliefs in regards to K's and the structure. Now that I have been out of the activity and outside of the community, my threshold for speed has definitely changed but I can still pick up most things. I am a little old school sometimes and I'm learning to transition from flowing on paper to the computer. If there's anything you need, please ask :)

add me to the doc chain: ea.valenciarod@gmail.com pls and thank you

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

4 years of high school debate, with two of them doing circuit tournaments- I did LD and International Extemp.

4 years of college debate doing both parli and LD.

I was the DOF for Eastbourne College in the UK where I taught BP and LD. I'm back in the States, working as an Executive Director for a nonprofit.

I'm all for whatever strategy you use as long as its accessible to your opponents. I switched between styles, so I'm all for a good, enjoyable debate and whatever best suits your skills and passions within the debate space.

Procedurals/Theories: I usually evaluate these first as I think they are a prior question to consider anything else. I also look at the framework prior to looking at the rest. I am keen to more proven abuse, but if your articulated abuse is solid enough, I'll be responsive to it.

CP/DA: Like a good solid cp/da debate. I do need a competition block as to why Perms can't work and why the CP doesn't link for/ me to buy it. Ill buy PICs if there isnt much work done.

Ks-Im all for a good K. I like a solid framework and some good links instead of some nebulous links. I'll buy any K, I need a solid weighing mechanism and framing of the impx and solvency. Since being out of the debate space, my knowledge of various literature has become limited, but I am open to any arguments as long as they are run well and thoroughly.

It's your debate, so I don't want to input too much in here. Last speeches should clarify things for me; I don't like doing the work for others and refuse to intervene. I also appreciate great sportsmanship and inclusivity and accessibility in the activity.

Also, as a side note, I'm cool with spreading, but I have been out of the game for a bit so that I will adjust. I am not the best at articulating verbal reasons for decisions, but I am very thorough on the ballot. I will explain how I evaluated each argument in the context of the debate space. I am also always open for feedback or follow-ups if needed.

Also be nice, thats always cool.

Caitlin Walrath Rowland Hall 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 22, 2024 at 6:32 AM EDT

Debate History:

Juan Diego Catholic: 2011-2014 (1N/2A and 1A/2N)

Rowland Hall-St. Marks: 2014-2015 (1A/2N)

University of Michigan: 2015-2019 (1A/2N)

University of Kentucky: 2019-2020 (Assistant Coach)

Wake Forest University: 2020-2024 (Assistant Coach)

University of Utah: 2024 (Poetry, NFA-LD Lead Coach || Parli (NPDA/IPDA) Assistant Coach)

University of Houston: Present (Assistant Coach)

*Please put me on the email chain: caitlinp96@gmail.com - NO POCKETBOXES OR WHATEVER PLEASE AND THANK YOU*

TL;DR:

I'm currently a PhD student who is checked out of debate for most of the year outside of judging ~30 rounds and producing some evidence. Please do not assume I am up-to-date on the latest community consensus on things like T definitions, which affs are "most strategic," etc. - just debate to the best of your ability and be kind and intelligent while doing so.

You do you, and I'll flow and judge accordingly. Make smart arguments, be yourself, and have fun. Ask questions if you have them post-round / time permits. I would rather you yell at me (with some degree of respect) and give me the chance to explain why you lost so that you can internalize it rather than you walk away pissed/upset without resolution. An argument = claim + warrant. You may not insert rehighlighted evidence into the record - you have to read it, debate is a communicative activity.

General thoughts: I enjoy debate immensely and I hope to foster that same enjoyment in every debate I judge. With that being said, you should debate how you like to debate and I’ll judge fairly. I will immediately drop a team and give zero speaks if you make this space hostile by making offensive remarks or arguments that make it unsafe for others in the round (to be judged at my discretion). Clipping accusations must have audio or some form of proof. Debaters do not necessarily have to stake the round on an ethics violation. I also believe that debaters need to start listening to each other's arguments more, not just flowing mindlessly - so many debates lose potential nuance and clash because debaters just talk past each other with vague references to the other team's arguments. I can't/won't vote on an argument about something that happened outside the debate. I have no way of falsifying any of this and it's not my role as a judge. This doesn't apply to new affs bad if both teams agree that the aff is new, but if it's a question of misdisclosure, I really wouldn't know what to do (stolen from DML and Goldschlag). *NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me. (stolen from Val)

General K thoughts:

- AT: Do you judge these debates/know what is happening? Yes, its basically all I judge anymore (mostly clash of civs)

- AT: Since you are familiar with our args, do we not have to do any explanation specific to the aff/neg args? No, you obviously need to explain things

- AT: Is it cool if I just read Michigan KM speeches I flowed off youtube? If you are reading typed out copies of someone else's speech, I'm going to want to vote against you and will probably be very grumpy. Debate is a chance for you to show off your skill and talent, not just copy someone's speech you once saw on youtube.

K (Negative) – enjoyable if done well. Make sure the links are specific to the case and cause an impact. Make sure that the alt does something to resolve those impacts and links as well as some aff offense OR have a framework that phases out aff offense and resolves yours. Assume I know nothing about your literature base. Try not to have longer than a 2-minute overview

K (Affirmative) / Framework – probably should have some relation to the resolution otherwise it's easy to be persuaded that by the interp that you need to talk about the resolution. Probably should take some sort of action to resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. I think FW debates are important to have because they force you to question why this space has value and/or what needs to change in said space. Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Affirmative teams should have a robust reason why their aff is necessary to resolve certain impacts and why framework is bad. Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like if I sign my ballot aff or neg and why that vision is better than the other side’s. Fairness is an impact and is easily the one I'm most persuaded by, particularly if couched in terms of it being the only impact any individual ballot can solve AND being a question of simply who's model is most debatable (think competing interps).

T is distinct from Framework in these debates in so far as I believe that:

- T is a question of form, not content -- it is fundamentally content neutral because there can be any number of justifications beyond simply just the material consequences of hypothetical enactment for any number of topical affs

- Framework is more a question of why this particular resolution is educationally important to talk about and why the USfg is the essential actor for taking action over these questions

Case – Please, please, please debate the case. I don’t care if you are a K team or a policy team, the case is so important to debate. Most affs are terribly written and you could probably make most advantages have almost zero risk if you spent 15 minutes before round going through aff evidence. Zero risk exists.

CPs – Sure. Negative teams need to prove competition and why they are net beneficial to the aff. Affirmative needs to impact out solvency deficits and/or explain why the perm avoids the net benefit. Affs also must win some form of offense to outweigh a DA (solvency deficits, theory, impact turn to an internal nb/plank of the cp) otherwise I could be persuaded that the risk of neg offense outweighs a risk a da links to the cp, the perm solvency, etc.

DAs – Also love them. Negative teams should tell me the story of the DA through the block and the 2nr. Affirmative teams need to point out logical flaws in the DA and why the aff is a better option. Zero risk exists.

Politics – probably silly, but I’ll vote on it. I could vote on intrinsicness as terminal defense if debated well.

Topicality – You need a counter-interp to win reasonabilty on the aff. I default to competing interpretations if there is no other metric for evaluation.

Theory – the neg has been getting away with murder recently and its incredibly frustrating. Brief thoughts on specific args below:

- cps with a bunch of planks to fiat out of every possible solvency deficit with no solvency advocate = super bad

- 3+ condo with a bunch of conditional planks = bad

- cps that fiat things such as: "Pence and Trump resign peacefully after [x] date to avoid the link to the politics da", "Trump deletes all social media and never says anything bad about the action of the plan ever", "Trump/executive office/other actor decides never to backlash against the plan or attempt to circumvent it" = vomit emoji

- commissions cps = still cheating, but less bad than all the things above

- delay cps = boo

- consult cps = boo (idk if these exist on the immigration topic, but w/e)

- going for theory when you read a new aff = nah fam (with some exceptions)

- 2nr cps (yes this happened recently) = boo

- going for condo when they read 2 or less without conditional planks = boo

- perf con is a reason you get to sever your reps for any perm

- theory probably does not outweigh T unless impacted very early, clearly, and in-depth

Bonus – Speaker Point Outline – I’ll try to follow this very closely (TOC is probably the exception because y'all should be speaking in the 28.5+ category):

(Note: I think this scale reflects general thoughts that are described in more detail in this: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html - Thanks Regnier)

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 policy debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

Ruiqi Wang The Meadows School 5 rounds

Andrew Wen Damien-St. Lucy's 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 11, 2024 at 2:11 AM PDT

CFL Nat Quals Update: Slow debate is an immensely valuable part of this activity. I will judge in a manner similar to a “lay judge” with a debating background. In other words, I will give some (but not maximum) weight to the line by line; in fact, the minutiae of the line by line comes secondary to narrative construction and persuasion. Persuade me as if you were convincing a parent. Technical hiccups do not matter as much as the story you are telling and your framing.

I will not flow like a debater; instead, I might take notes in a similar manner as someone who is unfamiliar with debate.

If you would like me to judge like it’s fast and disregard the context of the tournament in which I am judging, I am happy to accommodate as long as the other team agrees.

Lastly, I would still like to be on the chain. Only add oatmealtacosfan@gmail.com please.

Normal, non-CFL Paradigm:

oatmealtacosfan@gmail.com

damiendebate47@gmail.com

Assistant Coach at Damien-St. Lucy's. I debated for Bellarmine in high school.

I evaluate debates solely based on the technical debating of arguments presented. I will fairly consider every type of argument and argumentative style. However, my debating background is nearly exclusively policy oriented. I only read affirmatives with plans and predominantly went for policy arguments on the negative. This does not mean I will automatically exclude things like planless affirmatives, but it does mean that in a round with a planless affirmative versus framework I am likely to better understand the negative team's arguments. I will do my best to mitigate those biases.

The only exception to the above is that I will refuse to evaluate arguments about occurences outside of the round. In other words, I do not evaluate callouts or similar strategies.

If I am given warranted judge instruction by the final rebuttals to read evidence in order to resolve/verify substantive evidence comparison or indicts, I will gladly do so. Otherwise (without explicit judge instruction), reading evidence is done as a last resort to minimize intervention.Even if I do read evidence, I will not do so from a card document. I've seen too many instances of debaters inserting evidence they did not read (this includes marked evidence without a clear method of delineating where the evidence was marked) and inserting evidence never extended or referenced in their final rebuttals.

I will reward clear line by line, clarity, strategic vision, technical proficiency, and creativity with high speaker points. Rudeness, arrogance, or other unethical behavior will be punished with low speaker points.

Evidence ethics should be debated out like a theory argument. The punishment for reading miscut evidence should be proportional to the egregiousness of the violation. Clipping is cheating and results in the round getting immediately stopped. You need a recording to prove that clipping has occured.

Tyler Vergho and Aaron Langerman have taught me everything I know about debate. I'd likely agree with most of their debate thoughts.

By default, rehighlightings can be inserted so long as they exist in text already presented. If the rehighlighting is in a totally different section of the article than what the other team has cut, you should probably read it. If this ability to insert rehighlightings is challenged by the other team, debate it out.

Both zero risk and 100% risk are possible. An argument must be complete with a warrant to justify "some risk." An example of an argument that is incomplete is "Straight turn. Extinction." without any other explanation or accompanying evidence.

madelyn wold The Meadows School 6 rounds

Sabrina Yang The Quarry Lane School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 14, 2024 at 2:38 AM CDT

BVNW '22/UW '26

Debated at KU for 2 years

she/her

yes email chain: syangdebate@gmail.com

don't be mean- disclosure is good n fun

Overall Thoughts:

My face is the easiest indicator of what I think about an argument

Tech>truth. Evidence comparison is super important, reading one really good card is way better than dumping 5 bad cards. Also, please extend warrants! It's hard for me to evaluate a card when you just shadow-extend tags.

Love judge instruction in rebuttals-- what should my ballot look like, what am I voting for and the implications of it

word doc >>>> pdf

Feel free to ask me any questions you have before/after round

I usually default to reasonability but I can be persuaded by competing interps. Having a good explanation for what your model of debate looks like (ie. a case list, ground you lose under their interp, why your education offense is important) is the most persuasive for me. Please slow down, especially if you're reading blocks. It's really hard to flow analytics and speeding through them will only hurt you. Explaining how you access their offense but they can't access yours is particularly helpful here.

DAs/CPs:

Specific links to the aff for a DA can be super persuasive. I think a lot of teams overlook weak internal link chains that mitigate a huge amount of risk for impacts. If you're reading big stick vs. soft left, impact calc is really important.

I think every CP needs a solvency advocate, especially those with multiple planks. I err neg on competition theory, and I usually default judge kick unless the aff team has reasons why it's bad.

Kritiks/K Affs:

Read a K aff my junior and senior year of hs, and for like one tournament last year in college. I'm more familiar with FWK v K affs compared to K v K debates, but I've debated enough from both sides to not have a preference.

The aff's method doesn't need to have a telos, but the aff team should be able to articulate what their method looks like, what it does, why the ballot is key, how it's a departure from the squo, etc. I think going for an impact turn to FWK is much more persuasive than trying to go for a W/M.

Neg FWK:

On the neg if you're going for the K please do impact calc and judge instruction would be super helpful. How do I weigh clash/fairness against the aff's impacts? I think clash is much more persuasive than fairness as a FWK impact. I am heavily persuaded by turns case analysis at the top for both the K and FWK. FWK should be a question of models that both sides justify.

Neg K:

Specific links to the aff are important and links of omission make me sad. It's super effective when you rehighlight 1AC evidence for links or if you quote cx, and you'll probably get higher speaks if you do so. I don't think the neg has to go for the alt, but if you do go for just framework, you should explain how it resolves your link arguments and the impacts.

Theory:

I probably won't vote on theory outside of condo, but I think reading multiple theory arguments as a time skew can be smart sometimes. If you're going for condo you should point out specific instances of abuse in round and why it's bad for debate.

Other Thoughts:

- If the rehighlighting is more than a sentence long you should read them, otherwise you can insert

- Don't talk over your partner in cx, also, don't answer every question for your partner. If you don't understand an argument enough to answer CX questions, you probably shouldn't read it.

- Reading/cutting good ev is important, but your explanation/application of it matters so much more

- I would much rather you read 1 card all the way through rather than cut 5 different cards two sentences in

- If you send me an email I pinky promise I'll get to it eventually, I'm just slow at responding

Rachel Yap Notre Dame High School 5 rounds

Kelly Ye College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 2:54 AM PDT

https://pref-buddy.vercel.app/public :)

Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers

Please add both kelly@college-prep.org and cpsspeechdocs@gmail.com to the chain.

Something along these lines for the subject line would be great: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code. Please make sure the chain is set up before the start time.

Background

I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum. My comfort for judging rounds is Policy vs. Policy ~ Policy vs. K ~ Clash Rounds >>> K vs. K.

I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur, and I talk about debate the most with Tristan Bato and Ian Beier.

Most Important Things!

Tech >>>> truth and I'll vote on anything as long as it is debated well. I do not hold any firm thoughts about any argument, I will vote for anything as long as there is a claim, warrant, and impact.

I think debate is a communicative research game that can impact student subjectivity. I have found that rounds that are the most frustrating to judge and have to rely on intervention are those in which debaters fail to write a ballot and impact arguments out in the 2NR/2AR. If your strategy is to proliferate as many arguments as possible in the 2NR/2AR without framing how I resolve core controversies of the debate, you'll find yourself unhappy with my decision because my biases may come into play. My biases for certain arguments can, and certainly has, been beaten by good debating. The answer to the question of "how did you evaluate [x argument]" should be "the way that you had instructed me to do so in the final rebuttal". If I don't have an answer you like, you likely did not impact it out or do enough judge instruction for me, and I am unwilling to piece together for you what you wanted the implication of the argument to be.

I am unwilling to use my ballot to take a stance on anything that happened outside of the round (I guess the only exception would be disclosure). Things like call outs that require me to "punish" a team for behavior that I did not witness are a non-starter -- happy to allow you to end the round and take it to tab if you feel like your safety is at risk.

Microaggressions:I fear I have lost the plot with teams proliferating accusations of microaggressions. I interpret microaggressions as a form of interpersonal violence that occurred between debaters within the round, and it should be distinct from questions of whether forms of scholarship or procedural norms can cause psychic violence writ large. I have felt very uncomfortable having to evaluate a few debates now in which both teams have accused each other of committing microaggressions, and will continue to feel uncomfortable having my ballot serve as a referendum on accusations of interpersonal violence within the round. If you strongly believe a microaggression has occurred that requires me to stop the round, I am willing to do so and help mediate accordingly with adults from your school who are responsible for your well-being.

2024-2025 Round Stats:

Policy vs. Policy (14-19): 42% aff over 33 rounds, 40% aff in a theory/T debate over 5 rounds

Policy vs. K (2-7): 22% aff over 9 rounds

Clash (1-2): 66% neg over 3 rounds

K vs. K (3-0): 100% aff over 3 rounds

Sat once out of 13 elim rounds

2023-2024 Round Stats:

Policy vs. Policy (11-20): 35.93% aff over 31 rounds, 22.22% aff in a theory debate over 9 rounds

Policy vs. K (5-2): 71.43% aff over 7 rounds

Clash (2-3): 40% aff over 5 rounds

K v K (1-0): 100% aff over 1 round

Sat once out of 13 elim rounds

Disads

Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. I start evaluation at the impact level to determine link threshold & risk of the disad. My preference for evaluation is if there is explicit ballot writing + evidence indicts + resolution done by yourself in the 2NR/2AR, I would love not to open the card document and make a more interventionist judgement.

CPs

Default to judge kick. If the affirmative team has a problem with me doing this, that words "condo bad" should have been in the 2AC and explanation for no judge kick warranted out in the 1AR/2AR.

The proliferation of 1NCs with like 10 process counterplans has been kind of wild, and probably explains my disproportionately neg leaning ballot record. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."

I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.

Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.

Very bad for post-modernism, simply because I've never read them + rarely debated them in high school. If you have me in the back you need to do a LOT of explanation.

Better for impacts like clash rather than fairness on framework. Generally, I think the internal link to clash > the internal link to fairness because I'm not sure Ks of reps skew the 1AC so much that are at a significant disadvantage. I am more persuaded by the argument that mooting most of the offense in the 1AC decks clash, which is usually a good internal link turn to the neg's offense.

Planless Affs/Framework

For the aff: Tying your criticism to the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of advocacies not tied to the topic.

For the neg: Procedural fairness is harder to win for me as compared to other standards - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate affecting subjectivity. The way that most debaters extend it just sound whiney and don't give me a reason to prefer it over everything else. Impacts like agonism, legal skills, deliberation, etc are infinitely more convincing to me. Absent a procedural question of framework, I am just evaluating whether or not I think the advocacy is a good idea, not that I think the reading of it in one round has to change the state of debate/the world.

Topicality / Theory

Impact framing & explicit judge instruction is the most important thing in these debates!

Ethics Violations/Procedurals

I don't flow off speech docs, but I try to follow along when you're reading evidence to ensure you're not clipping. If I catch you clipping, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what you're doing. I will give you a warning, but drop you if it happens again. If the other team catches you, they can stake the round on an ethics challenge.

Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations. If you believe the ballot should resolve a question of norms (disclosure, open sourcing, etc), then I will evaluate it like a regular procedural. If you believe it's an ethics violation (intentionally modifying evidence, clipping, etc), then the round stops immediately. Loser of the ethics challenge receives an auto loss and 20s.

Evidence ethics can be really iffy to resolve. If you want to stake the round on an evidence distortion, you must prove: that the piece of evidence was cut by the other team (or someone affiliated with their school) AND there was clear and malicious intent to alter its meaning. If your problem isn't surrounding distortion but rather mistagging/misinterpreting the evidence, it can be solved via a rehighlighting.

Online Debate

Please don't start until you see my camera on!

If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.

I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.

Lay Debate / GGSA
I actually really appreciate these rounds. I think at the higher levels, debaters tend to forget that debate is a communicative activity at its core, and rely on the judge's technical knowledge to get out of impacting out arguments themselves. If we are in a lay setting and you'd rather not have a fast round when I'm in the back, I'll be all for that. There is such a benefit in adapting to slower audiences and over-explaining implications of all parts of the debate -- it builds better technical understanding of the activity! I'll probably still evaluate the round similar to how I would a regular round, but I think the experience of you forcing yourself to over-explain each part of the flow to me is greatly beneficial.

Public Forum

I've never debated in PF, I will evaluate very similarly to how I evaluate policy rounds.

I despise the practice of sending snippets of evidence one at a time. I think it's a humongous waste of time and honestly would prefer (1) the email chain be started BEFORE the round and (2) all of the evidence you read in your speech sent at once. Someone was confused about this portion of my paradigm -- basically, instead of asking for "Can I get [A] card on [X] argument, [B] card on [Y] arg, etc...", I think it would be faster if the team that just spoke sent all of their evidence in one doc. This is especially true if the tournament is double-flighted.

If you want me to read evidence after the round, please make sure you flag is very clearly.

I've been in theory/k rounds and I try to evaluate very close to policy. I'm not really a huge fan of k's in public forum -- I don't think there is enough speech time for you to develop such complex arguments out well. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense given the public forum structure (i.e. going for an advocacy when it's not a resolution that is set up to handle advocacies). I think there's so much value in engaging with critical literature, please consider doing another event that is set up better for it if you're really interested in the material. However, I'm still willing to vote on anything, as long as you establish a role of the ballot + frame why I'm voting.

If you delay the round to pre-flow when it's double-flighted, I will be very upset. You should know your case well enough for it to not be necessary, or do it on your own time.

Be nice & have fun.

Iris Zhang The Quarry Lane School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 2:14 AM PDT

QLS 24 (2A|2N)

USC 28 (2A)

Email Address (add both on chain plz):zleyi0121@gmail.com ; debate@student.quarrylane.org

International student from China (+0.1 speaks if you go for China Heg Good). Debated 2 years core policy (Water, Fiscal Redistribution) and 1 year K (NATO) in high school. In college is mostly K with some policy in between. Overall, I think am a mediocre debater, but probably better as judge cuz I feel sucks if I am not flowing and we all waste another 2 hrs of our life here

I learned most things I know about debate from Chris Thiele - he has some unconventional philosophy regard debate and definitely somewhat affect me a little bit

Top Level (TLDR):

- Tech > Truth

- OpenSource is good. Paraphrase is bad

- Yes Speech Doc. All doc should be Word Verbatimized. PDF caps speaks at 28 or below.

- Don't steal prep and time your own speech/prep

-English is my second language (people who know me probably know I still struggle with it sometimes. ), but Speed is okay with me (ie, normal high school/college spreading, so don't read dumb theory arg against your opponent, pls.)Quality>Quantity.

- I have no offense with most arguments. You may say, "human extinction is good" or "xx country is evil." I am cool with animal and alien impact as well. At least you should follow the structure of "author+claim+warrants+data+impact."

- Usually would judge kick but prefer getting instruction

- Not a huge fans for overview. Just need one sentence in the top of the 2nr/2ar instructed me how I should write my ballot and why you win the debate.

- (MS/Novice/Local rounds)

1. No stock issue.

2. Collapsing is important: I found many teams choose to go for all the things they have at the beginning to the end for both aff and neg, but none of the flow is fully developed. pls don't do that. Extend more than 2 offs in the 2NR is a signal of losing my ballot.

3. Do full extension for the argument each speech plsplsplspls. eg. Don't extend the full DA in the block with just one sentence with no link chain or impact calc at all

For policy specific:

Topicality

- Prefer competing interpretations. Offense/Defense + weighing is better than just going for reasonability.

- More evidence + card comparison determine the truth usually

- In-round abuse is good, but you don't need it to win my ballot.

Theory

- Go for Hidden Aspec = "L ". The best offense for me for 1AR new response justification should be the model of debate that spreads random one line theory argument everywhere in the 1NC is freaking bad.

- I prefer to be more offensive in theory. The same goes for topicality. Competing for an interp is definitely stronger than saying we meet.

- Condo: real theory arg, but I am really bad at going for it as a debater. I think the condo is a winning strategy for me only when the neg team drops (auto win or T > Condo?) or the neg off case span is extremely abusive. You can still extend condo and go for it, but my threshold for neg to get away with it in 2NR would be low.

- For independent theory on off case (eg. fifty state fiat and process cp bad), "reject the arg not the team" is sufficient for me if the neg team is not going for it.

Framework

- Powerful tool if you utilize it well. (Fun facts: I had ran policy aff with 2min case + 6min FW)

- Policy Aff Vs K: There's a really high threshold for me to agree not to weigh the aff, but if the aff team drops your FW, then nvm. (Truth: I hate FW. Every 2N told me I couldn't weigh anything.)

- FW Vs K Aff: Naturally, I prefer to go for Clash and TVA. Fairness could be an impact and I belive burnout is real. However, history already show us K Aff won't completely disappear by reading more FW. Question more down to why the alternative model of debate is more important than the k. The only two true internal links for me on the neg are ground and limit. (Truth: everyone read FW against me I hate FW, but still go for it b/c I hate k v k more)

-My English sucks - if u phrase your DA/standard with fancy words explain that pls. If I can't flow it, you don't get it.

Case

- I think it's really hard for neg to know more about the case than aff does. If neg has an amazing case neg, I will reward the team.

- Go in-depth into the argument. Card comparisons are always effective. Weighing should not be later than 1AR.

- It would never be wrong to go for a DA. Go hard on weighing + turn case!!

- Follow basic offense + defense pattern

- I feel like DA is the only section that is truth > tech for me. The evidence is the most essential part. The more recent cards plus good warrants always change the uniqueness and control the link.

- 24/25 Update: TBH no one figure out this year hs topic really well. It seems like a pattern everyone is running process. Therefore, even though I hate process, my ballot rate on it this year is still 50/50. Competition c/a T and Theory

- I hate random cheating cp, especially when there are more than 6 offs. However, go for it when you need to win. (Truth: I also run these cps myself as 2N, but I still hate them when I need to answer them)

- Perm: prefer"perm to do both," "perm to do cp," and "perm to do the plan and part of the cp." (edit: if the plan is a process or devolution cp, i may buy intrinsic perm if u go well on theory)

- Prefer more plan based link. I am more willing to vote on link turn case strat + alt solvency than only fw.

- Going for alt needs to prove to me how the alt solves the k and the case better compared to the plan. Of course, you don't need an alt to win the debate. I will treat the K like a philosophical DA if you don't go for alt; then weighing and framework is important.

- FW prefer weigh the aff against the alt. If your A strat is win the fiat K and "you link you lost," I am probably not the best judge for you. I still vote for these empirically, but lwky fw debate is just boring. You can still got for it if that's the only thing you prepped, but I don't want neg end up cherry picking the drop. Instead, I need big picture clear DA that has been explained clear and warranted throughout the round that I can lay my ballot on.

- Perm is generally just served for checking uncompetitive alternatives.

KAffs

- I debated K aff throughout my junior year (Quantum Mechanics) and first semester in college (ESL K), so I think I am somewhat familiar with it. I think K aff is pretty interesting, even though most of the time, it will end up collapsing on t-usfg. Statistically, 90% of the time, I am answering the framework, so I will still vote on it if you run it well. On neg, I usually run T against K aff, but you are free to run anything else.

- Still Policy > K for me. Don't blame me if I don't understand your K trick

LD:

- Trojan Invitation Update: Never judged LD this year. Know zero about the topic, but everything else is fine

- I have no experience with LD debate or topic, so I will judge based on policy standards c/a. This means I will still try my best to understand your argument, but better no trick and philosophy.

Be respectful

Have fun!

Login to Tabroom

2025 Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV

2025 — Las Vegas, NV/US

POLICY Paradigm List

Judges