I am a high school graduate from Technology High School in Newark. I have also debated for a total of 5 years. I’ve debated at many tournaments (Yale, Harvard, Bronx, etc).
I am a Kritikal judge.
if there are any other questions feel free to email me at acostalberto94@gmail.com
Arguments

Framework
You need to make this the most important argument in the round. For me at least. You loss framework, than you have a really high chance of lossing the round (depends on how far you are on the framework flow)

Dropping arguments
Drop them properly. Don’t just stop talking about them. If your opponent does drop this argument then bring it up so you can reap the benefits of their mistake.

Speed
I fine with it. I just ask that you slow down on the tags and the main warrants of the arg. If I can’t hear after I say clear three times I will only flow what I hear.

Theory
I like it and I know about it, but I am not going to do the work for you. Just because you say theory and extend it doesn’t mean that you explained ite. There needs to be a clear explanation on the theory flow what is the abuse that happens in the round and why it is important. Theory for me out ranks all others (not because it is an easy way out) because I feel that this argument are the actual rules of the debate round on what can and can’t be done by each team.

C/X
It is open I don’t flow it, but I do listen to it, and it can change my decision.

2NR/2AR
I flow it, but I mostly like to listen to it. This is the crux of the round. I need you to tell me why you should win (by explaining your arguments in the most detail that you can in the time period) and what arguments that your opponent dropped. (the reason for this is that a lot of teams really don’t do this any more so better to feel safe then sorry).

Jargon
I understand all of the debate jargon (since I did us most of them anyway) just that if there are any new ones that you think that I didn’t hear about then explain it to me.

Affirmatives
Topical affs are great, but I really enjoy hearing a critical debate with a critical affs, but with these kinds aff’s come with great responsibility. There needs to be a lot of in-depth analysis onto why your aff solves for what it solves, how it is a prereq. To the k and other args. A lot of debaters really just read evidence after evidence, i instead like to hear how the aff actually interacts with other arguments what is the actual connection. The critical aff can be the most dangerous weapon in any debate round if used properly. Performance affs are fine just explain the framework in great detail and why I should reject the resolution (if that is the case) in your own words or how you are topical.

Negative

Topicality

This can be a very powerful critical argument if used properly, but not many teams use this argument. I will vote on t if there is clear violation before the round is even finished (unless there is framework or theory). This is an argument that I like but not love like others

Counterplan
This is an argument that is very confusing for me, if you are going to run it explain what the plan does and how it doesn’t steal aff ground (unless theory is involved). If there is a critical counterplan involved explain how it is different from a k. other then that I don’t like counterplans too much, but I would vote on it.

Da
This is really a straightforward argument; I really didn’t see any variations of this argument in my debating career. If there are then I welcome them, but I really don’t have anything else to say about them.

K
Finally to the one argument that all teams want to know about. I love this argument, however I find that a lot of teams really don’t explain this argument in great detail. They just leave the k up in the air for the judge to interpret it in there own way. I know enough about the most common k’s that I can understand them, but again if I need to decide what your k is talking about you may not like what I think. Some of the other arguments that I’m not to familiar with I will listen to but there needs to be more of a keen eye in the explanation for those kinds of arguments.

Background:

Bronx Science 2019

Brown University 2023

I have not debated in over five years (I last updated this in February 2019). I'm really looking forward to seeing how much policy debate has changed! Most importantly, I hope you have a fun, respectful debate, but if you are curious, here is what my old paradigm was like:

I don't take prep time for flashing(unless the time taken is excessive) and CX is open. If there is anything specific you would like me to answer please ask before the round starts.

What I vote on/like:

Being a K debater I generally enjoy hearing Ks, but please don't run anything you're uncomfortable with. I vote on the flow.

Respect is cool. Policy is cool. Road maps are cool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

Top Level:

Email: seijidebate[at]gmail[dot]com

West High School SLC '24

Harvard ‘28

Call me "Seiji" [say-G]. Pronouns: he/him

Title the subject of the email chains: "[Tournament Name] [Round Number]: AFF [School Name] vs NEG [School Name]"

I am colorblind. I can't see blue highlighting.

No PDFs/Google Docs.

I prefer to watch a good debate I have less experience with than watch a bad debate where teams try to appeal to my preferences. "I begin evaluating almost every debate by listing out all the impacts made in the 2NR and 2AR and then determine the degree to which each team gets access to the fullest extent of those impacts by parsing out the rest of the debate. After, I'll weigh these impacts by deciding what the implications of winning each of them are (defaulting to and prioritizing the comparative metrics forwarded by the debaters in the round) and then usually have a good idea of who I believe should win." - Kenji Aoki. Good debating, line-by-line, impact calc, etc. will all minimize the intervention I have to do and help with me evaluating args I have less experience with. Dropped args still need claims and warrants extended.

I flow by computer and ear. I will not be using the doc during the speech (besides the 1AC and 1NC) but will read cards based on what I have on my flow during prep/after round if I feel it is crucial for my RFD.

If anyone goes for the silly stuff Harvard DS goes for I am not voting for it (ie LD tricks) - even tho I love them <3.

KAFFs/Framework:

KAFFs usually get the perm but I hold a high threshold for how it is explained, especially when you're trying to moot/shield links. I'm open to NEG interpretations of how the perm should be theoretically evaluated beyond just "a test of competition."

I like KvK debates, but not any more than I like Framework debates. I prioritize explanation in the round compared to card quality.

Fairness can or can’t be an impact. Winning it's an "intrinsic good" requires you to win a prescriptive - not just descriptive - reason as to why debate should be a game, which is why I'm more convinced with explanations as to how fairness is a necessary internal link to the educational value of debate and why both sides require it for their impacts.

Clash needs to be explained comparatively between the two models of debate. I think the most convincing explanation of clash as an impact is how it implicates skills.

Any NEG case debating should implicate AFF solvency for their potential impact turns and/or become offense for why discourse around your interp is good.

Kritiks:

I prefer most work to be done on the line-by-line.

Your framework interp should probably moot the AFF and have links that interact with how case is framed in terms of impact calculus and solvency. If you're going for the alt, you should probably just scrap framework and engage the AFF on the level of materiality with the links OR have a framework interp that enables you to abusively fiat solvency. I want to know what the alt does at the end of the round.

Plan pre-round what you want your 2NR to look like based on which part of the K works best against your opponent's AFF (framework/alt).

Topicality:

I tend to give greater weight to cards that define the word in a holistic context, not just use it in a sentence or for a specific purpose, article, or court case, UNLESS that specificity matters in the debate (which happens quite often).

I like impacts like limits and ground to be contextualized to how the topic operates, i.e. what is the core controversy of the topic and what arguments (ground) are necessary for external educational-related impacts.

Counterplans:

All CPs are fair game and competitive until proven otherwise.

I default to judge kick, but I'm open to a 2AR that pushes back on judge kick if 'perm shields'/'links to the net benefit' is a core part of the strategy, especially if the 2NR doesn't have a defense of judge kick.

Sufficiency framing doesn't always apply to the AFF's impacts that are yes/no questions. I also prefer it be contextualized to the internal links by the 2NR AND why 'sufficiently' solving outweighs the specific AFF deficits.

The more specific the solvency advocate, the better. If you have a really good and specific card that says the 50 states can solve the specific mechanism/area of the plan, I am more likely to err NEG on substance and theory if the AFF only dumps 3 generic topic fed key warrants.

0 solvency is possible (this applies to the AFF too).

Disadvantages:

0 risk of an impact is possible (this applies to the AFF too).

Being late breaking in these debates (not reading a terminal/uniqueness in the 1NC) just makes me a lot more lenient on new 1AR and 2AR answers.

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

College Debate: rundebate@gmail.com

High School Debate:asafuadjayedavid@gmail.com

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

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

-Rutgers

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

Two primary beliefs:

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

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

FW

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

Kritiks

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

CPs

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

1. No judge kick

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

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

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

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

DA’s

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

Plans

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

Presumption.

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

LD Specific

Tricks

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

Aisha Bah (pronounced: eye-sha)

Former (MS + HS) debater. Current coach at Eleanor Roosevelt High School under Washington Urban Debate League.

I attend Wesleyan University! Woo!

aishadoesdebate@gmail.com

TLDR:

I am a strong proponent of tabula rasa (as much as it's possible). I’ll vote on pretty much anything. I’m good on Theory, T, K, CP, DA, whatever. Pls send analytics. Just be kind to one another and have fun! Feel free to ask questions if you have them. I’m here to help you.

Email Chains:

I want to be on it. Email: aishadoesdebate@gmail.com.

Speed:

I’m good with speed of any kind. Just be clear. If you’re unclear on analytics, they may not get flowed, so be sure I can hear what you’re saying. I'm only saying "clear" once.

Cross:

Closed if there’s a maverick in the round. Otherwise, I don’t care. Decide amongst yourselves.

Tech v Truth:

I default to tech unless you explain to me why it should be otherwise. I really like tech-y arguments.

Policy v Kritik:

I don’t have a particular preference either way. I do believe that both extremes can be harmful for debate. Running 15 off and case just because you can, then going for the most undercovered argument in the 2NR is definitely cheap. I also think running the most obscure K you can and then winning off of raw confusion is cheap. Being somewhere in the middle is your best bet. Explain your Ks well and format good-faith arguments, and you’ll be perfectly fine.

Framework/framing:

You’ve got to be comparative when giving me these. If one team reads extinction first and the other team reads structural violence first, without any explanation for why I should prefer one over the other (clash) or contextualization for why this round calls for something specific, it often ends up being a wash. ROB/ROJ is a must. I love good clashy framework debates that go beyond the 1AC and talk about what the debate space should look like.

Theory:

I love a good theory debate. However, there needs to be very specific clash because these debates fragment very easily. I'll definitely vote on it if you win it and prove it to be a voter. Get off your blocks though.

Ks:

I love the K. I generally believe vague alts are bad, but I will still vote on it. Links of omission aren't links. Explain your K well. Chances are if you were banking on confusing the other team, you’ve confused me, and I can’t vote for a K that you can hardly articulate.

I'm super familiar with the scholarship of Black fem (Audre Lorde, Frances Beal, and the like), straight-up fem, anti-Blackness (Wilderson, Gordon, Fanon), Hegel (dialectics), and Marxism.

K Affs:

I love them. I need a firm role of the ballot to not just simply roll over into the negative’s framework. I also believe they need a strong solvency mechanism. For the framework debate, prove specifically why your world of debate is better.

T:

I really like well-explained standards and block extensions that indict in-round conduct by the aff. I’ll vote on T, no problem.

Signposting:

Do it. If you hop back and forth between flows without warning, you’re not going to get all of what you want me to hear flowed. I’ll be trying to figure out what you’re talking about.

Extending:

When you extend evidence, give me warrants over the author’s name. When it comes to varsity rounds, too many cards and authors are thrown around for you to expect me to remember exactly what Smith 2020 said and what flow it’s on.

Bonus (the melodic gamble):

If you play music during prep time and it slaps +0.3 speaks. If the music is trash, -0.3 speaks.

Overall, try your best and have fun. I’m more than happy to answer any questions.

I reserve the right to end the round if I think it's reached an uneducational and unsafe point.

liv (pronounced "leave") birnstad –livbirnstaddebate@gmail.com – any pronouns

washington (DC) urban debate league '23 + harvard '27

'23 National Urban Debater of the Year

For LD

im a policy judge who is good for your Ks or more trad LD Strats, but I won't be able to get the tricks debate.

For college policy

I am not familiar with the topic; it's your burden to explain acronyms or any other norms I might miss because of that! I prefer depth over breadth.

For highschool policy

TL;DR

debaters stop stealing prep challenge. level: impossible. ☹

i'll happily evaluate anything, i just care about you having fun and being kind to your opponents. debate isn't always a safe space so anything you do that legitimately harms the safety of the space will deck your speaks and make you lose.

speed? – sure

open cx? – sure

theory? – sure but i wouldn't say im a theory hack

can i read __? – yes, just read it well

tech > truth? – i’ll reward good debate and i encourage you to just make fully warranted arguments above all else.

tell me how to evaluate the round.

Full Version

bio

i debated all of highschool in the washington urban debate league so accessibility is really important to me. i coach the Boston Debate Leagues and some middle schoolers which means I will hold you to higher threshold for tolerable nonsense since youre likely not eleven.

i read policy affs all four years but was much more flex on the neg. my entire senior year i only went for a K. did all the nat circuit things and generally care a lot about the activity so feel free to do what you want and do best.

K’s / K Aff’s

I’m super open to evaluating kritikal arguments. I’ll reward debaters that can articulate their theory and the nuances of it well. I will likely have familiarity with your lit (see caveat in the next sentence), but I will not fill in gaps for you with my personal knowledge of that litI’m not a great judge for psychoanalysis or high theory k’s generally. I will vote on it, but will be grumpy if you make me.

I don't think partnerships without a Black debater should read pess.

if you read an aff that uses things like songs, poetry, etc, you're good to do that in front of me.

Theory & topicality

I’m a grumpy theory judge and think debaters need to really go for a theory argument if they want my ballot. get off your blocks.

I love topicality debates that are not just a full round of block v. blok debate. Contextualize your arguments to the round and the topic writ large!

card clipping/evidence ethics

If someone makes a card clipping accusation in the round (or another evidence ethics violation) i will stop the round after the speech in which it occurs, explain the stakes to the team that makes the accusation, and if they decide to continue with the accusation i'll evaluate the argument. if it gets to that point, i'll see if the cards were clipped. if so, the team that makes the accusation wins, if not, they lose.

6,7,8+ off

I generally believe these kinds of debates are shallow and don't actually give teams as much leverage as they think apart from a time skew. while theory is not my bread and butter (see above) ill be a lil more lenient with condo with 6+ off.

misc

I don't vote on things that happened before the reading of the 1ac.

if the round doesn’t go the way you want, i would be happy to listen to a redo + give feedback just send it to me within a week.

Bronx Science 2023

University of Michigan 2027

Assistant Coach at Mamaroneck

Add this email: guybloom@umich.edu

I'll only evaluate the arguments presented in the round, and my decision will be some reconciliation of 2NR and 2AR arguments.

I am good for pretty much any strategy. I used to have a long and kind of redundant paradigm, but I've come to disagree with a lot of it.

Strategies which you can confidently defend are good in front of me.

I am most often placed in clash debates, so I have the most experience judging those. Framework almost always decides who wins these rounds. For the "K", I think it would give these arguments too much credit to even describe my familiarity with critical literature. I don't think you will make very many nuanced disagreements with philosophers or sociologists which require prior knowledge of their work. I will evaluate whatever you say, though.

Fairness is more persuasive than clash, but I ultimately think that pretty much all theoretical debates are unsound (for reasons which are mostly irrelevant to how I will decide rounds). For what it's worth, I think jurisdiction is by far the best argument made by the negative in framework debates.

I'd like to judge more counterplan competition debates. Textual + functional and functional only are both defensible.

NoBro '24

Harvard '28

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

HS Topic Knowledge: none.

Debate Influences: Shree Awsare and Gabe Jankovsky

Dropping arguments = L

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

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

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

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

Just debate. Good luck, have fun!

Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-t-framework impacts ranked: topic education > skills > clash/arg refinement > scenario planning > fun > literally any other reason why debate is good > fairness

-I updated the t-fw part of my paradigm recently (under policy, 12/4/23) - if you are anticipating having a framework debate in front of me on either side, I would appreciate it if you skimmed it at least

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume one way or the other for theory questions

-all kinds of theory, including topicality, framework, and/or "role of the ballot" arguments are about ideal models of debate

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-for high school policy 23-24: I actually used to work for the Social Security Administration (only for about 7-8 months) and I have two immediate family members who currently work there - so I have a decent amount of prior knowledge about how the agency works internally, processes benefits, the technology it uses, etc. - but not necessarily policy proposals for social security reform

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Feel free to adapt arguments, but please don't change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you are prepared for, practiced in, and passionate about. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

Speed - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

Clarity - I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. I think you can clear or slow your opponent if you are comfortable with it - but not excessively to avoid interruption please - max 2-3 times a speech. If you are unclear with tags or analytics in an earlier speech, I will try to let you know immediately after the speech is over. If you do it in a rebuttal, you are 100% at fault because I know you can do it clearly, but are choosing not to. Focus on efficiency, not speed.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. I would prefer that, at the varsity level, CX or prep time is taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take prep or speech time for tech issues - the clock can stop if necessary. Use the bathroom, fill up your water bottle as needed - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

If you win the debate without reading from a laptop in the 2NR/2AR your floor for speaks is a 29.

For Policy:

T-Framework: The fw debates I like the most are about the advantages and disadvantages of having debates over a fiated policy implementation of the topic. I would prefer if your interpretation/violation was phrased in terms of what the affirmative should do/have done - I think this trend of crafting an interpretation around negative burdens is silly - i.e. "negatives should not be burdened with the rejoinder of untopical affirmatives." I'm not usually a big fan of neg interpretations that only limit out certain parts of the topic - strategically, they usually seem to just link back to neg offense about limits and predictability absent a more critical strategy. I think of framework through an offense/defense paradigm and in terms of models of debate. My opinion is that you all spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing research, redos, practice, and debates - you should be prepared to defend that the research you do, the debates you have, and how you have those debates are good.

1. Topic-specific arguments are best - i.e. is it a good or bad thing that we are having rounds talking about fiscal redistribution, nuclear weapons, resource extraction, or military presence? How can that prepare people to take what they learn in debate outside of the activity? Why is topic-specific education valuable or harmful in a world of disinformation, an uninformed American public, escalating global crises, climate change, etc.? Don't be silly and read an extinction impact or anything though.

2. Arguments about debate in general are also great - I'm down for a "debate about debate" - the reason that I as a coach and judge invest tons of time into this activity is because I think it is pedagogically valuable - but what that value should look like, what is best to take from it, is in my opinion the crux of framework debates. Should debate be a competitive space or not? What are the implications of imagining a world where government policy gets passed? What should fiat look like or should it be used at all?

I can be convinced that debate should die given better debating from that side. But honestly, this is not my personal belief - the decline of policy debate in terms of participation at the college and high school level makes me very sad actually. I can also be convinced that debate is God's gift to earth and is absolutely perfect, even though I also believe that there are many problems with the activity. There is also a huge sliding scale between these two options.

3. Major defensive arguments and turns are good - technical stuff about framework like ssd, tvas, relative solvency of counter-interps, turns case and turns the disad arguments, uniqueness claims about the current trends of debate, claims about the history of debate, does it shape subjectivity or not - are all things that I think are worth talking about and can be used to make "try or die" or presumption arguments - though they should not be the focal point of your offense. I like when tvas are carded solvency advocates and/or full plan texts.

4. I do not like judging debates about procedural fairness:

A) They are usually very boring. On every topic, the same pre-written blocks, read at each other without any original thought over and over. I dislike other arguments for this reason too - ultra-generic kritiks and process cps - but even with those, they often get topic or aff-specific contextualizations in the block. This does not usually happen with fairness.

B) I often find fairness very unimportant on its own relative to the other key issues of framework - meaning I don't usually think it is offense. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyway), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me to reasonably compare it to the aff's offense - saying "well we all must care about fairness because we're here, they make strategic arguments, etc." - is not sufficient to do that. I usually agree that competitive incentives mean people care about fairness somewhat. But how much and why is that important? I get an answer with nearly every other argument in debate, but hardly ever with fairness. I think a threshold for if something is an impact is that it's weighable.

C) Despite this, fairness can be impacted out into something tangible or I can be convinced that "tangibility" and consequences are not how I should make my decision. My hints are Nebel and Glówczewski.

5. Everyone needs to compare their impacts alongside other defensive claims in the debate and tell me why I should vote for them. Like traditional T, it's an offense/defense, disad/counterplan, model of debate thing for me. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. Impacts are negative effects of the status quo, the alternative resolves the status quo, and the links are reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening. Perms are a test of the strength of the link. Framework, ROB, and ROJ arguments operate on the same level to me and I think they are responsive to each other. My feelings on impacts here are similar to t-fw.

I still study some French high theory authors in grad school, but from a historical perspective. In my last couple years of college debate I read Baudrillard and DnG-style arguments a lot, some psychoanalysis as well - earlier than that my tastes were a little more questionable and I liked Foucault, Zizek, and Nietzsche a lot, though I more often went for policy arguments - I gave a lot of fw+extinction outweighs 2ARs. A lot of the debates I find most interesting include critical ir or critical security studies arguments. I have also coached many other kinds of kritiks, including all of the above sans Zizek as well as a lot of debaters going for arguments about anti-blackness or feminism. Set col stuff I don't know the theory as well tbh.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. Turns cases/turns the da is usually much better than timeframe/probability/magnitude. Between two improbable extinction impacts, I default to using timeframe a lot of the time. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card that you explain well in rebuttals rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing, but hard to prove, like presumption.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. My favorites are advantage cps, specific pics, and recuttings of 1AC solvency ev. I like process cps when they are specific to the topic or have good solvency advocates. I will vote on other ones still, but theory and perm do the cp debates may be harder for you. I think some process cps are even very pedagogically valuable and can be highly persuasive with up-to-date, well-cut evidence - consult Japan on relevant topics for instance. But these arguments can potentially be turned by clash and depth over breadth. And neg flex in general can be a very strong argument in policy. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and thinking of interps as models of debate. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing. I like topicality debates quite a bit.

Theory: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Like T, I think of theory through models of debate and default to competing interps- you should have an interpretation to make your life a little easier if you want to extend it - if you don't, I will assume the most extreme one (i.e. no pics, no condo, etc.). If you don't have a counter-interp in response to a theory argument, you are in a bad position. If your interpretation uses debate jargon like pics, "process" cps, and the like - you should tell me what you mean by those terms at least in rebuttal. Can pics be out of any word said, anything in the plan, anything defended in the solvency advocate or in cx, any concept advocated for, etc.? I think there is often too much confusion over what is meant to be a process cp. The interpretation I like best for "process" is "counterplans that result in the entirety of the plan." I like condo bad arguments, especially against super abusive 1ncs, but the neg gets a ton of time in the block to answer it, so it can be really hard to give a good enough 1ar on it without devoting a lot of time as well - so if you are going to go for it in the 2ar, you need to expand on it and cover block responses in the 1ar. Warrant out reject the argument vs. reject the team.

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

3 - Phil, Theory that isn't condo or pics bad

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

My disclaimer is I try to keep an open mind for any debate - you should always use the arguments/style that you are most prepared with and practiced in. You all seem to really like these shortcuts, so I caved and made one - but these are not necessarily reflective of my like or dislike for any particular argument, instead more of my experience with different kinds, meaning some probably require more explanation for me to "get it." I love when I do though - I'm always happy to learn new things in debate!

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Trad Debate: By far what I am least familiar with. I don't coach this style and never competed in anything like LD trad debate - I did traditional/lay policy debate a bit in high school - but that is based on something called "stock issues" which is a completely different set of standards than LD's value/value criterion. I struggle in these debates because for me, like "stock issues" do in policy, these terms seem to restrictively categorize arguments and actually do more to obscure their meaning than reveal it. In the trad debates I've seen (not many, to be fair), tons of time was dedicated to clarifying minutiae and defining words that either everyone ended up agreeing on or that didn't factor into the way that I would make my decision. I don't inherently dislike LD trad debate at all, it honestly just makes things more difficult for me to understand because of how I've been trained in policy debate for 11 years. I try my best, but I feel that I have to sort through trad "jargon" to really get at what you all think is important. I would prefer if you compared relative impacts directly rather than told me one is better than the other 100% of the time.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive - tournaments didn't provide public wifi. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

Debate Coach at NSU University School

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

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

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

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

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

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

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

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly. I flow on a computer without much shorthand.

Evidence---I read it during debates. When referenced in CX, I’ll likely go to it. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

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

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

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

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

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

3---T vs. Plans

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

"Fiscal Redistribution" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer, and at this point in the season still do not have strong views on most of the debated T issues like “FR = tax and transfer” or “FJ = no subsets.” From grad school studying health policy, "Social Security can be turned into single-payer health insurance" seems a bit absurd, but I’ll let evidence dictate decisions.

4---T vs. K Affs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5---Kritiks

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

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

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

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

6---Counterplans

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

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

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

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

7---Disadvantages

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

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

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

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

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

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

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

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

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

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

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

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

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

Line-by-Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: 0

Energy: 12

LD Total: 40

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

Please add mosieburkebdl@gmail.com to the email chain.

Hello! My name is Mosie (MO-zee), he/him/his. Please use my name instead of “judge”.

Personal and professional background:

I debated for Boston Latin Academy from 2011-2017, and was part of the first team from the Boston Debate League (UDL) to break to Varsity elimination rounds on the national circuit, bid, and qualify to the TOC. I attended Haverford College (B.A. Philosophy, Statistics minor) for my undergraduate studies and Northeastern University (MBA/M.S. Accounting) for graduate school. I currently work as an accountant for a software company in the Boston area. Liv Birnstad and I co-coach the Boston Debate League’s Travel Team, which is composed of students from multiple schools within the Boston UDL.

Short Version:

-Offense-Defense.

-I have experience judging and coaching traditional policy, Kritik, and Performance styles.

-High familiarity with many literature bases for Kritiks. This increases your burden to explain your theory well, and I will not do theoretical work for you.

-I have prioritized developing my understanding of counterplan strategies and competition theory, and I am a better judge for CP/Disad strategies than I have been in previous seasons.

-All speeds OK, please prioritize your flowability. I will say “clear” twice before docking speaks for clarity.

***********************************************

I have judged 1 national circuit tournament and 2 local/non-circuit tournaments on the intellectual property topic. I coach and write arguments of all styles on the intellectual property topic.

***********************************************

Longer Version:

Style

Speed is fine, but it should not come at the expense of clarity or flowability. I will say “clear” twice before docking speaks for clarity.

I welcome rounds with numerous off-case positions, but keep in mind that I flow on paper and I need pen time.

Make my job easy! If you bury important arguments in an unclear wall of noise because you’re speeding through your blocks, I probably won’t catch them. Example: if your 2AC frontline against a core counterplan includes 4-5 uncarded arguments before you read evidence, you should read those uncarded arguments more slowly than you would read the highlighted lines in a card.

Cross-examination should be conducted intentionally and strategically. It should not be an attempt to phrase gross mischaracterizations of your opponents’ arguments as questions. Don't be cruel, disrespectful, or belittling. CX where both debaters are continuously talking at the same time is a pet peeve.

The 2NR and 2AR should prioritize persuasiveness and focus on condensing the debate where possible. They should not just be a list of semi-conceded arguments.

In the absence of guidance from tournament admin I follow NSDA guidelines for evidence violations, including card clipping, improper citation, and misrepresentation of evidence.

Please take steps to minimize tech delays. Set up the email chain and check your internet connection before the round start time. You should be able to reply-all and attach a document without significantly delaying the round. Putting cards in a doc before your speech is prep time.

Case

I love a robust case debate! Neg teams should aim to have a variety of arguments on each important case page. Impact defense usually isn’t sufficient to contest an advantage scenario on its own. State good usually isn’t a sufficient case answer against a K aff. Most 2NRs should spend time on the case.

I find alt cause arguments more persuasive than recutting solvency evidence to make a counterplan that addresses the alt causes.

Please extend the substance of your case arguments, instead of “dropped A1 means nuke war, case outweighs on magnitude.”

Overviews should accomplish specific goals, and if your overview does not have a purpose I would rather it not be present in your speech. If there is a lengthy overview on a flow, please tell me during your roadmap.

Topicality & Theory

I love these debates when they are intentional and clever, and I strongly dislike these debates when they’re just an exercise in reading blocks. I was a 1N who took the T page in every round, and I will appreciate your strategic concessions, decisionmaking, and tricks.

I will vote on theory arguments if you win them. If your theory argument is silly, I will find it less persuasive and it will be more difficult to win.

Kritiks

I am well-versed in most K literature frequently used in debates (and you should ask if you'd like to know about my familiarity with your specific K author). This has 2 important implications for K teams:

1. I will know what you’re talking about when you explain and use the details of your theory. I will reward solid understanding of theoretical nuances that are relevant to your K if you communicate them and use them strategically.

2. I will not extrapolate the details of your theory for you. It is important that you clearly communicate the theoretical nuances you're using to make your arguments. “Ontology means we win” isn’t a complete argument, even though I know how to connect those dots.

Performance is 100% fine by me. If you incorporate a performance as part of your aff's methodology, I will evaluate is as I would any other methodology, so please incorporate it in later speeches and make sure I know why it's important.

In Policy aff vs K 2NR debates, the team that wins framework will usually win the round.

Counterplans

I’ve recently made a significant effort to improve my understanding of these debates after identifying it as a weak point in my judging and coaching abilities. I have a new appreciation for competition debates, process CPs, conditionality, and the like, and I’m looking forward to judging more counterplan/disad strategies! Please slow down a little on the frontlines that are rapid-fire analytics and the 2AC/2NC theory blocks.

I can conceptually come to terms with 2NC counterplans in response to 2AC add-ons, but I don’t like them very much, and I would prefer to avoid debates that require new cards going into the 2NR/2AR.

On theory debates about counterplan planks, perm severance & intrinsicness, etc. I will default to reject the argument until you make an argument for reject the team.

Disadvantages & Impact Comparison

I want to understand your scenario as early in the debate as possible, so please make it clear and explain the link chain. You should have an explanation of the story of the disadvantage that is as concrete and jargon-free as possible, especially at the top of the 2NR.

Impact comparison should be composed of persuasive arguments, not a magnitude-probability-timeframe-turns case checklist.

Hi! I am your judge :) I would like to be on the email chain at BrandyCarboneDebate@gmail.com

Background:

I was a pretty successful high school policy debater (carried my banker boxes a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away ...) followed by a stint of college public forum debate. I stepped away from debate until my child participated in middle school parli which returned me to judging. This is my return to policy and/or public forum as a judge. NOTE: I am more familiar with policy over pubic forum but have judged all type of debate. Time yourself.

I'm a big fan of debate both as an activity through which students express themselves and acquire knowledge and skills and as a competition. Clearly things have changed over the last 30 years. The introduction of email chains is cool, but I think it allows people to forget how to clearly speak since every word you care about can be read. We spread when I debated (of course) but we also had to compete in Extemp because we were not allowed to lose our ability to communicate in our policy fervor. Clue: I still consider this a speech competition.

I am tabula rasa. I will take whatever argument you want to throw at me, but you have to be able to explain it, defend it and weigh it. If you want it to be important to me, you have to tell me. A sure way to lose a round with me is to leave the round to my opinion.Clue: I will vote for the team that can convince me their arguments are the best with evidence, logic and (ideally) a little reason.

I am more easily convinced by arguments when the framework is clear, addressed and refuted. I am more persuaded by arguments that are debatable. If there are no arguments against yours unless they are racist, sexists, etc, then the position is not debatable its just a fact and makes the round unwinnable for the other side. I am still tech > truth so take that as you will.

I flow on paper, and organization and structure in speeches are important for me. I really appreciate it when teams identify their arguments when giving them. Signpost please.

There are probably some current theory issues that will be new to me. I do think there is, and should be, room in debate for issues that affect the broader frameworks and circumstances within which policy is created. I am not absolute about it and will listen to arguments on both sides. I'm more current on policy and current events than I am on theory. Clue: I will listen to the arguments and pick the one argued best. I want to hear your understanding of the argument, and a demonstration of why it matters.

Final speech summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and identifying the key few issues and assessments I should be making and how they should be made. Clue: Weigh! Weigh! Weigh!

Good luck!

(you can email me if you want extra feedback. but i am a bit blunt at times)

Northeastern University 2016

Lexington High School 2013

Update for Big Lex 2025

As of this update, I am returning to judging after about a decade. I debated for Lexington between 2010-2013 and judged at tournaments between 2011-2015. I primarily judged policy with occasional LD and PF rounds. Although I'm sure debate has evolved in the last 10 years, I'm hopeful the principles of good argumentation have not. I'm familiar with the structure of debate arguments but you should not assume I'm up to date on the current topics and jargon.

Overview

I will try and judge based on who I believe is debating better, regardless of any of the preferences below.

DON’T

• steal prep (timer stops when the jump drive comes out of the computer)

• clip cards - ask if you have any questions

• be mean. assertive ≠ aggressive

DO

• impact calculus. Don’t just state why you avoid war, explain why this matters in the context of the other team’s impact. Impact calc is your best friend!

• evidence comparison. I want you to tell me the way I should frame your cards in the round.

• have fun! Stay in the competitive spirit, but be respectful of each other and enjoy yourself doing an activity that all of us love and sacrifice countless hours for.

If you have any questions about anything/want more elaboration on any of the following please feel free to ask before the round has to start!

Topicality

I believe topical plans are good. Have an interpretation, and prove that your vision of the topic is better than the other side’s. Explain why your interpretation matters and what it looks like. If you are running a non-topical advocacy, it will be difficult for you to win my ballot.

Theory

I usually think theory arguments are a reason to reject the arg, not the team - but if you want to present me with good arguments to why I should vote otherwise, I can be persuaded to pull the trigger on theory. Much of what I stated about topicality is applicable to theory - have an interpretation, explain why the argument matters, etc. Make sure your arguments are clear - it’s rather hard to flow 3-word theory arguments at the same speed as cards.

Kritiks

I’m probably not your best judge on the K, but if you’re good at it, don’t hold back - just keep in mind that I probably don’t know as much about it as you do. Refrain from dropping a bunch of abstract jargon that I don’t know the meaning of, and make sure I understand what the kritik is (if I’m sitting there with a confused look that’s a bad sign). Specific links and a coherent explanation of the alternative will probably help my comprehension. The better the kritik engages the aff, the better.

On the aff, same thing, generic frameworks and perms are not going to get you as far as specific answers would. Make sure you answer devastating tricks the negative should be arguing. I don’t think that Ks should not exist in debate. Framework is fine when you justify your methodology and don’t drop stupid arguments.

Clarity / Organization

I wholeheartedly agree with the following:

“I want to hear the words you say. All of them. That includes the words in your cards and the subpoints of your theory block. I think we as a community have let clarity get away from us. I was recently pleasantly surprised by a few debaters who were both incredibly fast and crystal clear at all points in their speeches. I was also saddened that they stood out as anomalous in contrast to many of the debate rounds that I judge. In addition to the clarity with which you deliver your speeches I believe this also is a component of organization in the round. It is functionally impossible to follow your arguments and apply them correctly when all of the debaters in the room abandon the structure of the flow/line-by-line. Embedded clash is fine. Flat out ignoring the order/structure of arguments and answers is not. While speaker points have always reflected things like clarity & organization I am going to use them more heavily in this regard in an effort to encourage good practices amongst the debaters in my rounds. If you are not clear, I will ask you to be clear once, if you are not clear after that, your partner should probably keep an eye on me to make sure I look like I’m following you, because if it’s not on my flow, it’s not in the round.” - Sara Sanchez

The more I think about my paradigm and debate the more I realize that my opinions are constantly evolving and thus I will probably not be straight down my paradigm in round.

The bold is important highlights throughout. Enjoy

Quick overview:

I debated at Calvert Hall for four years (2017-2021), debate at Towson University (2022-present). I ran policy arguments in high school and some college, did some performance debate in college as well.Make it simple for me, I don't like doing work. Every aspect of debate is performative, make sure that you are a decent human being and call out your opponents when their performance is problematic. But, run what you want and do your job as a to explain to me while it matters. I tend to be a pretty expressive judge so you will probably know when I'm following well, when I'm lost, when I'm thinking, etc.

yes I want to be on the email chain, christd550@gmail.com

You should leave pen time whether or not i'm flowing on my laptop or paper - I want to make sure I get all your warrants!

here's how I would pref me:

1 - Policy (heg/nuke war)

2 - policy (soft-left) or policy vs the K

3 - Identity K

4 - High theory K's

5 - theory debate

Specifics:

Affs:

I think K affs are good for debate. I really like seeing you incorporate aspects of your performance into later speeches, and strategic cross-applications of your performance to answer things like framework. There's lots of things that happen in rounds that can create other arguments to prove your critical arguments, especially if your criticizing things about debate as an institution. Behaviors and such matter in debate but I'm not going to evaluate that for you unless you make it an issue.

Neg:

DA:

Better link debating is better debating and will earn you higher speaks.

Live laugh love the politics disad

T:

Prove abuse and impact it out. If you're aff give me specific examples of why the aff is uniquely good for debate/is topical. You should probably have a case-list or at least a categories list otherwise i'm not sure what your interp devolves to.

Explain my role as a judge clearly. What am i voting for, what am i justifying in the community writ-large? why the other side's interp is uniquely bad/violent and you have a good chance at picking up my ballot.

I think that being non-topical is also important but its the affs burden to prove why they should get to be non-topical. I like models debates, what does your model justify vs theirs for the activity as whole, why is this round the key internal link to your model, etc.

CP's:

PIC's are alright - not my favorite thing, but I'm willing to listen to anything and learn why we shouldn't include a certain part of the aff. Not the best for huge and technical CP theory debates.

I enjoy CP debates but a lot of people don't explain solvency enough - no do the work. I think the same applies to the perm debate - lots of permutations go wildly underexplained.

Theory:

Condo:

I think condo is good unless I'm told it's not/the negs vision is really abusive. Multiple condo worlds are fun. I probably draw the line somewhere around 4 but that's a gray area; I can be convinced that 4+ is good and I can be convinced that more than 1 is abusive.

Theory debates are often very late-breaking and difficult to resolve. I am not the best for lots of debate theory especially without good line by line and comparison. Your theory blocks are great but what am I supposed to do with that and how does it interact with your opponent? If you want to debate theory do it well because I don't really enjoy it all that much so make it worth my time.

K's:

Anything super high theory (Baudrillard, psychoanalysis, deluze, etc.) I'm not familiar with the lit so you're going to have to explain it to me. Do your thing but you might have to do more explanation than throwing buzzwords around.

I like alts that resolve the links and result in some form of the aff - make sure you win the sequencing question for either the perm or the alt debate.

Most familiar with capitalism and antiblacknes K's - that's where most of my experience is.

Other Thoughts:

- Impact calc is very important, tell me exactly why I should prioritize your impacts. If this means framing cards, go for it.

- I'm willing to vote on anything (except things like racism good), just make it interesting and well explained, and do you!!!

- Don't be rude to your opponent, be respectful and nice, debate is competitive but fun.

I think debaters have gotten too comfortable dumping cards and not really explaining them or using cards to make arguments instead of just being a debater and making arguments yourself. I challenge you to push yourself to make arguments and use less evidence - y'all are smart, show me you are!

if you read this far - you're already in a high stress situation and prepping for your round, so take a deep breath and get off of my paradigm and do your thing!

here's a cookie for reading this far

accomplishments you don't care about:

2x NDT Qualifier

1x CEDA Octafinalist. Double Octafinalist

1x TOC Bid recipient

Email: mcalister.clabaugh@wudl.org

I was a pretty successful high school debater and a pretty unsuccessful college debater in the 1990s, then judged probably 10-12 tournaments on the national high school circuit. Stepped away from debate for about 20 years, then started judging again in 2016 as a volunteer for the Washington UDL, judging around 5 tournaments/year since then.

I'm a big fan of debate, as an activity through which students express themselves and acquire knowledge and skills, and as a competition, and coming back as a volunteer and now UDL staff member has been rewarding for me, and hopefully helpful for the students I've judged and worked with outside of rounds.

I flow on paper, and organization and structure in speeches are important for me. I really appreciate it when teams identify their arguments when giving them. For example, a 1NC that labels their off-case arguments as "Off" before reading them makes it harder for me to flow the round than a 1NC that announces "Capitalism kritik," or "Politics disad," etc. 1NCs that don't label off-case arguments will get lower speaker points. Same for case arguments - please let me know where on case - solvency, advantage one, advantage two, framing, etc.

I have some experience judging kritik affs, and while I've followed their evolution in debate over the last several years, I'm not particularly current or knowledgeable on some of the theory issues around them. I'd like to change that, but if you run kritik affs, there are probably some issues that will be new to me. I do think there is, and should be, room in debate for issues that affect the broader frameworks and circumstances within which policy is created, and ones that have an educational purpose, but I'm not absolute about it and will listen to arguments on both sides.

I have and will vote on neg kritiks, and am more likely to do so if the neg demonstrates in speeches and CX that they have a thorough understanding of their position and its grounding - more than repeating taglines in the neg block & 2NR. I want to hear your understanding of the argument, and a demonstration of why it matters. I've been impressed by the evolution of kritiks in terms of how they're organized and how teams execute them, both on the aff and neg. I'm also somewhat surprised by how frequently teams seem unprepared to debate kritiks that are run against them.

I'm more current on policy and current events than I am on theory, and the IP topic touches on a lot of issues that I've worked on professionally, debated before, or have personal interests and curiosity about.

On issues like solvency and advantages/disads, I'm a big fan of specificity and mechanisms through which A leads to B leads to C, and how/why that happens. Internal links matter. A good analytical highlighting a missing internal link is a good argument.

I think topicality is a useful tool for negatives. That said, on T, theory, framework debates, my experience has been teams that read their generic blocks and don't adapt in-round to the specific warrants of the K do not do particularly well. Especially on these kinds of debates, clash is essential.

I prefer clash over a race for offense with tons of dropped arguments on both sides. Good impact calc - on any kind of argument - that compares aff vs neg impacts is a quick way to win the ballot. Reiterating your impacts without comparisons is not particularly effective.

2NR/2AR summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and identifying the key few issues and assessments I should be making and how they should be made.

Good luck.

--Highlights

Email: eric.clarke2019@gmail.com + swwpolicy@gmail.com

Call me Eric instead of judge.

Have 1AC in the inbox by start time.

Good for Ks and policy. I prefer policy, but I'm fine with whatever.

I don't enjoy evaluating theory debates to resolve the round, but I will. More below.

Good with speed. If you're unclear and I don't catch something, it is what it is. **Slow down on theory**

Don't steal prep. You all are out of control. Why are we typing responses while the stand is getting set up? Why are you telling your partner to write answers to something you didn't get to during your prep time after the timer goes off?

Please track your time.

--Experience

Been coaching for 5 years. Debated policy throughout high school and college (Georgetown). The strategy was usually policy, but I have some experience going for the K at both levels. I also have some experience judging PF and LD at the high school and middle school levels.

--General

If there are any unanswered questions, definitely feel free to ask me before the round starts, and I'm always happy to give follow-up comments after rounds if you shoot me an email.

Make sure acronyms are full written out somewhere in the card.

I'll usually be paying attention during cross to help wrap my head around arguments. Cross usually helps me contextualize the arguments being made (especially true for kritiks). Cross is binding. Cross is also where you can get a decent bump to speaks - go in with a strategy.

I won't read your evidence at the end of the round unless I'm instructed to. Debate is a communicative activity, therefore you need to be able to verbally convey the key warrants in a piece of evidence to me. If I have to read the evidence myself to find the warrants, you haven't done your job. I will also read evidence if there's an evidence indict. Please make evidence idnicts. A lot of people try to get away with reading terrible evidence, and you shouldn't allow it.

--Kritiks

General thoughts:

I typically enjoy judging k debates. I can be on board with the concept and ideas of most kritiks, but you need to be able to explain it in a way where I understand all of the mechanisms and nuances tying it to the aff. At the end of the round, I want to be able to put the thesis of the kritik into my own words.

I'm not the biggest fan of kritiks that are gimmicky, BUT I will vote on it if you execute and do everything you need to on the flow. If you have to ask if your K is gimmicky, chances are it is.

Specific stuff:

Open to it all (except troll arguments) but probably most familiar with cap, IR (especially if it's about China reps), and antiblackness. Least familiar with psychoanalysis, queer theory, and high theory. Still happy to judge the latter options, just put extra emphasis on explanation. This is especially true for psychoanalysis and high theory.

I default to in-round impacts outweighing (ie psychic violence in-round outweighs US-China war). I can and have been convinced otherwise, but if there's no comparative analysis, this is how I will default to weighing things.

For the link debate, I generally find links to the consequences of the AFF to be the most persuasive along with links to specific things that come out of the mouths of the opponents. On the second part, I'm referring to indicts of the way tags are written or lines the AFF may read that are highlighted and underlined.

I find that many arguments teams articulate as reasons to reject the team are really just reasons to reject the argument, or it's not explained well. If you're going to say something is a reason to reject the team, you need to go beyond the explanatory work of why they have done/said something bad. You need to also explain why that is grounds for rejection and why rejection is good.

--Framework/Neg v K AFFs

Absolutely love hearing framework speeches. Easily my favorite position in debate to talk about and listen to speeches on.

If the speech is straight analytics, slow down. I think this is primarily a problem for people that are reading out of docs full of analytics.

While I enjoy framework, know that neg teams won't have a leg up on the affirmative. They still need to debate it well. My personal feelings are irrelevant during the round. What ultimately matters is what both teams do on the flow.

11/11/24 edit: I still like framework but I don't love it as much. It's getting a bit stale. Engage the AFF and problematize their method. Give me a reason to vote on presumption other than the ballot doesn't spillover. Disprove their theory of power and explain how that implicates their ability to win. Read a DA, K, or CP. Do something fresh. I'll still evaluate framework fairly but I find myself wanting more innovation and creativity in terms of how people engage K AFFs. 2Ns that go for something other than framework in the 2NR will be rewarded with a bump in their speaks. It is good to engage K AFFs on substance as I think it means you have invested more time into preparing for the debate by considering the unique elements of the AFF. I also think it lead to more educational debates for everyone when the K AFF is engaged on substance. This does not mean I will punish you for reading framework, just that I'll reward other options.

--Theory

If you wanna go for the ballot on theory, I suggest you spend most of your time in the final rebuttal on theory.

I don't enjoy resolving rounds based on theory. If there are examples of in-round abuse, I'm much more open to resolving the round on theory. If theory is dropped, I'm open to voting on it. Please note that you still need to do explanatory work when extending dropped theory in the final rebuttal. I need to be clear on the standards I'm voting for, how they get to your impacts, and why I should care about the impacts.

I have miscellaneous thoughts about various issues. If a particular issue isn't listed, it's because I don't have strong feelings about it.None of these are set in stone (except condo). These are just starting points I have when thinking about these theory arguments, but I can always be convinced to change my mind. Just keep these predispositions in mind if you decide to go for the position.

a.) PICs bad - lean neg but can be convinced otherwise depending on the PIC.

b.) Process CPs bad - lean AFF but can be convinced otherwise.

c.) Condo - three conditional positions is where I become open to voting on condo.

d.) Perf con - neg gets multiple worlds + contradictory advocacies are fine as long as it's resolved by the block.

e.) Disclosure - I think it's silly unless the other team is genuinely being really shady with their disclosure practices.

--Misc

When thinking about your big-picture strategy in rounds, think about what would be the easiest thing for me to pull the trigger on. I love it when teams make my life easier by going for the most strategically sound combination of arguments at the end of the round.

Does fed follow-on mean states links to politics? Talk to me about it depending on the DA.

Tend to lean tech over truth

I prefer teams go for substance rather than spraying each flow with theory arguments and hoping one of them gets dropped.

Please be ready to put together and send a card doc that only includes the cards you think are relevant at the end of the round. I'll usually ask after the 2AR if I need one, but more often than not, I'm fine.

--Speaker points

Hopefully, nobody needs this reminder, but don't be rude. If you're blatantly disrespectful to the opponents and/or your partner, I will tank your speaks. I get that ethos is big for some teams, but that doesn't excuse being a terrible person. I promise you I will give you terrible speaker points if I think you're being rude to anyone in the room.

Let your partner speak for themselves. Jumping in on occasion is understandable and expected. However, don't jump in to the point that you make me think your partner doesn't know what they're doing or talking about. More of a pet peeve than anything else.

Clarke Dickens

Former Debater (Middle and High School) under the Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

Summary:

I’ve judged rounds for novice and JV and Varsity. I have also participated in national circuit tournaments. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on your scholarship as presented to me in round.

My preferences (heavily influenced by David Trigaux):

Pre-Round

1. Speed: I prefer a mix of good speed and clear argument(s).

2. Policy v Kritik: No preference

3. Theory: I often find these debates shallow/lacking details and trading-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and show me why you don't have other options.

4. I usually do not vote on T.

5. Performance: Not something I favor, but still open to. Focus on why / what the net benefit is of the unique argument / argumentation style.

6. Shadow Extending: I don’t flow author’s names, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you.

7. Email Chains: I do look at email chains during the round. If I don’t hear it, I won’t flow it, but I do look to make sure both teams are sending the documents they said they would. I’ll look through the cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your citations.

• Creativity + Scholarship: I look for creative thinking, and original research. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat.

Don't / Pet Peeves

1. Being disrespectful (includes being rude, demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.)

2. Make Debate Less Accessible: This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own) when in person.

3. Overviews: Keep them short.

Counterplans: Do run a Topic/Aff specific CP, with a detailed, well written/explained CP Texts and/or Topic nuance for Generics (like Courts).

Don’t forget to perm. As well as default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses too.

Kritiks: I love K debates that include aff specific links, the solvency needs to be thoroughly explained, and it should also be able to be explained in your own words.

Role of the Ballot: Surprise me.

Danielle Dupree - danielle.dupree@wudl.org- she/her

23 y/o DMV Debater & WUDL Program Coordinator/ Tournament Director

The things you're probably looking for...

Speed:

I've got auditory processing issues so - a comfortable speed is fine if you slow down on tags & analytics. If you speed through analytics,please include any analytics in whatever you send me, otherwise don't hate me if you're unclear and it doesn't get flowed. I think not sending analytics is a cheap and annoying tactic that doesn't throw off your opponent as much as it throws off your judge. Fair warning!

Kritiks:

Preference for K debate. I mostly have experience in antiblackness and femme noire literature, so any other theses should take more care to explain in round vs real-world impacts & implementations. If you have not been able to explain the thesis in your own words with no jargon by the end of the round, I'm probably not voting on it.

If claiming something is a reason to reject the team, it's essential to go beyond explaining their wrongdoing and clarify why rejection is justified and beneficial otherwise to me, it's just a reason to reject the arg.

Performance:

I love an unconventional debate when it's done well, meaning make it abundantly clear why your form of debate is necessary. If you're doing a half-baked performance it is a lot harder for me to give you solvency/framing and 90% of my RFD will probably be about how I wished you had sung me a song or stood on a desk and did a little dance, etc.

Theory:

I prefer teams go for substance rather than spraying each flow with theory arguments and hoping one of them gets dropped. My general stance on the most common theory args can be swayed, I have voted against my preference when convinced. However, it's harder to sway me on Condo - I think 3 conditional positions are where I'm comfortable voting on Condo. Also, on performative contradictions - neg gets multiple worlds & contradictory advocacies are fine as long as it's resolved by the block.

My Strategy Reminders...

Tech VS Truth: If your strategy for every round is winning based on tech over truth or vice versa, I'm probably not the best judge for you.

Shadow Extending: I don't flow authors and I don't re-read evidence post-round unless instructed. So don't just extend your 'John 22' card without reminding me of the warrant. (I do flow authors for novices, but I still expect the warrants)

Usage of Artificial Intelligence: This needs a lot of exploring in the world generally but also in Policy Debate so I'm open to opposition with warrants. For now, I'll say I'm fine with pre-written overviews done by AI so long as it's disclosed that it was AI. However, the use of AI mid-round is cheating in my opinion.

Stolen from McAlister C: " 2NR/2AR summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and what assessments I should be making. I love overviews that crystallize 2-3 key points and compare aff/neg positions before going to individual args/line-by-line."

Timing: PLEASE I'm not great with keeping your prep so be sure you're also keeping it yourself. - Also I stop flowing as soon as the time goes off, pls don't try to shove your last arg in after the alarm

Cross: Cross is binding. The only time I will insist on closed cross is if someone's going mav. I do like it when you stand but again it's not mandatory.

Topicality: Violation & definition are never enough, no limits & grounds, no case. I appreciate creative violations and T's that are brought into the real world. ALSO pls tell me where you want me to flow things if you're a cross-apply warrior.

FW & ROB/J: I default the actor of the policymaker unless directed otherwise. If you are going to direct me otherwise, I'd suggest the sooner the better.

Troll: I need to hear BOTH teams enthusiastically consenting to a troll round, otherwise at the end of the round you will lose.

All of that is to say, do whatever you want, just make sure you work hard on it, be respectful and make it fun for all of us :)

Add me to the chain-- mayaelsharif@gmail.com

Pine Crest '21

UPENN '24 - debating hybrid with Dartmouth

YOU DO YOU! I love this activity (clearly), I want you to as well!

If you are someone who is mean about post-rounding - strike me. I am happy to answer genuine questions, but will not tolerate malignant comments:)

Alright, now for the specifics:

Theory/T-

T: I hate judging T debates unless an aff is actually NOT remotely topical OR you are clearing winning on your interp. I LOVE T-USFG - fairness or clash style impacts are great in front of me, done both.

Other: I do not take a firm stance on theory. Condo is good, I can be persuaded it's bad, but it is good. "Cheating" counterplans are less and less cheaty in front of me.

Kritiks--

K-AFFS- Did not run them in high school, way more persuaded by T when the K-AFF is not even attempting to critique the resolution. If the topic is Fiscal Redistribution do not read an aff about vacuum cleaners. I tend to lean in favor of a well-fleshed-out T argument and went for clash offense in hs, and fairness offense in college. I now read a K-AFF in certain debates, so I am familiar with both sides of clash debates!

Kritiks- I read a lot of K literature - DO NOT read a K that you do not understand. Identity Ks, High Theory, and Cap/Security Ks are all fine with me, but really explain the literature and convince me of the framing. If you can't understand the card, I won't either.

Disads--

I like them, I love when the neg goes for the status quo. They exist on this topic. Politics is more real than before, Econ DA slaps, Horsetrading and Federalism are B-tier.

A well executed straight turn is a solid place to be in front of me.

AFF write me a try-or-die ballot lol

Counterplans--

I lived for a process CP in high school. All CPs except delay are good! Go for PDCP more. I reward good competition debates.

Speaker points:

I hate giving speaker points, everyone has a different style and your score out of 30 points means nothing to me. Things I reward: jokes, humor, personality, flowing, LBL, roadmap, strategic cross-ex questions.

You must disclose!!! I hate teams that try to avoid disclosure; this will affect your speaker points dramatically. If any racial slurs, sexist comments, or degrading language is used intentionally in the round, I will give you a 0 for speaks. Being mean is fun for nobody, don't do it. I am okay with curse words, but not when they are directed at the other team.

Points:

>29.3- AMAZINGGGGGG

29.0-29.3-- great debater, needs more persuasion

28.6- 29 -- need some technical work, but was good

28.2-28.6 -- you were great, but need to work on both technique and picking the best args

28-28.2 -- Needs improvement. It will come with practice

<27 -- lots of improvement or extremely rude/offensive

Please be funny and kind in rounds. I am always tired, if the speeches are boring, everyone will be bored. Make comebacks in a smart manner, but DO NOT be mean. Sarcasm is always welcomed.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ANYTHING ABOVE OR THE BALLOT AT THE END OF THE DEBATE, EITHER EMAIL ME OR ASK ME, I WILL ANSWER!!! I am also more than happy to send you an email with constructive comments; debate is about improvement, I am happy to help! I also like to get to know people, do not be hesitant to share your name and some fun things about you; the debate community could use more friends!!!

PF/LD

• I did not compete in these formats, but have friends who did. I will likely be a point fairy because of policy points.
• Extend arguments and do ballot instruction!
• Have fun!

Parli

• Organization and line-by-line matters to me.
• I hate that this activity does not have evidence BUT if you can explain something clearly and persuasively that will make me hate it less.

Princeton '26

Bronx Science '22

Affiliations- Assistant Coach at Berkeley Prep ('23-'24), Private Coach for Bronx Science teams ('23-)

Email chain:

oneoffthek@gmail.com,

bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com (policy only)

Pronouns: he/him

Haven't thought about debate seriously in about a year. Pretty okay for technical clash debates, not the best for anything else. Would pref me below people who slightly lean against your argument but think about debate frequently and evaluate arguments technically well.

I like debates that happen quick and efficiently and don't want to think a lot. I will easily check out for hidden aspec or enjoy a debate where the block is 2 minutes if the 2AC concedes a counterplan. I will boost speaks if I have to think less. I'll also boost speaks if you don't take prep when you need it - if the 2AC fumbles and its a TKO, stand up speeches would make me happy.

2023 Glenbrooks Update:

I do prefs for some of my teams. I look for two things: first, are they pure tech over truth. I am, I will only evaluate the arguments on my flow and only intervene if necessary. I will vote on dropped arguments and will scratch my head if you don't take the easy way out.

Second, what are their opinions on Framework Kritiks and K Affs.

I prefer to judge kritiks that invest most of their time in framework to moot the aff. I prefer the aff to go for fairness impacts. I prefer the negative to realize that 5 links in the block, specific or not, will not help you with mooting the aff. If mooting the aff is not a negative win condition, you will probably lose to the perm double bind or case outweighs if equally debated. I can judge negative kritiks that fiat big functionally competitive alternatives if the negative is losing framework that is treated as a DA/UQ CP. This likely requires a lot of cards and some way to capture aff offense. Less strategic, although its what I did senior year.

For K Affs, I prefer judging impact turn based strategies. The counter interpretation makes sense to me ONLY when winning some external offense about predictability or limits. Otherwise, in my mind, counter interp will always link to negative offense if predictability is articulated well. I prefer that the negative goes for fairness based impacts that explains the neccesity of fairness for both teams.

KvK debates - I prefer that the negative wins a reason the aff doesn't get a permutation or, a harder sell, that the permutation doesn't sheild the link.

Policy v Policy - I dont trust myself to judge decent policy debates. You likely dont want me in the back for this. You should pref me below the college debaters you're comfortable with taking, successful FYOs that still think about debate, and definitely below college and high school coaches who actively cut cards and think about policy arguments. Since I am not super well versed on the true arguments on things like counterplan competition and such, I will be heavily relying on my technical ability and evaluate drops highly. Going for less and collapsing on one or two pieces of offense decreases the chances of me making a bad decision because I'll need time to parse the card doc and think about how arguments interact. I think infinite condo is good (although I enjoyed going for condo a lot and felt judges sometimes did too much work).

Old:

--I went positive at TOCs my senior year if that matters to you

--Tldr: Do what you do best- I am a technical judge and will vote for the team who did better debating. All of my opinions can easily be overturned by out-debating your opponent. I want to judge high-level debates and recognize that you are giving up your precious time to research and compete. I will be invested in your debate, try my best to catch every argument, read cards during prep, etc out of respect for your preparation, genuine interest in high-level argumentative innovation, and appreciation for technical proficiency. Although I'm not going to lie, I may look bored watching some not high level/not competitive debates

--My favorite judges were clash judges who were flow-centric and did not bring personal opinions into the decision (unless it was necessary to do so). This was because I debated fast, reading 13 off and going for undercovered positions. What David Sposito says here resonates with me "Recently I've found myself advising losing teams in the post round that they should have gone for extremely bad, dropped blips. An argument being 'bad' ALONE does not mean that I will have a 'high threshold' for voting on it (again, these are weasel words that allow judges to get away w/ voting as is convenient for them, or as they please). Teams still must answer an argument satisfactorily. It is true that practically, 'bad' arguments should be unstrategic b/c they can swiftly be beaten w/ the right arguments, but the other team only benefits if they know the right answers (which they often do, but sometimes do not, especially for arguments w/ a bad reputation). But that's not about thresholds, exactly.... Ineffective arguments do not suddenly become better because I want one argument to win or lose--logically, that is bizarre, and practically, it is a violation of giving each team their due."

--So what do I believe are "truer" arguments and "faultier" arguments? Despite mostly going for the K in my career, I found myself voting for Policy teams more often in close clash debates when judging last year. However, I am only coaching K teams right now which shows that I recognize the K's strategic potential. This means that if you are a competent K team that utilizes speed to overwhelm your opponent with arguments that are hard to answer, shotgun extendable arguments against the policy team's "true" answers to your offense, isolate offense that is mishandled, impact out arguments and explain how they interact with your opponent's arguments, then you should not be worried. These are the K teams that end up succeeding anyways- most K teams that make it to deep elims of TOCs and other big high school tournaments pref college debaters that solely read policy arguments and college coaches that will vote strictly off of their flow but will vote for the policy team if equally debated. I will think about clash debates similar to these judges. This means I will moot the aff if you win its good to do so, and I will not evaluate reps links if you win reps links are bad.

--To be transparent, I'm confident I can follow a counterplan competition debate but am not as well versed as college policy debaters nor do I know enough dense critical theory to process blocks that use buzzwords every other sentence. I can handle speed, but I can't process insanely fast mumbling or flow as good as the college debaters and coaches who devote much more time to this activity than I currently do. However, I want to judge high-level debates and am confident I can keep up with skilled debaters that make arguments clear and explain how arguments interact with each other.

--I mostly agree with other community norms seen at high levels of debate: if the "truest" arguments on each side are forwarded, affs get perms in kvk debates, unlimited condo is justified, fairness is the most strategic impact, predictability outweighs limits for the sake of limits, dont default to squo unless its mentioned by the negative, etc. I understand these are not homogeneous views held by the community and are contestable, these views mostly stem from Brian Klarman and Mikaela Malsin along with discussions with other top-performing debaters.

--Send docs out quicker, prep ends when doc is sent, asking what cards were read is prep (asking for a marked copy is not)

--Format emails reasonably. If you need help, "Tournament X Round Y- AFF Your Team Code Vs NEG Other Team Code - Judge Alex Eum"

--If everyone in the round sends analytics and you remind me after the debate, I'll raise speaks, just remind me.

Michael Greenberg - mpg94@georgetown.edu

Pronouns: He/Him/His, Call me Michael or Judge

I debate at Georgetown and have read a mix of both kritikal and policy arguments over the years

I am at my best in a Policy Aff v. K, K-Aff v. K, or K-Aff v. Framework Debate. I am less good but still confident in Policy Aff v. DA, Impact Turn, or T debates. I am least good in Process CP and subsequent competition debates. If your strategy relies on a huge competition throw down, I am not the judge for you.

In case it helps, here is a running list of every critical literature base I have done deep research in or run - queerness, baudrillard, bataille, derrida, M&H, afropessimism, settler colonialism, object-oriented ontology, affect-based theory, psychoanalysis, capitalism, heidegger, cybernetics, existentialism (which has been my fav to research recently and excites me a ton, so do with that as you will)

Predispositions

I lean a tiny bit more kritikal than policy, but I think that technical debating can make me convinced to vote on anything. I think some things are more difficult to pass the gut-check than others and are silly/problematic (wipeout, death good, inequality good), but I will be willing to vote on anything given the proper arguments.

In general I default to the flow on anything, all my predispositions can be overcome relatively easily with good technical debating

However, the caveat to this is that even if an argument is dropped, if I can not explain to the other team why it matters/solved/impacts using the words of the final rebuttals, then I can not vote on it. Debate is foremost a rhetorical activity about the debaters' ability to convey complex thoughts at high speeds. That means that rebuttals should be clear on why I should vote for you, and warrant-heavy instead of posturing. That also means by nature, my role is intervening as little as possible in the flow. Comparative frames will always beat a ton of non-compared arguments.

As a result of all of this, I'm not afraid of giving low-point wins or sitting. It does not matter to me if the other team drops 100 arguments if you don't explain, warrant, or use them.

If it helps, here is my process of evaluating the debate:

To start, I'm just using the arguments and words on the flow, with zero intervention on either side, and also defaulting to comparisons made in the round.

If I can not make a clear decision off of that, I'll use the same level of intervention on both sides, and make logical connections/comparisons using debate math and level of analysis.

If I still can not make a clear decision, I'll up the level of intervention for both sides equally until I can.

In the realm of framework and k-affs, I'm extremely skeptical of affirmatives that do nothing and just try to preempt framework. I think kritikal affirmatives can be extremely strategic and successful shifting the RoB, RoJ, and what debate is, but I also think a good topicality push should answer those questions explicitly, I'm also seeing personal experience/ballot proximity debates a ton. If your strategy does not involve answering or leveraging that on either side, chances of winning drop dramatically. That means YES, I want you to say that the ballot should not be used to rule on individual identity or suffering, and YES, I want the other team to say both offense and defense on why it is actually good to use it in that way.

I think individual research is one of the most important things about debate and so I prioritize good evidence, but good spin will always outweigh. If I see a clear and deep understanding of large amounts of research in the debate (especially when original), speaks will also be boosted.

K v. K - I love it, need a good answer to the permutation. I need comparative framings of what it means for me to vote either way and what the implications are insofar as they are comparative.

Theory - can be convinced of anything here. I'll try my best to hold the line on new args that inevitably occur in later rebuttals.

External Stuff

I AM A MANDATORY REPORTER AT TOURNAMENTS. That means I am here for you if you need me to be, but if it's for pure strategy then err on the side of not saying it.

As far as out-of-round things go, I am not plugged into the high school community and do not know what is true and what is not, and I am not qualified to make arbitrations on those things. Should a need for me to intervene come to pass, I will default to tabroom.

Speaker points are determined through a couple things - preparation (being in round at the right time, sending docs promptly, etc), rhetorical persuasion (how good of a speaker you are), clarity/efficiency, and most importantly, strategic vision (cohesive strategy, setting up final rebuttals, etc). Separately, if cross ex includes questions resulting from a lack of flowing (assuming the question is actually unwarranted / flowing would've solved it), I will dock 0.1 speaker point per question. Yes this is arbitrary, yes it's warranted given how many debaters are not flowing. To remedy/encourage this, if you show me your flow after the round and it's good, I'll add 0.2 speaks.

Director of Debate at Georgetown Day School

Current Affiliation - Northwestern (2024-)

Assistant Coach, University of Kentucky (2020-2024)

Debated at University of Kentucky (2017-2020)

Debated at Milton High School (2013-2016)

add me to the email chain: ghackman at gds dot org

TLDR

I like for debate to be fun and will generally enjoy judging in debates where it is clear you are having a good time and doing what you're passionate about. Don't be afraid to let your personality show in how you debate - being funny in the CX are often times I enjoy the debate the most. I understand the amount of time and dedication it takes to do this activity seriously, so I will work very hard to make sure that I am evaluating your debate in a way that respects the hard work that you have put into the activity, and the time and energy you are using to be present at each tournament.

The more I reflect on how I judge, the more I think it is really important for debaters to provide instruction/guidance in their speeches about how to tie all of the different pieces of the debate together. 2NRs and 2ARs that do a lot of this, backed by quality evidence read in earlier speeches, will often find themselves winning, getting good speaker points, and being more satisfied with my decision and how I understood the overarching picture in the debate. I generally believe, in the 2NR and 2AR, reading cards should be an absolute last resort.

Asking what arguments were read/not read/skipped is CX time or prep time. Unless clarity is an issue or the speaker was skipping around in the doc, generally avoid broad questions like "what arguments did you not read?" or "what cards did you skip?". I find these indicate you are not flowing and will lower your points accordingly. Specific questions like "in between x card and y argument, you said something, what was it?" or "what was the warrant for x argument you made?" are totally fine.

Online Debate

I appreciate the accessibility benefits of online debate but do think it suffers from some quality deficit. If my camera is off during prep time, I have probably walked away for a number of reasons. I'll generally try to pop my camera back on when I get back to signal I have returned, and will also usually keep a headphone in to maintain awareness of when you stop prep. Just give me a sec to turn on my camera and get settled before you launch into an order or the speech.

I have an audio processing disorder, which makes it more challenging to flow due to the variety of ways that online debate affects clarity/feedback/etc - please take this into account and put in more effort to be clear on your transitions, tags, etc. It helps me to be able to see you talking, so if you are angled to be completely hidden by your laptop, I will likely be less of a precise flow than otherwise.

Please recall that while I cannot hear you when you are muted on zoom, I can still see you - things like talking for the entire 2AR, blatantly not flowing your opponents speeches, etc are still bad practice, even if you can technically do it.

DA/Case/CP

Disad and case is awesome, more case analysis that is smart will be rewarded in points. I think smart and specific counterplans are cool. The more specific and in grounded in the literature your CP is, the less likely I am to care about theory.

Topicality (vs aff with a plan)

I think a limited topic is good and care about the comparison of one version of the topic to another when it comes to T. If you cannot explain coherently what the difference between the two topics are, I am much less likely to care about your very abstract appeals to the notion of limits or ground.

K (vs aff with a plan)

I enjoy judging these debates. Being more specific about the topic is far better than some random backfile check about Baudrillard. You should explain your arguments clearly vs using buzz words because I will be much more likely to understand what you are trying to communicate.

The specificity of the link and explanation of the link and how it coheres with your broader theory about the world and interacts with the consequences of the plan are all things that strongly influence how much I am persuaded by the K. If you have a link to the action of the plan and clearly explain how the impact to that compares to the impacts of the affirmative, as well as having an alternative that resolves this impact, I am likely to vote for you. I find myself less often voting for the K in debates where the neg relies on a strong framework/prioritize rhetorical/discursive links path but would not preclude this entirely because the aff is often time pressured and poorly equipped to debate about framework and fiat. If your offense isonly about going for whatever the dropped fiat disad is, you are unlikely to get my ballot.

In addition, I think it's important to resolve how I should weigh impacts in the later speeches - I find myself often concluding I should weigh the aff and its consequences but also weighing the discursive/ethical/structural impacts described by the neg but not getting a lot of instruction about how to compare those two things and decide which one to vote on. I think mitigating claims about total extinction impacts with impact defense and specific solvency take-outs would go a long way to changing how I vote in these debates.

Planless Affs

I have found myself voting both ways in framework debates, but am usually persuaded by the benefits of clash, procedural fairness, etc. The more specific the aff is to the topic & good aff cards are things that most often lead to an aff ballot in these debates. The negative making a strong, coherent limits argument that includes arguments that appeal to clash while providing defense that proves the topic is compatible with the affs theory are things that most often lead to a neg ballot in these debates.

I think specific strategies against these affs are interesting and good (whether that be a da/k/pic) and will reward this specific research with speaker points. I generally think if something is in the 1AC I am likely to believe there is a link to your argument, and am very persuaded by strategies that utilize the cx to pin down specificities of the 1ac advocacy and then predicate the strategy off of that. If the aff is unwilling to speak specifically about the strategy of the advocacy, I generally tend to be more persuaded by framework.

I usually am not persuaded by strategies that rely on the idea that we should destroy debate, or that extinction or death is good. I do not think there is much of a difference between "debating about death being good" and "advocating death being good" so if your strategy relies on a pivot resembling "well we don't think everyone should die but we should talk about death", it is not a good strategy to use in front of me.

Misc.

I tend to lean towards conditionality being good, but would be persuaded otherwise in particularly egregious incidents.

If you are going to read cards written by former debaters, take ten minutes to ask around why they are no longer in the community. Strongly consider if the reason is one which should preclude their evidence from being introduced in a debate. I do not expect perfection in this regard, but I do think we should be talking about this.

It has come to my attention that I am what one might call a "points fairy". I will be working to adjust my points to more accurately reflect the scale I find most other judges follow.

I like when lots of quality evidence is read, and will often read your evidence at the conclusion of the debate (and if evidence is referenced in a cx, will usually try to find what you are referencing while it's being discussed). That being said, evidence is best paired with strong judge instruction in the rebuttals. There are instances when evidence is good enough to speak for itself, but in a debate where both sides read decent ev on an issue, I will often find myself voting for the team who tells me how and why their arguments matter more.

After hosting a bunch of tournaments in my time at UK, I am sympathetic to the pleas of tournament hosts and tabrooms. Please be on time, keep things efficient in debates, and clean up behind yourselves.

My facial expressions are likely unrelated to the things you are saying. In particular, I may come across low-energy. This doesn't mean that I am unhappy with the debate (although if I find your debating upbeat, engaging, and high-energy I will probably be a bit more likely to mirror that). Tournaments are a long-haul and there seems to be increasingly little time afforded to restorative things like sleep or eating, so don't worry too much if I'm coming across a little sleepy.

Also, I sometimes just stare off into space when I'm typing - I'm still paying attention as long as I'm typing.

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

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

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

Policy aff v Core DA - Even

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Health note for Big Lex–––At the time of writing this (Thursday Night), I am feeling pretty sick. As a result, I'll be wearing a mask during the round, and will have masks on me if you would like to wear one as well. Please ask me if that is the case!*

Lexington '23

Dartmouth '27 (not debating)

He/him

presumption2nr@gmail.com for chains.

Please format the subject line of the email chain as the following:

Tournament name Round number---Aff team [Aff] vs. Neg team [Neg]

E.g. Trevian R6---Lexington HV [Aff] vs. Lexington TW [Neg]

Hi everyone! Call me Jeffrey/Jeff. 4 years at Lexington High School as a primarily policy 2N.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have.

Notes for big lex:

These will be my first rounds judging on this topic. I haven't coached on this topic, nor have I done research in the literature, so extra explanation goes a long way, especially w/ respect to particular programs/pieces of legislation/other abbreviations or topic-specific niches. I will follow more if you don't throw out big words and complex acronyms. I've been out of the activity for a bit so excuse me if I'm missing one-liners you throw out (hint hint don't throw out one-liners).

I have been very unfond about the quality of arguments and evidence recently (see misc.). I may internally or externally laugh at your evidence for my own pleasure. Sometimes I'm expressive. Maybe I vibe. Speaks may suffer. Payton Pritchard is the 6MOY.

Top Level:

Technical debating informs the truth value of any argument. I think it is unfair to the debaters for me, as being outside the bounds of the forum that is the debate, to inject my own knowledge, biases, preconceived notions into the round to come to a conclusion about the round. Therefore, to the best of my ability, I will rely entirely on what is presented to me when coming to a decision. All of my thoughts and opinions below should be read as guidance for how you should approach/debate in a round with me in the back, not as my hardened views of arguments.

I tend to have a high threshold for argument explanation. If you are "winning an argument", don't blaze through it in 10 seconds and then rinse and repeat with another 5/6/7 more. Be strategic about what you choose to extend and how you explain it. The more effort you put into evaluating an argument and its influence in the round, the more likely it is that I will be swayed to value said argument highly, particularly in a close debate.

Both sides should send card docs after the round. I am a huge hack for good evidence that's well utilized.

I will say clear once then I will stop flowing.

TLDR for prefs: Best for policy v. policy, then lower than that policy v. k, then a good bit lower kaff v. 'policy', then somewhere very far below that, k v. k. Then all the way at the bottom are teams reading bad evidence.

Policy stuff

T

- Has a special place in my heart.

- The best T debates involve deep dives into what each model of debate looks like in terms of the debates themselves, the literature, and bilateral research potentials.

- I find link turn/root cause or thesis-level controlling arguments particularly persuasive.

- Also very persuaded by critiques of evidence quality. Far too often teams on both sides get away with reading evidence that’s cut out of context or doesn’t actually define a resolutional word/phrase.

- My pet peeve is aff teams that first throw around the phrase "functional limits exist under our topic", then run through a list composed of the states cp, a politics da, and the cap k, which has been repeated in each previous speech. Make real arguments, do your research.

- If the 2NR is 5 minutes of t-subsets, and you win, i'll give you minimum 29.5.

DAs

- Idc if you read politics or something topic-specific, so long as you execute well. I honestly have a soft spot for a well-thought-out politics DA having debated on CJR and water resources (good times).

- tell me a good story. hugely important.

- both evidence and explanation are critical. evidence = pieces of a puzzle, your explanation is putting it together. link explanation, spin, and evidence analysis are all arts and I'll be impressed if you put them together coherently.

CPs

- Do whatever. I love a good innovative CP, especially a well-research, topic-specific one. As such, I will be happier seeing some CPs read more than I will be for others (e.g. the sunsets cp), but at the end of the day, I was a 2N who had to read inevitably read and go for generics so I will understand the decision you make. I just might be a little more bored (kidding).

- I won’t judge kick unless told to.

- Solvency deficits need implications.

- I’m fine w/ a lot of condo. Perfcon has its place in debate; it's usually not a reason to reject the team.

K stuff

Policy aff v. K

- Familiar with most of the more common literature bases (cap, security, blackness arguments, setcol, sort of psycho, etc.). The more devious you get with your K, the less likely it is that I will understand it if you don’t explain it properly.

- You don’t need a specific link, but you DO need to at least contextualize your generic link. I have a fairly high bar for neg links given that I think a lot of evidence that’s read doesn’t meet the standard for specificity, which is a point that aff teams should exploit. When neg teams ARE ahead here, it’s because of their extrapolation beyond the evidence, and a generic/surface-level interrogation of the link by the aff. Summary: I think there’s potential on both sides here that often times gets lost.

- Aff: attack the alt. Neg: flush it out earlier. Making the alt a floating PIK in the 2NR is funny but not in a good way if you don't set it up properly.

- Framework debates end up being washes a lot. Do with that what you will.

K v. framework/policy

- Only found myself on the negative here.

- fairness matters. CAVEAT: I was a fairness debater, but I like seeing research/testing/skills/clash debates more because 2Ns tend to actually interact with the aff’s offense in those rounds. FYI, I’m more convinced by teams that take fairness beyond just the procedures argument (which is fine to include) and add link-turns, pre-requisite arguments about “the game”, etc., that frame the way I should evaluate fairness in the context of the neg’s offense as well. TLDR: don't jettison comparisons or legit argumentation. My ABSOLUTE PET PEEVE is when 2Ns just say "procedural fairness matters more because debate is a game" and just assume they are correct and they have won the round by triumphantly declaring this banal statement repeatedly. You have not, and will probably lose if you do this.

- I'm not ideologically opposed to k affs, but make them topic-relevant. PLEASE.

- Generally more swayed by impact turns of framework and standards (i.e., fairness, clash, testing, self-questioning, etc.) than counter-interpretations that try to solve neg offense. Not convinced by impact turns of the reading of framework itself.

- Use the case debate. On both sides. I cringe seeing teams read evidence about the wrong theory on case (negative); please put in effort to make the case debate substantive. Presumption is a real argument. Your kaff should actually do something, not be a FW preempt.

- Totally down for good memes in honor of the lexington debate tradition.

K v. K

- not my area of expertise

- framing, judge instruction, and explanation go far in these debates. I’m moreso convinced by examples as proof than assertions about a controlling theory of power.

Misc.

Maybe this is my internal 2N but I have been pretty disappointed at the poor quality of evidence pervading the last few topics. I consider myself to have been a debater highly valuing evidence, and that has translated now to judging. While I will obviously not go out of my way to discredit what a piece of evidence says, my threshold for agreeing with a team pointing out the flaws in a piece of evidence is significantly lowered if the evidence itself is terrible. Conversely, if you’re reading good evidence, I will be happy to read it your way assuming you’ve explained and defended it well.

I don’t remember who said this but they're spitting. Speed ≠ words per minute, but legible arguments made per minute.

I won’t necessarily bump speaks for this but my mood will significantly improve if you make jokes or banter during the round, whether that be in speeches, between speeches, during cross-ex, or before/after the round (obviously given that what you say isn't demeaning, hateful, or anything of the like). Debate is competitive, but meant to be fun for everyone involved. I like seeing you all enjoying your time at tournaments, so don’t take yourself too seriously with me in the back; I promise I'm not uptight haha. Will be extra happy if you makeplayful jabs at Atul Venkatesh, Misty Wang, Vinit Iyer, Shreyas Sreeprakash, Ishan Kinikar, or really any other (ex) lexington debater.

Monica He

New York Medical College '23
Tufts University '17
Lexington High School '13

***UPDATE AS OF 1/15/2025 (Big Lex update)***

I literally just Googled this year's resolution, meaning I am completely new to this topic and have very limited topic-specific knowledge as of right now. A great place to demonstrate real knowledge about the topic would be during CX, and I will be both listening and learning. Please keep this mind. I have been out of judging for some number of years, but I do have significant judging experience in the past and have judged way more tournaments than is listed on Tabroom.

About Me: I debated for Lexington High School's policy debate team as a 2N/2A. I have judged at many national and regional tournaments. I have debated more as a 2N and I know the pains of being a 2N. For example, I will give some leeway to the 1A for the 1AR, as I know how time-pressed this speech could be. Use this to your advantage: do the 1AR well and you may easily merit a 30 for speaker points. I also know how much BS the 2AR can have -- don't ever resort to lying. Ever. The 2AR should be used strategically to summarize your arguments up and give reasons to prefer your argument/case/impact over your opponents'. This speech is awesome for speaker points and persuading my ballot. Often I vote Aff because of how convincing the 2AR was (of course because of the arguments too). Lying about the claims of a random card or that your opponents dropped this or that is a reason for me to severely dock your speaker points. I really don't want to do that. Don't make it a first.

Apparently, I have had a reputation in the past of being a "K-friendly former policy debater", which is hilarious but I'll take it. My interpretation of this is that I definitely have voted many a times for K arguments and have been pref'ed many times by K teams (but also by policy teams as well, being from Lex). My guess is that in my RFD I have probably noted that I would rather vote for well-articulated in-depth K arguments over superficial policy ones. I see nothing wrong with encouraging good debate practice and form. Frankly, I don't care what kind of argument you make as long as it's good and you do it well.

A few other tidbits about me. I studied anthropology in college and as such am very comfortable with K topics especially ones based in philosophy (I quoted Foucault in my personal statement for medical school). That being said, don't assume I know every K/philosopher out there. I am deeply passionate about debate and I carry lessons I have learned from the debate world with me even in my practice of medicine (I wrote about this in my residency application). I probably will not vote for "Debate bad" and likewise types of arguments.

My ballot goes to whichever team convinces me of their argument the most, regardless of whatever form of argument that may be. I only ask that you thoroughly and clearly explain your arguments and show me you really understand what your arguments truly entail of. Impacting your arguments beyond scripted impact calculus blocks would also be nice -- if you want to win my vote.

Be respectful. Debate well. Have fun.

How To [ ] My Ballot:

• Win:
  • Clash: Give me specific reasons to vote on your arguments as opposed to your opponents' arguments -- you can easily achieve this through goodevidence comparison, impact calculus, etc.
  • Impact Calculus: This part of debate is so important and so key that if you choose to ignore this, you are almost guaranteed to lose my vote -- again, I don't care what argument you choose to run; I care that you impact your argument and give me a reason to pick your impact over the other team's impact. The same goes for framework -- if you choose to run a critical argument and lose the framework debate, then in my eyes, your critical argument is nonexistent. Please give me a reason to pick your framework over your opponents' framework. Otherwise, no matter how OP your K, DA, CP, etc. is, I can't and won't vote for you.
  • Ethos: Won't win my vote alone, but if both teams have done the above and more and you have more ethos, I might just vote for you. That said, ethos certainly doesn't mean domination -- it means speaking in such a way that really appeals to me. Be sassy if you need to, but still know your bounds.
  • Clarity/Good Organization: Makes it a lot easier for me to flow and to decide on my ballot. Whatever I don't hear/understand verbally will not go on my flow, and will, therefore, not contribute to your argument. I should be able to hear all the points of your 1AR, of your topicality flow, of your theory block, etc. If it happened to have been your kick-ass link card, then that would have been very unfortunate :( Don't expect me to automatically call for evidence if I miss something. I will ONLY call up evidence if there was evidence comparison and this debate is extended to the 2NR/2AR, or when I see it necessary for me to read into the validity of a card. Also, if you want to score a 30, do line-by-line. I LOVE line-by-line, and I will be more inclined to vote for you if you do a great job on the line-by-line.

• Lose:
  • Neglecting to Sign Post/Road Map: I shouldn't have to designate a section for this, but in the past I have been ignored in this simple request, and I have been throughly confused and annoyed. Please just do it. Not just so that I can flow your arguments on the right flow, but because it's a respectful thing to do for your opponents, your partner (if you have one), and I.
  • Clipping Cards: DO NOT DO THIS. I consider it cheating not only debate, but also cheating your opponents and me. As a judge and a former debater, I would feel personally offended by this act. If you do this, the highest speaker points I give you will be at most a 24.
  • Being Obnoxious/Disrespectful/Overly Aggressive: If you resort to any of this, I will not only severely dock your speaker points, but also stop flowing your arguments. Swearing is fine -- I'm a college student for crying out loud -- but if you're swearing unnecessarily in every.fucking.sentence, then I'll probably dock your speaking points, roll my eyes, and stop flowing.
  • Stealing Prep Time: This is such a novice thing to do, and SHOULD NOT exist at all in non-novice debates. I will be less harsh with novices because I understand debate is a learning experience. That said, it doesn't mean it's okay for novices to do that. It is disrespectful, rude, and cheating. Stealing prep time will result in very low speaker points and will be noted when I am deciding on the ballot.

Specific Arguments

• Theory
  • I am more than willing to vote on theory IF it is argued properly. I believe that theory is an integral part of debate, and when used realistically, can be a lethal weapon. For example, if the Neg is running a billion CPs and a trillion Ks, then the Aff should definitely run theory and I would love to vote Aff on theory. The boundary for me is if the Neg is only running one CP or one K, and the Aff runs theory. The Neg is probably going to win the conditionality debate. If the Neg is running a CP and a K, the conditionality debate would be decided by you guys. In that particular case, I can go both ways. When you do run theory, please IMPACT your arguments. If you lay out all your theory points without an impact, I will be very unlikely to vote for you. It's the equivalent to having an argument but without an answer to the "so what?" clause. You must answer the following questions: Why should I care about your theory arguments? So what if the other team severs? Framing your theory arguments in the context of debate is the best way to get me to vote you on theory.
• Topicality
  • I will vote on T if and ONLY IF it is argued and structured properly. Most of us know that the T consists of the following: interpretation, violation, standards, and voting issue. If you want to win the debate on T, you MUST carry all of these in some way through the 2AR. You NEED to frame the debate on T, making sure to emphasize that everything else in the debate is irrelevant because the Neg is non-topical and WHY the fact that the Neg is non-topical important in the debate (and in debate in general). Not impacting your T arguments is asking for me to ignore your argument, even if you have the best interpretation or violation blocks ever.
• Counterplans
  • As I mentioned before, I was mostly a 2N, so I have a soft spot for CPs. In particular, I really like case-specific CPs because I believe they are more realistic and better for debate purposes. They promote clash and topic debate. They're awesome. Use them. When you're running a CP, NEVER forget to answer theory (e.g. condo), perms, and ALWAYS provide a reason for mutual exclusivity.
• Disadvantages
  • Case-specific disads are the best kinds there are. Being from Lexington, I have a soft spot for politics disads. They were the first kind of disads I learned in my novice year and I will always love them. I don't really buy the intrinsic bad theory argument, but if the Aff drops it, then it could be potentially devastating. However, if the Neg does NOT impact intrinsic bad, I still won't vote on it.
• Kritiks/K Affs
  • I am fine with both. What I am not fine with is super obscure Ks/K Affs that are NOT explained well. I am human too. I don't have a mental encyclopedia of all Ks and K Affs. Please don't assume I do. Please also keep in mind that I tend to err toward policy-oriented options, but I will vote on the K/K Affs if they are well organized and well debated. I will also probably give way higher speaker points to teams that do well with K arguments, as it is much more impressive to do this well for K arguments than policy ones. The alternative MUST be present in all Neg speeches and impact calculus should involve the framework debate and should give me a reason to vote you as opposed to your opponents. The alternative must also be legit. If your alternative sounds silly in theory, it will probably sound silly to me. And unless you have the ethos of Alex Parkinson, you probably will not end up convincing me that your alternative is legit.
• Case
  • This is where you can impress me a lot. Do really nice line-by-line and I will love you. Case is an awesome place for clash to take place, and I love clash. High speaks to whichever team does better line-by-line and/or better clash on case. Just so you know, I have not debated the current topic before, but I am familiar with some of the literature. Policy-wise I should be able to follow along relatively easily. If you throw something obscure at me and use debate/literature jargon excessively without first explaining them, I won't be able to follow you and I meant just stop flowing. Not a good idea. I highly advise against it.

Email: Nalasking@gmail.com

experience: Debated CX in high school for 4 years, current DCI coach

Theory and Topicality

I actively enjoy theory and T debates and will reward teams who execute them well.

Key points:

• Must demonstrate specific in-round abuse with evidence
• Show how the violation impedes access to core ground
• Explain why your interpretation is key to competitive equity
• Connect your theory arguments to your broader strategy
• T is a voting issue - but prove why it matters in THIS round

• Layer your theory arguments - tell me how to evaluate them

Kritiks

I enjoy critical arguments and evaluate them on equal footing:

• Can be run as a DA without alternative if impacts are clear
• Links should be specific and contextualized
• Framework debate is crucial
• Performance arguments welcome with clear explanation
• Please don't spread through a performance

Speed

Comfortable with speed (7/10) but require:

• Clear tags
• Audible author names
• Emphasized analytics
• Comprehensible card text
• Will say "clear" if needed

Technical Preferences

1. Rigorous line-by-line essential
2. Clear sign-posting required
3. Please Number extended arguments
4. Explicit impact calc expected
5. Strategic cross-ex highly valued

Last Points

• Happy to discuss decisions after round
• Please add me to email chains
• Feel free to ask questions before round

12/6/24

Please add me to the thread: tylerbrandonkirk@gmail.com

My name is tyler kirk, he/him/his.

Personal - I was a high school cx debater/extemp speaker in Oklahoma 2001-2004, back in the day when the NSDA was the NFL. I moved to Boston for graduate studies in religion/philosophy at Boston University in 2012. For the past 2 years I've taught at at Boston Latin Academy as a inclusion special education math and science teacher. I enjoy reading classic novels, philosophy, and poetry.

tl;dr- I'm new to judging in the past year through the Boston Debate League and NAUDL. After many years of not being involved in policy debate, and having minimal experience with K/K-Aff in 2004, I look forward to an engaging debate while I continue to learn how these arguments function.

spred OK

Run anything (best argumentation/performance wins)

I will vote on theory but there's a high burden of proof/clear explanation. There should be a true in round reason for me to vote on the theory.

explanation > jargon

I perceive the debate space as a high school activity. I expect behaviors and language to model what I would see in a classroom. Mature language in tags or cards (read or used with a purpose) is not a problem.

***********************

I am willing to listen to and am familiar with most argumentation leaning toward policy based arguments. I want debaters to evaluate and frame arguments as the round progresses with emphasis on comparative analysis between those competing arguments. Speed is generally not a problem.

On conditionality, and as stated previously, I want to judge a round that has clash and substance. This being said I also believe that part of the value in debate is starting with a variety of arguments and positions, and then being able to choose which arguments to move forward with strategically. I don't have a problem with spreading as a negative strategy. At the same time there are limits here. When we get into the 6+ off arguments and it's clear that the strategy is simply to read a bunch of cards without understanding in hopes that someone will drop an argument, I would be more prone to seriously evaluate condo.

K-Aff's: I don't have personal experience running a k-aff. I understand the topicality/framework issues that the neg might use against a K-Aff. In general both teams should be clear about these arguments and where I'm going to flow them. I appreciate hearing a good k-aff and the performance aspect of the debate that often comes along with that.

K's: I love a good alternative. If you're going for the K and the alternative is reading Marxist literature...I expect that you have some favorite Marx literature that you'd like to share.

T: Topicality is an a priori voter. For this reason I also have a high bar for neg to win on topicality. I'm happy to vote on T, however I don't want to vote on T just because the aff was spread out and missed one of the 7 brightline(s) in the 1NC.

Clash: Really appreciate good clash on the flow. Nothing better than when I can follow the story on the flow and everything lines up.

Theory: I'm not that well versed in theory tbh. If you're going for theory argument(s) just be clear in explanations.

thanks!

Jake Lee (He/Him)

Math Teacher and Director of Debate at Mamaroneck High School

For Email Chain: jakemlee@umich.edu

Also add: mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

A more in-depth view of my judging record: View this Spreadsheet

-

General:

Tech > Truth, will let the flow dictate what I vote on. Will leave personal biases on things outside. Only exceptions: I will not vote on Death Good (Ligotti style) or anything that is blatant hate speech

I won't vote on arguments that pertain to issues outside a debate round or ad homs

No "inserting" rehighlightings. You must read your re-highlighting.

The NEG really does not need more than 6 offcase to win a debate. Yes I know I coach Mamo FC...

Vertical Proliferation of arguments is better than a horizontal proliferation of arguments. You can definitely ask me what this means.

Case/Plan specific strategies with good evidence are substantially better than spamming a ton of incomplete, generic, cheap shot arguments. So far only Carrollton and New Trier have done that so far in front of me.

I judge a lot of K rounds. I really have become less persuaded by the K lately in terms of the framework debate. If your strategy is to kick the alt and go for framework, I'm more likely to end up voting AFF then you actually going for the K with the alt.

I really do not understand why plan text in a vacuum makes sense. I think it genuinely makes T debates pointless and incentives vague plan text writing. I'll still vote on it though if debated well.

Respect your opponents

I flow on paper. I hate flowing on my computer. I do not look at the doc. My computer is away. If I have to flow on my computer, I will never look at a doc. I try to flow down the line and create line-by-line. I will not reward unclarity. If you are unclear in speeches, I am not sympathetic to "dropped" arguments because the other team could not flow you since you were unclear. Your job is to CLEARLY communicate your arguments, that is the whole point of debate. If you cannot do that, I am not flowing anything or just evaluate it as a totally incomplete argument.

-

IPR Specific:

T-Subsets should not be your 2NR strategy unless the AFF has MASSIVELY screwed up

Stolen from Forslund: Stop reading the Uncooperative Federalism CP

Case Specific Cards and impact D in the 1NC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1NCs with just impact D. I will reward debaters who do not just spam impact D on the case debate.

-

The Do Nots in Debate:

CX time has been wasted on arguments that were not read because you assumed it was read because it being on the doc. I am going to start docking speaker points for debaters that are obviously not flowing the speech and only flowing the speech doc.

If you ask the speaker to remove the cards they did not read, I will run prep time, and the speaker has the right to run your prep time down to 0 because it is your job to listen and flow

If you answer arguments that were in the speech doc but not read,

If it is clear you are are reading a prepped out backfile from another teammate

Hiding ASPEC or other theory arguments = cowardly

Stop asking for a 30 in rounds.

TL;DR

Add me to the email chain: caroline.li.debate@gmail.com

I have no topic knowledge yet this year, I'm back in after having not judged for 2 years. Please help me out in the round!

Policy

I'm a current senior at Penn, she/her. I did policy debate for 4 years at Lexington High School, was a 2N. I ran mostly policy arguments on the neg, but my partner ran K and policy affs.

Top 4 things you need to do to win in front of me:

1. Do impact calc.

2. Have numbered warrants.

3. Prioritize what you want me to vote on in your last speeches.

4. Be civil to your opponents!

K-------------------------x--------------Policy

Advice

High level how I decide rounds. 1. I look for any major tech mistakes (dropping a perm, condo, flow, straight turn, etc) that mean I can auto vote for one side, no guilt necessary. If this happened in your round, stand up, make 2 arguments, and sit down. 2. I break the debate into blocks, (ie for a K, framework, link, alt, impact) and decide who won each block. 3. I decide what winning a block means for a team, and how the blocks implicate each other. If you made even if statements, bonus points in this step. If you did impact calc, bonus points in this step. 4. I return a decision.

Also, I'm mostly flowing by listening. Clarity~

Framework Debates

At the end of this debate, I will write down the impacts each side goes for, assign some probability of solvency depending on how well you're doing on the internal links for that impact, and then figure out if they implicate/outweigh one another. As such, feel free to expand the debate in the 2AC through the 1AR, but in the last speeches buckle down on 1-3 key pieces of offense, weigh it against your opponents' best offense, and then apply it to all the other arguments that show up on these massive T flows. Also, procedural fairness can be a terminal impact if you can convince me it is. Doing good case debate and then applying it offensively to the T flow is always an excellent idea.

Policy aff v Ks

On the aff, having specific, well-thought-out perms and explaining why they mitigate the risk of links is an excellent idea, as is using your impacts to outweigh. On the neg, winning strong impacts to each link helps a lot, as does pointing out specific parts of the aff speeches that link. These debates also tend to become massive, so collapsing in your last speeches and not getting caught up in the line by line will help.

DAs

I do think it's possible for there to be 0% risk of a DA. I find it more persuasive if you have like 5 reasons why one internal link of the DA won't happen than if you put one reason on five different internal links. Aff-specific DAs which are well-prepared will be entertaining, as will having specific links to the aff.

CPs

Don't like process CPs. Do like advantage CPs, or any CP that you made up on the fly but solves the entire aff. CPs are tests of how necessary the aff is to solve its impacts. On the aff, creative permutations are entertaining.

T

Make clear internal link and impact scenarios, do impact comparison, and internal link turns, and you'll be good to go. If they clarify how the aff works late in the debate, and it's egregiously untopical, I don't mind if you introduce a new T violation in the neg block.

Final thoughts

Make my job easy please!

Give me judging advice/Review my judging: https://forms.gle/FrmsLwNv95YQZpgF9

Loud prep is a pet peeve

I don't love it when other members of your team sit in on your prelim rounds sorry!

Speaks Scale

28.0 needs some improvement

28.5 good

29.0 impressive

Zoey Lin (she/her/hers)

Lexington '20 | Dartmouth '26

Please put me on and properly name the email chain! [lin.debate@gmail.com] [Tournament - Round X: Aff Team v Neg Team]

Also if y'all wanna bring me food, like... I won't say no. To be clear I'm not asking for food, I'm just saying it will make me happy <3

tl;dr

Be genuine, be nice, just do what you’re good at. I promise I'm very low maintenance, as long as you're nice, give me an outlet and a chair, and are a reasonable human being I will and flow what you say! Don't be rude pls

This picture encapsulates both my personality and my judging philosophy

Please be super clear. I can flow you, but I might not be able to flow you + mumble + echo + distance + zoom. If you're unclear and lose even though "but I said it in my speech", imma give you this look: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Policy (Updated 10.19.24)

Do what you're good at, don't adapt for me (yes I have biases, but if I'll be persuaded more by what you say than what I think).

Frame the round and tell a good story, unless told otherwise I am tech > truth, theory is a reason to reject the arg (but condo is a reason to reject the team), judges don't kick, and anything goes. Other than that, I am a sucker for specific strategies. Even if you don't go for them I will reward case specific research (aff recuts, counterplans that solve the internal link, specific pics against k affs, etc). Do your best with neg ground—even though you need a DA, that's not an excuse for awful ptx scenarios.

Other thoughts: I don't think enough 2a's are willing to go for theory and I'm happy to vote on 2+ condo bad! I also no longer make an effort to understand the topic's intricacies, sorry...

What You're Here For (K Stuff)

Debate is definitely a game and clash is an intrinsic good for debate. I find myself particularly persuaded by switch-side debate arguments and well crafted TVAs. Despite that, I think debate could be much more than a game even though we're here "playing" it and the history of the args I read supports that idea.

I'm most familiar with and went for identity critiques (anti-blackness and queer theory), psychoanalysis, and security (fem ir, racial ir, and traditional ir). I'm pretty decent for anti-capitalist lit. I'm average for other white pomo, and pretty bad for death good. That being said, I don't want to listen to nebulous appeals to buzzword impacts... K teams win when they are able to contextualize their k to their opponent's args, especially with links. You don't need a "good k" you need a well applied k.

LD (Updated 11.18.23)

I'm a policy debater who doesn't care what you read. The only thing you should consider is that although I will flow your argument and its warrants, I might not fully understand it to your liking (i.e. just because you said permissibility doesn't mean I'll fill in the warrant for you).

If you want to know specifics though, I'm definitely better for k/larp compared to phil, and definitely questionable for theory and tricks*. I don't care if you defend the topic, but have some sort of grounded criticism, please.

Long LD Specific Paradigm: I aspire to be Henry Curtis

*Caveat: Lexington Debater Brett Fortier told me "if you're willing to listen to tricks, you're a tricks judge." While that is me... I really do not want to listen to RVI's, trick's, nebel t, a prioris and just LISTS of paradoxes. Much thanks!

Misc Stuff

I flow on a computer and sometimes often away or stare blankly. Don't worry I can type without looking, this just means I'm thinking

I've realized that zoom debate has made it so that y'all prep so loudly. I don't super care but it's also just jarring that I can hear all of your conversations about the debate and especially your conversations about me...

Bottom Line

Debate is a great place to challenge yourself and have fun while doing it... the first thing that I want to see is that everyone is enjoying themselves and having a good time. Some debaters think that they're too good or cool to afford their opponents respect and decency in-round: if this is you, I will not be a good judge to have in the back of your round. We are all here to have fun and get better, so if you are jeopardizing that in any way, don't expect me to be as willing to vote for you.

I really care about the participation of queer debaters, especially gender minorities and poc. It's really difficult to find queer spaces in general, never mind in debate and worst of all in an online debate environment. I will be extremely sensitive to the way people who are not cis white men are treated in the debate space. If you are looking for additional resources, please check out https://www.windebate.org/ for the most passionate mentors and https://www.girlsdebate.org/ for funny memes, cool people, and amazing overall help.

If you have any questions, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts. I'd be happy to clarify anything on this paradigm or offer you any other insight that I might have forgotten to include here.

Good luck!

email: cmacvarish@gds.org

I am the assistant debate coach for Georgetown Day School. Before GDS, I coached and judged for Brooklyn Technical High School.

DEBATE FORM:

- I strive to provide the fairest and most objective decision possible. As such, I take the flow very seriously. I will flow the round and vote based on my flow. If you want to win, your flow should look like mine.

- Speeches should be clear and well signposted. If you give a road map, I expect you to follow it. Slow down for tags and authors or they will not make my flow.

- Allow "pen time;" take a breath when reading theory blocks; slow down and make eye contact during essential/round decisive moments to ensure I'm getting it down on the flow.

DEBATE CONTENT:

- I like (nuanced, coherent) Ks and performance args

- I like technical, line-by-line debate and evidence-based comparisons

- I have no ideological investment in the content of your arguments beyond my professional obligations as a teacher and my legal obligations as a mandatory reporter.

My Name is Ruby McGaskill, I teach English I at Weequahic High School in Newark, NJ. I have been a teacher for 26 years. I have been a debate coach for 6 years. I am fine with spreading and open cross-ex. I am fine with critical arguments as long as you present a strong case. Please be clear and direct with your argument, making no assumptions. While I am fine with spreading, I would prefer that you start at 80% of your speed and then increase as I get adjusted to your voice.

Please keep the debate respectful as this is a learning experience for us all.

I will make sure to leave detailed feedback on the ballot. Please do not approach me in passing about the decision. If you have questions about my decision that was not clear on the ballot, you are welcome to contact me at rmcgaskill@nps.k12.nj.us. I will be sure to get back to you as soon as possible.

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

Piper's older brother (pref her, not me)

Email: bradgmu@gmail.com (High School Only: Please include grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com as well.)

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain)

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and most forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Stealing this bit of wisdom from DML's philosophy: If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

Specifics

Non-traditional – I believe debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life. Similarly, I don't want to mediate debates about things that happened outside the context of the debate round.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest. "Let's flip a coin to decide who wins and just have a discussion" is a nonstarter.

4) Name-calling based on perceived incongruence between someone's identity and their argument choice is unlikely to be a recipe for success.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K or to permute an uncompetitive alternative.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - ...are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual to the tournament, division, round, etc. I am more likely to reward good performance with high points than punish poor performance with below average points. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Being rude to your partner or the other team is a good way to persuade me to explore the deepest depths of my point range.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

Random

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision. Inserting a chart where there is nothing to read is ok.

Absent a tournament rule allowing it, cross-x and prep time are NOT interchangeable. You have 3 minutes of time to ask questions. Cross-x time shall not be used for prep, and other than MAYBE a quick clarification question, prep should not be used to grill your opponents.

email chains are good in the absence of paper copies - jimi.morales@successacademies.org

quality over quantity typically wins my ballots. id rather you articulate multiple solid links for one argument than run multiple off case positions with vague/weak/completely absent links . i do not use the doc as a crutch for incomprehensible speech, I should be able to flow without reading along in the doc.

i often use the speech doc as a reference point if evidence in the debate is disputed or referenced in a rebuttal speeches as something i should look at post round as a key warrant for the decision. i do not use the doc as a crutch for incomprehensible speech, I should be able to flow without reading along in the doc.

framework is often useful. so is the keeping up the with "the news"

i am listening to cross-x and you can/should reference it.

i like well researched positions that don't contradict themselves unless explained in advance or immediately after why those contradictions are ok. if you run ironic performance positions without explaining or looking up from your laptop, i will take your words literally. this will likely make you upset at my decision. i do not use the doc as a crutch for incomprehensible speech, I should be able to flow without reading along in the doc.

if your coach or another competitor wrote anything you are reading and you haven't re-written it, unless you really understand the argument, you probably don't want me judging.

that being said, my job is to be a neutral arbiter for a single debate of which the only usual rules are the speech times. *although i personally do not believe in disclosure theory if it is in the tournament rules to disclose, then follow the rules*

just when i think i've seen it all in the activity, debate has a way of pleasantly surprising me.

ask me specific questions about subjects not listed above and i will happily answer them to the best of my ability.

hi I'm rowan, he/they, plz include me on the email chain, and feel free to ask questions. debaterowan@gmail.com

I've been in policy debate for 8 years and have been to many national tournaments.

preferences:

call me rowan, not judge.

run whatever you want to run, I'll evaluate anything.

line by line and good impact calc will win you the round.

open cx?: sure, but work with your partner, don't talk over them. also if one team is mav they can request closed cx.

K?: sure go for it, but make sure you explain it well.

T?: I love T, but keep it reasonable.

Theory?: I will flow theory, if it becomes an issue of accessibility I will evaluate differently. I won't vote on theory without examples of in round abuse. I was a 2N, I don't love condo, so you gotta really sell it.

speed?: ideally go at 50%-65% speed, I do have auditory processing issues so even if your reading ev fast make sure your tagline are slow and clear, if you are spreading plz send all of your analytics, if it is not on the flow than you didn't make the argument.

accessibility: very important. make your ev accessable. don't read arguments drenched in violence if the other team is uncomfy with it. if the other team asks you not to spread than please adapt.

be nice, and keep this space safe, Im aggressive in cross ex, I get it, but as soon as you move into the territory of being a jerk, especially if your opponents are new to the space, I will dock your speaks.

the best way to win is to not be an a-hole

Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.

Affiliations/Conflicts: Lexington High School, UMass Amherst, Harvard College, Amherst College, Tufts University, Canadian Policy Debate

rishi.rishi.mukherjee@gmail.com

I would strongly prefer not to judge online, please strike me if you debate online. I understand and empathize with accessibility issues. I will of course not hold it against you if you do pref me but I also request that you please place other judges above me if you debate online.

Dropped arguments are considered true. If you aren't a very technical debater, then I am likely a poor judge for you. I am unlikely to be forgiving of technical mistakes and I am unlikely to dismiss arguments on your behalf.

"If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

I only evaluate arguments on my flow. I do not evaluate "rep", good debaters give bad speeches and vice versa, your past successes do not matter to me --- I only care how you debate on the flow. I dislike judges who give indefensible decisions and do not respect the efforts of debaters and care more about their perception in the community. Unlike judges who claim to be tech over truth but make exceptions for certain arguments, I do not bias against arguments just because of their content. I don't bias against arguments simply because are K or Policy. I do not bias against arguments like death good simply because they are immoral. I will not discount arguments like ASPEC if dropped simply because it is a "cheapshot".

Note that being technical is not an excuse to replace depth with blippy argumentation. I will reward quality arguments, judge instruction, and big picture round vision.

Please do explicit application of your overview/blocks and crossapplication of your arguments on the line by line. Otherwise you risk being upset at how I put the arguments together.

Gonzaga 2025 Update:

first time judging IP topic i don't know nor care about camp T norms

in a k debate you are better off generating ofdense than winning impact calc. imo the timesplit should be 85/15. i see many of you split your time 50/50 explaining why fairness comes first or why k offense comes first for half your speech and not nearly enough time actually winning the offense, explaining a turn to the other teams offense, or explaining defense. like in a policy debate would you spend half your time explaining why timeframe outweighs magnitude? feels like a waste of time and its a bit mind numbing. now for me judge instruction and impact calc does matter as i like to pretend im biasless but in fact i think other judges are likely to just bias to their personal preference of what impact should come first.

i don't want to listen to you complaining about arguments being stupid, i don't believe that policy debate should shame automatically exclude frivolous theory like aspec, random LD philosophy and tricks, process cps, fiat ks etc etc pick your hated argument. if an argument is stupid then it should be easy to refute.

i have a bit of time and im willing to coach one team willing to read the asian/buddhism k arguments primarily. email or messenger me if interested. sorry rates are nonnegotiable and im careful with my time, please only reach out if you're seriously interested and can commit to at least 1 hour a week.

Wake 2024 Update:

Please read fun arguments! I love debate because of intellectual freedom, which matters more to me than simply winning. I love creative positions, impact turns, random procedurals, & funny meme arguments. I will share three of my many meme arguments as inspiration. 1) I ended my career arguing that we should all confess our sins to the Christian God (I am a buddhist) 2) In high school I pioneered the wingdings CP --- read the plan text in wingdings with a variety of net benefits like secrecy good, baudrilliard, etc and argue that it textually competes and lol I somehow was 5-0 on wingdings. 3) Lastly, my favorite: in the spirit of Wake Debate, shoutout to Taj1.5Chips, who voted that Messi was a nuclear weapon.

Michigan 2024 Update:

Here is some more detail on my takes on arguments. Note that technical debating outweighs these.

• I have zero desire to judge anything not about the debate in front of me. Please no screenshots. Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.
• I have a lower bar for a warrant than the community. This means that I will vote on severance perms are a voter.
• Despite a low bar for a warrant, I am often persuaded by high quality arguments and evidence. I read along following the cards during the speeches.
• Inserting rehighlightings is fine.
• Well explained specific recent evidence > good spin & analytics > horrible evidence
• I flow CX --- I am easily persuaded that CX is binding.
• I rarely vote on zero risk, but I can be persuaded by developed framing. Usually try or die is quite persuasive. Usually fast DA, "live to fight another day" is also persuasive. I could also be persuaded that magnitude times probability framing is bad.
• In advantage vs disadvantage debates I care a lot about uniqueness. Generally if the status quo is doomed then I end up voting aff more often as most people in the try or die cult do. Vice versa if the squo is fine, then I am very persuaded by only a risk of a link framing.
• My pet peeve is laundry list impacts, be so fr. My bar is very low for analytic impact defense to these.
• I will vote on intrinsicness against politics. Be technical on this question, if you blow it off you can lose if properly executed.
• Turns case is very persuasive. Carded turns case is extra persuasive. However, I find accessing an impact is generally far more important, it is better to invest time proving the substance of your advantage or DA which you need in order to win turns case. Additionally, this is why I find arguments like 'link alone turns case' very persuasive, it lowers the burden of what you need to win.
• I often care about comparative risks. If the aff doesn't go for a solvency deficit and says that the CP links to the net benefit but the neg argues that the CP links less, then I would vote neg. Similarly I care a lot about whether the link turn outweighs the link and vice versa.
• I interpret sufficiency framing as judge instruction not to do work for aff solvency deficits. I would prefer direct comparison between the solvency deficit and the net benefit. Solvency deficits need impacts.
• I have to know what the CP does to vote for it, a complicated/vague CP text paired with poor explanation is unlikely to get my ballot.
• I am good for CP theory. I think well crafted interps are essential, for instance all CPs have a process. I understand but slightly disagree with the sentiment that theoretical objections are better expressed through competition, I find "this cp good/bad" theory arguments persuasive. I find textual and functional to be quite defensible. I think functional only is also fine. I can be persuaded that intrinsic permutations are justified. Note that I flow CX and can be persuaded of positional competition. Note that I am far less persuaded by taking lines from aff evidence to justify competition than CX. If you say the plan is congress in CX, then I am easily persuaded that courts compete. If you say the mandate of the plan must include a list of things, then I am easily persuaded by PICs out of one or more. However, you can avoid this with vague language or being explicit your response is a possible way the plan could be implemented. However, note that I am good for vagueness and specification procedurals.
• I don't judge kick unless instructed. My bar for what counts as instruction is low. If you say condo in CX I assume this means judge kick. I also assume dispo means judge kick. I also can be persuaded that judge kick is bad.
• Condo is about models. I don't really care about a particular number. I have no issue with neg terrorism and perf con but also do not bias against a condo 2ar.
• Regarding condo I find this part of Jordan Di's paradigm persuasive -- "It seems logical to me that the ability of the AFF to extend both conditionality and substance in the 1AR, forcing the 2NR to cover both in a manner to answer inevitable 2AR shenanigans (especially nowadays) is the same logic criticized by "condo bad" as the 2AR can pick and choose with no cost. It seems worse in this case given the NEG does not have a 3NR to refute the 2AR in this scenario. This is a firm view, but it seems much easier to me for the 2AR to answer the fourth mediocre CP in the 1NC (like uncooperative federalism lol) than for the 2NR to answer the 5-minute condo bad 2AR that stemmed from a 45-second 1AR."
• I am easily persuaded that rejecting the argument remedies the introduction of abusive positions into debate. I am easily persuaded that condo is different because kicking no cost options is the warrant for skew.
• T is about models. Reasonability is best explained through arguments like arbitrariness or substance crowdout and not whining about why your aff is core of the topic. I do not care about camp norms.
• I am generally good for plan text in a vacuum. To win the opposite you need to clearly define and justify the alternative. For instance, I think generally CX is binding and can be persuaded that CX explains what the plan means. I am far less persuaded by use of random aff lines to garner a violation. Please be technical, introduce justifications for PTIV with LBL against criticisms and vice versa.
• I'm far better than average for specification and vagueness arguments. I think they can be reasons to reject the team and if properly technically executed neg teams can defeat many of the 2ACs to these off case positions.
• K v Policy Affs - FW & Kaffs - be technical. I have been on both sides. I do not care.
• I make no apology for voting on technical tricks like truth testing or overcorrect. I will vote for theory against the alt like utopian fiat/PIKs bad. I will vote for independent voting issues/CSULB style of K theory arguments, especially if dropped. So be technical if you want to win. Tech over truth.
• In K debates, I think generally impact calc matters more than big picture defense. In a Kaff v FW debate, realistically the TVA rarely solves aff offense and the CI rarely solves limits. Similarly, in a neg K vs policy aff debate, I view middling interps as unstrategic and mediocre defense to the other sides offense. Tell me why your impact matters more. However, note that while I believe big picture defense is not helpful, I am easily persuaded by specific defense to specific points made on the flow. I am also persuaded by top level impact comparison. I can be persuaded that impacts like racism rely on fairness. I can be persuaded that racism is procedurally unfair. Use offense, impact comparison, & specific defense to get my ballot. The more technical team will win this debate.
• Also 3 hot takes about K debate. 1) The perm double bind only makes sense against alts that are implemented. If you fiat a philosophy that disagrees with the aff then the alt would be mutually exclusive and "ban the plan" 2) False equivalencies are false. Nearly 50% of the time, the link to the plan is a stretch. If you are a neg going for the K just go hard on framework if you have a horrible link. If you are an aff against the K, point out that the link is incoherent. 3) The Cap K against Kaffs is very very horrible at least 50% of the time. Read something else in the 1NR. Look at the Dartmouth wiki on alliances for inspiration.
• Lastly my most important take. Ballot defense is overrated. If you want to win a clash debate in front of me, this is the most important thing you should read. Two thoughts: 1) Do more line by line instead. Spending all your time on explaining why the ballot can only solve fairness is essentially aiming for terminal defense to K offense, which is winnable, but you're hoping I don't conclude there's only a risk of K offense and you risk losing to try or die for K offense + impact calc, so you are better off doing more line by line to take out K offense. Vice versa, as a K team do more line by line trying to win your offense. Ballot defense is not the end all be all. As a policy team you don't need to go all in on debate is just a game and you can go for fairness and clash/other external offense together. It is not necessarily the case that the ballot does nothing or it does something. I can be easily persuaded that it is an "even if" claim. If the ballot does nothing, then fairness is all that matters --- but if it does matter, then impacts like clash matter. I think other judges vote far too often on ballot does nothing arguments. I can be persuaded that arguments like the ballot doesn't need to solve all racism, the ballot is a microaffirmation, the ballot can serve as accountability, & try or die "there is only a risk" of ballot offense. To be clear this is a winnable debate. I find arguments like alt causes to subjectivity shift, the ballot cannot reverse a harm/racism, and the ballot can only solve fairness persuasive. You can technically win that debate is just a game and the ballot does nothing. But this brings me to my second point. 2)You are much better off going for offense explaining why a ballot for the K team is actively bad. External ballot offense is very crucial to helping you win debates. If you are a K team, exploit external ballot offense like independent voting issues as a net benefit to voting for you. If you are a policy team, explain why arguments like oppression olympics, negating personal identity bad, judge cooption, & Taiwo apply to the K ballot offense in addition to having fairness as external offense. The team that has better external offense + impact comparison and does better line by line will win my ballot.

Please include me on the email chain: ryannierman@gmail.com

Please also add the email grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain.

Top Level: Do whatever you want. My job is to evaluate the debate, not tell you what to read.

Speed: Speed is not a problem, but PLEASE remain clear (especially important for online tournaments) and remember pen/typing time is a thing. This likely means to slow down on procedural or analytic heavy flows and don't frontload your CP block with 4-5 perm texts, etc.

Topicality: I am willing to vote on T. I think that there should be substantial work done on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate, with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation.

CPs: Sure. Whether a CP is abusive or not is up for debate.

Disads: Sure. There should be a clear link to the aff. Yes, there can be zero risk. Overviews should focus in on why your impacts outweigh and turn case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line.

Kritiks: Sure. Make sure that there is a clear link to the aff, read new links in the block, utilize aff ev to prove your links, etc. Explain the alternative. What is the role of the judge? Do you need to win spillover? How do I weigh impacts? I am probably familiar with whatever author you are reading, but the burden is on the team reading the lit to explain their argument to me; don't assume I will do work for you.

Theory: Condo is probably good. Often these debates just turn into rereading blocks, which often makes them hard to decide. In-depth clash and line-by-line always helps. If there are dropped independent voters on a theory debate, I will definitely look there first. Most theory is likely a reason to reject the arg, not the team.

Performance: Sure. I prefer if the performative affirmation or action is germane to the topic, but that is up for debate. Once again, the debate is for you and not me, so I will evaluate any argument as fairly as possible and to the best of my ability.

Paperless Debate: I do not take prep time for emailing your documents, but please do not steal prep. I also try to be understanding when tech issues occur, but will honor any tech time rules established and enforced by the tournament. I will have my camera on during the round. If my camera is off, please assume that I am not there. Please don't start without me. Email chains are preferable to Speech Drop and other file share processes, but will default to whatever method has been established by the tournament (should one exist). Word docs > Google Docs > PDFs. I understand resources, funding, access to programs vary based on person, school district or team protocols, but please don't intentionally PDF documents so that they cannot be utilized in the debate for recutting/rehighlighting purposes or to get some sort of strategic advantage.

Other general comments:

Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.

Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

I do not feel comfortable voting on issues that happen outside the round.

Debate is a speaking activity. Small rehighlightings/recutting of ev to prove that something was out of context or that is sufficiently explained in a a short tag can be inserted. Reading several sentences or cutting another section of their article, etc should be read. Inserting graphs, charts, etc is obviously fine.

Please make sure that your cards are highlighted in a way that makes grammatical sense. The growing trend of "word salad" is concerning. I understand the desire to read more ev, but please make sure that you ev makes sense, is highlighted in context, and contains warrants. I will not piece together your evidence after the round to make a coherent argument. Quality > Quantity every time.

Cross-x is a speech - it should have a clear strategy and involve meaningful questions and clarifications. Concessions gained in cross-x should make it into speeches. The ability to effectively utilize cross-x in a meaningful way always boosts speaker points.

Finally, don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is.

Have fun, be kind, and put all of your hard work into action!

Newark Science + Rutgers-Newark (debated for both)

-

Katy Cat: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

P L E A S E - label email chains with the tournament, round + flight (if relevant), and teams. Something like "Newark Invitational R5 F2 - Newark Science TO [AFF] v RU-N OT [NEG]" would be great.

No SpeechDrop. Not kidding. I'm ideologically opposed. BUT I don't flow off docs (extra points if you don't either, it's a dying skill) so my opinion might not matter all that much but just gotta throw it out there.

-

Now the stuff you came for: If it matters, I've done basically every debate style, both HS and College, full spectrum of the library. I don't care much about what you read but there's some stuff at the bottom regarding that "much" part. Just remember, I'm an adult viewing the game, not participating in it. On this, you should enter the debate assuming I don't want to be there (you'll see why in the "Random" section) and that your job is to enter the room, not make me sad, win the debate, probably take some RFD notes, and then leave the debate -- all as efficiently as possible.

General things:

• Spreading is fine. Open CX is fine. Flex prep is fine. Inserted rehighlightings are fine. Cards in the body are fine. K affs are fine. F the topic affs are fine. Policy affs are fine. DA 2NRs are fine. CP 2NRs are fine. T/heory is fine. Impact turns are fine. 12 off 1NCs are fine. Trad debate is fine.I really don't have particular gripes with anything but feel free to ask me specifics before round.

• Good judge instruction please. Impact calc please. Make it as easy as possible for me to say "a win is a win and my flow is bond."

• Be good people. I'm not a licensed therapist but will do a wellness check and offer an ice cream spot but I hopefully won't have to do that.

Random things I feel the need to emphasize...

• Do not try to appeal to me as a person. I gave up my soul for a fun-sized Snickers bar years ago and anything that might've been left died when tournaments started abusing my obligation. In the same vein, I have a pretty good poker face because yes, I am probably bored with or apathetic to judging. Do not use my expressions, joyous or "angry" or otherwise as a meter for how you're doing.

• Hilariously though, I actually love this activity in its best form. I consistently dedicate my summers to debate/camp (Summer 2024 -- I was only home from for 8 days between May and September and it was because of a family emergency). I think debate is important and everyone needs to act like it or please let me leave and coach my kids!

• ^ Tangentially related to this, I am okay with if someone/team doesn't want to have a traditional round (like they want the round to be a dialogue or they want to flip a coin to decide the winner). I am not okay with having my time wasted so everyone needs to get on the same page quickly about what my role is, how I should decide/vote, etc. so I can leave and be human for a bit.

The below thoughts are my attempt to change the panels I've been on/what I've been adjudicating...

• Strategic thinking is good. Sometimes debates have to get a little bit messy to show the judge the whole chess board but as long as you're instructing, it's all good. Don't be afraid! If your speech ends and I'm thinking, "oh man, that was smart" or "that was silly but well executed," that's good and you'll probably be rewarded (even if it means I have to sit through a "they dropped condo" 2AR).
• A lot of you believe that you can do tricks. You can't. It's annoying to hear. This is not an invitation to try and do it well in front of me. You're not that guy (general phrase, not a gender question) so I don't want to hear it.
• Many of you lack a conception of time and the physical limits of the body. You think your judges aren't tired after judging double flights all day and can blaze at top speed and then that you're justified being upset at decisions. That's silly.

Hi!

Before I start this paradigm special shoutouts to the contributions to my love for debate:

Delaney Hellman (first ever coach)

Aubrey Semple (first high school coach)

Cyd-Marie Minierciriaco (second high school coach)

Micheal Pulver (first sassy coach)

Daryll Burch (DB) -- (debate dad? idk how to describe lol)

Tay (fav wake forest teacher, wrote my rec letter for a scholarship <3)

TC (fav wake forest RA)

Eli T. Louis (my fav judge)

If you know them we should bond over that lol, and if you went to rks lmk so we can bond on that also.

My name is Joanne Opoku (you can call me Joanne, Jo, Judge, idrc)

Add me to email chains - joanneopokudebate@gmail.com

I always ask both teams what color they want to be on my flow (i flow on computer), so don't be a loser just answer

ALSO CAN YALL NAME YOUR OFF PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEE IT MAKES IT EASIER TO FLOW OMLLLLLLLLLL

I also flow CX, but I don't include them in my decision it's usually because debaters bring up what might have been said in CX in their speeches and I evaluate then, but overall you should not worry.

I have been debating since fifth grade and started going to tournaments in seventh grade, but I don't think I got good until I attended RKS the summer of my junior year. But now that I graduated I will be attending Amherst College in the fall.

Speed is fine but don't do that mumbling nonsense, if I can't understand you I will say "clear" bc I still want to hear those arguments

As for speaks, I usually give relatively high speaks because as a former debater I've def seen myself and peers GET ROBBED and don't plan on doing that to yall :) -- but remember speed does not equal better debater, the arguments determine that

I am familiar with policy, ks/ k affs, performance so run what ever idrc, the round is yours to do whatever you want

Here are some different scenarios I think of:

Policy vs T

Unless the the aff is very untopical/ t gets dropped I usually lean towards reasonability tbh

Policy vs Da & CPs

I think cps are stronger when supported by net benefits (dis ads) but if you go for the CP alone I'm fine with that if you defend it well. Permutation debates are usually what it comes down to so aff make sure the defend the lack of the link story to the net benefits/ dis ads, and for neg just defend your stuff tbh

Policy vs the K

These debates are either really good or really bad. In my experience I think framework on both sides needs to be really strong. For the neg I think the link story needs to be strong here, generics are fine, but specifics are even better. Love these debates though, I had my fair share of time in these debates.

K v FW/ T

I have DEF had my fair share of these debates as I became a k debater my last years as a debater. This debate comes down to competing interpretations and impacts. That's all I really have to say here. I like when the neg makes their fw/ t shell interesting beyond just the fairness mumbo jumbo lol -- but its def up to you, no preference.

K v K

These debates can get messy, especially when the the aff can just no link out of everything, but honestly the debate comes down to materiality of the alt and links on part of the neg.

idrk where piks fall tbh -- but those are interesting, run them if you please

I think I covered everything there

I'm fine with questions before and after the round, but if after the round the "post-rounding" turns into disrespect and trying to get me to change my ballot, I will laugh in your face, say "you're just mad you lost" and walk out the room.

But have fun yall, remember debate is suppose to be a educational space so I will tolerate no discrimination <3

Also I've always hated judge intervention, so I will try my best to NEVER do that

pulverizer1997@icloud.com to share the evidence; top-line on this issue here: I thought judges who complained about the “time it takes to flash…” was nonsense but I’ve started to see this become a problem. If you cannot make this process reduce down to a reasonable time-scale, meaning the rounds interpretation is no longer in the conception of the tournament but of myself, then your speaks will reflect this being an issue. Personally, I think this is a problem cause coaches are telling kids to no longer program the round and just freely code themselves. If this angers you before seeing my name, then the answer is easy: strike me.

My name is Michael Alexander Pulver. My kids call me Coach MAP. You do not need to give me that latter of respect but I would prefer to not be framed like the abstract object that you are using right now to read this paradigm; I am human. I currently head-coach at Success Academy where K-12 education is what I’m actively participating in with steady research in all debate formats and speech events. The two circuits that grew me into who I am today are the University Interscholastic League (UIL) and Texas Forensic Association (TFA). Those that made sure us teenagers didn’t burn down the hotels are Jordan Innerarity, Nicole Cornish, and Carver Hodgkiss at a small, 4A, school in East Texas called Athens. J.I kept me in-line. Nicole is debate mom. Carver made sure I took care of me. I got taught LD Debate and character development by Rodrigo Paramo at UTNIF. I learned CX from Matt Hernandez, True Head, Jose Sanchez, Will Harper, all of Lindale, and a litany of other characters. I did Extemporaneous Speaking and the most fundamental drill was the dart-gun.

After an okay high school experience, I found myself pursuing a bachelors of science with Integrative Studies. My experiences with Louie Petit, Brian Lain, Colin Quinn, and the greatest G.A of all-time, are some of my most formidable and ego-killing times of my life. CX-Debate was dead at the time but Parliamentary Debate was no joke. To a certain degree, I thought it was ‘funny’ to think: “wow… no cards?…” But this was a bad center to start at and I don’t totally reduce my experiences there over that concept. Rather, I think Brian and Louie had every attempt to try and get it through the thick-skull of a teenager that the world was very big and all we’re trying to do is make it extremely tiny in an already tiny scale. The lectures, the steak dinners, the overwhelming losses to TTU; you name it, I probably had too much fun but I let a lot get to my head instead of following the below.

At the start of how I paradigm myself, I do not think debate is a game but if you argue it as such then I will believe you. Let me explain, however, that I see a clear binary over the “Klein bottle” here that intersects the two agents I’ve come into contact within my own life: “Dogs” and “Cats” are real, we should treat them as such. Their experiences matter and we should take their stories with extremely serious analysis because us human beings are flawed and, often, stupid. Meeting Jason Jordan a hand-full of times in my life granted me some clarity on what it means to be a ‘sleepless’ arbiter on questions that we often describe through the flow. This does mean that I’m paying attention to every little detail that I can without subjecting biased to my own fears of the environment. As an example, maybe you’ve had the privilege of meeting a Belgian Malinois and seen them in both work and play mode. They can seem rather tense. They can be perceived as “aggressive...” But make no mistake: there’s a bit of child at the center of that beast. I defend that it’s because of us humans and our affixes to violence, if you’ve read into Alan Turing and his work with algorithms and machine-learning then this will make sense to you, we tend to negate that a tender soul sits there wanting to just fix the world. I often place that this means arbiters tend to ignore the problems because it’s a “time-sensitive… issue” instead of critiquing the temporality of our existence. Purely, this is all reflection and that’s where I think the border of the “Dog” is placed but not exclusively intrinsic to itself. As with the “Cat”, Matthew Gayetsky, and to some extent I do credit Gabe Murillo here, taught that the communication to ones-self is not mutually exclusive to the ramifications of ones own environment. Debate has created a reciprocation here since the early inceptions of the Louisville Project that has told debaters that they should look at the debate space as an environment with clear brevity and zero-secular value. My telos begins, at the conception, that debate is a space, looking for its time, to break this reciprocal and we’ve been woefully unsuccessful due to some archaic forms of logic.

And since debaters want to abstract communication to me without clearly understanding how they’re doing it, let me produce some clarity for you: https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf

When I was but a wee-lad, I did think it was cool and straight-edge to make a novel of a paradigm within the philosophy of off-case and theoretical positions like “DisAds”, “Condo”, “CP Theory”, “Inherency Shells…?”, etc. but in my journey of this activity, I’ve learned we’re setting up a binary that is inherently anti-pedagogical. One where “institutions…” go up against “you must 10x your flows and then you get my ballot..”er’s and that has made me sad but hopeful. The nature of the agents is one I won’t deduce here but I will give you a simple answer: I do not think either notion is important, or healthy, for this activity. Brenden Dimmig helped me understand this in terms of where I center the symbolics and how I’ve experienced debaters really missing the mark on the conversations around topics. I tend to deduce here that since 16mm prints have been replaced by internet-apps that the experience has been dulled and boring for many, including myself. Jimi Morales showed me this through how these expressions overlap into other mediums of art. As such, many of these arts have reciprocated into debate and I have seen them done well and experienced versions of it before my time. Cyd-Marie Minier Ciriaco and Fredrich Hegel, hilariously, have revealed this conundrum to me through the dialectical machine that is the “incompleteness” of reality; to me, this means being “tab” is very impossible and I think it behooves you to understand that I am here to educate you on the decisions you make to deduce to me the nature of “what is reality…?” And so forth. I won’t grandstand on this point but rather be straightforward: you should strike me if you think that neutral-arbitration is, somehow, in lieu of lived experiences and previous coaching.

To summarize everything, or try to, I must default that my ontological threshold is held within the ‘eye of the beholder’ and well beyond my own purview of reason. I’ve worked with many highly-skilled people with profound gifts for entertaining the world around them. What I’ve learned in those experiences, despite having a background where I felt absolutely tiny in the comparison of these great achievements, is I always have much to learn and, rather radically, have things to teach. This does not mean the dichotomy can’t be ruptured. This does not mean I’m set in my ways. I defend, rather, that I am reflecting the lives of many lived experiences that I simply can’t deduce down to some binary that isn’t all but semantics and nonsense to the average reader. I’ve learned to accept that and I harp in teaching you that I can’t write the round for you unless you design it that way. By that nature, I’ve been called ‘sassy’ at times because I tend to not get involved and think “judge reasonability…” is a quantifiable myth protected by institutions within their own form of wake. I think debaters have lost the art of asking questions. Not just to each other but to their judges. The history of this activity spans well before your birth and I hope it will span well after the heat-death of our universe. In that bleak sense, I tend to think the coach who wrote your blocks the night before is doing a disservice to your character and will absolutely bring you failure at some point in your life. Maybe you can trick me but I’ve watched alot of Kitchen Nightmares, Ghost Adventures, and Three-Stooges shorts to say: the medium changes, but not the story. It’s, therefore, up to all of us to start taking these “jokes” ‘seriously’.

To Mom, Dad, the 40+ cats and counting, countless dog cases, and Lady; you inspire me. You keep me going. And like all of you, I see an activity that is more about what we are in life than those that seek to make us party instead of live. We'll see a life beyond it.

TLDR; If you flow well, you understand your prep, and have a fullness to your character-design, you will pick up my ballot.

================================================================================================

FOR Virtual Debates: I find the computer medium does not allow for spreading to be coherent and I won't use the dock as an excuse for that BUT I'm comfortable with all forms of argumentation and I encourage creativity.

Brandon Ren--brandondebate25@gmail.com (add me to the chain duh <3)

he/him/his

BUDL/BDL/BLA'24

UMass Amherst'28

***Pref me higher for nontraditional/K teams (I'm fine with policy too)***

My background (if u even care lol)

I've debated for 6 years in the Boston Urban Debate League. So, to all my Urban debaters, YALL R A TROOPER!! Graduated and debated for Boston Latin Academy 2020-2024 locally and nationally in the Varsity CX circuit. I have ran Policy for 2 years and Ks/Kaffs for 4 years. Entering University of Massachusetts--Amherst as a freshman majoring in Legal Studies and a minor in Asian/Asian American Studies.

Thank you to Moselle Burke, Liv Birnstad, Roger Nix, Tyler Kirk, Micky Yang (22-23 partner), Alana LaForest (23-24 partner) and many others that have guided me to become the debater/person I am today <3 Love yall from the bottom of my BIG, YELLOW, ASIAN HEART

Short version

1) Experienced in judging traditional policy, Kritiks, and Kaffs

2)Not really a theory person and def not high theory, but if u run basic theory (like condo) I'm willing to evaluate especially if teams run 6+ offs (really need you to COOK IT THOROUGHLY)

3) Don't care about speed (just make sure it ain't sounding like an un-discovered language) or else I will yell clear two times before docking speaks (0.2), just let me silently cook on my paper

4) Pretty familiar with most K lit (Racial/Regular cap, Afropess, Model Minority, Techno-orientalism, Set col, Academy, Queer theory, etc.), but don't act like I know what it is bc I need y'all to be on your game. Don't let me catch u slacking 4k

5) Tech > Truth (if both teams are ahead in the tech debate, then truth will act as a tiebreaker) + Quality > Quantity

6) Make my job easy to do, don't force me to physically and mentally go through my messy asf flows

7) Any sort of evidence violation (Card-clipping, improper citation, and evidence misrepresentation) or NSDA Guideline violation WILL result in an automatic judge intervention

Long version (I'll try my best to not yap, but I can't promise anything)

1) Generally, I love clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

2) I've obviously debated for quite a while (scarred for the rest of my life), so I've debated and judged both tradition and non-traditional styles of debate. However, I do have to say is that I get way too bored at traditional policy affs because it's so "typical". Everytime whenever an aff team say that its a policy aff it's like my mind automatically maps out the general idea of what's going to happen. I'm willing to entertain your hypothetical, government, policymaker scheme tho don't get me wrong. IMO, impact calc is the best part when it comes to policy aff bc that's the only time where you're actually "alive" rather than just spreading through a bunch of cards like a machine. Impact calc allows me to better evaluate the aff and let you guys deliver your rebuttal in a organized fashion to answer the ultimate question: "why should I vote for your policy"? For DAs, give me a good and BOMBASS link story and impact calc.Paint me THE MURAL OF CATASTROPHE of all the shitshow that would happen if the AFF is passed or even considered and why that OUTWEIGHS EVERYTHING. For CPs, explain how your cp works better than the aff. If i can't recognize what the cp is or how its better than the aff, I will most likely not vote on it.(Although I haven't personally ran things like Process CP, Advantage CP, or anything along the lines of those BUT I'm willing to vote on it as long as u EXPLAIN <3)

There's not much I can say on my preference when it comes to a traditional policy bc I really don't have much preference about it :p If you do have questions you want to ask me, please do so <3

On the other hand, I WILL EAT UP YOUR Ks and Kaffs. Like I am ✨OBSESSED✨with everything that goes in it. For the majority of my debate career, I've always been a K debater (and will always be) because the educational value you get out of this is truly unquantifiable and also the amount of creative autonomy you get creating these is what makes it all a beautiful process. I'm familiar with rage politics, disruption politics, utopian/dystopian world, poetry, performance, etc. However, during these debates I need y'all to have really flushed out arguments particularly the link debate and the alt/solvency debate. Being able to have more than 1 link gives you more room to manuever around, but having clear and flush out link stories on reasons why the aff or neg is problematic will make your life so much more easier especially when doing the perm debate.Within any Ks/Kaffs, the adv/alt is the essence of it all because that is where I get to imagine your world. SO TELL ME ABOUT IT. What does it look like? How does it operate? How does it resolve the link? WHY is this better than the aff? Explain your methodology. Tell me what my role in this space is and why that should be preferred. (I really love having fun if you couldn't tell)

3) I don't care if you're spreading or not just make sure it's not some other worldly language. I will shout clear twice before I start docking speaks (0.5). I'm fine with however many offs you want to run, (depending on how much you're running) but if I'm not looking at you here and there while you talk don't take it personal because I'm just trying to cook on my paper. I'm human, let's get over that fact that I don't have sonic speed handwriting. However, if your opponent (before the round) request for you to not spread, please don't spread on them. It is violent and I will dock 0.5 speaks for it. If the opponents makes it a voting issue, I am gladly to vote on it. Debate needs to be more accessible to EVERYONE, so don't be a dickhead <3

4) 2NR and 2AR should prioritize persuasiveness and condensing down your argument as much as you can. I (won't hold this against you, but I'll be annoyed) hate when the negative tries to juggle with more than 2 arguments as they approach the end. Strategically, it's overwhelming for your opponents, but obviously you would risk trading off your persuasive articulation on those few condensed arguments that you're actually winning on.

Case

1) I love myself some good case debate bc that's when your directly clashing and interacting with each others literature. Negative team should have a variety of arguments on every important case page there is. Simply saying states good isn't a "good enough" answer to a Kaff.

2) Please elaborate and extend the substance of your argument. "Dropped X means nuke war and case outweighs on magnitude" don't mean anything if you just say it like that. Like don't be dry and boring bc the juice is infront of you, just TELL ME WHYYYY(?)

3) Overview should only be present to help you accomplish something. Don't get me wrong, overviews are great. However, if they don't really serve a purpose, it rather serves as a time waster when you could be getting to more important things. If there's any long overview throughout the flows, please alert me (like I begggggg)

Framework

1) I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

1) Love myself a good performance/Kaff. If the performance aspects is included as the aff's methodology, I will gladly evalute as if its like any other types of methodology. So please emphasize on it during or later on in the speech and make sure that I understand the importance of this methodology. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects were disconnected from debate and your chosen lit base

Kritik

Like I have said, I am a K debater deep down from the bottom of my BIG YELLOW ASIAN HEART, which means for K teams

1) I am well versed in many of the k literature used in debate. Even if I might not know your specific k literature, I will know what you're talking about when you explain and use the details of your theory.

2) Don't ever assume I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links

3) Please don't kick your alt (unless you really have to then ig I can't stop you :/). Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair games. SO this really has to be a life or death for you your mind even come across kicking the alt

**************************************************************
If you have any question, please feel free to reach out! Otherwise, good luck and have fun pookie(s)!!!!

he/him

please add my email to the chain: dmsanico[at]gmail.com

Note for Michigan HS Tournament 2024:

This is my first tournament judging on this topic, and I know very very little about it. Please be more deliberate in explaining plans, solvency mechanisms, and topicality to me.

Paradigm:

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm. The average speaker points I give is a 28.4, what I usually give to a top speaker is a 28.9

Topicality

Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans

Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.

Disadvantages

I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.

Criticisms

If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed.

Performance

Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.

Flowing

I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.

Extra Notes

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

Hello, I'm Presley Simelus (they/them/theirs)

First and foremost please add me to the chain (bdlpresley981@gmail.com)

Boston Debate League '24

Swarthmore College '28

TLDR:

Bio:

I did policy throughout high school in the Boston Debate League (BDL). I debated locally at the BDL, national circuit tournaments, such as Big Lex and Harvard, and the 2023 UDNC. I did a lot of policy affs and some Ks, but since entering college I have switched hats to the judging side of things! Speaking of college, I'm a first-year at Swarthmore College and I am a prospective biochemistry major and music minor. Entering college can be nerve-racking and I am more than happy to talk about my college experience if you have questions :)

Overview

I want to fairly evaluate your round, so please make my job easier! What does this look like? I'm glad you asked

Spreading is fine, but should not come at the cost of clarity. Please make an effort to enunciate if you're going to spread REALLY fast. I'll say "clear" before I start docking speaker points.

10+ offs feel a bit shallow and a disingenuous approach to debate, that being said I will flow them to the best of my ability. I am one person, so flowing 10 offs can be overwhelming. Yes, I will try my best to flow your 10 or so offs, but I might miss a few arguments! If you manage to extend all 10 to the end, that's impressive and I'll evaluate them all. If you 8 of these in your second speech, then that's just annoying...

Cross is a great opportunity to learn about your opponent's case, consider using it accordingly. My one pet peeve is unnecessary interruptions in CX e.g. asking a question and interrupting your opponent before they can answer. Overall, please keep CX efficient and don't be cruel, disrespectful, or belting

Quality > Quantity. Again, you can run 10 offs, but I honestly prefer very well structured arguments. I find that multiple offs can re

Ks / K Affs

I am open to kritkal arguments, but I was not a K debater. Please thoroughly elaborate Ks throughout the round. Otherwise, I will likely have a difficult time understanding them and in turn, appropriately evaluating them!

Theory

Tbh I am not comfortable with theory. Similar to Ks, pls make sure to thoroughly explain them or else it's going to make my job harder.

Topicality

I am quite the fan of T. I won't accept any interpretation, it has to reasonable. But, if it is strong and if the aff does not defend it, it will likely decide a round. Just make sure to contextualize your arguments.

Email: misimha4[at]gmail[dot]com. She/her. Asst. coach at Peninsula.

I will always vote in the way that I think is the least interventionist. However, follow this rule of thumb: “don’t be preposterous.”

Here are my biases:

1. Fairness is intrinsically good and a terminal impact.
2. Risk is cumulative.
3. Ballots have no operational value and voting as if they did seems highly problematic.
4. Other than ‘we meet’ and ‘do CP’, nothing is 100 or 0 percent risk.
5. Substantive debate is to be maximized but gettable on reasonable theory arguments such as ifiat or process bad.
6. Topicality is about the plan text.
7. Interps must be predictable. Debatability concerns merely follow.
8. Kritiks should disagree with the implementation of the plan. Middle ground framework is best.
9. Aff on competition against process.
10. Untopical affs should lose for being unfair.

Discrimination is not allowed. I will not vote on ad hominems or premeditated ethics challenges. Evidence ethics challenges require you to stop the round. Else, they won’t be considered. These are generally better expressed through rehighlightings, which you may insert along with verbal explanation.

Look up once in a while. I'll be making expressions or nodding when I hear arguments that I feel particularly strong about. Frankly, there are many times in debates where I have just wanted to yell "skip" to the debaters (e.g. wiki disclosure, role of the ballot, theory is a reason to reject the team not argument, 'try-or-die', 2AC case overview, etc.) but have chosen not to so far.

About Me:

Hi Im Mariama/Mari (Mah-ree-ah-ma)

i am not versed on PF topic please don’t use niche jargon.

Mariama76y@gmail.com --> add to the chain

Im a Freshman in college and I debated in policy all 4 years @ bronx science.

General Notes

Tech >>>>>>>>> truth

Clarity >>>>> speed

email chain >>>>>> speech drop

If this tournament is packet only read packet args!

please time your own speeches and own prep. I often forget to start my timer.

don't steal prep, i will dock your speaks

be nice to your partner

be assertive in cx, not rude they're distinct.

name your arguments in your speechdocs.

Content wise

I'm a big fan of performances and non-topical affirmatives

Policy v. Policy are very boring debates for me to watch.

T and framework are diff arguments.

fairness is not a impact (granted if u say it is and its dropped ill evaluate it as an impact)

"take it to tab" is the worst argument ive ever heard in debate and I hate it so much.

I like cool funky stuff but only if u can explain it!

for more detail (content-wise) view guy blooms paradigm.

For LD :

I'm a policy debater, be clear and knowledgable and ill be able to give you a competent rfd.

I have 0 knowledge on the topic so pls explain as if ur explaining to a child!

spread if you want, but be clear if I say clear 3x + ur speaks r gna be dookie

time ur own speeches, if u keep talking after your time is up js know im not flowing anymore.

Dont read anything racist/xenephobic/sexist etc. its an auto L and the lowest speaks possible.

Free Palestine

(She/Her)

David Trigaux

Former (HS + College) debater, 15+ years experienced coach / increasingly old

Director, Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

** Fall 2024 Update **

The 2024 election will have substantial implications for most arguments, both on the affirmative and most off-case positions. If you haven't adjusted your blocks and done some updates, expect to lose in front of me to someone who has.

Accessibility:

I run an Urban Debate League; debate is my full-time job. I work with 800+ students per season, ranging from brand new ES and MS students refining their literacy skills and speaking in front of someone else for the first time to national circuit teams looking to innovate and reach the TOC. Both debaters are equally valuable members of the community and things that make debate less accessible for either party are a big issue for me. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on your scholarship and strategies as presented to me in round, but folks gotta be able to get into the space and be reasonably comfortable first.

5 Min Before Round Notes:

I judge 30 rounds at national circuit tournaments each year, cut A LOT of cards on each topic, and am somewhere in the middle of the argumentation spectrum. I often judge clash debates, and though I enjoy policy v policy rounds too, and most K v K rounds, though I find these often to be the messiest.

I have some slight preferences (see below), but do your best and be creative. I am excited to hear whatever style/substance of argumentation you'd like to make.

• Creativity + Scholarship: *Moving up for emphasis* I heartily reward hard work, creative thinking, and original research. Be clever, do something I haven't heard before. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat. (Read: Don't barf Open Ev Downloads you can't contextualize) Go do some research!
• Speed: I can handle whatever you throw at me (debate used to be faster than it is now, but it doesn't mean that full speed is always best) 75% Speed + emotive gets more speaks than adding a crappy 7th off you'll never touch again.
• Policy v Kritik: I was a flex debater and generally coach the same way, though I have run/coached 1 off K and 1 off policy strategies. Teams that adapt and have a specific strategy against the other team almost always do better than those that try to just do one thing and hope it matches up well.
• Theory: I often find these debates shallow and trade-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and show me why you don't have other options.
• Performance: “Back in my day….” Performance Affs were just being invented, and they had a lot more actual “performance” to them (music, costume, choreography, etc.). Spreading 3 lines of poetry and never talking about it again doesn't disrupt any existing epistemologies, etc. I have coached a few performative teams and find myself more and more excited about them....when there is a point to the performance. Focus on the net benefit of the unique argument / argumentation style.
• Shadow Extending: I intentionally don’t flow author’s names in Varsity rounds, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you. Novices get a lot of latitude here; I am always down to help folks develop the fundamentals. Try extending things even if it isn't perfect.
• Email Chains: This is a persuasive activity. If I don’t hear it/flow it, you didn't do enough to win the point and I’m not going to read along and do work for you. Pull the warrants out in the debate, I won't do it for you, though I’ll look through the cards generally as the round goes on if something interests me, if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your evidence.
• About "the State": I was born and current live in Washington D.C., have a graduate degree in Political Science, and worked in electoral politics and on public policy issues outside debate. This has shaped a pre-disposition that "governance" is inevitable. The US government has a poor track-record on many issues, but I find generic "state always bad" links unpersuasive, historically untrue, and/or insufficiently nuanced. I think you are better than that, and I challenge you to make nuanced, well researched claims instead. Teams that do usually win and get exceedingly high speaker points, while those that don't usually lose badly. This background also makes me more interested in implementation and methodology of change (government, social movement, or otherwise) than the average judge, so specific and beyond-the-buzzword contextualization on plan/alt, etc. solvency are great. (See plan flaw note above).
• Artificial Intelligence: I am going to flesh out these thoughts as I talk to the great, thoughtful peers in the community, but initially, reading rebuttals written mid-round by generative AI seems to be cheating, and actively anti-educational even if it isn't mid-round, so if you are doing that, don't, and if you suspect the other team is, raise it as an issue. I'll be very open to hearing it.

Ways to Lose Rounds / Speaker Points:

1. Being Mean -- I am very flexible with speaker points, heavily rewarding good research, wit, and humor, and am very willing to nuke your speaker points or stop the round if you are demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.
2. Leave D.C. Out: Don't leave D.C. out of your States CP Text or other relevant advocacy statements. Its bad policy writing, and continues a racialized history of erasure of the 750,000 + majority black residents who live here and experience taxation and other abuses without representation. Don't perpetuate it.
3. Make Debate Less Accessible: I run an Urban Debate League; it is my professional responsibility to make debate more accessible.
1. If you erect a barrier to accessing this activity for someone else, I will vote you down, give you the lowest possible speaker points, report you to TAB, complain to your coach, and anything else I can think of to make your time at this tournament less enjoyable and successful.
2. This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own). This is a big accessibility question for the activity that gets overlooked a lot especially post pandemic, many of our debaters still use paper files and don't have their own computers.
4. Rude Post-Rounding (especially if it is by someone who didn't watch the round): I will contact tab and vigorously reduce speaker points for your team after submission.
5. Multi-Minute Overviews: Don't.
6. Extinction Good: Don't be a troll, get a better strategy that isn't laced with nasty racial undertones. This is a place where theory makes sense -- show me why they don't give you another choice.
7. Intentionally Trolly High Theory or Technobabble Arguments: If you just want to demonstrate how good you are that you can make up nonsense and win anyway, strike me. There should be a point to what you say which contributes to our understanding of the world.
8. Highly Inaccurate Email Chains: Unfortunately, some folks put a giant pile of cards they couldn’t possibly get through in the email chain, and skip around to the point of confusion, making refutation (and flowing) difficult. It’s lazy at best and a cheap move at worst and will impact your speaks if I feel like it is intentional.
9. **New Pet Peeve** Plan / Counterplan Flaws: The plan text / advocacy statement is the focus of the exchange -- you should put some effort into writing it, wording it correctly, etc. I've found myself very persuadable by plan flaw arguments if a substantive normal means argument can be made. It just comes off as lazy, sketchy, or both. This also includes circular plan texts -- "we should do X, via a method that makes X successful" isn't a plan text, it's wishful thinking, but unfortunately repeatedly found in 3-1 debates at TOC qualifiers.

In the Weeds

Disadvantages:

· I I like DAs. Too many debates lack a DA of some kind in the 1NC.

o Do:

§ I am a huge sucker for new evidence and post-dating, and will make it rain speaker points. Have some creative/Topic/Aff specific DAs.

o Don’t:

§ Read something random off Open Ev, Read an Elections DA after the election / not know when an election is, or be wrong about what the bill you are talking about does on Agenda Politics DAs. I wouldn't have to put it here if it didn't keep happening folks....

o Politics DA: Given my background in professional politics, I am a big fan of a well-run/researched politics DA. I read Politico and The Hill daily and many of my close friends work for Congress -- I nerd out for this stuff. I also know that there just isn't a logical scenario some weekends. Do your research, I’ll know if you haven’t.

Counterplans:

· I like a substantive counterplan debate.

o Do:

§ Run a Topic/Aff specific CP, with a detailed, well written/explained CP Texts and/or have some topic specific nuance for Generics (like Courts).

§ Use questionably competitive counterplans (consult, PIC, condition, etc.) that are supported by strong, real world solvency advocates.

§ Substantive, non-theoretical responses (even if uncarded) to CPs.

o Don’t:

§ Forget to perm.

§ Default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses too.

Procedurals/Topicality:

· Can be a strong strategy if used appropriately/creatively. If you go into the average round hoping to win on Condo, strike me.

o Do:

§ Prove harm

§ Slow down. Less jargon, more examples

§ Creative Violations

o Don’t:

§ Use procedurals just to out-tech your opponents, especially if this isn't Varsity.

Case Debate:

· More folks should debate the case, cards or not. Do your homework pre-tournament!

o Do:

§ Have specific attacks on the mechanism or advantage scenarios of the Aff, even if just smart analytics.

o Don’t:

§ Spend a lot of time reading arguments you can’t go for later or reading new cards that have the same warrants already in the 1AC

Kritiks:

· I started my debate career as a 1 off K Debater and grew to see it as part of a balanced strategy, a good strategy against some affs and not others.

o Do:

§ Read a K that fits the Aff. Reading the same K against every Aff on a topic isn't often the most strategic thing to do.

§ Read Aff specific links. Identifying evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links.

§ Have coherent Alt solvency with real world examples that a non-debater can understand without having read your solvency author.

§ Tell a non-jargony story in your overview and tags

o Don’t:

§ Read hybrid Ks whose authors wouldn't agree with one another and don't have a consistent theory of power.

§ Read a K you can’t explain in your own words or one that you can’t articulate why it is being discussing a competitive forum or what my role listening to your words is.

o Literature: I have read a lot of K literature (Anti-Blackness, Cap, Fem, Security, etc.) but nobody is well versed in all literature bases. Explain your theory as if I haven't read the book, I will not do work for you and assume to understand your buzzwords.

o Role of the Ballot: I default to serving as a policymaker but will embrace alternative roles if you are clear what I should do instead in your first speech. Doing so later seems pretty cheap, and just isn't good persuasion.

· Update: I find myself judging a lot of psychoanalysis arguments, which I find frustratingly unfalsifiable or just hard to believe or follow. I'd love to be proven wrong, but run at your own risk.

Public Forum: (Inspired by Sim Low, couldn't have said it better)

I'm sorry that you're unlucky enough to get me as a judge. Something went wrong in tournament admin, and they made me feel guilty enough that I haven't found a way to get out of judging this round.

I did Congress and LD in high school and assure you I am not a policy debate supremacist from a lack of exposure to other formats, but because peer reviewed research says that it is the most educational and rigorous format that benefits its participants. I also find the growing popularity of the format that is proud of its anti-intellectualism and despite research that shows it is discriminatory against women and minorities to be a searing indict of the debate community at large and those who practice it.

As a judge, I'll be grumpy and use all of your pre-round time to tell you how PF was created as a result of white flight and the American pursuit of Anti-Intellectualism far more than you want to hear (but less than you need, if you are still doing PF). If you do not have evidence with proper citations, you paraphrase, and/or you don't have full text evidence ready to share with the other team pre-round, I will immediately vote for your opponents. If both of you happen to ignore academic integrity, I will put my feet up, not flow, see if the Tabroom will allow me to give a double loss, and if not, vote based on.....whatever vibes come to me, or who I agree with more. I also might extend my RFD to the length of a policy round to actually develop some of the possibilities of your arguments.

Adam White

He/Him

Last Substantive Paradigm Update: 10/29/24

Georgetown '25. 3x NDT elims.

Affiliations: Bellarmine, WUDL, Blue Valley West

adamwhite(dot)debate(at)gmail(dot)com

---Strike Check---

Most familiar with policy arguments; lean aff on neg frameworks that devolve into “you link you lose”; lean neg on aff frameworks that have no place for the K; intuitively skeptical of affs that don’t affirm the resolution.

---Logistics---

Yes Chain. Please include the following pieces of information in the subject line: Year, Tournament, Round Number, Aff Team, Neg Team

Please send verbatimized Microsoft Word documents absent extenuating circumstances.

No cards in email body. Yes marked docs. Yes card doc with relevant cards referenced in the 2NR/2AR. No inserting rehighlighted ev to make new warrants, but yes if it’s giving context to an argument previously made.

---Key Things to Know---

I will flow the entire debate (including CX) by ear on either paper or an excel spreadsheet, and I will decide the debate based on that flow. I will not follow along in the speech doc.

I refuse to evaluate anything that occurred outside of the debate round.

I am highly skeptical that my ballot has any other power beyond determining who wins and who loses.

Bullying/bigotry/discrimination = immediate L + lowest speaks available. I assume good faith to the extent that I reasonably can. People, especially high schoolers, make mistakes in a highly demanding, pressure-filled, and adversarial activity. Apologies and open conversations are far better means for personal development and reconciliation than my ballot, and I believe competitively incentivizing accusations creates dangerous perverse incentives and is likely counterproductive.

I try to be as ideologically open to as many arguments as I can be. I will not hesitate, however, to immediately end the debate and/or vote down a team if there are arguments made that I believe seriously imperil the healthy functioning of an academic extracurricular activity that involves minors (for instance: arguments implying that students ought to commit self-harm, graphic sexual imagery, etc.).

---How I Render Decisions---

I will attempt to craft a ballot that minimizes intervention to the extent possible. That means I will try to resolve the fewest number of issues possible, beginning with the most important issues in the debate and moving outwards. The exact path through the issues is influenced by the top of the 2NR and 2AR.

If an issue seems difficult to resolve, I will prioritize crafting ballots that do not rely on me evaluating said issue.

Once I have rendered a decision in favor of a team, I will quickly re-evaluate the core issues being as friendly as possible to the losing side. I do this to double check my process and uncover potentially more streamlined ballots that I initially overlooked.

---Argument Resolution---

Concessions are given full weight, but they are important only to the extent that the implications were unpacked.

If I cannot resolve a given quandary based solely on my flow via technical concessions, I will read relevant evidence to aid in that resolution.

I care about evidence a lot, both in terms of quantity and quality. The 2NR and 2AR should speak to the specific warrants in their evidence they would like me to read.

I will only give you access to your highlighted words. I don't care if cards are short, but I care substantially that there is relative grammatical coherence.

That said, I give smart analytics a lot of weight, and I give evidence with no author credentials little weight.

I am not an objective robot, nor will I pretend to be one. Debate is a persuasive activity, and that inherently comes with the subjective bias of how different arguments resonate with me. I feel perfectly comfortable partly discounting arguments that instinctively fall outside of my conception of common sense or logical understanding of the world.

---Case Debating With A Plan---

2As get away with murder. 2Ns should exploit that by explicitly flagging warrants in 1NC case evidence that the 2AC does not contest.

---Disads---

I like them. I like them a lot. I’d prefer to vote for ones that make sense.

---Counterplans/Theory---

I tend to care a lot about arbitrariness/logic/predictability relative to debatability, though the magnitude of internal links obviously matters a great deal.

I prefer for theory debates (process/consult/delay/whatever bad) to be couched in terms of why I should normatively view a specific permutation as legitimate.

I default to placing the burden on the aff to prove their advocacy desirable in relation to both the status quo and competitive advocacies introduced by the negative (I default to judge kick).

---Topicality vs Plans---

Retweet arbitrariness/predictability over debatability. Topicality is a descriptive question where we interpret the words in the resolution, not create new ones.

I am somewhat persuaded by reasonability claims that operate at the level of interpretations and less so those that are about the specific aff in question.

If the plan uses resolutional language, I am amenable to either saying plan-text-in-a-vacuum is bad or smuggling in topicality debates on PICs out of that resolutional wording.

---Kritiks---

I am heavily skeptical of concluding that broad, structural claims are true absent a strong epistemic basis for doing so.

I will not arbitrarily decide to adopt some middle ground interpretation between the aff and neg framework interps unless one team tells me that it's an option.

I am pretty good for neg framework interps that link turn fairness and clash against "FW: No Ks/plan consequences only." Consequently, aff teams would often be better served by reading interps that give a reasonable role for the K to soak up neg offense.

Both teams should invest more time unpacking the implications of their framework interpretation. For instance: can the neg win for disproving a single aff justification? How do I weigh policy consequences against epistemological indicts? Does the aff get to weigh the totality of their representations? Does the neg get PIKs? Should we imagine the aff as being implemented using the 1AC's representations? Is neg offense against aff justifications based on the policies those justifications would lead us to, or based on the consequences of introducing said scholarship in debate, or something else entirely?

---Kritikal Affs---

When listening to kritikal affs, I often find myself thinking, “yeah, this is neat, sure, uh huh, okay… but like… why is any of this an intrinsic reason why you should win the debate?” 1ACs and 2ARs should be constructed around answering that question persuasively.

I am curious (in a positive way) about affirmatives that counterdefine words in the resolution in a non-traditional way and defend that interpretation. “Counterinterpretations” that don’t interpret the resolution would do best explaining an alternative source of predictability for their interp.

---Neg vs Kritikal Affs---

I am equally fine evaluating substantive arguments (DAs, impact turns, counteradvocacies, kritiks, presumption, etc) and topicality. Given that the resolution and usual policy-making paradigms are often abandoned in these debates, a substantial portion of the 2NR should be dedicated to explaining why a given substantive argument is a sufficient reason is to vote neg.

Game for any impact to topicality.

Neg teams, in addition to their usual external offense, would do well to highly leverage turns/solves case arguments, indicts of the aff’s interp ability to solve aff offense, and if applicable, direct offense against the aff interp (aff interp = XYZ way of debating. That’s directly bad).

Arguments for why arbitrary counterinterpretations justify other counterinterpretations are highly persuasive to me.

TVAs are generally overutilized and Read-It-On-The-Neg is generally underutilized as defense, but each have their place against specific 2AC arguments.

---Less Essential Random Things---

Speaker points are mine to decide.

Absent judge instruction to the contrary, I will default to voting negative unless the aff proves the resolution true by example.

I am fully comfortable discounting an argument if I do not understand it.

“Util/consequentialism bad” arguments are not very persuasive to me if the aff has a consequence to their plan that they would like me to evaluate in a utilitarian manner.

Lean neg on conditionality. "We/they get 3!" is not super persuasive to me (see arbitrariness over debatability).

I am amenable to the claim that conditionality bad is a reason to stick the neg with all the advocacies, not to reject the team.

I could see myself voting neg on presumption if there are significant technical drops, but any semblance of clash will usually result in at least some miniscule risk of aff offense.

If the neg offense generated by a net benefit outweighs the impacted solvency deficits generated by the aff, then I vote neg. Your time invested in debates over sufficiency framing would almost always be better spent elsewhere.

Messai Yigletu: Head Debate Coach at BASIS DC

4 years experience as a debater in high school, LD.

Coach for policy debaters, middle & high school. (Presently coaching.)

I currently coach the policy debate team at BASIS DC and have done so since the 2020 season.

would like to be on email chains for case files: messaiyigletu@gmail.com

if you are reading this, that means I will be hearing you debate pretty soon! good luck! take a minute to read a few important points that will help you in this debate.

Arguments/Debate

not usually a fan of spread/speed. Usually fine + can keep up if I have case files & you read taglines.

SIGNPOST ALL ARGUMENTS! Expecting me to guess what off you are reading based on evidence is irritating and causes unnecessary confusion + various different names/key words in round for the same block/arg. Be clear and straightforward.

Prefer to hear roadmaps at the beginning of every speech.

fine with K as long as it is clearly explained and set out in the speech. not guaranteed that I will have prior knowledge and even if I do, prefer a deep and analytical explanation of your thesis. Make sure to give a detailed/clear explanation - especially w/framing + alt.

comparative + clear clash & addressing all arguments on flow are key winning points for me.

do not assume I will automatically indicate drops in anyone's favor. if drops occur, you are responsible for addressing and explaining the warrants for why the drop is key relative to the round. (Actual drops occuring, plz don't just try and lie in 2AR/2NR. yes - it has happened.) all args on flow should be extended or specifically kicked out of throughout the debate by both sides.

speaker points are awarded basis on quality of speeches, time usage, and clarity.

keep it respectful, especially during CX. intensity and passion are fine and even encouraged, but never make it personal/attempt to take it to a point of disrespect.