ASU 2021 update

This is my first online circuit tournament. I do not have topic knowledge.

Pronouns: They/them

Please do not pref me if you read tricks. I will probably evaluate the round poorly and then we will both be sad.

I did policy debate (not very well) in high school. I did not debate in college. I have mostly judged LD. I judge more locals than circuit.

>

Things before the debate

Blatant discriminatory behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression good, etc.) will get you voted down and reported to tab.

Give content warnings.

Add me to the email chain: alexkavery@gmail.com

>

Pet peeves

Any variation of "I'd like to thank my opponents and the judge for being here today and making this debate possible. Now moving on to my contentions..." – The phrase "off-time roadmap" – Knocking on things during the round – Quantum mysticism – The phrases "firm affirmation/negation" – Saying "Time starts in 3, 2, 1, now"

>

Judge things

eDebate - put the order in the chat please. I think it makes it easier for everyone. I would prefer it if your video is on, but you do you.

I try my best to be tech > truth.

Speed: on circuit I'm like a 4/10, Oregon like a 7/10 to a 8/10. Please slow down on tags and analytics. Please be slower when debating online.

Unwarranted arguments are not arguments.

I'll probably flow cx.

The onus is on you not to misrepresent your evidence, not on your opponent(s) to catch you cheating.

I am slow at typing my rfd. It's not you, it's me.

>

Thoughts on Specific Arguments

Case: For the aff: the debate starts in the 1AC, not the 1NC. You wrote the aff for a reason: articulate it, extend it, weigh it against (for example) t-framework. Use it in later speeches! For the neg: be sure not to just put defense on the aff. Solvency deficits are probably only meaningful when paired with offense on the same layer. Good case debate rewarding for both me and you.

Disadvantages/Counterplans: Yes. These are what I'm most comfortable judging. Debates on disads is usually the weakest on the link level. Please read complete counterplans with a solvency advocate at the very least. I am starting to wonder about how much leeway I should give "perm do both, perm do the aff, perm do the cp" one-liners.

Kritiks: I am worse for them than I would like to be. I probably don't know your literature base. Please over-explain how the links outweigh the perm.

Phil: Nothing against it. I probably don't know your literature base. I need you to articulate what offense looks like in these framings.

Topicality: T is good. For extra and effects T all you really have to say is "drop the non-t offense" and then do the line by line. Otherwise, please explain how your interp is necessary for good debates. Please put standards in the 1nc and not just in the block.

Theory: My default is to drop the argument unless articulated otherwise. I think frivolous theory arguments are probably bad. Please slow down on your underviews/spikes.

Framework: Is how you frame your work. Love to see it.

>

If you have any questions about anything feel free to ask/email me. I look forward to your debates!

Former debater, favor traditional LD.

Don't spread, focus on the argument your opponent has offered and respond.

I don't score CX. Please use it for clarification and to better understand your opponent's position.

Rude or inappropriate behavior will lose you the round. I have 0 tolerance for bullying or belligerence.

I am the Coach at Carrollton High School, Carrollton, GA. I have been coaching for a number of years. I have coached policy, LD, and PF debate.

I expect debaters to weigh arguments, if you don’t then I'm going to weigh them and you probably won't like that. I like warrants in case. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I'm likely to give them some ground on it. Tell me why your response matters and delinks their case. Speed is okay as long as you speak clearly. Arguments that you want me to vote “off of” should be extended through summary and final focus. I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech. I think that debate should be about integrity and truth, meaning be aware of the language you use and the validity of your evidence. There is no place in debate for misconstruing and/or using fake evidence. The flow is important for me in making a decision. If an argument is to be evaluated it should be cleanly extended through the debate. I hate voting on arguments that were not well developed. The debate should not be about blindly reading cards without understanding them. I'm unlikely to vote on theory unless there's an actual violation in the round. Contextual analysis is always good.

I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and Policy out west. Take that for whatever you think it means.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion (Framework, Standard, etc,) - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it. I am open to all arguments but present them well, know them, and, above all, Clash - this is a debate not a tea party.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
• Speed - Debate is a SPEAKING event. I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread - it better be clear, I will not yell clear or slow down or quit mumbling, I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth! NEW for ONLINE DEBATE - I need you to speak slower and clearer, pay attention to where your mike is. On speed in-person, I am a 7-8. Online, make it a 5-6.
• Email Chains Please include me on email chains if it is used in the round, but don't expect me to sit there reading your case to understand your arguments - pchildress@gocats.org **Do not email me outside of the round unless you include your coach in the email.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• Casing - Love traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans, theory - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis. It is really hard for you to win with an AFF K with me - it better be stellar. I am not a big fan of Theory shells that are not actually linked in to the topic - if you are going to run Afro-Pes or Feminism you better have STRONG links to the topic at hand, if the links aren't there... Also don't just throw debate terms out, use them for a purpose and if you don't need them, don't use them.
• I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, I don't either), who made the most successful arguments and used evidence and reasoning to back up those arguments.
• Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with a rare low point win each season. I am fairly generous on speaker points. I disclose winner but not speaker points. Even is you are losing a round or not feeling it during the round, don't quit on yourself or your opponent! You may not like the way your opponent set up their case or you may not like a certain style of debate but don't quit in a round.
• Don't browbeat less experienced debaters; you should aim to win off of argumentation skill against less experienced opponents, not smoke screens or jargon. 7 off against a first-year may get you the win, but it kills the educational and ethical debate space you should strive for. As an experienced debater, you should hope to EDUCATE them not run them out of the event.
• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
• Rule of Debate Life. Sometimes you will be told you are the winner when you believe you didn't win the round - accept it as a gift from the debate gods and move on. Sometimes you will be told you lost a round that you KNOW you won - accept that this is life and move on. Sometimes judges base a decision on something that you considered insignificant or irrelevant and sometimes judges get it wrong, it sucks but that is life. However, if the judge is inappropriate - get your advocate, your coach, to address the issue. Arguing with the judge in the round or badmouthing them in the hall or cafeteria won't solve the issue.
• Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind and respectful if you want to win.
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

I am a traditional judge.

Do not spread.

Civility is essential.

I value clear communication. Sign posts and voters are excellent tools.

I value clash. So listen to your opponent and tell me why they are wrong and your side is better.

Give weight to the most important arguments and tell me why they are the most important.

Write the reason for decision for me.

My background: I debated for Georgia State and West Georgia. I was heavily involved in debate for a decade (competing, coaching and judging as a hired gun). I have judged, literally, hundreds of rounds (mostly high school) and coached teams to TOC bids. I'm not working with any schools this year, just judging. I judged a fair number of high school rounds last year and this year and at GSU on the collegiate level. 

Prep time ends when the jump drive leave the computer -- if you're into that sort of thing.

Here are my biases:

1) Debate is a game. Like sports, the game affects life outside of the activity, but it's just a game.

2) Not all inclusion is good. The game needs limits and structure, but that's the beauty of debate is that you get to make arguments about how the rules, norms and structures of the activity function.

3) My role is to evaluate competing arguments each team makes and weigh them.

Be good and be good at it.

I consider myself a more traditional philosophy based judge, however, I do accept other non traditional cases and strategies provided they have warrant and are constructed logically. I have a background in parliamentary, CX, PF, and LD debate. My strengths are rooted in LD. 

In my opinion the point of LD is a search for the truth, as is the nature of philosophy, therefore, once the round has begun nothing is perceived to be the truth until you prove it as such. 

I am relatively laid back as a judge, however, when it comes being respectful of your opponents and putting forth your best effort I become more strict. Disrespect in a round is unacceptable. I understand that things can get heated and you may get frustrated, but that is no excuse for blatant disrespect. Furthermore, I judge rounds all day at these tournaments and if I can approach judging with the same enthusiasm each round then you can do the same while competing. 

I am ok with speed as long as you are clear and you emphasize your key points. I will clear you twice then I will stop flowing. Be sure to look up every now and again to make sure that I am flowing. 

Make sure you make it clear what I am voting for if I choose you. I do not know your opponent is wrong until you tell me how/why, on the same note I do not know you are right unless you do the same. Clash is a surefire way to make it clear that your opponent is wrong and you are right. Clash on every contention, or at least address them somehow. I do NOT flow CX, that is time for you to obtain information for your constructives and rebuttals. However, how you carry yourself in CX lets me see how informed and prepared you are. Don't worry, it won't count against you but I am sure your opponent will exploit this. 

The most important thing is to make your arguments clear and understandable. Ensure that there is warrant and links. 

Most of all, HAVE FUN!!!

Congressional Debate:

I have judged and/or been parliamentarian at local, regional and national tournaments, including Isidore Newman, Durham Academy, the Barkley Forum and and Harvard. My students have found success at both the national and state levels.

POs- I default to you. Remember, your tone as PO has a big influence on tone of the chamber. Be efficient, clear and consistent and have fun.

As far as the round and debate within the round, consistency is important to me. The way you speak and vote on one piece of legislation should most indeed influence your position on similar limitation unless you tell me otherwise. Debate and discourse does not exist in a vacuum.

Acting/characterization is fine as long as there is a reason and has a positive impact.

Finding a balance of logos, ethos and pathos is important. Difficult to accomplish in three minutes? Absolutely. The balance is what gets my attention.

I'll be honest. I don't like when debate jargon leaks into the chamber. SQUO, affirmative/negative, counterplan, link/turn, etc. This event is it's own unique event with norms.

Additionally, Student Congress is not Extemp-lite. If you are trying for three points in a speech, how do I know what to focus on? If everything is equally important then nothing is important. Take a stance, go for the impact and make the balance between logic and emotional to persuade. Include previous debate points, elucidate your point of view and have fun.

I've been the Speech & Debate Coach at Starr's Mill H.S since 2018. My team only competes in Public Forum and Speech events, so that is where I have the most experience coaching and subsequently judging.

PF:

1. Make good, consistent arguments with clearly stated and explained evidence and you won't have a problem winning the round.
2. For high speaker points, I look for good sportsmanship, confidence, politeness, clear rhetoric, consistent signposting, and timeliness.
3. Do not spread. Do not ask if I or your competitors want your case as a workaround.
4. Signpost as much as possible (i.e. please reference the argument you are responding to as you go down the flow).
5. I am not a judge for off-the-wall stuff (topicality, kritiks, etc.).
6. Actually summarize in your summaries! No new arguments in final focus. Create the narrative and convince me to vote for you.
7. I do not flow cross, but I have decided rounds on crucial admissions and will take notes "on the side" as need be.

LD:

1. I am a lay judge. I only judge PF or Speech so if I get placed in a LD round, it's usually a one-off.
2. Do not spread. Do not ask if I or your competitors want your case as a workaround.
3. I'm not receptive to most counterplans and prefer standard LD cases.
4. Value/Value Criterion will absolutely weigh in my decision.

I prefer a Value debate. Attacks on values are rated more highly than attacks on contentions, but obviously do your best to attack and defend both. I can follow a spread, though I do not prefer to do this. If you go too quickly I will call "clearer". If I miss something in your spread, it will not be flowed. At the end of the debate, I want voters and why you have won this round. Be respectful and courteous to both your opponent and me.  

I competed in PF debate from 2003 to 2006 in Ohio. I debated for four years in college in NFA Lincoln Douglas debate. I have coached PF debate in some way for four years. I love PF. I love debate. Don't ruin it.

PF is not policy. PF is not LD. Your speaker points will suffer if you engage in another form of debate in front of me.

I love evidence and I want you to use evidence to support your arguments and then to go one step further to explain WHY your evidence is helping you in the round. I want to you to engage your opponent's evidence in depth and really make sure that it says what your opponent's claim it says.

If you keep it civil, if you enlighten me, and if you make me smile or laugh, then we will have a great round.

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

My last paradigm was way overdue for a rehaul. Here are some things:

1. I'm an Emory student majoring in philosophy and biology. I love transhumanism.

2. I hate theory and will almost never vote on it unless it is actual abuse. I have seen rounds where someone runs theory because the aff didn't say resolved, but when asked in cross fire clarified. Don't run theory in front of my unless necessary.

3. Have a value structure.

4. On balance, I prefer traditional debate + speed. However, I understand for the most part this isn't always the case.

5. Impact yourself.

6. If I say clear more than once, I will probably dock speaker points. Also, if something isn't on my flow, I won't vote for it even if you said it.

7. Don't argue with me about my decision. Ask questions, clarifications, but know that my decision is final and can't be changed.

Finally, I understand this isn't really a paradigm, moreso a preference list. Ask me questions if you can intuit the answer from this. :)

I've competed in all forums of debate and most of the individual events, but I spent an overwhelming majority of my time in Lincoln Douglas. I have degrees in international affairs and economics, and am currently in a master's program for data analytics. I am happy to walk through any questions you have after the round and enjoy giving detailed RFDs to help debaters perfect their arguments.

General preferences: I value both traditional and progressive debate, and tend to enjoy a blend of the two more than just one over the other. I prefer quality over quantity, so don't just throw evidence at me without analysis.I judge solely off of what is said in round during speeches. I suggest you give me voters if you want me to pick out something specific, but major arguments and key points are up to my discretion. I generally vote on impact calculations and am pretty strict when it comes to links to your impacts, so make sure you're clear about those.

Spreading: I want to see a good debate. If you find you're backing your opponent into a corner, don't continue to beat them down by spreading. I don't believe this is a healthy behavior in general and is certainly not conducive to education through debate. For this reason, I discourage all out spreading in LD. LD is about analysis and application of evidence which is hardly done properly speaking at 1000 wpm, but I will be able to understand you.

Cross ex: I don't flow cross ex (or pay attention to it at all), so if you say something that you want me to pay attention to, you need to repeat it in a speech.

Affirmative Burden: I believe the affirmative has the burden of proof. Normally (not always), I will vote neg if the affirmative does not prove the resolution regardless of the negative argument.

Things I shouldn't have to say: If you are rude, mean, or personally attack your opponent in any way, you will lose the round and I will report you to the tournament director and your coach.

E-Mail: cstewart[at]gallowayschool[dot]org

Disclaimer #1:I am a mandatory reporter under Georgia law. If you disclose a real-world risk to your safety, or if I believe there is an imminent threat to your well-being, I will stop the debate and contact the Tabroom. Arguments that talk generally about how to engage systems of power in the debate space are more than okay and do not violate this.

Disclaimer #2: I am partially deaf in my left ear. While this has zero impact on my ability to flow in 99.9% of debates, exceptionally bad acoustics may force me to be closer than usual during speeches.

Speaker Points Update (November 2023):Moving forward, I will be following Regnier's speaker points distribution (see below). This should align my points with national trends and ensure I am not unfairly penalizing (or rewarding) debaters I am judging.

--- Fabulous (29.7 - 29.9) / Excellent (29.4-29.6)

--- Good (29.1 - 29.3) / Average (28.7 - 29)

--- Below Average (28.4 - 28.6) / Poor (28 - 28.3) / Very Poor (27.6 - 27.9)

Experience

Debate Experience

--- Lincoln-Douglas: 3 Years (Local / National Circuit)

--- Policy Debate: 4 Years of College Policy Debate (Georgia State University)

-- 2015 NDT Qualifier

-- Coached By: Joe Bellon, Nick Sciullo, Erik Mathis

-- Argument Style: Kritik (Freshman / Sophomore Year) & Policy (Junior / Senior Year)

-- Caselist Link (I Was A 2N My Senior Year): https://opencaselist.com/ndtceda14/GeorgiaState/StNa/Neg

Coaching Experience

--- Lincoln-Douglas: 4 Years (Local / National Circuit)

--- Policy Debate

-- University of Georgia - Graduate Assistant (3 Years)

-- Atlanta Urban Debate League (3 Years)

-- The Galloway School - Head Coach (3 Years)

Preferences - General

Overview:

Debate is a game; my strongest belief is that debaters should be able to play the game however they want to play it. I remain committed to Tabula Rasa judging, and have yet to see an argument (claim/ warrant) I would not pull the trigger on. The only exception to this is if I could not coherently explain to the other team the warrant for the argument I'm voting on. Unless told otherwise, I will flow the debate, and vote, based on the line-by-line, for whomever I thought won the debate.

What follows are my general thoughts about arguments, because for some reason that's what counts as a "judging paradigm" these days. Everything that follows WILL be overridden by arguments made in the debate.

Evidence:

Evidence is important, but not more than the in-round debating. Substantial deference will be given to in-debate spin. Bad evidence with spin will generally be given more weight than good evidence without.

Theory:

No strong predispositions. Run theory if that's your thing, there's actual abuse, or it's the most strategic way out of the round. I have no default conception of how theory functions; it could be an issue of competing interpretations, an issue of reasonability, an RVI, or a tool of the patriarchy. Given my LD background, I likely have a much lower threshold for pulling the trigger than other judges. Defaults such as X is never a reason to reject the team, RVIs bad, and a general disregard of Spec arguments aren't hardwired into me like the majority of the judging pool.

If you're going for theory, easiest thing you can do to win my ballot is to slow down and give an overview that sets up a clear way for me to evaluate the line-by-line.

Counterplans:

Read 'em. While I'm personally a big fan of process CPs/ PICs, I generally default to letting the literature determine CP competition/ legitimacy. If you have a kickass solvency advocate, then I will probably lean your way on most theoretical issues. On the other hand, as a former 2A, I sympathize with 2AC theory against CPs against which it is almost impossible to generate solvency deficits. 2ACs should not be afraid to bow up on CP theory in the 1AR.

DAs:

Specific DAs/ links trump generic DAs/ links absent substantial Negative spin. Love DAs with odd impact scenarios/ nuanced link stories.

Politics:

I functionally never read this as a debater, but my time coaching at UGA has brought me up to speed. Slow down/ clearly flag key points/ evidence distinctions in the 2NR/ 2AR.

Topicality:

Read it. Strategic tool that most 2Ns underutilize. Rarely hear a nuanced argument for reasonability; the T violation seems to prove the 1AC is unreasonable...

Kritiks:

I do not personally agree with the majority of Kritiks. However, after years of graduate school and debate, I've read large amount of Kritikal literature, and, if you run the K well, I'm a good judge for you. Increasingly irritated with 2ACs that fail to engage the nuance of the K they're answering (Cede the Political/ Perm: Double-Bind isn't enough to get you through a competently extended K debate). Similarly irritated with 2NCs that debate the K like a politics DA. Finally, 2ACs are too afraid to bow up on the K, especially with Impact Turns. I often end up voting Negative on the Kritik because the 2AC got sucked down the rabbit hole and didn't remind there was real-world outside of the philosophical interpretation offered by the K.

Framework (2AC):

I am generally unpersuaded by theoretical offense in a Policy AFF v. Kritik debate. You're better off reading this as policymaking good/ pragmatism offense to defend the method of the AFF versus the alternative. Generally skeptical of 2ACs that claim the K isn't within my jurisdiction/ is super unfair.

Framework (2NC):

Often end up voting Negative because the Affirmative strategically mishandles the FW of the K. Generally skeptical of K FW's that make the plan/ the real-world disappear entirely.

Preferences - "Clash" Debates

Clash of Civilization Debates:

Enjoy these debates; I judge alot of them. The worst thing you can do is overadapt. DEBATE HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DEBATE. My favorite debate that I ever watched was UMW versus Oklahoma, where UMW read a giant Hegemony advantage versus Oklahoma's 1-off Wilderson. I've been on both sides of the clash debate, and I respect both sides. I will just as easily vote on Framework as use my ballot to resist anti-blackness in debate.

Traditional ("Policy" Teams):

DO YOU. Traditional teams should not be afraid to double-down against K 1ACs,/ Big K 1NCs either via Framework or Impact Turns.

Framework (As "T"):

Never read this as a debater, but I've become more sympathetic to arguments about how the the resolution as a starting point is an important procedural constraint that can capture some of the pedagogical value of a Kritikal discussion. As a former 2N, I am sympathetic to limits arguments given the seemingly endless proliferation of K 1ACs with a dubious relationship to the topic. Explain how your interpretation is an opportunity cost of the 1ACs approach, and how you solve the 2ACs substantive offense (i.e. critical pedagogy/ our performance is important, etc.).

Non-Traditional ("Performance"/ "K" Teams):

As someone who spent a semester reading a narrative project about welcoming veterans into debate, I'm familiar with the way these arguments function, and I feel that they're an integral part of the game we call debate. However, that does not mean I will vote for you because you critiqued X-ism; what is your method, and how does it resolve the harms you have isolated? I am greatly frustrated by Kritik Teams that rely on obfuscation as a strategic tool---- even the Situationist International cared deeply about the political implications of their project.

AT: Framework

The closer you are to the topic/ the clearer your Affirmative is in what it defends, the more I'm down with the Affirmative. While I generally think that alternative approaches to debate are important discussions to be had, if I can listen to the 1AC and have no idea what the Affirmative does, what it defends, or why it's a response to the Topic beyond nebulous claims of resisting X-ism, then you're in a bad spot. Explain how your Counter-Interp solves their theoretical offense, or why your permutation doesn't link to their limits/ ground standards.

Fairness/ Education:

Are important. I am generally confused by teams that claim to impact turn fairness/ education. Your arguments are better articulated as INL-turns (i.e. X-ism/ debate practice is structurally unfair). Debate at some level is a game, and you should explain how your version of the game allows for good discussion/ an equal playing field for all.

Misc. - Ethics Violations

Ethics Violations:

After being forced to decide an elimination debate on a card-clipping accusation during the 2015 Barkley Forum (Emory), I felt it necessary to establish clarity/ forewarning for how I will proceed if this unfortunate circumstance happens again. While I would obviously prefer to decide the debate on actual substantive questions, this is the one issue where I will intervene. In the event of an ethics accusation, I will do the following:

1) Stop the debate. I will give the accusing team a chance to withdraw the accusation or proceed. If the accusation stands, I will decide the debate on the validity of the accusation.

2) Consult the Tabroom to determine any specific tournament policies/ procedures that apply to the situation and need to be followed.

3) Review available evidence to decide whether or not an ethics violation has taken place. In the event of a clipping accusation, a recording or video of the debate would be exceptionally helpful. I am a personal believer in a person being innocent until proven guilty. Unless there's definitive evidence proving otherwise, I will presume in favor of the accused debater.

4) Drop the Debater. If an ethics violation has taken place, I will drop the offending team, and award zero speaker points. If an ethics violation has not occurred, I will drop the team that originally made the accusation. The purpose of this is to prevent frivolous/ strategic accusations, given the very real-world, long-lasting impact such an accusation has on the team being accused.

5) Ethics Violations (Update): Credible, actual threats of violence against the actual people in the actual debate are unacceptable, as are acts of violence against others. I will drop you with zero speaker points if either of those occur. Litmus Test: There's a difference between wipeout/ global suicide alternatives (i.e. post-fiat arguments) and actually punching a debater in the face (i.e. real-world violence).

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'