Updated for October 2018.

Put me on the email chain - abdebate1@gmail.com

Note - I only check this email at debate tournaments, so if you are trying to contact me for some other reason, my response will be delayed.

Short version.

I've started to question the utility of these paradigm things. In short, do whatever you want. Read whatever you want to read. All styles of debate can be done well or poorly. My decision in any particular debate does not reflect a judgement on those styles but instead on the aptitude with which they are deployed in the given debate. Content matters less than strategy, unless the content of your argument makes it a bad strategy. I tend to make decisions quickly. This should not indicate to you whether the debate was close or not. Just because I go for or have gone for certain arguments does not mean I will automatically understand your arguments or do work for you. Similarly, it doesn't mean I will automatically discount any particular argument. I like clash. I dislike attempts to avoid clash. Perm do the aff is not an argument.

One thing I have noticed about debate is the proliferation of "cut the card there." When you stop reading before what your evidence indicates what you will read, you or your partner must mark the card in the speech doc and have a copy of those marks ready for anyone who needs them. To quote Andy Montee,
"If you just yell out "Mark the card at bacon!" you have to physically mark the card on your computer. It is not the responsibility of the other team or myself to do so."
Not marking evidence, and relying "cut the card there" to indicate where you stopped reading, is a form of clipping cards, and I will treat it as such. Since this seems to be an acceptable thing in debate at the moment, at the first occurrence of "cut the card there" I will ask for the marks, and if I notice you going through the doc to mark your cards post-speech, I will warn you about basically everything above.

Background info on me: I'm a first year out of college debate. I debated at the college level for 4 years at the University of Southern California. Attended the NDT four times, making it to doubles twice and octas once. I debated at the high school level for 4 years at Notre Dame High School. Qualified to the TOC 3 times. I was both 2A and 2N during my debate career.

Longer version.

Debate is a rhetorical game where debaters use a set of (ostensibly) mutually agreed upon scripts to persuade a judge. Scripts are rhetorical conventions that have been constructed in order for the game to make sense to all involved - impact calculus, uniqueness, etc. are examples of these scripts, convenient ways of describing a world that make the complexity of that world reducible to a (hopefully) less than 2 hour conversation. Debaters who can control how these scripts operate within the debate, either by implicitly agreeing to them and winning their set of contentions, or through the use of competing framing arguments, generally seem to win more debates. For example, many debates occur in which the value of life is never questioned - that is a script implicitly accepted in those debates for the purpose of brevity. This is not to say that I want to judge a bunch of death good debates, though I won't say the opposite either. Regardless, controlling the framing of the debate will serve you well.

I seem to be judging a lot of framework/T-USFG debates. I think quite a few of the commonly held framework predispositions are arbitrary, so I'll just say this: yes, you can read your K aff in front of me. Yes, you can go for framework in front of me. I don't really care, just make it a good debate.

Here are some of my reflections about FW rounds that I have judged.

-I find myself voting affirmative when the negative fails to explain their impact beyond "limits are important for negative ground" or "we won't learn stuff about immigration" or "fairness is important because otherwise debate isn't fair."

-I find myself voting negative when the aff fails to provide a workable vision of what debate would/should look like. T/FW/whatever we call it is a question of models of debate. That the neg could have read a particular strategy against your particular aff is not a defense of your model. In other words, "potential abuse" is important. You need a defense of your model of debate.

-Almost all of the K affs that I saw on the education topic were basically little more than a criticism of education policy. I did not hear a persuasive response to "do it on the neg" in these contexts.

-Topical versions of the aff are not counter-plans. They don't have to be perfect. They should, however, be well researched (though not necessarily evidenced in the debate) and explained. I would prefer 1 good TVA over 5 asserted TVAs.

-Asserting that debate is a game is fair enough, but does not on its own provide a reason to discount any of the aff's impact turns. I do believe fairness is an impact. I don't think it is an impact that automatically trumps all other impacts. As with all other things, impact calculus on the parts of the debaters matters most.

Case Debate
I would prefer to adjudicate a debate in which the negative reads less than or equal to 4 well constructed offcase positions and invests a good deal of time in taking apart the aff instead of a debate in which throwaway offcase positions are used as a timeskew and the case is addressed sparsely and with only impact defense. A diverse 1NC that attacks advantages at every level is helpful regardless of your broader strategy. Most affs are terribly constructed and have awful chains of internal links. Most affs wont solve the things they say they solve. Point it out.

You do not need a card to make a smart case arguments. In fact, the desire for cards to make an argument can often work to limit the vectors of attack you have against the case. Example: you do not need a card to point out a missing internal link, or that the aff's internal link evidence is about X and their impact evidence is about Y.

CPs and DAs
Not much to say here. If you have them, read them. Specificity is your friend. "DA turns case" arguments are invaluable.

Teams have found it difficult to convince me that the reading of any particular counterplan makes being aff impossible and as such is a voting issue.

At the same time, I find myself increasingly annoyed at the "use fiat as a battering ram" approach to counter-plans. Indefinite parole that is immune from deportation or cancellation, has full work authorization, all the benefits of LPR, etc. is just not something that exists in the literature base and is a ridiculous interpretation of what scholars in the field are actually talking about. All that being said, it is up to the debaters to figure this stuff out in the round.

I have voted for conditionality bad only once, in a debate where the 2NR spent about 15 seconds on it.

"Judge kick" is an inevitable element of conditionality. If the status quo is always an option, then a 2NR that includes a counterplan is not always and forever bound to that counterplan. In other words, if the counerplan is described by the negative as conditional, then my default is to also consider the status quo, and not just the counterplan. I can be persuaded otherwise.

Critiques

Sure, why not. I've read them, I've debated against them. Just be specific about what your alternative does. If it is a pic, say that it is and what your pic removes from the aff. If you are debating against a K, defend your aff. Generic K answers like the Boggs card are far less useful than justifying whatever assumption that the neg is critiquing.

Permutations are tricky. All too often, the aff just kinda extends "perm do both" and leaves it there. Explain what parts of the criticism you are permuting, how that interacts with the links, etc.

"No perms in a method debate" is a bad argument. You can wish away the form of "permutation," but you cannot do away with the logic of opportunity cost. If your K doesn't actually link, find a better argument.

As said above, "perm: do the aff" is not a thing.

Generally speaking, I am not a fan of severance permutations or intrinsic permutations. A permutation is legitimate only if it contains the entire aff plan and some to all of the negative counterplan/alternative. At the same time, many alternative texts are not representative of everything that an alternative would do - in my opinion, any evidence included by the negative as descriptive of the alternative is fair game for permutations. Example - many alt texts are written as "The alternative is to vote negative" - but the alt card says that "interrogating tropes of security" is important. A permutation that does the plan and interrogates tropes of security is not intrinsic.

If you have a theory of power, explain it and its implications for the aff. Meta arguments such as these have broad implications for both the link and the alternative.

Speaker Points

Points are always arbitrary and I wont pretend that my personal scale is anything different. Average speakers get in the low to mid 28s. Good speakers get in the high 28s to low 29s. Mid to high 29s, good job. You wont get a 27 unless you consistently do something annoying, like telling your partner "faster!" over and over during their speech.

Other random thoughts.

--Puns translate directly to increased speaker points.

--Please don't call me judge.

--When reading evidence, I will only evaluate warrants that are highlighted.

--I hate word-salad cards.

--Arguments that are "new in the 2" - generally the bar for me is whether the opponent team could have expected this argument based on the content of the previous speech. This excludes new impact turns to a disad in the 2AR, but maintains the capacity for 2As to cross apply, say, an impact defense argument on the case in the 2NR (intervening actors check, for example) to a disad scenario. If an argument is made in the 2AC, conceded by the neg block, not mentioned in the 1AR (and thus not responded to by the 2NR), it would be 'new' for the 2AR to extend and elaborate on the argument. While this may seem arbitrary, and while dropped arguments are, in a provisional sense, true, it is the job of the debaters to jump on strategic mishaps, not me. However, if a completely new argument arises in the 2NR or 2AR, I am willing to strike it from my flow without a debater pointing out that it is, in fact new.

--Speed is good, clarity is better.

--Confidence in your arguments, your partner, and yourself is good, disrespecting your opponents is bad.

--Ethically repugnant arguments will not make me want to vote for you. At the same time, however, if you cannot defeat ostensibly "bad" arguments, then you are a bad advocate and you should lose.

--If a debate does not occur, I will either flip a coin or consult tab.

--Please, "settler colonialism", not "set col". similarly, "afro-pessimism" not "afro-pess" -- yeah, I'm grumpy.

--Just because I go for certain arguments does not mean I will either automatically understand your argument or supplement your lack of analysis with my understanding of the literature.

--Random buzzwords are not arguments. I don't care until you impact a statement.

--There can always be 0 risk of something.

--Ad homs about the other teams authors aren't arguments.

--A claim without a warrant is just that.

--Theory and T debates are not my favorite.

--No insults or general shenanigans.

--Binding and prior consultation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is probably pedagogically relevant.

1. I believe the topic is a hypothesis that is to be tested by argument and analysis during the specific round in which I am assigned to critique. I focus, generally, on line-by-line analysis of the arguments and analysis generated by each team to determine which side did the proverbial "better job of debating." I typically render my decisions based on the positions taken in constructive arguments and advanced through rebuttals. I welcome and invite debaters to provide me with the frameworks and meta-analysis needed to render a decision, but, in the final analysis, I rely on the arguments on the flow and how they are developed in each round. I depend on evidence-based argument as a general rule, but am also open to analysis and strategic constructs which may arise in any particular round. The following may be helpful to in-round participants. I also welcome queries from the in-round participants so long as no attempt is being made to "pre-condition" my ballot.

2. T - When I debated in HS and College, T was "the last refuge of the damned." I have a very high bar for T because I think limiting the topic limits creativity in argument. Also, because I am a lawyer and not necessarily connected to the debate community I don't have the credibility to limit research outside of a debate coach's perogative. In the past, I have rarely balloted on T. I will, however, "pull the trigger" when T arguments are mishandled. With respect to extra-T, I tend to give a little more
"love" to such claims when linked to a specific violation.

3. Counterplans - I tend to be somewhat conservative with C-Plans. I tend to require that they be 1) non-topical, 2) competitive, and 3) provide some net benefit. I perfer that C-Plans are solvent with evidence independent of the affirmative. That being said, I have balloted for topical c-plans, and have balloted for net benefit c-plans. I have also balloted for partial c-plans (not completely solving the aff harm area).

4. K - Affs - I find critical affs interesting and will ballot when they carry the day. To defeat a critical aff, I tend to require specific evidence taking out the authors or positions advanced. As for Neg K, I am generally open to them but usually require some impact analysis - with evidence, please, that overcomes the affirmative.

5. DA - With respect to DA's, I need intrinsic and extrinsic links to some type of terminal impact to ballot. If the links are weak, you need to explain things to me in late rebuttals - althought it's never to early to start this process.

6. I do try to line up and compare analysis and argument at the end of the round to reach my decision, but the more help you give me, the more likely I will find in your favor.

7. The same holds true for LD and POFO debates that I witness.
8. I flow cross-ex and hold teams to the positions they take.

email= rbuscho59@gmail.com

The Meadows School '15
University of Southern California '19

How to win in front of me:
--Explanation - usually, the team that explains their arguments (and how they interact with the other team's arguments) more will win. It's that simple.
--Ethos is extremely important - if it perceptually seems as though you are winning the debate, then you probably are. You can establish your ethos in many ways: cross ex, persuasion, good evidence, quality of arguments, well-researched strategies, close and detailed line-by-line etc
--Quality of debating is heavily influential on the quality of argument - if you debate a typically 'bad' argument extremely well, it is more persuasive to me; the opposite goes for a traditionally 'good' argument debated poorly.

Other things to note:
--Everything is debatable but speech times
--I am fine with any type of affirmative or negative argument, and will judge them all without bias.
--You can win zero risk of things fairly easily, whether it be a DA, solvency, etc. I don't necessarily always default to offense/defense, but sometimes it is a useful tool depending on the debate.
--An unanswered argument is only as important as the debaters make it - if the block drops a permutation and the 1ar doesn't mention it, there's no way I'll evaluate it. However, if the block drops a permutation that was well-explained, it's very very hard for them to win the argument that the permutation was made on.
--Taken from Scott: "the threshold for how good a response to an argument has to be is directly related to the quality of the initial argument" - if the 2ac says "we meet" and literally no other explanation, the block is justified saying "they don't meet". If the 1ar goes in depth on "we meet", I will 1. Be very skeptical allowing those arguments to fly in the debate and 2. Give the 2nr plenty of lee-way to answer the 1ar. All you have to do is explain your argument sufficiently when it is first made, and this problem won't arise. I will also reward the team that makes short, sufficient answers such as "they don't meet" with higher speaker points.

Specific Arguments:
--DAs - case specific >>>>>>>>>>> generic, although I recognize the need for generic disads sometimes. Not very convinced by "1% risk of a link means you vote neg" args, I'd rather have you be explaining the link in that time. Turns case is important. When debating disads on the affirmative, I think it's extremely important to have a strategy - if the 2ar is really really good on uniqueness, and spends like 3 minutes doing amazing explanation, it’s almost impossible for me to be convinced by negative 'try or die' arguments.
--Politics - I think it’s a pretty bad arg, but the negative wins a lot by out-teching the aff. Either be super smart when you’re aff or be technically sound.
--Counterplans - theory is really really important, because most counterplans are extremely theoretically illegitimate. In particular, the argument that 'counterplans that do/can result in the entirely of the plan are a voting issue' is very persuasive to me. I appreciate case specific pic's. Counterplans make zero sense against a team that doesn't defend a plan.
--T - big fan, explanation o/w evidence, but cards are important for definitional purposes. Limits isn't really an argument, because there are an infinite amount of cases under any theoretical topic - I think of limits as the key internal link to ground, which is a much more important impact. Since teams rarely do impact comparison when going for topicality, if you do even a little bit you'll probably win. Reasonability isn't a real argument.
--Kritiks - explanation is also very important. Usually, the team that talks about the aff more wins. Framework can be a reason that I shouldn't even look at the case, but it depends on how it is argued. Whether or not I have read the literature underlying your criticism should be irrelevant if explained well. Role of the ballot arguments are usually really self-serving, and I'll sympathize with affirmatives that do a good job of pointing this out.
--Theory - conditionality is good. I have no specific "threshold" for how many conditional advocacies are allowed/not allowed: having 2 that are completely inconsistent is probably worse than having 3 that are consistent. Every theory argument is a reason to reject the team unless I am told otherwise. A lot of times, 'claims' are made in theory debates without being complete arguments - be wary of this. Similar to what I said above about topicality, teams don't do a lot of impact comparison on theory, if you do a little you'll likely win.
--Framework - not really sure why teams are going for decision-making/education impacts on framework, fairness and predictability arguments are much more persuasive to me. Kritik teams will always have more game on the education front.
--No plan aff's - enjoy them, and open to listening to them. The more the aff is about the topic, the less of a threat framework should be.

Also, I have a lot of friends in debate. Making fun of them/references to them is always appreciated, and same with general humor.

Be happy! Debate is fun, and I enjoy judging almost as much as I enjoyed debating. Some degree of sarcasm/wittiness is okay, but general friendliness is appreciated.

If email chains needed: forrestfulgenzi [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: Debated policy debate for four years at Damien High School and currently the head coach over at OES. Have been involved in the debate community for 10+ years teaching LD and Policy Debate.

General thoughts:

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards.

Overall, I'm open to any arguments - feel free to run whatever you'd like!

University of Michigan 2015-2019

La Costa Canyon HS 2011-2015

Please add jgold717 at gmail dot com to the email chain.

I debated for 8 years and qualified to the NDT 3 times for Michigan including a semifinals appearance. While I was in college, I was an assistant coach for various high schools and taught labs at the Michigan Debate Institutes. I am no longer a debate coach or actively involved in debate, I am a practicing attorney and I only judge occasionally. As such, err on the side of over-explaining things to me, don't assume I have topic knowledge, go easy on acronyms, etc.

Top level:

For me, the most important quality in a judge is that they put their biases aside and judge the debate on the terms the debaters give them, so I will try my hardest to do that. I always prefer judging slower debates with warranted presentation, quality evidence, and "truer" arguments than whatever the opposite of that is. I prefer to see debaters doing what they do best rather than adapting to me. During my time as a debater I mostly read traditional policy arguments and thus am most comfortable evaluating these kinds of debates, but I have read and/or coached basically every type of argument that exists.

A few things I would note that are important to me regardless of what kind of argument you are reading:

(1) Impact calc and comparison, judge direction, and explanation of meta-level strategic interactions between arguments. In almost every debate you will be able to poke holes in the other side's internal links (and vice versa), so most my decisions come down to whose central piece of offense I think is most important to achieve/avoid.

(2) Warranted explanations of your arguments as opposed to just tagline-level explanations.

(3) Argument quality. I wouldn't consider myself "truth over tech" - I am perfectly willing to vote on "bad" arguments if they are warranted and won, and I am very flow-centric, but I would rather hear well-developed arguments with coherent internal links.

(4) Two "rules" - No "inserting this re-highlighting into the debate" - you have to read it (paraphrasing in speech/cx is sufficient as well). I also will not vote on any arguments about things that occurred outside the debate.

Online debate: If my camera is off I am probably not at my computer so please don't start speaking. I would strongly prefer debaters also leave their cameras on while debate things are happening so I know everyone is present when needed.

Kritiks (neg): I am comfortable with most common kritik arguments, but if yours is particularly esoteric you may need to invest some time in explaining your theory to me. Specific links with embedded impacts/case turns are great. When I vote neg for kritiks it is often because the aff made an error on the framework debate and the neg was able to neutralize a lot of the aff's case offense.

Kritiks (aff)/planless affs: If I was the czar of debate all affirmatives would include a topical plan text that advocates USFG action, and those affirmatives would range from your typical big-stick heg/econ affs to creative and kritical ways to affirm the topic. The biggest piece of advice I can give you is to pick a central point of offense, do impact calc and comparison, and explain why your offense is more important than theirs. As a debater I almost always went for a T/framework argument based on fairness when debating an aff without a plan, so I am perfectly willing to vote on procedural fairness as a prior question, but that doesn't mean it's an automatic presumption I'll always apply. I often vote for the team that explains why their offense has a higher level of explanatory power than their opponent's by explaining the role of the ballot, the judge, debate as a whole, etc. These debates are frequently hard for me to decide because both teams build up their own points of offense well but don't interact with their opponent's offense sufficiently. I urge you to LISTEN carefully to exactly what the other team is saying, flow, think critically about their arguments and how they interact with your own, and then respond. Don't be overly block reliant, and don't give "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" speeches. Give me a story to tell in the RFD for why your offense is better than theirs.

Theory/CPs: Since I began my debate career neg terrorism via counterplans (e.g., multi-plank advantage CPs, CPs without a solvency advocate, multi-actor fiat, uniform 50 state fiat, 4+ contradictory conditional advocacies, etc.) has gotten way worse and as a former (slow) 2a I am sympathetic to aff appeals to fairness. However, most aff teams do a terrible job of extending theory objections to CPs and it has allowed the neg to get away with murder. If you are debating a CP like the above and invest time in advancing a warranted, coherent theory interpretation as a reason to reject the argument I will be very happy and likely persuaded. On the other hand, if you go top-speed through 15 unwarranted standards and hope the neg drops one that is not going to get you very far. I lean neg on conditionality with 1 or 2 conditional options, 3 is borderline, and at 4+ I lean aff (especially if they are contradictory). By default I will judge-kick a CP but I am persuadable the other way.

Misc.:

--An argument is a claim, warrant, impact and usually has to include application or reasoning to be coherent. I am lenient on allowing new responses to a dropped argument if it is blippy and lacks any of the above. In other words if your strategy relies on the other team dropping a one-sentence ASPEC violation hidden in the bottom of a T shell or something like that I am not the judge for you.

--I work in civil litigation and debate's understanding of how the courts work is suspect at best. I was definitely guilty of this myself as a debater. If you are reading a courts aff, you should be prepared to defend the legal procedure underlying your aff rather than just asserting fiat takes care of it all. One notable exception is judicial capital/balancing - I generally think debate has it right that judges do consider the impacts of their decisions on society/politics and their public image. That doesn't mean you can't persuade me otherwise.

--I think speaker point inflation has gotten a little bit out of hand. I struggle to deal with this because I don't want to punish debaters and give them lower speaks than average based on my own views, but at the same time it is hard to delineate performance if everyone is only giving 28.8s and above. It's subjective and varies by tournament, but the scale I will try to stick by is:

27.8-28.4 - bottom half speaker at a tournament/below .500 record

28.5-28.7 - middle of the pack/around .500 record

28.8-29 - top 20%/clearing as a lower seed

29.1-29.2 - top 10%/clearing as a higher seed/possible speaker award

29.3-29.4 - top 5%/clearing as a high seed/definite speaker award

29.5+ - elite

Good luck!

I have been involved with Policy Debate since 1981, when I debated in High School in Arizona. I debated NDT for Arizona State in the late 80s, and have been coaching High School debate teams in Arizona, Wisconsin & California for a total of 23 years (off & on) starting in 1986. I coached Policy Debate most recently at Lowell High School in San Francisco from 2012-2016. I worked the 2001-2003 Stanford & Berkeley debate camps. I am Tabula Rasa, but default to Policy Making-I enjoy all aspects of the game, The K, The Counterplan-Disad debate, Case Turns, T whatever, it's all fair game. I do have a higher than average likelihood to pull the trigger on theory arguments if you develop them and win them (conditionality, pics, international actors etc.). Ultimately I think that virtually everything is debateable including the nature and function of the activity itself-that being said you will have an uphill battle the more aggressively anti-norm you get with me. I.E. I think that the affirmative should defend the Resolution, not attack it. Affirmatives without plans are fine, but not my preference. If you read an Aff without a plan I think you should read some Solvency cards for whatever performative experiment you are conducting. Speed is fine, be as loud & clear as possible. I prefer longer, more highly explanatory cards than a slew of 1 line cards, but also understand the tactical utility of the short card in high school debate-just be aware that I do tend to read a few cards after the round, so if you have a crucial argument that you need to win, read the long card. I love to see integrated strategies that are coherent and well-evidenced-love aggressive (but not obnoxious) smart, fast debaters. If you have any specific or more nuanced questions please let me know pre-round and I will answer them. Email chain to gerardgrigsby@hotmail.com

I currently at a coach at a high school in LA's UDL. I am a recent USC graduate, where I was primarily a 2A running affirmatives with plan texts and social justice-y advantages over the course of 3 years. I debated 4 years in high school at Saint Francis HS in CA before then.

For the HS oceans topic, I have mostly judged JV level debates so far this year. Please take care to explain your terms. 

You should feel comfortable running anything in front of me. I will try my best to make the debate safe and flow less traditional arguments to be faithful to the performance, including any affective results. Please be respectful of people in the debate space and try to have fun! 

Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer.

***

Below are just thoughts about contentious things I have run into judging/debating in the past:

Framing (both role of my ballot and impact framing) is important. You should seek to control the most meta-level debate structure claim; that will characterize how I evaluate the individual components of each team’s competing story.

Offense and defense matter but I don't vote automatically on dropped arguments unless you call a TKO: Technical drops are not always conceptual dropped arguments and require extra impact explanation, not mere extension.

Presumption is neg until an alternative advocacy is offered, then it goes aff. I don't see presumption as about "least change."

 

Some of my preferences are still unknown to myself. If background information helps, I've defended arguments from all ends of the spectrum - 'performance', critical theory, politics DAs, etc. 

 

You do you. I'll do my best to evaluate your arguments. 

 

Please do not debate like you don't want to be debating. Persuade me. Communicate with me. Care about what you are arguing about. 

 

Clarity. Clarity is important. A round is immensibly more fun to judge if I can hear evidence and then listen to explanations of evidence. Greater the explanation, the better. Impact out your link arguments. Warrants. Empirics. Examples. 

 

Don't just do evidence comparison, do evidence take out. I strongly dislike affs with weak internal link chains and neg teams tend to grant aff's solvency without reading and poking holes in aff evidence. Explain why their own evidence takes out solvency. 

 

K Debate

 

Yes, I do judge a lot of debates where affirmatives do not read a traditional plan text. I also have 2N sympathy vs these affs. These affs need to do something. 2Ns need to restructure how I view these sorts of debates. How does aff solvency change without fiat? How is presumption implicated? How does your alternative function? What do you need to win the debate and why? Answering these questions will put you in a much better position with these affirmatives. You need to have DAs to the aff. You have to establish competition. These DAs can come in a multitudinous amount of ways. This could be a topicality argument. 

 

A few things irk me while judging high school k debate:

 

Do not make arbitrary role of the ballot claims in front of me. ROBs should not be about voting for something you did first before the other team. Just because a team does not say the words 'role of the ballot' does not mean they didn't answer it. 

 

"They don't get perms, this is a method debate" is not an argument. I have no idea what that means. If arguments like this are explained, warranted and impacted out, I think that would be enjoyable. I have no default to perms in this sorts of debates. 

Debate Experience:

2011-2014: Policy Debater at Notre Dame High School

2014-2015: Policy Debater at the University of Michigan

2015-2018: Executive Director of Detroit Urban Debate Education (which included judging and coaching for Detroit Urban Debate League schools in Policy)

Overview:

I currently work at the University of Chicago Crime and Education Lab — an urban social science research organization — evaluating youth-based violence prevention and academic programs. I also studied criminology intensively as a Sociology student on a Law, Justice, and Social Change sub-track at the University of Michigan. This experience often involved going into local correctional facilities firsthand to discuss incarceration, state violence, and policing with individuals who were incarcerated. Based on what I learned there and my current work at the Crime Lab, you can assume I have a baseline understanding of the major policy issues and social theory in the criminal justice field. Still, while I have probably judged over a hundred debate rounds, I am not currently active in the debate community. Do not assume I am caught up on all topic-specific arguments. Please be clear.

Please use Speech Drop instead of emailing me speeches.

A note on virtual Debate:

Virtual debate, as is the case for all remote activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, is inherently biased towards certain people. Access to and knowledge of technology is a privilege. Unfortunately, even for those who have the technology, having a safe space to join Zoom rounds is also a privilege. I hope to recognize technological disparities and the collective trauma caused by the pandemic in my judging by being reasonable, empathetic, and flexible. If there is anything that I can do to make the virtual round more accessible to you please do not hesitate to let me know.

Generally, I will incorporate these norms during virtual debates:

- If possible, I would appreciate it if you had your video on, but I know this is not possible for everyone. My RFD and speaker point assignment will not change based on your video being off.

- Unless otherwise mandated by the tournament, I will incorporate 10 minutes of "tech time" for troubleshooting issues. Please do not abuse this time. It is NOT the same as prep time.

- Please try and show up to your round as early as possible. In the virtual world, it is harder to ensure everyone is accounted for and that the 1AC starts on time, so this is one way to help.

- If there is a tech issue that occurs during your speech for longer than 3-5 seconds, I will interrupt and try to troubleshoot with you in the moment. This time will not be taken out of your speech.

- Everyone should be on mute at all times except for the people currently speaking.

Philosophy:

I try as much as possible to evaluate based on the arguments in the round. While I obviously hold implicit biases for or against certain arguments, I try as hard as possible to not let that impact my decisions. I have experience debating, coaching, and judging critical- and policy-oriented rounds. I wouldn't call myself swayed toward one side or the other.

That being said a couple of notes:

- Bad arguments are bad. If your argument is illogical — for example, reading a disadvantage without a link in the 1NC or your evidence not making the warrants needed to uphold your argument — then I will likely not want to vote for it. It will not be hard for the other team to convince me otherwise. While I do not want to vote for a bad argument, that does not mean the opposing team can just ignore it.

- I am willing to vote against my own beliefs and the burden to persuade me is on both teams. However, I don't tolerate obvious hateful/rude arguments or behavior. Everyone deserves to feel safe in this activity.

- I tend to end up using a cost-benefit analysis to help me make decisions: Quantifying the risk of all impacts, seeing if the logic or warrants behind the impact uphold or minimize that risk, incorporating how much the other team's defense minimizes that risk (or thumps the impact all-together), and comparing this analysis for each impact. It is not uncommon for me to literally graph out how probable I find each impact to be (plus or minus the defense from each team) before an RFD as a decision making tool. I can't begin to tell you how many debates I have judged where one team won simply because the other team forgot to extend defense. All of this being said, I will incorporate any role of the ballot arguments accordingly, even if it means not using this decision making framework. This is simply my norm, but certainly not the overarching rule.

For novice debaters, the following acts will result in an increase of speaker points: flowing every speech, communicating with your partner, not talking over your partner, not talking into your computer, using up all of your time in cross-ex asking questions, giving the evidence you read to the other team efficiently, and keeping track of your own time (I will keep track too, but it's a good behavior to start).

Feel free to ask me questions before/after the round.

For starters, I should admit a bit of my recent self. After experiencing my left arm go numb this last June, I was diagnosed with DDD – degenerative disc disease. I was involved in a horrendous debate van accident in the mid 90s and another bad car crash last year. In short, it hurts me to flow. I can’t really take anything for it at tournaments because it makes me too foggy to judge and coach. As such, I don’t really feel like I’m as good at flowing as I used to be. I try to correct for it by revisiting my flows during prep time.

I give speaker points on the basis of what happens in debates, not on the basis of who should clear. I don’t give speaker points because of the existence of a plan or a policy. I do not give speaker points on the basis of whether or not I agree with your arguments. I do change my speaker points for tournaments and within divisions. If it’s a JV debate, I try to give points on the basis of the division. I have very rarely looked at the other points that other judges give except when the ballots come in for my own debaters. I guess I’m behind the times.

 

 

LD Paradigm -- substantial revisions April 2018:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9uh69u3gaqcoh22/LD%20Paradigm.docx

LD Judging Record:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6yyg8kg6n0elx6d/LD%20Judging%20Record.xlsx

Policy Paradigm:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8r16qjhhzyfyb4g/Policy%20Paradigm.docx

Email: oliviapanchal@gmail.com
High School Debate: Heritage Hall School (OK)
College Debate: University of Southern California (2017)

The following are just MY thoughts on policy debate. In general, you should do what you are comfortable with– this will make the debate better for both of us.

T/Theory:
–you must have a counter-interpretation
–you must have terminal impacts like you would for any DA (your standards are not your impacts, they are internal links to greater skills that are integral to debate)
–I will typically default to competing interpretations over reasonability

Disads:
–case-specific links will only help you
–strong/creative DA turns case/case turns DA arguments are most convincing to me
–impact calculus is very important, but it's more than just magnitude and probability. I am much more convinced by arguments that prove how the DA impacts interact with the case (see above point)

Counterplans:
–I will kick the cp for you if told to do so
–you must have a solvency advocate
–CP's that compete off the mandate of the plan and use the same actor are legitimate
–I am not opposed to questionably legitimate CP's, in fact, I kind of like them. However, the aff can easily beat them with a WELL-DEVELOPED AND IMPACTED theory argument

K's:
–I am not the best person to read high-theory, obscure K's in front of. I am not well versed in the literature and you'll have to do an exceptional job explaining your argument. However, that does not mean I will never vote on the K.
–The K does need a specific link to the aff and more importantly, the neg needs to talk about the aff in terms of the K. THIS IS SO IMPORTANT.

Other thoughts:
–dropped arguments are true arguments
–I don't take prep for flashing
–the last 2 rebuttals should not be a reiteration of the debate so far, but rather you should be telling me what you need to win to win this round and CLOSING DOORS. too often the final rebuttals are just two ships passing in the night, which means I have to resolve things on my own. this will not make you or me happy
–over everything... have fun, be nice, and learn stuff

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. Fight on!

Thesis: I WANT SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN TO ME WHY POLICY DEBATE IS WORTH SAVING

Experience: I was a debater for five years (4 years hs, 1 year open college policy) a long time ago. The last time I made a speech or cut a card was in 2009. I judge lots of debates a year. For the past two years I have mainly judged LD, Parli, and PuFo. I do not listen to a ton of fast rounds anymore. I flow on paper.

I like critical/performative debates*. I am a "big picture"-style judge. I don't like the "heg good" debate. I don't like procedural debates.

I don't dig "heg good," "cap good," or full-blast circuit speed very much but I will do my best to place myself in whatever framework you give me (read: Give me one). I have a reputation as a K hack even though I vote on topicality all the time. See below for more detailed thoughts on critical debates.

You won't win the round on defense, but you can beat the offense. One contextual, well-explained perm is better than 2 dropped blippy perms. Perms are a test of competition, but that still means I weigh the opportunity cost of world of the perm vs. world of only the counter-advocacy. "Judge-kick" is not a thing unless you tell me it is, by default I evaluate every world present in the 2NR as best I can.

I think a multiplicity of debates is good. I am usually not persuaded by most arguments in favor of excluding "non-traditional" debate, and generally hesitant to drop a team on T or theory if I can avoid it (unless it's dropped, you prove blatant in-round abuse, or you crush it technically). I don't like playing the debate police. If you're going to go for T or theory in front of me, you need to really go for it. You should have some sort of big-picture abuse story that demonstrates the kinds of debate you wanted to have that they have prevented you from having, and reasons why those debates are important enough to reject the team. To be persuasive, the procedural needs to be the centerpiece (preferably your entire) 2A/NR--I think presence of another decently-developed generic argument in the 2NR could sometimes be enough to solve the offense on T, and case-specific turns or link stories pretty much prove no in-round abuse. Condo can be a voter if there are multiple mutually-exclusive worlds in the 2NR. I am often persuaded by reasonability, and I often reject the argument but not the team. Despite these preferences, don't hesitate to go for these arguments in front of me if you really think they are the best strategic decision, lots of my neg ballots are for topicality.

I tend to be very laid-back in terms of decorum: I really don't care if you tag-team CX or speak from your seat as long as your delivery doesn't suffer. I don't time evidence flashing unless it begins to take an inordinate amount of time. Oral prompting is fine, but I only flow what comes out of the designated speaker's mouth. I listen to CX but usually don't flow it. I don't call for speech docs and will try not to call for evidence unless the quality of specific cards or warrants are explicitly brought up in the round.

There is no 3rd rebuttal: your job as a debater is to clearly communicate your arguments to convince me to sign the ballot your way and adapt a little if I don't happen to be your ideal judge. If you have not done this than no amount of post-debate hassling will change the decision. This is in fact a great way to get a 25 from me.

Notes for surveillance topic: I haven't done research on it, and haven't coached any kids on it. I have judged policy at one bid tournament (La Costa) and two regionals this year. I don't know the commonly used cards by name. You need to be specific and explain stuff to me like I am a small child.

 

*So here's the deal: I only did critical debate for a couple years and I'm not a philosophy or rhetoric major or anything, but I am into a lot of these authors in an amateur capacity. Don't assume I already understand your k, or know what it is based solely on the author's name. You will need to explain which Žižek you happen to have brought to our debate round, and tell a good clear story about what your k means for the debate. In k debates I tend to prefer the style of delivery to somewhat gel with the content of the argument, so I'd really rather not watch you say you create a critical pedagogy of the oppressed at 300 wpm as one of 3 possible 2NRs. Extending tags and saying "they cause genocide" is not persuasive. I don't like hyper-generic "you use the USFG"-style link arguments and can usually be persuaded by a well-explained perm in those cases. I think that sometimes specific legal reforms can create specific material gains for specific oppressed people that impact their daily lives, but I also think that real radical change probably would require a revolution. I believe no debate is outside the world: this round has a social/historical/spacial location and does not happen in a magical non-place. This applies to both sides of a clash of civilizations debate: your arguments are advocacies in an educational space--external impacts are only valuable as far as they inform debate practices/discussions which may or may not produce good education. This means they do not on-face outweigh arguments which indict the kind of education your methodology produces. This is honestly the only model of debate that makes sense to me, and I'm often at a loss when teams ask me to weigh nuclear war scenarios against the K because they are "more real world." As you may have guessed my natural bias is definitely toward the left but I try my best to vote within a framework laid out by the debaters--that means comparing competing frameworks and explaining what my ballot does and how I should evaluate impacts. I am fine with critical affs, non-topical affs, performance affs, whatever, but like anything else you need to justify what you do in the round. Though I encourage teams to make the debate round whatever they want it to be, I don't feel comfortable when teams ask me to actively participate/intervene in the discussion; this puts me in a weird position in terms of choosing a winner and I don't really feel it's possible for me to participate without in some way telling the debaters what to say. All this means is that in such a situation it is impossible for me to be an impartial adjudicator; I am open to arguments that I shouldn't be--but this is definitely something that needs to be addressed.

If you are running anti-blackness, you should read this article first: http://fivefouraff.com/2015/08/21/on-white-afro-pessimism/

Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and ldemailchain@gmail.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth

My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.

I am a good judge for you if/A bad judge for you if not

1. You cut good cards and highlight them to make complete arguments in at least B- 7th grade English, which is approximately my level. Read uniqueness. If your disad is non unique, not putting a uniqueness card in the 1NC is not cute, its a waste of time. If your best answers to an IR K are Ravenhall 09 and Reiter 15 you are not meeting this criteria, ditto answering pessimism with "implicit bias is malleable".
2. You debate evidence quality/qualifications and read evidence from academic sources rather than twitter/forum posts. If you are responding to a zany argument not discussed in academia, blog/forum away. If that is not the case I implore you to ask why these sources are the only ones you can find.
3. You listen to what the other team is saying and give a speech that demonstrates that you did by answering all of their arguments correctly and in the order in which they were presented . Do not read a collection of non responsive blocks in random order. And then in follow up speeches you compare/resolve those arguments rather than repeating yourself.
4. You make smart analytics against arguments with obvious weaknesses. Most 1NC disads and 1AC advantages in current debate are incoherent/missing several pieces. You do not have to respond to an incomplete argument, point out it is incomplete and move on. Once completed you get new answers to any part of it.
5. You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
6. You understand your arguments/can explain things. In CX and speeches you should be able to explain words/concepts from your evidence correctly, and be able to apply them. If your link card says "the aff is not disarm" thats not a link, thats an observation
7. You can cover/don't drop things. Grouping things is fine. Making a philosophical argument for why line by line debate is bad, and instead making your argument in the form of big picture conceptual analysis is fine. Randomly saying things in the wrong place, dropping 1/2 of what the other team said and then expecting me to figure out how to apply what you said there is not. I will not make "reject argument not team" for you.

I operate on a "3 strikes" rule: each side gets up to 3 nonsense arguments- a CP that is just a text, a bad disad or advantage, an unexplained perm etc. After that your points and credibility plummet precipitously. If I'm reading your card doc I will stop reading your evidence after 3 cards highlighted into nothing. If you include 3 "rehighlightings" of the other teams evidence that are obviously wrong I will ignore all your evidence/default to the other sides.

If debated by two teams of equal skill/preparation, the following arguments are IMO unwinnable but I vote for them more often than not because the above suggestions are ignored.

-please let us weigh our case or we said the word extinction so Ks don't matter

-the framework is: object of research, you link you lose, debate shapes subjectivity, ethics first without explaining what ethics are/mean

-War good, pollution good, renewables bad- it doesn't matter if these are in right wing heritage impact turn form or academic K form

-the neg needs more than 1cp and 1K for debate to be fair. Arguments like "hard debate is good debate... so make it hard for them" are so bad you should be able to figure it out/not say them

-PICS that do/result in the whole plan are legitimate. The negative can actually win without these, especially on a topic where there are 3 affs.

-counterplans that ban the plan as their only form of competition are legitimate, especially on a topic with only...

2/6/15
I debated for 4 years at Washburn Rural High School in Kansas (Military Presence- Economic Engagement). I debated for a semester at the University of Kansas and am now debating for USC.

I have judged about 30 rounds on the oceans topic. My senior year I had a pretty decent balance of Kansas DCI circuit and Midwest Regional/National Circuit tournaments. I have largely been influenced by Kansas coaching from individuals like Brett Bricker, Brendon Bankey, and Brian Box.

Rules

Debate is a game and it has real rules.The rules that I will seek to enforce are as follows:
1. Any debater who gets caught clipping cards automatically gets the tournament's minimum allowed speaker points and a loss. This is non-negotiable. I will need proof off clipping- a recording would be helpful. It is not the job of your opponents to catch your clipping- if I catch you, all punishment applies. You must be sure to both audibly and physically mark your cards- you cannot just say "mark it" without physically marking it for reference.

2. Speech times and speech orders are non-negotiable. For high school, that means a constructive speech can be no longer than 8 minutes and rebuttals may be no longer than 5 minutes. You may use less speech time, but no more. Any speech or cx time not used is not transferred to a different speech.

3. I will only ever vote for one team in a given debate. This team must be the two debaters whose names are on the schedule. Switching partnerships during the tournament will result in a loss, unless there is explicit tournament approval because of extenuating circumstances. Teams with more than two debaters will under no circumstances receive my ballot. Using a live person who is not one of the assigned debaters in the round as evidence is no different than having a 3 person team.

Argument Evaluation- generic

Do what you’re good at- I will evaluate any argument in a debate. Some strategies I like more than others, and I’m more comfortable with some arguments than others, but if I can understand your argument enough to explain to the other team why they lost then you are fine

I think impact calc is important- this goes beyond probability, timeframe, magnitude- you should make comparisons on which criterion are more important. Controlling the framing issues makes winning my ballot much easier.

An argument requires a claim, warrant, and impact. With that in mind, “perm do both” is not an argument. “Perm do both, shields the link because X” is. This also leads me to believe that a well warranted analytic can go face to face with a well warranted card- and definitely can beat a poorly warranted card

"Dropped/conceded arguments: As a judge, I vote for an argument. If the affirmative drops a disad, I'm not voting for the affirmative dropped the disad. I am voting for the disad. If a team drops an argument, it is not sufficient to inform me that they have conceded an argument. That should be coupled with a minimal explanation of the argument and how it should influence my decision."- Chris Stone

I find myself likely to reward smart, strategic, and bold decisions over reading a bunch of cards with no explanation and hoping the other team drops something.

Be nice- you can still be aggressive but don’t be hostile. The opponents, judge, and everyone else at the tournament are worthy of your time, whether you think that or not.

Specific Arguments

Topicality:Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to competing interpretations and am hardly persuaded by reasonability.. I think there also needs to be a discussion of what reasonability means. I do not find arguments like "our aff is on open evidence" or "we disclose on the wiki" to be persuasive reasons that the aff is topical. "We meets" are a yes/no question- I will not assign a risk of a link to T like I would plausibly do to a da.


Theory: It’s just like any other debate. I default to competing interpretations here too, and would like a discussion of where interpretations differ and overlap. This shouldn't just be a crutch if you’re getting shellacked elsewhere- it should be a tool to control the debate. I find R.A.N.T. compelling, but you MUST make that argument. That being said, I reserve the right to not vote on perm theory even if dropped- permutations are a test of competition, not an advocacy. If the 2ar fails to adequately explain their theory argument, even if it was dropped, I will not vote aff on it. See the above claim that an argument requires a claim, warrant, and impact. 

Disadvantages: Love them. Impact calc needs to start early. 1ar needs to answer turns case. 2nc/1nr needs to make turns case args (or even better, solves case args). DA theory usually is stupid, and Politics DA’s are probably good and intrinsic. I will allow responses to DA theory arguments (intrinsicness/fiat solves the link) in any neg speech- i.e. if the block drops it but the 2nr answers it, I will evaluate the answers. There are many reasons for this, but the short of it is that I do not think that dropping one unwarranted and un-impacted claim should result in 0 risk. If the 2ac has warrants and impacts to these theory arguments, then there is no excuse for dropping it. That being said, the 1ar should be weary of going all in on these types of arguments. You've been warned.


Counterplans: Like most of them. Competition is important, my general belief is that they should be textually and functionally competitive, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Specific solvency advocates probably make any counterplan legit. Both sides should frame how solvency of the cp is viewed (i.e. sufficiency vs risk of a deficit). I will not kick the counterplan for the neg unless explicitly told to in both the block and 2nr.


Kritiks: I rarely read them and I haven’t read much lit. I will vote on them. There should be a discussion of why the k comes before the plan or vice versa. I think I am a fine judge for a K that has specific links to the case and links to advantages. I'm increasingly worse for you the more generic your k is, mainly because I find plan focus args persuasive. Talk about the K in the context of the aff and talk about the alternative. Links of Omission are not links.

K/Nontraditional affs: I don't think I am a great judge for teams that do not defend a topical plan. That's not to say I will automatically vote neg, but 1. I don't have much familiarity with the aff side of these debates and 2. I think there tends to be a topical way to discuss most of the affs. I will certainly try to judge these rounds as objectively as possible, but the affirmative arguments will probably require more explanation

Speaker Points

Scale

My scale will probably seem arbitrary due to my lack of debate experience. I think debaters start at a 28 and can work their way up or down from there.

Things I like/ will be rewarded

Explanation of arguments
Clear stories about why I should vote for you (including what the world of the aff vs the squo/cp/alt looks like).
Specific Strategies
Humor (even off kilter humor)
Cross Examination
Bold decisions
Impact turns (not wipeout/spark. Those are not going to be rewarded)

Things I dislike

Cheating (clipping cards, cross reading, lying, etc)
Being extremely and intentionally offensive
T is genocide
T is a reverse voter
ASPEC/OSPEC/ANYTHING/SPEC
Wipeout/spark
Breaking from the line by line structure ("the link debate" is important to discuss, so talk about it where the other team challenged the link.)

I debated for Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High School for two years for the Los Angeles Metro Debate League and will soon be debating for California State University, Northridge, as an upcoming freshmen. 

 

I'm usually open to anything. Just make sure to explain, extend, and impact calc.

 

Topicality - I'm not extremely fond of it because it seems like a last attempt type of argument to me but if you could link well and explain the abuse and why I should vote on it based on how it affected the round. As far as the aff, topicality can be answered in many different ways, whether it's we meet, counter-interpretation, non-voter, or reverse voting issue.

 

DA - I love DA's that have specific links and warrants that pertain to the plan. Please thoroughly explain the link, extend it throughout the debate, and make sure to include impact calculus.

 

CP - I love CPs! This is one of my favorites, next to Ks. As far as CPs go, usually anything goes. They're usually run really well with DA's that can be used as a net benefit. Remember to explain how your CP solves. Aff: ask for the status, perm away, and remember that "perm: do both" is not the only perm option. When you do perm, make sure to explain it in detail about how the perm would work. Also, go ahead and throw in some solvency deficit arguments. 

 

Theory - Theory is so much fun. Conditionality is pretty cool but there are a lot of other theory arguments out there. Remember to extend, and explain it.

 

K - They make debates very interesting. I love the ideologies presented through ks and I feel this is one of the most educational parts of debate. Anything goes but I'm very picky with the alt so it must be explained very thoroughly. Tell me how life would be if we used your alt, show me the alternative world, and how the alt solves. I will vote down if the K isn't explained well by the end of the debate. Give a detailed roll of the ballot, and a specific framework. Aff: Perm, perm, perm.

 

Any more specific questions, just go ahead and ask before the round. Or after, whichever you prefer.

 

 

I debated for USC for four years and now am an assistant coach for Cal-Berkeley.

 

Add me on email chain please --- ideen.saiedian [at] gmail

 

Top Level

--  While I've done some research and judged on emissions, you should not assume I know all the acronyms or have spent a lot of time considering what the topic should look like. This is most relevant in T debates, where you will benefit from explaining how the literature, argument trends, and the direction of topic uniqueness affect the desirability of your interpretation.

--  Probably more than most judges, I believe presumption/terminal defense is possible. Proper ev and logical explanation should be applied to win a 100% takeout. Burden of proof is on the team introducing an argument. I'm very open to reasonable/less than extinction impacts.

--  I won't vote on arguments I don't understand.

--  Counterplans that have a solvency advocate, use the same agent as the aff, and compete based off the explicit mandate of the plan are legitimate. The further you deviate from this, the more I incrementally lean aff, but the negative can easily win by out-debating the aff. Perms are better way to eliminate unproductive counterplans than theory.

--  I won't kick an advocacy for the neg unless they explicitly make an argument that I can and should revert to the SQ.

 

Critiques

--  My voting record suggests I am a better judge for critiques than my arguments in college would reflect. Take that for what you will. Here are some of my thoughts in these debates:

--  I find myself voting for critiques more often because the aff mishandles "K tricks" in the 1AR (FW, V2L, Root Cause, Floating PIK). My threshold for answering these is low.

--  Critiques that apply their general theory to the specific claims made by the 1AC and implicate the aff's ability to solve are great and under-utilized.

--  Feasibility is an important, yet under-debated, factor in determining the desirability of critique alternatives.

--  Magnitude of a link is a relevant consideration. Too often, teams let the negative get away with a sweeping impact to a marginal and insignificant link. 

 

Critique Affirmatives (Non-T)

--  I believe it is possible and desirable for the affirmative to argue in favor of the resolution. If the negative competently extends a framework argument, they will be in a good position.

--  I am especially convinced by topicality arguments that "solve" the aff by identifying a legitimate topical mechanism that enables a discussion of the 1AC content.

--  Magnitude of a link is also important in T debates. I am a better judge for an aff that defends the resolution minus USFG and eliminates a politics link than I am for an aff that is in the opposite direction of the topic or largely unrelated.

--  K affirmatives that choose not to defend the resolution should have a strong defense of why the discussions they create are valuable or productive. I find many of these debates often force the negative to defend polemical positions (e.g. cap/anthro/anti-blackness explain everything in the world ever) in order to avoid losing to a permutation, which turns these rounds into a root cause impact debate and obviates a discussion of 1AC content or means/ends for action.

--  In framework debates, I find myself voting for K affs when negatives read internal links (fairness, ground, predictability) without impacts, so please impact things like ground, limits, etc. with how changing the contours of debate as a competitive activity will change the valuable things we get out of it. 

 

 

The Meadows School '15

Northeastern University '19

Belmont Law '22

e-mail: pokerman1996@gmail.com ***PLEASE ADD ME TO YOUR EMAIL CHAIN***

*If you have any questions ask me before the round – it will not hurt your speaks in any way, it can only help*

About me – I debated for 4 years at The Meadows School in Las Vegas, NV -- I tended to be more traditional policy than K during my debate career

How to win in front of me:
— explanation - usually, the team that explains their arguments (and how they interact with the other team's arguments) more will win

— you can convince me an argument is good in many ways —> cross ex, persuasion, good evidence, etc.

— explain net benefits to CPs and how the CP solves for some/all of the aff —> I won't do this for you via my flows

— make the link to Ks and DAs VERY clear – shady links need ever more analysis

— @AFFs – make sure you have offense on your advantages/solvency or you will lose 100% of the time

— @AFFs – make perms on CPs and Ks – tends to be a solid way to either garner offense or make the neg's positions non-competitive/not mutually exclusive

— go as fast as you want just be clear (slow down on tags) - if you're not/I can't understand you I will say "clear" (at that point slow down and enunciate better)

Specific arguments:
— DAs - please explain the link, people tend to read DAs with terrible link evidence and tend to not explain it. I'm not very convinced by "1% risk of a link means you vote neg" args – you should be explaining the link in that time. TURNS CASE IS IMPORTANT. If the 2ar is really really good on uniqueness, and just spends like 2-3 minutes doing amazing explanation, its almost impossible for me to be convinced by negative 'try or die' arguments.

— Politics - There is a lot of good ev. and literature out there given the political scene right now. However, PTX can easily be defeated by affirmative arguments about the illegitimacy of political capital or the low quality of negative evidence. Still, sometimes the negative wins by out-teching the aff.

— CPs - theory is really, really important because most counterplans are extremely theoretically illegitimate. In particular, the argument that 'counterplans that do/can result in the entirety of the plan are a voting issue' is very persuasive to me. Explain how the CP solves the aff and the specific net benefit to the CP. I WILL NOT DO THIS FOR YOU. *If you read Lopez, you better win theory.*

— T - T is good, especially on this topic where a lot of affs are K are shady on how they link to the resolution. Your explanation o/w evidence, but cards are important for definitional purposes. Why is your interp. of the topic better? Limits isn't really an argument, because there are an infinite amount of cases under any theoretical topic - i think of limits as the key internal link to ground, which is a much more important impact. Since teams rarely do impact comparison when going for topicality, if you do even a little bit you'll probably win. Reasonability isn't a real argument, don't waste your time.

—Ks - not the world's biggest fan of no alt Ks and ones with bad links, but am open to listening to them. I have been more policy than critical in my debate career; this means that I most likely will not pick up on K tricks that you might have used to win rounds in the past. Explanation is very important so I can understand your K. Usually, the team that talks about the aff more wins. FW can be a reason that I shouldn't even look at the case, but it depends on how it is argued. Role of the ballot arguments are usually really self-serving, and I'll sympathize with affirmatives that do a good job of pointing this out. Explain the impact to the K and how it o/w the aff's impact, and vice versa for the aff. Also, the Neg needs to explain what the world of the alternative looks like for me to be convinced that the alt is a good idea. ***I will NOT pick up on your K tricks because I am not a huge K debater; spend more time on the components of the K than on tricks***

— Theory - conditionality is good, dispo is better. That being said, it is still a good idea to read mutiple offcase positions as condo if you have more than one. Neg – provide a C/I and explain why that's the best way to frame debate. Aff - explain the in-round abuse and why your interp. is the best for debate. EXPLAIN TERMINAL IMPACTS TO CONDO AND WHY THAT HURTS DEBATE. I have been known to vote solely on 2ARs going for condo.

— Framework - YOU HAVE TO READ THIS AGAINST ALL K AFFS - I will vote on FW so treat this is a viable 2nr strat. In addition, I'm not really sure why teams are going for decision-making/education impacts on framework; fairness and predictability arguments are much more persuasive to me. K teams will ALWAYS have more game on the education front. @Neg: explain why your vision for the topic and debate is better, try to provide a topical version of the aff as an example, and talk about in-round abuse if you go for fairness/predictability (cross apply this to T as well).

— No plan aff's - again, not a huge fan. That being said, I'm still open to listening to them. The more the aff is about the topic, the less of a threat framework should be. Make sure you explain the world of the aff and what it looks like.

Extras:
– There is nothing I love more than fun, challenging debates. BE FUNNY, but still be smart. I enjoy witty humor more than nonsense. Humor --> higher speaks (given you are still good at policy debate and aren't an extemp. debater in policy)

– The better your ethos the more speaker points you will receive; if you feel like you're winning the debate, then you probably are. That being said, your performance during speeches and cross-x will determine a lot of your speaks (in addition to solid args).

About me:

- I debated policy 4 years at James Logan High School, mostly on the circuit

- I now coach and judge intermittently

My feelings towards certain positions:

T and Theory

Outline an abuse story. Defend a world interpretation.

Disad/Case

Weigh worlds. Explain link stories. I will vote on terminal non uniqueness.

Counterplans

Textual competition counts as competition. Win a net benefit.

The K

Explain the alt. Be extremely clear with framework. Explain the role of the ballot. Embed clash and make comparisons in your overviews.

Pofo

Be respectful. Arguments in the final focus need to be in the summary, warranted. Weighing should start in the summary. Don't be unreasonably omitting defense in the first summary.

Speaks

If you're good at debate, you'll get good speaks. If you're good for debate, you'll get better speaks (s/o Phoebe Kuo).

Miscellaneous

You can try to earn +.1 speak for making @four_pins -esque jokes.

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

I go to the University of Southern California. Went to Whitney Young High School and am working with Niles North this year. 

Disclaimer for the China topic: I didn't work at a camp and am slowly getting immersed into the topic. What this probably means for you: 

- Topicality: the arguments you've been having for the past few months about topicality and things that may seem intuitive for you are less intuitive to me. This means you should probably spend a bit more time giving examples of what affs your interpretation allows and why those are good debates to be had and what affs their interpretation allows and why those are bad debates to be had - emphasis on the latter part of those statements. 

- Try not to be acronym heavy, or at the very least take a second to explain what you're talking about before jumping into a very technical discussion. If I look confused, its probably because I am.

One thing that I try really hard at is making the debate more about the debaters and less about me. What you should take away from that:
1. I tend to care less about ideology. From a judging perspective/coaching perspective, the Policy/K/Performance (or better put, Plan/Not Plan divide) is not something I care much about. I DO care about debaters who debate well, who are smart, and who try.
2. I try to pay attention and flow as much as possible --- this includes cross-x and subsequently ground my decision in what happens in the debate as much as possible. 
3. Debate isn't what I think is true about the world, it is about what happened in a specific debate round. To me, this activity is a communicative one based on persuasion. If you lost the debate, its not because I don't believe you, it is because I thought the other team out-debated you and was more persuasive.

I think debate is full of hard work and appreciate people who demonstrate that they have put in the work by demonstrating cleverness, strategy, and a dedication to good research. Research is what I enjoy most about this activity and it is kind of awesome to see people who appreciate it too. 

Some things that I have come to realize the more and more I judge: 
--- What makes judging difficult for me is that the debate is hardly ever resolved by the end. Often times, I find the 2NR and 2AR a series of args that coincidentally line up next to one another but are not resolved and lack clash. You can help me out by impacting out how your arguments implicate the rest of the debate and provide lenses to view certain arguments. Do comparison between arguments whether that be impact calc or ev comparison. An example to demonstrate what I mean is one team will say, "PC not key, votes are determined by ideology" while the other team will say just the opposite "PC is key to vote switching and putting pressure on constituencies." The question of how to resolve this debate is really really hard without ev comparison or something along those lines.

---Related - you'll go farther in your final rebuttals by taking a realistic evaluation of what you're winning/losing and capitalizing on what you're winning on and minimizing the impact of what you're losing rather than pretending your final rebuttal was a solid 30 speech. 

Some random thoughts that are important to put in here:
1. If the neg states the squo is a logical option, I do not have a problem kicking the counterplan/alt when prompted by the 2NR. 
2. An argument is a claim and warrant with an impact -- while this seems obvious, but you'd be surprised.
3. Impact uniqueness matters and try or die can be persuasive but is often mis/overused. 
4. Zero risk is hard to win. Winning the DA is low enough probability that it should be disregarded is an easier sell.
5. Ideally, counterplans compete off of mandates of the plan. If they don't, hopefully aff teams can explain why this is important. Long story short: the more the counterplans is guided by topic literature, the better and the easier it is to sell that the it is a relevant policy discussion. 

Finally, I invite you to ask question during my decision, argue with me, etc. I am not a person who is offended by people taking issue with what I have said and will try my best to articulate to you how I thought the debate went down.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Weakley%2C+Kristof