My biography: High School: Leland High School, Class of 2013 College: University of California, Berkeley (I don't debate for Cal, however)

Currently an Assistant Coach at El Cerrito

High School Rounds judged on the 2013-2014 topic: 20

 

Some General Things:

Debate is an educational activity. Do not ruin that for yourself, your partner, your opponents or me by being rude or offensive. Anything on this philosophy is not set in stone. It's your job as a debater to convince me otherwise if you see something on my philosophy you don't like. I'll always try my best to have an open mind to make the fairest decision. Tech > Truth Dropped arguments are true arguments, but only matter if they are explained and impacted. A quick "they dropped _ extend it across the flow!" will not do. Smaller, deeper analysis debates are better than debates with lots of arguments involved. Putting more off case positions in your 1NC is not going to help you win a debate (unless you absolutely have to...) If you think my philosophy doesn't say much, look at my primary coaches' philosophies, everything I know about circuit debate I really learned from them (Gene Chien, Edwin Lin, Tom Meagher, Jackie Young)

 

Topicality- Definitely willing to vote on it. Strategic interpretations and violations are awesome and I invite you to read them. What I'm looking for most are the impacts of topicality. If you find yourself going for 'Ground' and 'Limits' and the always overused "voter for fairness and education!" in the 2NR, I would try to find another option for yourself. I will likely defer to competing interpretations.

 

CPs- Great- I think the best counterplans are well-researched and specific (especially when they come from 1AC authors). Solvency advocates with specifics to the aff are slayer, which also means that super generic counterplans are... not so slayer. PICs are awesome, mechanism counterplans are cool. Consult / Conditions / Delay.... not my favorites but winnable. I will not kick the CP for you in the 2NR if not explicitly told to.

 

Theory- If you're going for theory as a reason to reject the team, show me that there was some kind of in-round abuse. Contextualize the argument to the round. Potential abuse is probably not a voter... Even if a theory argument is dropped that doesn't mean I automatically vote for you, you have to explain why your theory argument is a reason to reject the team, not just the argument(s).

 

Disads- Love them, love them, love them. My partner and I (I was the 1N/2A) primarily went for disad/case or CP/disad on the negative and faced these strategies a lot on the aff. These kinds of debates are my favorite and I've had the most experience with these kinds of debates. Politics disads are great and perfectly fine with me. I'd rather have good analysis than lots of cards, so refrain from just reading blocks. The best disad debates involve lots of evidence comparison and explicit impact comparison- make it clear to me why the disad turns/outweighs case or vice versa, don't just say it and expect me to believe you.

 

Case- I LOVE a good case debate. 3 off and 5 minutes of case is INFINITELY better than 8 off and 2 minutes of case. You don't even need a huge case neg file, analytics and evidence indicts make some of the best case arguments.

 

Ks- As a high school debater I cut Ks, faced Ks, and went for Ks (rarely), but I am definitely not "deep in the lit" and I am definitely not the best judge for you if you're trying to go for some very complicated critical argument. Ks can be great arguments, but to win a K in front of me you'll have to do a lot of work on the alt level especially. If you're trying to win on 2NC framework cheap shots, you'll have to make it clear. One thing that is necessary for me as a judge to vote for you if you're going for a K is contextualization to the aff. I find that a lot of 2NCs and 2NRs on the K will do a great job explaining their argument but involve themselves very little with the aff itself. This doesn't mean read more generic links, but make smart (even analytical) arguments as to how the aff clearly links to the K.

 

Non-traditional debate- Definitely open to vote for these kinds of affs, but I'm also a sucker for framework. I read a K aff (no plan text) a few times, so I'm not totally against it. That being said, I'm not as experienced in these kind of debates as I am for more "straight-up" rounds, and am probably not the best judge for you.

 

Calling for Cards-__ The only reason I should have to call for a card is if there is a debated claim about what the card says. If your evidence truly is fire, explain why it is and don't just tell me to call for it. I hate calling for cards because I want your rebuttals supported by evidence to convince me, not just your evidence.

Polytechnic School 2010-2014

Stanford University 2014-2018

 

 

Overview: I'm happy to listen to whatever you want to read (barring arguments that are actually morally repugnant). Do debate however you want to do it, and do it well. I'm fine with speed, just make sure to slow down on plan texts and dense T/theory shells. Tech over truth in most instances. 

General Stuff: Tag team CX is fine. Prep ends when the flashdrive is out of your computer/the email is sent. I'd like to be included on email chains when possible. I'm sympathetic to most tech issues, but please don't abuse this system. I'll be timing the debate, but it's always good to time yourselves/your oponents as a backup. If the content of a particular card becomes controversial during the round, I'll probably read it after the round. That being said, good evidence spin/explanation and application during the round can go a long way. Evidence quality is super important, and one good card with extremely clear warrants that are well-defended can usually beat a lot of mediocre cards. If you want to record the debate, ask the other team before recording their speeches. 

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the debate. 

Cheating: Don't do it. If you notice the other team clipping cards, take an audio recording from the point that you've noticed it so that I can compare what's being read to what's in the document. Cheating accusations will stop the debate, so make sure you are absolutely certain before making such a claim. Marking cards is fine, just make it clear where in the card you've stopped, and offer to give the other team a copy of your speech document with marks. In most cases, cheating will result in a loss and 0 speaker points for both speakers. I will resolve these issues based on the tournament's policy. 

Topic: I haven't judged many rounds on the surveillance topic, so make sure you're clear with jargon/abbreviations. 

DAs: The more aff-specific the better, but I'm happy to hear a generic done well. "Zero risk" arguments exist. Smart turns case arguments can win most case v. DA rounds. Impact defense is a solid idea for both teams. If the impact scenario is so obscure that you have no defense for it, it can probably be defeated by smart analytics. 

CPs: Theory-wise, most CPs with aff-specific solvency advocates are probably fair game. Well researched and aff-specific PICs and agent CPs are great. Well run generics are fine, but I can definitely be persuaded by Aff theory arguments on consult/conditions CPs. If you're reading a word PIC, be sure to defend why textual competition alone is sufficient. 

Ks: I read a lot of Ks in high school, and I'm mostly focused on the K in college, so I really like watching a good K debate. That being said, please don't change your strategy to appeal to what you think I want to hear. I'd be much happier with a good politics round than an uncomfortable K round. I won't kick the alternative unless you tell me to. I don't necessarily think Ks need an alt, but you ought to justify why yours doesn't before you wish away the perm. When deciding these debates, I start with evaluating the frameworks both teams have advanced, and I'll adjudacate the rest of the debate under that framework. 

T: As I said above, make sure to slow down if you want me to get all of your standards down. I default to competing interpretations if nobody makes a reasonability argument, but I can be persuaded by both. Topical version of the aff arguments can win these debates, so affs should take care not to drop them. I evaluate interpretations and standards like a CP/DA debate, so impact calculus about what voting for either interpretation of the topic means in the context of this/later deabtes is important to me.

Framework v. Non-traditional Affs: I think Affs ought to be connected to the topic in some way, but I'm not convinced that they need to advocate instrumental action by the USFG. Both of these preferences are up for debate, and I'll vote for the team I feel has made better arguments on framework. Advocacy statements and role of the ballot claims can be good in a lot of instances, but they definitely aren't necessary for my ballot. Spend your speech time how you want to, and just make sure to explain at some point what I'm voting for if I vote for you. 

 

Experience: I've been debating in one form or another since 1999. First in HS, than as a CEDA/NDT debater for 5 years. I've been coaching debate since 2005, mostly policy, though not exclusively. I have ran, coached, and judged every type of argument in that time.

Style: It is possible for you to be correct about the wrongness of your opponents arguments, but still be polite towards them. Don't be a jerk. Nice people get better speaker points than rude people. If you are reading a theory argument slow down a touch to make sure everyone gets all the args.

Arguments: I really do not care what arguments you go for. Read what you are comfortable with and impact your arguments. I will typically revert to an offense/defense/disad/advantage to evaluate arguments (especially with theory args). If you want me to evaluate particular arguments different, just tell me. I much prefer for the debaters to control the parameters by which they would like me to judge them and then fiddle with the knobs and levers at their disposal to get the result they want.

Note: Don't assume that I know everything about the topic. Succinct explanations about content I may need to know to make an informed decision will also be rewarded with good speaks.

cps 2014 (3 years of debate)
cal 2018 (not debating)
kevin.attiyeh@gmail.com

cal updates

most important. the lack of line by line debating is getting to me. I'm not going to reconstruct the debate after its over so if you don't go line by line chances are you will lose. there are two teams that I keep watching and one always win. there's the team with the huge overview and theres the team that cleans up the debate. I bet you can guess who wins.

If you are decisively winning. We have all been there, please don't use up all my time. I like when the debate ends earlier. You will get higher speaks. If the neg drops conditionality in the block, perhaps the 1ar should be one minute of conditionality and sit down.

Other note. I despise it when teams waste time during the debate. Prep does not stop until your email is sent. I really don't like waiting for emails to be sent. if you have a tech problem then we can make some accommodations, but I am in the clock is always moving boat. I will not actively enforce this rule, but I will take note of it and it will affect your speaks. If you are one of those teams that are super organized and doesn't steal prep I will like you and want to vote for you that much more.

update 2017-2018
its been awhile since I've judged. almost two years at this point and I don't miss it very much.


things to know about me
- you are better than me at debate.

- I don't know the topic like at all. as of today (December 13, 2017) I don't know the topic of any form of debate. I will know it before I enter your round
- please assume I know nothing about your argument. with some judges there is inside context, with me there is none. so please no acronyms, no jargon, no screaming
- I am uncomfortable with speed. when I was a debater speed was really difficult for me. when I say speed I really mean lack of clarity but those two usually go pretty hand and hand. if I can't flow you or write what you say down you will not win. please be clear especially with quick arguments.
-its important to me that the debate remains interesting. this means it is educational and not just a place where two teams speed through a bunch of blocks
- MOST Important: write my ballot. control the framing of the debate. if you do this you will probably win. the team that wins the big picture usually wins for me. this doesn't mean avoid being technical, this just means I want you to put together some narrative.
- I am uncomfortable with hostility. please be funny but don't be mean. greet each other with smiles and hugs and respect. I hate meanness especially when it sounds condescending

Argumentation

- I am probably a lot more comfortable with the critical theory than I am with policy argumentation that this point. I was never good enough at debate to develop what I considered to be my strength of argumentation, but I definitely kept up with criticisms after college for than I did with whatever policy thing you are talking about.
- I am comfortable with performance.
- I am okay with fw, I regretfully went for it. I don't like it but I understand its utility.
- to get good speaks use warranted evidence with strong explanations. deep and detailed, I am a sucker for that
- think of me as a parent judge that understands tech

Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.

I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.

I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.

My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.

I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.

Updated for CPS 2018: This update is to mostly reflect how I've been judging rounds lately.

Background:
I debated for four years for Loyola high. I broke at multiple tournaments and had a 4-3 record at the TOC.

I am more familiar with policy arguments, philosophy, and theory, and am less familiar with kritiques. However, I am not really a fan of how most philosophy and theory debates are done today, and thus my familiarity does not always correspond to what arguments I vote on.

Specifically, I think that moral philosophy positions that involves tricks are doing a disservice to the literature. Further, theory debates are often frivolous, although what I may consider frivolous may be different than what others consider frivolous. Some examples of what I consider frivolous theory are the following: font-size theory, must spec status in speech theory, some spec shells, etc. My litmus test for frivolous theory might be the following: does the theory shell isolate an issue of fairness that has actual educational implications on the debate round?

Kritiques usually have good explanations attached to them, so I've voted on them in the past and will probably continue to vote on them in the future.

Overview:
I evaluate the round via an offense/defense paradigm. Thus, I will vote for the debater who provides comparatively more offense back to the framework that has been won in the round, lest there are other issues (theory or kritiques) that precede this evaluation. Beyond this, I will try to evaluate the round in the most objective way possible. However, as all judges do, I have certain basic preferences that it would help to conform to.

First, when there is a clash on an issue or position, I tend to default to the more thorough and comprehensive explanation that makes sense to me. While technical drops are important, I don't think they automatically preclude good analysis. Strong weighing matters more to me than a dropped blippy argument on the flow.

Granted, this threshold only exists when there is clash on a position (and maybe sometimes across positions). If a position is totally conceded, or mostly conceded except for a couple of weaker arguments, my threshold for explanation and extensions becomes much lower (if totally conceded, it approaches zero).

Second, I flow CX, both because of theoretical implications of answers, and because I think your position is only as well warranted as your CX answers indicate. If I don't think there's a warrant after a particularly devastating CX on a position, you're going to have an uphill battle to convince me of the argument. (This is true only if the other debater brings up the flaws they pointed out in CX during a speech. CX by itself is not a rebuttal and thus cannot be the sole basis for my decision).

Third, I heavily favor debater's original analysis and arguments in later rebuttals (2NR and 2AR) as opposed to cards. While cards are good at setting up a position in constructive speeches, I heavily prefer debate styles that can go beyond cards with good explanations.

Theory defaults:
I default competing interpretations. I default no-RVI's. Topicality is a voter. All other issues must be justified by the debater.

Random Notes:

I like numbered responses to arguments, and clear distinction between line-by-line analysis and overviews.

I will only vote on arguments that I have flowed. During rebuttals, I mostly flow from what you're saying, rather than from the speech doc, so adjust accordingly.

While debate is a game, it is an educational game that brings lots of enjoyment to many of our lives. Please treat other debaters and it with respect.

My Judging philopsophy is simple. I debated for the University of Oklahoma and became the First African-American Top Speaker of the National Debate Tournament in 2014. I understand every style of debate. I debated about Whiteness and could be classified as a performance debater. I vote for teams who explain clearly how thier plan/kritik works. More so the teams I usually vote for win because of their explanation of their impacts and the ways that those impacts are effectected by the other team. I prefer debater to explain thier arguments in full. I will not flow the rest of an argument that is not explained or in other words I will not do the debating for the debater. I like real world debates that talk about realistic impacts and not just Extinction and Nuclear War. I will Vote for T or any other argument if it is explained in a way that I believe is persuasive. All in all any debater can win in front of me they just need to clearly explain thier argument.  

Little bit about myself: multiple NDT qualifier, nationally traveled debater collegiately for 5 years in college, been involved with debate for the last 10-11 years, coached several high school teams, and coached collegiate policy teams. I am trained in policy, so if I am judging your round and you do LD or Parli I am going to default to how I have been trained, which is policy. Recently finished my masters and am looking at different JD programs so I am not as emerged in the topic as I would typically be. 

I hate paperless, but love technology: I am only 26, but I guess that means I am old.  When cx ends your prep time begins. When you say you are done prepping you need to be ready to start speaking (not saving to a jump drive or organizing your flows). If there is an issue in the debate that means we should deviate from this norm I will tell you, not the other way around. Do not waste time playing with each other’s flash drives, I won't be thrilled. Try to look up every once and while. It will help your speaker points. Prep stops when the other team has the jump drive. 

Framework: If circular claims about predictability and fairness are how you roll, I am probably not the judge for you. If framework is based on comparative claims which construct the importance of differing roles for the judge/debate/space, I am fine for you. I am voting on whom convinces me does the better debating at the end of the round. 

Topicality: I lean a little aff here on question of reasonability and “most limited” vs. “best/reasonable limit”, but as with any argument, the burden to do the debating is on you, don’t assume you can blow it off and wait for me to conclude in your favor on reasonability.

Disads: They are cool; even better if they are intrinsic.

Critiques: These are the arguments I know the most about. I am familiar with most critical literature. I will do my best to exclude my background knowledge from affecting my decision. Just because I know a lot about criticisms does not mean you should go for the argument. Don't adapt to me, just be yourself. There is a much better chance that you will do better playing the game you're ready for rather than trying to do something that you think* I want to hear. The more specific the link to the affirmative the better your argument will be. This also applies to affirmative answers to the author the negative is using. I do not think the aff has a right to a permutation on a criticism. This does not mean the aff cannot justify one, but that is where I start.

Counterplans: They're cool. The more specific the better like most arguments in debate. 

Please be comprehensible: I will not tell you to be clear, but I will be staring at you with a puzzled look which will probably mean to slow down so you are understandable. I’m pretty much willing to listen to whatever debate you prefer to have (K, policy, Other). You’re better off doing what you’re good at than trying to adjust to what you think I want to hear.

Making fewer, smarter args: Typically you will get you farther than speeding through some unexplained "more evidence". Impact assessment and evaluation of the debate in the last rebuttals are important. Oh and there is such a thing as zero risk of a link.

Debaters argue; evidence does not: If you just list 35 authors, I will not read your cards. I do not want to read your cards. Persuade me. It is a speaking activity. Read and say what you want. Its your debate so own it. That being said, I don¹t enjoy listening to debates in which gendered/racist/ableist language and so on is used. At the very least your speaker points will probably be effected.

Random Thoughts: I am trained to judge naturally off the flow, unless told otherwise. I do think rules exist in debate: speech times etc. These rules do not set restrictions on content or curriculum. All of these things are up to the debaters. Im not stranger to K on K debates or traditional vs K debates. Typically, I am not in traditional vs traditional debates (except in high school). 

Judges I model after: Izak D., Luis M., Toni N., Jon B., Dan F., Pointer, Ode, Symonds, Sarah, Joel R., Amber K, Hester and obviously Jack E. 

Questions? Email me at: Marvin.carterjr@gmail.com

 

Warm regards,

mc

Bethel Park High School 2014
Stanford University 2018
Constraints: Bethel Park, Sequoia
[updated 4/3/2015]

Leah Clark

*** Update: In light of our current political reality of fear mongering racists targeting ethnic groups as terrorists, either foreign or domestic, and the very real mortal danger to which that rhetoric leads, I will evaluate terrorism scenarios and impacts as tantamount to hate speech. Thus, expect me to vote accordingly... #debatenolongeragame

Howdy All,

Below are a few general guidelines that help me adjudicate, and by extension, help you debate in front of me:

I like to see direct clash (they say this, we say that), analysis with warrants (prefer our argument, because…), impact/implications (what the world looks like if we don’t do x), warrants for why your impact(s) hold(s) greater significance/is more likely/is the reason I should vote.

Make it clear to me. If I have to call for cards (which I rarely do), unfortunately, that situation becomes open to my interpretation of the evidence (underlined, not underlined, context from what I know of the author—or don’t) and is never satisfactory for either party.

Ultimately, debate is an educational activity and a ton of fun! Please try to have a good time in a respectful, inclusive and meaningful way.

Topicality— I will vote on it. Such debates should be a clash between two competing interpretations and impacted. Tell me why I should prefer one interpretation to another. Saying ‘T is a voter for blah, blah, blah…’ won’t do much to convince me it is important to evaluate. Use answers on other flows to prove things like ground loss, in-round abuse etc. It is pretty unlikely that I will vote simply on potential for abuse.

Dis-Ads— every argument in the round should functionally operate, in its own way, as a disad-- specific link/internal link/imapct story is key and explain to me how it turns case.

Counterplans— I like ‘em. Win the net benefit, explain how it operates as a disad to the permutation, win answers to perm/theory.

Permutations-- Slow down! There are few things I hate more than tests of competition that unfairly morph by the end of the debate because nobody in the debate really caught the text/concept of the perm.

Explain to me what ideas or actions you propose testing and how it functions-- I do not buy glib perms like 'perm all non-competative parts of the alt'. Describe to me what that world looks like/how they are compatible.

Theory— Tacked on, unreasoned, un-warranted theory arguments will not be evaluated. I am happy to vote here but you have to do some serious work to make it impactful. Slow down—I want to catch your analysis!

Critical Arguments/the ‘K’—I really enjoy these debates, and truthfully where I focused my attention as a competitor--both on the Aff. and Neg. However, please do not operate under the assumption that I am familiar with your authors or your interpretations. Please be clear in identifying your links and implications. I especially dislike kritik debates that devolve into generic disads. Specificity is key and tell me a story! Always a good choice to slow down! Also a great choice, cut the jargon.

If your strategy when confronted with a critical argument is to rest solely on your Framework laurels, you will have a lot of difficult winning in front of me. I like to see arguments engaged directly— more on Framework….

Framework—Thus far, observing framework arguments, I am not a fan. I am not of the opinion that debate is the wrong forum and that arguments should, on face, be excluded. A more sophisticated argument, and one that I am definitely willing to vote for, is one that identifies how the argument operates as a disad to the K/critical case, provides impact comparison, and warranted analysis how they cant capture/access x advantage.

Debate History

1 - Nevada Union (2009-2014)

2 - Weber U (2014-2015)

3 - UCO (2015-Present)

Round judged on Education topic: 4

Currently coaching Cabot

Helloooo! It is nice to see humbleness and kindness. I find it to be more important relative to debating because you might find yourself as far as a across the country from the person your debating, or in your dorm when you get to college. Just be nice, play friendly, but don't let that deter you from establishing the arg in a manner you usually do. Just don't be uncomfy.

Short Version:

To be honest, I think I could consider myself "flexible" in most regards. I think the best example of this is my ability to go for a Domestic PIC in one debate against Texas and then "T-Domestic" against the same team when they took it out against me 3 months later. So I think your 2NR on any argument will be okay.

I've been debating for a second now, but don't believe that I will be able to handle your queer deleuzian k of semiotic wounded attachments. I'm gonna need you to explain that one to me. Put simply: Just because I go for it doesn't mean I'm going to get your argument. I don't think about these arguments like a lot of debaters do, and a lot of my mentors aren't debaters. So there will for sure be disconnects. I think part of being that debater is being held to the standard of applying your argument, but that is generally true for all arguments. For example - "diseases cause extinction" is no more of an extension than "The subject is interpolated into a pretextual paradigm of discourse that includes consciousness as a paradox" (Literally taken from the post modern generator). 

Condense the 2NR, and frame the debate by the end of it. Same for the 2AR, but tell me what I need to do, why I should do it, and what the impact to that reason is.

Just have fun, remember what an argument is, and make funny references that are clever. 

Long Version - More about argumentative preferences.

First and foremost: anyone who tells you they're tabula rasa is lying almost as much as my coaches do when they say I'm good at debate. No one is tabula rasa. We were all predisposed in one way or another. Can we control that? No, because if we could the concept of "accountability" would be a wild one to think about. So, my job is to ensure that you know what ways my conscious, subconscious, and unconscious might lead when thinking about the debate.

Case - I actually have a lot of these, but I will be honest. I am the rare few that doesn't like a huge case debate. I think it is nice to have a separate flow to evaluate. Like, if it is a case debate against an aff without a plan. then hell yeah, I could go with that. If it is like a one off, 3 card cap K, and 7 minutes of case against an aff with a plan, then I might be thinking this is going to be interesting. Not because I dislike the nature of those debates, but so many people end up just reguritating the taglines that it ends up being 13 minutes of blips or card reading instead of comparative claims. I think so many of you are so so smart and super talented. In fact, I think probably all of you are, but I don't think you show it when you do this, and I just want you to give that 2NC, let the timer go off, and feel like Mr. Hotspot did when he first ate rap snacks with the migos on the front. 

T - I love a good topicality debate. I probably think that I shouldn't be the person deciding what's reasonable on the topic. I don't have a good track record, but I mean I need you to tell me why I shouldn't. If not, looks like some random aff on education about a specific military project in India is going to be topical. I don't wanna do it, but ya made me, and I'm telling you not to make me when we cross that bridge. I think my fav T strategy is a Small TVA, Huge Limits DA, and a heavy impact comparison. 

DA/CP - do it, don't go for the case if it solves 100% of the aff. Just win that it solves the aff with a tie breaker. I think comparative UQ claims about the NB are good ways to justify any impact to the DA to or for a solvency deficit to the CP. 

K - Most of this is above. I'll understand your argument, but I will not just let you throw buzzwords at me. I think the link needs context. I think it should quote their evidence. I think that the link should then explain the context based internal link to their impact argument. For instance - education policy results in militarism should be explained as why the research in this debate on education policy can inform the research algorithms we take from the debate to inform later research which materializes our ideological relationship to X event.

FW - I think there are some instances where they get to weigh the aff. I think it is REALLY easy to make the argument that the aff's internal link claims have some remote relation to the way we teach people about policy (it's literally the education topic - if your aff isn't already making a research argument, we should talk). TVA is less convincing that SSD and a limita DA - I think TVA is a CP in most instances. I think fw debaters tend to be kind of lazy when going for it, and I'm going to actively refuse those 2NRs. 

Overall, just do you. I'm here for two hours, want to help you learn, and to be honest, I'm actually super excited to see all of you debate. You all are awesome, talented, and your coaches stick around because of that. Just enjoy each other, and thank you for letting me sit in the back! 

elyse.conklin@gmail.com

I graduated from the Comm Masters Program at Wake Forest where I coached for two years (2015-2017). I coached Whitney Young Magnet (2010-2014) and Walter Payton College Prep (2014-2018). I am not currently coaching and spent the last couple years working as a pastry chef. I have a good base knowledge of the topic, but I might need some clarity on more niche references to argument trends, particularly T if you want to talk about other team's affs as examples of good or bad education.

“Who did the better debating” will always be the last question I ask myself before hitting the Submit button unless there is an extremely pressing reason not to. This also means I'm hesitant to vote for a team that wins one argument but loses the rest, “cheap shots” have to be well-impacted.

I judged quite frequently when I coached and am well-versed in most areas and styles of debate. I tended to coach "high theory" teams (whatever that means), but I think in order to be good at debate you have to engage and understand what other people are saying. If someone described me as a "technical" judge, I would be pleased. Judges who say "Plan or GTFO" or the reverse are doing everyone a disservice.

I am more dispassionate than dogmatic when it comes to substance -- I try to reward quality, up to date research related to the topic, and to respect the work of debaters and coaches by giving my best effort to give a well-explained decision. At the same time, I'm very willing to vote on presumption if the other side has not given me a coherent, justifiable reason to vote for them. The most direct and creative impact turns from any ideological standpoint make for fun debates. Heg and cap good args are fine enough, but I need these positions to be contextualized within current political events and trends, not only theory and impacts. By the final rebuttals I tend to flow straight down and line them up the best I can, but I prioritize typing the content as much as I can during the speech.

Time your speech, your partner's speech, the other team, and prep. If suddenly it seems like you have given a 12 minute 2AC, I will become even grumpier than usual and dock everyone's speaks .1

LAMDL Program Director (2015 - Present)
UC Berkeley Undergrad (non-debating) & BAUDL Policy Debate Coach (2011-2015)
LAMDL Policy Debater (2008 - 2011)

Include me on the email chain: jfloresdebate@gmail.com

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

TL;DR Do what you do best. I evaluate you on how well you execute your arguments, not on your choice of argument.

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

I believe debate is a space that is shaped and defined by the debaters, and as a judge my only role to evaluate what you put in front of me. There is generally no argument I won't consider, with the exception of arguments that are intentionally educationally bankrupt. I generally lean in favor of more inclusive frameworks, but do still believe the debate should be focused on debatable issues.

Most of my work nowadays is in the back end of tournaments, so I might not be privy to your trickier strategies. Feel free to use them, but know if I do not catch it on my flow, it will not count.

I'm a better judge for rounds with fewer and more in-depth arguments compared to rounds where you throw out a lot of small blippy arguments that you blow up late in the debate. My issue with the latter isn't the speed (speed is fine), rather I'm less likely to vote for underdeveloped arguments. Generally, the team that takes the time to provide better explanations, applications, and warrants will win the debate for me. This includes dropped arguments. I still need these to be explained, applied, and weighed for you to get anything out of it.

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

Feel free to read your non traditional Aff, but be prepared to defend why it is relevant to the topic (either in the direction of it or in response/criticism of it), and why it is a debatable issue. Feel free to read your procedurals, but be prepared to weigh and sequence your standards against the specifics of the case in the round. Either way, I'll evaluate it and whether or not I vote in your direction will come down to execution in the round. Articulate the internal links to your impacts for them to be weighed as heavily as you want.

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

Engage your opponents. Avoid being rude and/or disrespectful.

If you have specific questions about specific arguments let me know.

Email chain/contact: lanikfrazer@gmail.com

About me - I was the director of speech & debate at sonoma academy for 4 years, and coach for 3 years prior. I debated at SVDP and at Cal and have taught at the CNDI. I no longer do anything debate related.

General - My judging philosophy is pretty simple - you should ultimately do what you do best. I prioritize specificity, contextualization, and evidence quality over your style of debate. Really, I can't stress this enough. I don't judge many policy v. policy debates, but I am able to adjudicate them. I do, however, primarily judge K v. K/clash rounds.

Organization is very important. I flow on paper. I am not a fan of huge overviews and card dumps- please do the work for me and tell me where I should flow things. Explaining warrants is crucial. Empirics and examples are great. Impact analysis is critical. Tech should be truth.

Topicality - I will vote on topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation is good, predictable, and resolves their voters. You should be explaining why, as a whole, your vision of the topic is good, and have tangible impacts. Potential abuse isn't super compelling to me, but I'll vote on it if you tell me why I should. Ks of T are often pretty trifling and need to be explained in depth. "Community consensus" on T doesn't mean much to me and should not be taken for granted.

Theory - I have a high threshold for theory debates and find them to be blippy and frivolous most of the time. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, but if there is a voting issue it must be thoroughly articulated and should have a very strong presence in the 2nr/2ar. Slow down, be clear, and do more than read the shell.

Framework - I mostly judge debates wherein affirmatives do not read a traditional plan text. I am fine with this. Should affirmatives at least be in the direction of the topic? Probably, but not necessarily. Framework read against a K/performance aff that does something concrete is typically not a good argument to read in front of me. You should be engaging in what they do and you should do more than say that they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Provide a creative topical version, and explain why fairness or education or whatever comes first (and why this means the aff can't access their own pedagogy). Do more than provide a case list, but explain why those cases are good for debate. I tend to think that fairness is more of an internal link and not a terminal impact, but if you're winning that I will vote for you.

The K - love it. I spend a lot of time reading critical theory and am probably familiar with your lit, but I will not do extra work for you, so the less jargon/more explanation, the better. Be specific and have contextualized links (the link should be to the aff and not the world). You should also answer all of the aff's impacts through turns, defense, etc. Framing is super important. The permutation is underutilized. Impact turns on the aff are cool, but not when it's something you shouldn't say pedagogically.

Disadvantages - Fine. Win your link, turn/outweigh the case, impact calc. Intrinsicness is silly and I'll probably not evaluate it much unless it's seriously mishandled (though it can be compelling against things like riders DAs, which are, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of fiat).

Counterplans - Great. I love a creative advantage CP. You should have a solvency advocate. I definitely lean neg on most theory arguments here, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on them.

Let me know if you have any questions. Shoot me an email before the round if you want me to be aware of access needs, pronouns, etc.

I've been in debate for a little over a decade now as a high school policy debater, coach for numerous teams across multiple events, as well as professionally at the Bay Area Urban Debate League. Essentially, do what you want. Debate is a unique educational and competitive space, please make the most of it. I will vote on most things if you give me a good enough reason. I do not lean towards traditional or K/performative debate. Both are good and valuable. Again, do what you want. Have fun. Be nice to each other.

Go ahead and add me to whatever email chain: gabriel.gangoso@gmail.com

Flex prep is fine. In's and Out's are fine. Any other practices like this are probably fine. If you don't recognize these terms don't worry about them.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Garcia%2C+Brandon

TLDR; May your heart be your guiding key, I say it all the time. You ultimately need to do what your heart feels is right.

School: Stevens Point Area Senior High (WI)

Experience: I've got three years of high school debate experience, I'm the assistant coach of the SPASH debate team, and this is my second year judging.

I'm a tabs judge but I have a few preferences:

T: I'll always look to competing interpretations, and you should throughly explain your standards/voters. In round abuse will be more persuasive
Kritiks: I'll default to a policy framework if none is presented, so I guess I'm a little biased against Kritiks but if you win the framework flow I'm down. Also I have probably a higher standard for alt solvency.

Impact calc/ framing the round is key. In the end I'll vote on anything, but you need to tell my why I'm signing my ballot.

email me at dgord325@uwsp.edu if you have any questions

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

1. On impact calculus, timeframe resolves whether the isolated impact to the counterplan solvency deficit turns the net-benefit or the other way around, since intervening actors might avert distant impacts.
2. "Disad turns case" should have status quo solves uniqueness.
3. Impact defense on "yes or no" impacts and analytic takeouts of an internal link's uniqueness win rounds, and war outweighs lowered quality of some lives.
4. Qualifications matter if the field requires experts to distinguish true warrants from rhetoric.
5. Specific links and case versus counterplan or alternative solvency determine who wins what scenarios, and the ballot endorses the best achievable vision.
6. On theory, neg gets multiple conditional advocacies with no cross-applying across contradictory worlds.
7. Word PICs need functional net-benefits.
8. Aff defends only explicit cross-x concessions and functional plan mandates, so if the aff doesn't say "immediately without consultation" or "all three USFG branches" then the counterplan isn't competitive.
9. Limits win topicality since we can't know the literature base before deciding the resolution's limit, but evidence that aff is heart of the topic might win reasonability.
10. I don't vote on non-round-specific theory or dropped cheapshot voters if the subpoints merit rejecting only the argument.

Stanford Policy Debate Team Class of 2016

 

There is almost nothing you can do or say in front of me that I won't listen to. (With the caveat that if you are blatantly racist or misogynist then I am clearly not the judge for you). There are only a few things I think are worth mentioning explicitly.

1) Generally Tech > Truth but it's super important to explain how concessions impact the round because I will not do that work for you. However, that doesn't mean I'm not open to K's of the line by line or anything of that vein.

2) I don't think Ks need to have alts but in this case please focus on your impact calculus.

3) I'll give smart, warranted analytics a lot of weight. Problematize internal link chains for me because they are almost always the weakest part of a disad or advantage and many times you don't need cards to convince me the internal link chain is too contrived to make sense.

4) I have a tendency to give RFDs that are too long. Sorry in advance - I'm getting better at this, I swear.

I love teaching and having the opportunity to judge you so please feel free to ask any questions you have about debate, Stanford, or computers and if you want to talk about a round I've judged you in e-mail me at sgulati3@stanford.edu.

TLDR VERSION

I've been around a long time. I've seen a lot of conventional wisdom come and go. I don't always agree with the consensus of the moment. Be fast, be clear, read a K and/or a counterplan.

Remote Debates:

I flow on paper and actually make an effort to watch you and listen to the words you are saying. It's hard to give speaker points to a glowing dot, so turn on your camera when speaking if possible. I will not follow the speech doc as you are talking, so be clear.

Want to be on the email chain? - Yes, but know that I won't look at the docs until the debate is over.

Please send docs to: samhaleyhill@gmail.com

Speed? - Yes

Open CX? - Sure, but if you aren't involved somewhat, your speaker points suffer.

When does prep time stop? - When you cease to alter your speech doc and to talk about the debate with your partner.

Judge Disclosure - Unless the tournament has some terrible counter-educational policy preventing it (looking at you, NCFL).

Can I read (X argument)? Yes, if it's not offensive.

T? - Reasonability (whew - really feels good to be honest there)

Will you vote on disclosure theory? - No. Disclosure is a good community norm which I support, but I do not think ballots can or should enforce this norm. The exception would be if you can prove that someone straight up lied to you.

Tech over truth? - Yes, but I think people often take this way too far.

FULL VERSION

Biography

Years Judging: 16
Years Debated: 4

I debated for four years in high school for Nevada Union (1998-2002) during which time I made two TOC appearances. I did not debate for Berkeley during my time there, but I was an assistant coach for the College Preparatory School from 2002-2006. After that, I was off the circuit for a few years because I moved to Hong Kong for a year and then went to graduate school. 2010-2011 was my first year back. I worked for New Trier for a year after that and at Nevada Union from 2011-2012. After that I went back to CPS for three more years. I then spent four years running the program at St. Francis. I now work with the Washington Urban Debate League. I have judged a lot for a long time.

Tech Over Truth - This is not dogma

I think that the phrase "tech over truth" is just as vacuous as its inverse, "truth over tech." I honestly have no idea what either of these slogans is trying to say, but I do know that people who repeat either of them incessantly tend to make decisions that I don't get.

"Tech" is just as subjective as "truth" because whether someone's embedded clash has answered something, whether an argument has a warrant, whether someone has explained something enough to have extended it, etc. are all judgement calls at some level anyhow.

I think that dropped arguments are conceded. I think that I should refrain from dismissing arguments that I don't agree with. I think that arguments which I think are bad should still win the debate if the debater advancing them has argued better than the opponent. I guess that's tech over truth?

At the same time, I am the kind of judge who thinks that one compelling, well-developed argument can be more important than three specious, underdeveloped ones. I don't think that the concession of a less significant argument necessarily outweighs a more significant argument that is won despite contestation. Is that truth over tech? Is this whole tech vs. truth binary kind of pointless?

My bumper sticker slogan would be something like: "Analysis over blips."

Speaker Points - No, you can't have a 30.

It used to go without saying that I award speaker points solely based on how well I feel the debaters performed in each round. These days, it seems that I need to say that I will continue to do this regardless of what anyone else does and regardless of what debaters tell me to do during the debate.

I think that there's a performative/communicative aspect to this activity. Speak persuasively and your points will improve.

Try to be nice.

Judge Disclosure - I do it.

I'll disclose my decision and talk about the round with you in depth afterwards. I remember getting a lot out of post-round discussions when I was a debater, and I hope I can pass something along. If your analytics are in your speech docs for my later reference, I'll even give you my flows.

Speed - Go ahead, but be clear

I can flow any rate of delivery.

Lately, someone out there has been telling high school debaters to slow down and emphasize tags. Stop it, whoever you are. This advice implies that I don't care about the text of the card. In fact, I care about how you tagged the card far, far less than I care about what the text of the card actually says. When you slow down for the tag, but slosh unintelligibly through the card, you are implying that I can't understand high speed and that the actual card text is a mere formality. If this is so, you may as well just paraphrase the card like a PF debater.

Believe it or not, I actually can understand your card at high speeds if you read it clearly. I'm actually flowing what the card says. Often as not, I won't flow your (often misleading) tag at all.

I'll yell "clear" at you if you're not being clear. I'll do this twice before putting my pen down and pointedly glaring at you.

Line By Line - Please and Thank You

I'll look at evidence, sure, but I will be grumpy if you make me sort out a huge rat's nest of implied and unexplained clash for you. I am a believer in directly responsive line-by-line debate. I think that explaining warrants is good, but comparing warrants is better.

Framework - Can't we all just get along?

I am one of the last folks out there who won't take a side. I vote neg on framework sometimes; I vote aff on framework sometimes. I think framework debates are kind of fundamental to the activity. I'm up for any kind of argument. I love a good K debate, but I'm equally pleased to adjudicate a game of competing policy options. Run what you love. In my heart, I probably don't care if there's a plan text, but I'll vote for theory arguments demanding one if the better debating is done on that side. Please don't read offensive/amoral arguments.

Conditionality - Yeah, sure, whatever

I think one or two conditional CP's and a K is just fine. You can win a debate on conditionality being more permissive than that or being bad altogether. I won't intervene.

T - I am different from the folks at Michigan

I think that winning complete or nearly complete defense on T is sufficient for the aff even in a world of competing interpretations. If the aff meets, they meet. I'm unlikely to give this RFD: "Even though you're winning a we meet, the neg interpretation is better, so any risk that you don't meet etc etc." Ever since someone told me back in 1999 that T should be evaluated like a DA, I have not agreed. It's a procedural issue, not a predictive claim about the consequences of implementing a policy. As such, I evaluate T procedurally. Whether or not the aff meets is a binary question, not a linear risk.

I think sometimes people think that "competing interpretations" means "the smallest interpretation should win." To me, smallest is not necessarily best. Sure, limits are a big deal, but there is such a thing as over-limiting. There are also other concerns that aren't limits per se, like education, ground, and predictability.

I can be persuaded otherwise in a debate, but I think we should evaluate T through the lens of reasonability.

Open Cross Ex - Yeah

Just make sure that you're involved somewhat or I'll hammer your speaks.

Disclosure theory

Stop it. People choose to disclose as a courtesy. It is not and should not be a requirement. I tell all my teams to disclose. I think you should disclose. If you choose not to, so be it.

If you make a disclosure theory argument, I will ignore you until you move on to something else. I will never vote on a disclosure theory argument, even if it is not answered.

I always find it sadly hilarious when big, brand-name programs tell me that disclosure is good for small schools. It most definitely is not. The more pre-round prep becomes possible, the more that coaching resources can be leveraged to influence debates. That's why the most well-resourced programs tend to be the most aggressive about disclosure theory.

New Affs

New affs are fine. I will not consider arguments which object to them, even if the aff team never answers such arguments.

Hi all, I’m Haley Hayashi.

Edison High School '14

UC Berkeley '18

Rounds judged on ocean topic: 16

I have only judged a few tournaments on the oceans topic so please explain acronyms and other arguments that aren’t central to the topic.

I debated for 3 years in high school at a public school with little to no debate funding. Because of this I had minimal exposure to circuit debate in high school. What I may lack in circuit training and experience, I try to make up for in focus and how much I do care about being a good judge. I had some dabblings reading ks in hs but I was no expert which means if you do want to read critical arguments you need to go heavy on the explanations.

 -Speed is fine. If I cannot understand you I will say clear and you won't see me flowing what you are saying.

-I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument, but it is impossible for me to be 100% impartial to every argument. I will do my best to not bring my own opinions into the debate.

-Try to be amicable to each other. Excessive rudeness will not only annoy me, but will cost you speaker points.

-I don’t count flashing as prep, but don’t abuse that.

-I think Kritiks can be interesting and lead to good debates but I am not an expert so you will need to go heavy on explanations and light on jargon.

-Speed is fine but I am not the fastest flower. If I can’t understand you I’ll say clear. If you want me to listen to your argument, make sure I can understand you. So signposts are greatly appreciated.

-overviews are great

Ts, CPs, and Das: All good arguments to run in front of me. To win on T you need to prove in round abuse. 

Theory/FW: Needs to be contextualized and clearly articulated why it is important enough to vote on and what the other team did wrong.

Ks: As I said above, be sure to clarify and explain a lot, especially if it is a more obscure k. 

-The team with the best analysis and explanation is much more likely to win.

 

If there is something you would like clarification on or if you have questions, feel free to ask me. 

Overview:

Y'all know me, still the same O.G. but I been low-key
Hated on by most these nigg@s with no cheese, no deals and no G's
No wheels and no keys, no boats, no snowmobiles, and no skis
Mad at me cause I can finally afford to provide my family with groceries
Got a crib with a studio and it's all full of tracks to add to the wall
Full of plaques, hanging up in the office in back of my house like trophies
Did y'all think I'mma let my dough freeze, ho please
You better bow down on both knees, who you think taught you to smoke trees
Who you think brought you the oldies
Eazy-E's, Ice Cubes, and D.O.C's
The Snoop D-O-double-G's
And the group that said motherduck the police
Gave you a tape full of dope beats
To bump when you stroll through in your hood
And when your album sales wasn't doing too good
Who's the Doctor they told you to go see
Y'all better listen up closely, all you nigg@s that said that I turned pop
Or The Firm flopped, y'all are the reason that Dre ain't been getting no sleep
So duck y'all, all of y'all, if y'all don't like me, blow me
Y'all are gonna keep ducking around with me and turn me back to the old me

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say
But nothing comes out when they move their lips
Just a bunch of gibberish
And motherduckers act like they forgot about Dre

Line-by-line

Semi-retired from the policy debate world few years back, but I am around for 4 years during my daughter’s high school policy debate career. Maybe another 4 after that for my son’s. Maybe even longer if they decide to debate in college. “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!”

Experienced former circuit debater from the Bay Area. Previous coach in Sacramento for CK McClatchy, Rosemont, Davis Senior, and others. Also coached several Bay Area programs. I am the former Executive Director and founder of the Sacramento Urban Debate League (SUDL). I spent the better part of a decade running SUDL while personally coaching several schools. I've judged a ton of rounds on all levels of policy debate and feel in-depth and informative verbal RFD's are key to debate education.

I will adapt to you rather than you to me. It's not my place as a judge to exclude or marginalize any sort of argument or framework. On the neg, I will vote for K/K + case, T, CP + DA, DA + case, FW/FW + case, performance, theory.... whatever. I personally prefer hearing a good K or theory debate, not that I'm more inclined to vote on those genres of argumentation. I am down for the K, performance, or topical aff. Anything goes with me.

I'm big on organization. Hit the line by line hard. Don't just give me 3 min overviews or read a bunch of cards off the line, then expect me to conveniently find the best place on the flow for you. Do the work for me. I flow on paper OG style, so don't drop arguments. I don't flow off speech docs (neither should you), but put me on the email chain so I can read cards along with you and refer back to them. I can handle any level of speed, but please be as clear and loud as possible.

I will work hard to make the debate accessible and a safe place for you and your arguments. If you have access needs during a debate, wish to inform me of your preferred gender pronoun, or if there is anything you wish to communicate privately, please let me know or send me an email. markcorp2004@msn.com

My judging philosophy is very short for a reason. Its your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote. Write my ballot for me in your 2NR/2AR.

I am a 4 year parent judge, with two years experience as an assistant coach for a small school policy program, with primarily administrative responsibilities.  

I can handle spreading, if you are CLEAR, and am fine with any arguments.  However, because I am more of a lay judge you need to make the story clear and logical for me, and don't rely on my familiarity with your evidence or jargon.  I will vote on T if the argument is strong, stronger than other lines of argument in terms of impact.

Keep your speeches clear and well organized. 

John Hines
DOD at Head Royce
20+ Years Judging/Coaching

UPDATE--1/2/24

Commencing old man ranting at clouds:

So, it appears my addendum from 6 years ago was just marking the beginning of the end of line-by-line debate.

After returning from a four-year hiatus, I discovered last year that flowing and line-by-line debating are essentially a thing of the past that current debaters don't even really realize they aren't actually doing.

I blame the judges who started flowing directly from the speech docs and decided they no longer needed to hold debaters accountable for what actually came out of their mouths.

So, we now have a community of JUDGES who never actually learned how to flow or debate line by line, either.

This creates a fundamental problem for me. I have no idea how to evaluate debates when everyone else in the room is just reading and responding to the speech docs without knowing whether the judge who actually listens and flows is getting things down on the flow where they belong.

I honestly have no idea how judges today decide debates fairly and objectively based on what was actually said in the debate.

So, I'll summarize everything else below very simply here:

If you don't flow, I probably won't vote for you.

If you don't debate line-by-line, I probably won't vote for you.

If you don't care whether I'm trying to flow the words coming out of your mouth, I probably won't vote for you.

If neither you nor your opponent flows or debates line by line, I will be forced to vote for somebody, but I will have ZERO TOLERANCE for someone who didn't flow or debate off the flow, post-rounding me for why I didn't vote theway they wanted me to vote.

Addendum--10/15/17

Line-by-line debate is actually a thing. It's a skill not a referendum on you as a person or what I think about your arguments. It's a method of clash that allows judges to decide rounds with minimum intervention on their part. If your approach to debating line-by-line includes extensive overviews, "cloud clash," and requests for me to pull out new sheets of paper I am probably not a very good judge for you. I will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, but if you chose to abandon the line by line please know that you have asked me to insert my subjective views of debate into the round and you are not likely to be happy with the outcome.


Standard philosophy begins here:
Rather than list off a series of personal beliefs about arguments, an explanation of how I decide debates seems more productive. Three keys to debating well in front of me:

1. Make Arguments. I tend to decide debates within 20 minutes of the end of the round. I will call for VERY few cards after the debate as I prefer to make my decision based upon what you argued in the last rebuttals rather than what I think about the quality of your cards. I will not re-read every card read in the debate. I will not read portions of evidence not read in the round by debaters. I will not read cards handed to me that were not extended in the last two rebuttals. I will resolve arguments consisting of disputes over interpretation of warrants in evidence by reading those cards. I will make sure arguments extended in the last two rebuttals can be traced back across the flow to the point they originated. I will make sure cards handed to me were extended properly during the debate before reading them. I will keep a careful flow of the debate and will do my best to vote based upon warranted arguments extended throughout the debate. Your job is to speak clearly and coherently and to dispute the warrants within your opponents’ arguments with analysis and evidence.

2. Make Choices. Most debates come down to a couple of key issues which need to be resolved by me; awareness of these nexus issues and the ability to clarify how they should be resolved is the key to your success. Does the perm on the CP avoid the links to the net-benefits? Does the solvency deficit to the counter-plan outweigh the net-benefits? Who controls the question of uniqueness (both at the link and impact level)? Can the alternative to the criticism function simultaneously with the plan? I prefer to intervene as little as humanly possible. Your ability to accurately frame the nexus issues of the debate for me will reduce the need for me to resolve these questions for you and make me a much happier judge.

3. Don’t be a Jerk. As Ed Lee of Emory says in his most recent Judge Philosophy--"Respect is non-negotiable for me". I work VERY HARD as a judge. I flow on paper, I generally keep my computer closed the entire debate and I try to pay very close attention to everything you say. I spend time constructing my post-round discussion to be clear, concise, and educational. I do not take kindly to debaters or coaches who wish to interrupt and argue with me before I've reached the conclusion of my RFD. I promise to give you plenty of time to ask productive follow-up questions. Lately, I've become even more concerned with in-round comity. Rudeness and snide remarks during cross-ex, insulting the intelligence and goodwill of the other team, and other derisive and insulting behavior towards opponents will not be tolerated. To once again quote Ed - "If you are engaging your opponent in a way that you would not if you were in front of one of your professors [teachers] or the president of your university [principal/head of school] then you should not do it in front of me." I love seeing passionate engagement with argument, but quickly become physically uncomfortable when passion turns into hostility. If you are confused as to where this line resides watch my non-verbals...it will be very obvious.

Finally, on the question of "What kinds of arguments do you prefer" I'll answer by agreeing with Jarrod Atchison on the importance of FLEXIBILITY as a debater. To quote his ballot from a recent NDT final round "Debater flex is the past, present, and the future":

Jarrod ATCHISON, Director of Debate and Assistant Professor of Speech and Drama at Trinity University (Incoming DOF at Wake Forrest), 2008
[Judge Ballot from the Final Round of the 2008 National Debate Tournament, Available Online at http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/Results/JudgesBallots2008final.htm, Accessed 03-16-2010]

7. Debater Flex is the wave of the future: I would have loved to have been a part of the Dartmouth coaching staff and squad when they were brainstorming a negative strategy for this debate. Although they had an extremely limited amount of time, they had two fantastic debaters in Josh and Kade that could execute a wide range of arguments leaving no option unavailable. In this debate, they had two case specific counterplans, a well developed kritik, two topicality arguments, etc…This debate reminded me that debaters who self identify as “policy” or “kritik” are missing out on a wide range of ways to win. Forget the labels, just think of everything as an argument. Some arguments require more understanding than others, but they are just arguments. If you want to be able to take on a new high tech aff with less than 45 minutes of prep before the final round of the NDT, the last thing that you want to tell your coach/partner is “I can’t argue __.” Debater flex is the past, present, and the future and I hope that students will see Josh and Kade’s 1NC as an example of how important it is to be versatile.

Experience:

* 4 years high school policy (national circuit & lay debate) at Pembroke Hill; 1 year college policy at UC Berkeley

* 2 years assistant coaching at Harker; 1-time lab leader at both the CNDI & SCUFI; ~5 years judging

Preferences:

Reflecting back on almost 15 years since I began with the activity, I feel like the strongest benefits of competitive debate are the development of research, persuasion, and advocacy skills.

I've both judged and participated in a wide variety of K & Policy debates, across the spectrum. No matter what kind of argument you want to make, you should run what you are best prepared to excel in.

Dropped arguments aside, and especially in the rebuttals, I've found that depth is more important than breadth. Often the difference between a close round and a decisive victory for one side is having a well-developed impact calculus and clear explanation of why your position is stronger, relying on detailed, comparative analysis.

When deciding on a strategy or which arguments to focus on, I place a high value on truth - gauged by the strength of your evidence and analysis. The truer your position is, the better positioned you will be to magnify or compensate for technical strengths or weaknesses.

The best debaters (29+ speaker points) are able to excel all of the above, while maintaining that delicate balance between "playing the game" at the highest level and exhibiting some awareness of the "bigger picture" of how these issues and your analysis are significant and ideally still make sense outside of the conventions of debate as well.

T/Framework:

The key in any framework or topicality debate, on either side, is to go beyond the buzzwords and really engage in comparative analysis on the central questions at stake.

What are the implications of allowing, or not allowing, a certain kind of argument? Or: prioritizing, or not prioritizing, a certain kind of impact?

Focus as much as you can on these core questions and the relevant impact calculus. Usually, I find that it is the internal links which are the weakest and most in need of development (i.e., why a particular approach to, for example, 'policymaking' or 'discourse' is important and does or doesn't access your impacts)(or: why an argument has or hasn't triggered a certain thresh-hold of limits/predictability that justifies including or excluding it in the debate).

Dis/advantages:

Internal links and impact calculus are generally the most important, and most neglected, aspects of these debates. I really think that the best arguments can be made here if you are able to take a step back and ask yourself whether your position as a whole truly makes sense and is plausible, even outside the conventions of debate. Is the position you are taking - as a whole - one that is really supported in the literature, or by a reasonable analysis? One rock-solid scenario with an air-tight link-chain and a real, serious, warranted impact will beat ten scraped-together scenarios with tenuous link-chains and implausible impacts any day in my book.

Policy v. K:

On either side of the debate, it's really important that you know what you are talking about. Failing to engage with the specifics of your opponents' arguments is the quickest way to lose this kind of debate. Defending the truth of your position and the value of your approach to the relevant issues is the baseline from which you can best defend or refute the validity of any kind of critical theory.

I have read a lot of critical literature and empirical political history, and place a high value on both practical concerns and philosophical depth. The best debaters should be able to take advantage of this on either end of the spectrum.

Speed and Evidence:

Clarity is VERY important, especially if you want good speaker points. Often there can be benefit found in slowing down a little - more time is generally lost to inefficient, irrelevant or repetitive rhetoric than a lack of raw speed.

If your evidence doesn't have strong warrants in it, it is vital that you are supplying additional analysis in your own speeches. The best evidence always goes beyond making basic assertions that are rhetorically specific enough to capitalize on in a round, and instead presents warranted arguments which you can summarize, lean on, or extrapolate and apply to defend the truth of your position.

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

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."

 

I debated high school policy debate in the Mid 1990's and collegiate parliamentary at community college before transferring to UC . I am currently a speech and debate teacher at Quarry Lane school, Dublin CA . I am focused on Public forum debate. Before that I was the coach of Skyline High school in Oakland, CA and focused on Policy debate (primarily varsity performance) . Before then I coached at El Cerrito High School in Northern CA and coached all events, flex policy as well as lay adapted teams. I have coached teams to TOC, NSDA, and CA state championship. I love the community I coach in. It is the daily conversations, discussions, and socializing that keep us all going. Debate changed my life, it wasn't the only thing that made who I am but it's important and I am grateful to be able to share that gift with students on a daily basis.

Public Forum paradigm.

I am new to coaching public forum but am able to adapt from a historical policy background of 20 years. Speed is fine. But I always emphasis clarity. Technical debate is good. I will flow. Debaters should collapse to key winning arguments in beginning in the rebuttals. New arguments in summary and final focus are discouraged unless responding to an abusive argument by an opponent. I am comfortable with flex, both straightforward policy or Kritiks both post-modern to performance. I'm fairly tabula rasa in the sense that you are responsible for upholding the framework for the debate. Theory is fun and I enjoy a well reasoned theory debate with impacted standards.

In regards to evidence analysis I am looking for you to read warrants and good data and extend it and use it throughout the debate. Offense is key. Think strategically and you will be rewarded. Most of all have fun. Decorum is essential.

CatNats Update: Forgot to update this - oh well. The ensuing philosophy is dated. The bottom line is, "I have experience. It's your activity. Make good arguments."

Experience: 4 years debating at Marist, 2 years coaching at Pepperdine, intermittent coaching at UWashington and Seattle high schools. Currently at Dutchess Community College coaching full-service.

After a brief hiatus and exodus from the Northeast, I'm back! I think judging philosophies are a good thing, but I've been out for so long that it's difficult for me to put into words what I'm "looking for." Moreover, I don't think that debate is about what I'm "looking for" (debaters don't debate for my edification), but it's about what students want to get out of it.

So, here's the old 2011-2012 version with changes applied as needed:

"Despite my sincerest efforts, I am still not the fastest of flows. As a result, I tend to look at rounds/speeches in a more holistic fashion and am not super-persuaded by arguments about line-by-line drops as concessions. Conceptual drops, however, still apply. Keep it clear and this shouldn't really be a problem.

Also, a few thoughts on niceness... I might be one to say that a little bit of antagonism is good in debate but I place the emphasis on the "little" as opposed to "antagonism." Let's face it - you're competing and you don't have to be all buddy-buddy with the opposite team (if you want to be, awesome!). It's cool to show that you know what you're talking about in CX but it's an entirely different thing to be an outright jerk. The whole "eye rolling/raising the voice/acting generally disgusted by the other team" thing just doesn't fly with me. Your speaks will probably reflect this if it gets to be too much. Snarky comments during the RFD also don't fly (and it perceptually discredits your skills as a debater...).

I debated for Marist and we were kind of non-traditional in our lines of argumentation. But, this doesn’t mean that I’m all about the K or non-traditional debate. Make sense? I hope so.

Anyway, I’m a sucker for a good, well-warranted debate. You have two hours to make me vote for you – and I’m not going to do the work for you. This probably means that you shouldn’t run your blippy DAs, framework, or shallowly articulated Ks in front of me. This also means that you shouldn’t run a K and assume I understand what your author’s talking about or run a DA and assume I keep up with every current event imaginable. Debate is about understanding the “why”s of a situation – not about spitting out as many cards as possible.

If you’re running T or framework, give me tangible reasons why I should vote for you – none of this “potential abuse” nonsense. I typically don’t buy “fairness” as a valid argument. If you’re on the flip-side of the T/framework debate, impact turns are a good route to go. Tons of arguments about how the other team is “excluding” you? Not so much.

As for those of you wondering if you should run a K or a DA/CP… either one is fine. Just explain it well. See my call above for warrants. I'm relatively well-versed in critical literature (lots of crit. ped. and cultural theory...) and am usually up-to-date, current events-wise.

And, if you’re wondering if your performance/non-traditional arguments are “safe” in front of me – yeah, they are. But, just because you sing/dance/read a poem/talk about identity, it doesn’t mean I have to vote for you. Give me the reasons why this is important, just like you would for a straight-up position. To me, performance/non-trad needs “solvency”, like any other argument. An example? It’s fine to talk about why the topic is bad – now what are you going to do about it…?

I'm fairly expressive non-verbally as a critic. If I look absolutely perplexed or stop flowing, there's definitely a reason why. Take that in-round feedback and tailor your arguments accordingly. It might mean that you have to take a step back and explain your argument with a little bit more depth but it'll be worth it. I promise."

Hi friend,

This is my first year out as a judge. This is my first paradigm as a judge, so, idk take from that what you will. I competed for 4 years at Boise State University. My argumentative background mainly consists of Lacanian psychoanalysis and critical security studies. My last year of competition involved a pretty steamy affair with 1-off disads and big stick affs though, so I wouldn't say I have a preference for any particular kind of argument. I just wanna see clash, impact comparison, and people loving/empathizing with one another.

Specifics:

Theory: I was never really that good at theory, but I've been impressed before. Theory is cool and all, but I'm not super great at flowing it, so please slow down a bit here. I understand theory as an advocacy, and sort of weigh the impacts that the implementation of one interpretation over another produces. So, idk, do some work on impact comparison/analysis. I tend to default to 'competing interpretations', so like, make sure your interpretation is competitive. I used to perm theory shells in college, so I guess that's something you could probably do in front of me too.

DA/CP: Nothing impresses me quite like a 1-off disad. I don't really like condo which is surprising given my fear of commitment. IDK, flow Freud across here. I put a pretty heavy emphasis on impact comparison, so don't just throw a bunch of impacts at me, explain how they interact with the aff, the aff's impacts, and why it means you win and they lose. I like argument summaries and applications to other arguments on the flow.

Kritiks: I like 1-off kritiks. I also like thesis level explanations of arguments. I've read a lot of K literature, but my interest has mainly been in Lacanian psychoanalysis, so keep that in mind before you debut your sick Deleuze aff in front of me. My literature degree doesn't mean that you don't have to summarize/explain things though. I really value application of arguments and the comparison between competing truth claims, and that's especially important for these kinds of arguments. I'm sensitive to graphic depictions of violence, especially in performances and the impact page, so keep that in mind and please be gentle, particularly with LGBT issues.

Case: I like cases that just make sense. I'm a sucker for a good nuclear war scenario. I won't automatically extend case for you, and I won't automatically contextualize the aff to theory without you doing that kind of work for me.

Performances: I was mostly a K debater in college, but never really got into performances. I think that these arguments have a place in the community and provide education/empowerment to people which I really like. I also think that treading carefully here is good though because I have been on the receiving end of having to answer back performances I really agreed with, and having the other team not be particularly kind, gentle, or empathetic to my position interacting with these arguments on the negative. I don't really buy that empowerment is a zero sum game. I'm sensitive to graphic depictions of violence, especially in performances and the impact page, so keep that in mind and please be gentle, particularly with LGBT issues.

*last updated March 2018

please add me to the email chain! zmagdb8[at]gmail.com

-Ingraham High School policy coach (2016-)

-Part-time University of Washington novice policy coach (2017-18)

-University of Washington alumni (3 years policy, 2014-2017)

-Puyallup High School alumni (3 years policy, 2010-2013)

general things:
- talk to me before round if you have specific questions about my philosophy or need accommodation
- i like the debate. i want rounds to be enjoyable for both teams -- you should read arguments that you are most comfortable with
- respect your partner and your opponents. don't prevent others from debating. don't be racist, sexist, transphobic, etc.; by extension don't make or attempt to justify those arguments
- to me debate is primarily an educational space but it is also a competitive space. what you say is important and it's how i make what i think is the best decision
- i'm pretty bad at summarizing my rfd so i will happily answer any questions you may have concerning it, or the round in general
- please don't cheat -- card-clipping, prep-stealing, flipping ahead in speech docs, etc. are things that i notice and will negatively affect your speaks / please don't make me call it out

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: brian.manuel@uky.edu

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."

Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.

Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.

Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!

Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.

Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited, but must follow the rules.

I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.

Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta then you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, miscited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact-check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element, the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any single set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments from the participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and use it to get judges who will automatically check-in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. It's not about who wrote the best constructive only. It's about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result, I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is brian.manuel@uky.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered. Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate Facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era where students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasize the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must prove their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations, I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negative burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love to debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also, why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2-year-old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Sukhi and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability, not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; it's what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - it's rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This means they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your lifelong friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

An additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or it's won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and fewer sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. It's called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, a strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but it's unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely affected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full-time coach. Debate is my full-time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with, and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging, my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard-working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being run every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

I was a policy debater for 4 years in High School at Nevada Union and am in my second year of college doing LD and Parli.

Speed: I haven't been up on my speed this last year in a half. Slow down on tags at least please.

Kirtics: You need a strong link, I rarely vote for an alt that is do nothing.

Framework: needs to be explained not just a block you read.

T: I will vote on T. You need to go all in and show proven abuse

Prep time starts when the flash drive leaves your computer.

I am not familiar with the topic.

Toni Nielson

Co-Director of Debate, Fullerton College (2017 - forever I suspect)

Executive Director - Bay Area Urban Debate League (2013-2017)
Co-Director of Debate at CSU, Fullerton for 7 years (2005-2012)
Debated in College for 5 years
Debated in High School for 3 years
Rounds on the Topic: less than 5

Email Chain: commftownnielson@gmail.com

I just want to see you do what you are good at. I like any debater who convinces me the know what they are talking about.

Here’s what I think helps make a debater successful –

1. Details: evidence and analytics, aff and neg – the threshold for being as specific as humanly possible about your arg and opponent's arg remains the same; details demonstrate knowledge
2. Direct organized refutation: Answer the other team and don’t make me guess about it – I hate guessing because it feels like intervention. I'm trying to let the debaters have the debate.
3. Debating at a reasonable pace: I ain’t the quickest flow in the west, even when I was at my best which was a while ago. I intend on voting for arguments which draw considerable debates and not on voting for arguments that were a 15 seconds of a speech. If one team concedes an argument, it still has to be an important and relevant argument to be a round winner.
4. Framing: tell me how you want me to see the round and why I shouldn’t see it your opponents way
5. Comparison: you aren’t debating in a vacuum – see your weakness & strengths in the debate and compare those to your opponent. I love when debaters know what they are losing and deal with it in a sophisticated way.

Some style notes - I like to hear the internals of evidence so either slow down a little or be clear. I flow CX, but I do this for my own edification so if you want an arg you still have to make it in a speech. I often don't get the authors name the first time you read the ev. I figure if the card is an important extension you will say the name again (in the block or rebuttals) so I know what ev you are talking about. I rarely read a bunch of cards at the end of the debate.

Now you are asking,
Can I read an aff without a plan? I lean rather in the direction of a topical plan, instrumentally implemented these days. This is a big change in my previous thoughts and the result of years of working with young, beginning debate. I appreciate policy discussion and believe the ground it provides is a preferable locus for debate. So I am somewhat prone to vote neg on framework must implement a plan.

Can I go for politics/CP or is this a K judge? Yes to both; I don't care for this distinction ideologically anymore. As far as literature, I lean slightly more in the K direction. My history of politics and CP debate are more basic than my history of K debate.

Theory - lean negative in most instances. Topicality - lean affirmative (if they have a plan) in most instances. I lean neg on K framework which strikes me as fair negative ground of a topical plan of action.

Truth v Tech - lean in the direction of tech. Debate, the skill, requires refuting arguments. So my lean in the direction of the tech is not a declaration to abandon reality. I will and do vote on unanswered arguments, particularly ones that are at the core of the debate. Gigantic caveat, I will struggle to vote on an argument just because it is dropped. The concession must be relevant and compelling to the debate. I will also be hesitant to vote on arguments that fly in the face of reality.

Here's what I like: I like what you know things about. And if you don't know anything, but get through rounds cause you say a bunch and then the other team drops stuff - then I don't think you have a great strategy. Upside for you, I truly believe you do know something after working and prepping the debate on the topic. Do us both a favor: If what you know applies in this round, then debate that.

Good luck!.

Please put me on the email chain: eriodd@d219.org.

Experience:

I'm currently an assistant debate coach for Niles North High School. I was the Head Debate Coach at Niles West High School for twelve years and an assistant debate coach at West for one year. I also work at the University of Michigan summer debate camps. I competed in policy debate at the high school level for six years at New Trier Township High School.

Education:

Master of Education in English-Language Learning & Special Education National Louis University
Master of Arts in School Leadership Concordia University-Chicago
Master of Arts in Education Wake Forest University
Juris Doctor Illinois Institute of Technology-Chicago Kent College of Law
Bachelor of Arts University of California, Santa Barbara

Debate arguments:

I will vote on any type of debate argument so long as the team extends it throughout the entire round and explains why it is a voter. Thus, I will pull the trigger on theory, agent specification, and other arguments many judges are unwilling to vote on. Even though I am considered a “politics/counter plan” debater, I will vote on kritiks, but I am told I evaluate kritik debates in a “politics/counter plan” manner (I guess this is not exactly true anymore...and I tend to judge clash debates). I try not to intervene in rounds, and all I ask is that debaters respect each other throughout the competition.

Identity v. Identity:
I enjoy judging these debates. It is important to remember that, often times, you are asking the judge to decide on subject matter he/she/they personally have not experienced (like sexism and racism for me as a white male). A successful ballot often times represents the team who has used these identity points (whether their own or others) in relationship to the resolution and the debate space. I also think if you run an exclusion DA, then you probably should not leave the room / Zoom before the other team finishes questions / feedback has concluded as that probably undermines this DA significantly (especially if you debate that team again in the future).

FW v. Identity:
I also enjoy judging these debates. I will vote for a planless Aff as well as a properly executed FW argument. Usually, the team that accesses the internal link to the impacts (discrimination, education, fairness, ground, limits, etc.) I am told to evaluate at the end of the round through an interpretation / role of the ballot / role of the judge, wins my ballot.

FW v. High Theory:
I don't mind judging these debates. The team reading high theory should do a good job at explaining the theories / thesis behind the scholars you are utilizing and applying it to a specific stasis point / resolutional praxis. In terms of how I weigh the round, the same applies from above, internal links to the terminal impacts I'm told are important in the round.

Policy v. Policy:
I debated in the late 90s / early 2000s. I think highly technical policy v. policy debate rounds with good sign posting, discussions on CP competition (when relevant), strategic turns, etc. are great. Tech > truth for me here. I like lots of evidence but please read full tags and a decent amount of the cards. Not a big fan of "yes X" as a tag. Permutations should probably have texts besides Do Both and Do CP perms. I like theory debates but quality over quantity and please think about how all of your theory / debate as a game arguments apply across all flows. Exploit the other team's errors. "We get what we get" and "we get what we did" are two separate things on the condo debate in my opinion.

Random comments:

The tournament and those judging you are not at your leisure. Please do your best to start the round promptly at the posted time on the pairing and when I'm ready to go (sometimes I do run a few minutes late to a round, not going to lie). Please do your best to: use prep ethically, attach speech documents quickly, ask to use bathroom at appropriate times (e.g. ideally not right before your or your partner's speech), and contribute to moving the debate along and help keep time. I will give grace to younger debaters on this issue, but varsity debaters should know how to do this effectively. This is an element of how I award speaker points. I'm a huge fan of efficient policy debate rounds. Thanks!

In my opinion, you cannot waive CX and bank it for prep time. Otherwise, the whole concept of cross examination in policy debate is undermined. I will not allow this unless the tournament rules explicitly tell me to do so.

If you use a poem, song, etc. in the 1AC, you should definitely talk about it after the 1AC. Especially against framework. Otherwise, what is the point? Your performative method should make sense as a praxis throughout the debate.

Final thoughts:

Do not post round me. I will lower your speaker points if you or one of your coaches acts disrespectful towards me or the opponents after the round. I have no problem answering any questions about the debate but it will be done in a respectful manner to all stakeholders in the room. If you have any issues with this, please don't pref me. I have seen, heard and experienced way too much disrespectful behavior by a few individuals in the debate community recently where, unfortunately, I feel compelled to include this in my paradigm.

Steven Sanchez

4 Years/Weber State University, 3rd year out.

Overall Philosophy:

• Run whatever you like. I am open to all arguments just as long as you execute them well - I'll provide exact criteria to what that means to me:
• A. You have been able to explain your argument at a basic audience comprehensive level.
• B. You have developed your arguments throughout the debate to adapt and provide the best application to the learning or outcome of the activity and have shown why your argument carries greater significance to what that outcome is.
• C. You have demonstrated a strong understanding of your opponents strengths and weaknesses and have identified why you win and why they lose this debate. I have no problem adapting to your style/preferred strategy. I prefer to evaluate the debate based on what information I am given from you instead of having to assert my own understanding, so please note that my decision rests heavily on the information provided by you on paper.
• Significance is key - this helps me understand what the meaning or outcome of this momentary learning experience at a tournament is about and what the intended purposes of your arguments are. I find that impact comparison oftentimes streamlines a lot of the information provided and helps me understand what the significance of your argument is.
• Bonus points if you have specific links with a strong evidence - I think it shows that you care to research your opponents and demonstrates hard work outside of the round, which enhances your credibility in front of me.
• CX is very important to me. Pressing on the hard questions and using this time wisely to demonstrate your knowledge (or lack of theirs) will earn you additional speaker points. I flow this too.
• I have rarely voted on potential abuse, and I don't find those arguments compelling unless you can prove why the potential margins of error will result in poor debatability/education. Specifically tailored theory arguments are always preferred.
• I always found that technical strategic moves are good - I think that it shows you have game knowledge to finesse on your opponents, so use their non-responsiveness or mishandlings to make the different sheets of paper come together in cohesion and it will be rewarded.
• Make me believe in your argument just as much as you do. Your speaking has a lot of power, so be sure to speak as clearly, assertively, and as passionately as you can. Being an effective speaker will always help you stay ahead/catch up in the debate.

you can always include me on the email distro and/or reach out with any questions- stevengsanchez1@gmail.com

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Logical reasoning and presentation. 

My name is Josh Smith, and I am a former college debater (Loyola University Chicago, 2004-2007). I'm currently a lawyer and assistant coach for Nevada Union High School. I used to coach for Walter Payton High School in Chicago and Lake City High School in Coeur d'Alene.

My judging philosphy:

Affirmative Issues:

Topicality/Aff Selection:

My default position is that topicality is a voting issue. If the Neg wins their voters, and the Aff doesn't win a "we meet", then I default to competing interpretations. I will consider kritiks of topicality. My default is that it is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but I have been convinced otherwise in the past. I'm perfectly fine with Affirmatives that use multiple styles/formats of evidence, such as music, poetry, etc., so long as the Aff provides a decision calculus and engages with the substance of the Neg's arguments.

Case Attacks:

My thinking on this has changed over the past few years, but I believe that case attacks, especially if mis-handled by the Aff, can be devastating. It may be few and far between where a case attack wins the round, but I'm not averse to signing my ballot on one of them.

Framework/Theory:

My default is to reject the argument, not the team. A "clash of civilizations" isn't really enough, neither is a deontology vs. utilitarianism debate, unless there is an interaction between the two arguments, and reasons to prefer one or the other.

Negative Issues:

Kritiks:

I'm fine with them. I'm more familar with certain authors (Foucault, Butler) and less familiar with otheres (Deleuze & Guattari, Lacan). I think that the K is often overused, and that generic K's are run to avoid actually doing any specific research against the Aff. The more specific your links, the more likely you are to survive generic defense from the Aff.

Counterplans:

This is probably my greatest area of change over the past couple of years. Before, I used to find that CP's weren't always the most strategic option, especially compared with the K literature. However, I've flipped those around. Now, I think that specific counterplans (especially those that use an Aff author as their solvency advocate) or advantage counterplans are incredibly strategic. I'm not quite as excited for generic CP's (like Consult, Delay, XO) unless there is literature specific to the Aff. Combined with a strong net benefit or a solvency argument, this is often the way to win my ballot on the Neg side.

Disads:

As you might expect from my running theme, my primary rule for disads is the more specific, the better. This applies to not just the scenario, but also to the specificity of the link.

Meta-Issues:

"Unacceptable" Arguments:
I realize that this is a grey area, full of my own subjectivity and biases. However, I feel obligated to put this out there. I will not vote for an argument that explicity supports or advocates racism, sexism or homophobia. Generally, these arguments don't have much in the way of honest, supportive evidence, but I want to be up-front and honest. I will, however, consider arguments such as Schmitt, Malthus, etc. I really don't like Ashtar, Timecube, etc.
Speed:

Most of my work involves cutting cards, and I don't tend to judge a lot. Keeping that in mind, you might need to slow down a little bit (especially for theory blocks or anything with independent voting significance).

Disclosure:

During the round, I will follow the tournament's instructions regarding disclosure. After the round is over, I'm happy to talk to debaters about ways to improve their performance. I find that this is often difficult to do without disclosing the my decision. I do not, however, disclose speaker points (if for no other reason that I usually write it down and then forget it).

Speaker Points/Cheating:

I will follow the tournament's instructions regarding speaker point allocation, as well as penalties for clipping/cheating. If the tournament doesn't provide any instructions, I generally operate on a 25.0-30.0 bell curve, based my assumptions about the quality of the other debaters in the tournament and my own experiences.

I'll be glad to answer any specific questions from the debaters immediately prior to the debate.

he/him/his

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

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

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

Lay Debate: I care deeply about adaptation and accessibility. I find "medium" debates (splits of lay and circuit judges) incredibly valuable for students' skills. I don't think I'd ever be in a setting where I'm the sole lay judge. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread.

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

I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the speech doc when online. I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.

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

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

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

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

If you're reading the web3 UBI affirmative, I implemented one of the first CBDC pilots back in 2018/19. If you know what you're talking about, I'm the best possible judge. But if you don't, I'll be much more easily persuaded by the negative, especially on the case debate.

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

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

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

Water

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

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

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

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

Lifetime

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

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

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

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

Online Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kritiks:

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality:

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

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

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

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

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

Theory:

1. As with other arguments, I will resolve this fully technically. Unlike many judges, my argumentative preferences will not implicate how I vote. I will gladly vote on a dropped theory argument---if it was clearly extended as a reason to reject the team---with no regrets.

2. I'm generally in favor of limitless conditionality. But because I adjudicate these debates fully technically, I think I vote affirmative on "conditionality bad" more than most.

3. From Rafael Pierry: "most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. ... Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome." For me, this is especially true with counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy. While I do not love the delay counterplan, I think it is much more easily beaten through competition arguments than theoretical ones.

4. If a counterplan has specific literature to the affirmative plan, I will be extremely receptive to its theoretical legitimacy and want to grant competition. But of course, the counterplan text must be written strategically, and the negative must still win competition.

Counterplans:

1. I'm better for strategies that depend on process and competition than most. These represent one of my favorite aspects of debate---they combine theory and substance in fun and creative ways---and I've found that researching and strategizing against them generates huge educational benefits for debaters, certainly on par with more conventionally popular political process arguments like politics and case.

2. I have no disposition between "textual and functional competition" and "only functional competition". Textual alone is pretty bad. Positional competition is similarly tough, unless the affirmative grants it. Think about how a model of competition justifies certain permutations---drawing these connections intelligently helps resolve the theoretical portion of permutations.

3. Similarly, I am agnostic regarding limited intrinsicness, either functional or textual. While it helps check against the truly artificial CPs, it justifies bad practices that hurt the negative. It's certainly a debate that you should take on. That said, if everyone is just spreading blocks, I usually end up negative on the ink. Block to 2NR is easier to trace than 1AR to 2AR.

4. People need to think about deficits to counterplans. If you can't impact deficits to said counterplans, write better advantages. The negative almost definitely does not have evidence contextualizing their solvency mechanism to your internal links---explain why that matters!

5. Presumption goes to less change---debate what this means in round. Absent this instruction, if there is an advocacy in the 2NR and I do not judge kick it when deciding, I'm probably not voting on presumption.

6. Decide in-round if I should kick the CP. I'll likely kick it if left to my own devices. The affirmative should be better than the status quo. (To be honest, this has never mattered in a debate I've judged, and it amuses me that judge kick is such a common paradigm section.)

Disadvantages:

1. There is not always a risk. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, and we cannot determine its sign or magnitude.

2. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad advantages can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.

3. Shorten overviews, and make sure turns case arguments actually implicate the aff's internal links.

4. Will vote on any and all theoretical arguments---intrinsicness, politics theory, etc. Again, arguments are arguments, debate them out.

Ethics:

1. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points.

2. You need a recording to prove the other team is clipping. If I am judging and think you are clipping, I will record it and check the recording before I stop the debate. Any other method deprives you of proof.

3. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX in constructives or the other's team prep time in a rebuttal. You do not need to remove cards you did not read in the marked copy, unless you skipped a truly ridiculous amount. This practice is inane and justifies debaters doc-flowing.

4. Emailing isn’t prep. If you take too long, I'll tell you I'm starting your prep again.

5. If there is a different alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team alleging the violation if they want to stop the debate. If so, I will ask the accused team to provide written defense; check the tournament's citation rules; and decide. I will then decide the debate based on that violation and the tournament policy---I will not restart the debate---this makes cite-checking a no-risk option as a negative strategy, which seems really bad.

IMPORTANT: I will only vote on an ethics violation about previously-read evidence (missing an author, missing a year, paragraph missing but no distortion, etc) if the team alleging the violation has evidence that they contacted the other team and told them about the issue. Clearly, you had the time to look up the article. As a community, we should assume good faith in citation, and let the other team know. And people should not be punished for cards they did not cut. But if they still are reading faulty evidence, even after being told, that's certainly academic malpractice.

Note that if the ethics violation is made as an argument during the debate and advanced in multiple speeches as a theoretical argument, you cannot just decide it is a separate ethics violation later in the debate. I will NOT vote on it, I will be very annoyed with you, and you will probably lose and get 27s if you are resorting to these tactics.

6. The closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument, the more likely you should be reading it instead of inserting. If you are point out blatant mis-highlighting in a card, typically in a defensive fashion on case, then insertion is fine. I will readily scratch excessive insertion with clear instruction.

Miscellaneous:

1. I'll only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence.

2. Dropped arguments should be flagged clearly. If you say that clearly answered arguments were dropped, you're hurting your own persuasion.

3. Please send cards in a Word doc. Body is fine if it's just 1-3 cards. I don't care if you send analytics, though it can help online.

4. Unless the final rebuttals are strictly theoretical, the negative should compile a card doc post 2NR and have it sent soon after the 2AR. The affirmative should start compiling their document promptly after the 2AR. Card docs should only include evidence referenced in the final rebuttals (and the 1NC shell, for the negative)---certainly NOT the entire 1AC.

5. As a judge, I can stop the debate at any point. The above should make it clear that I am very much an argumentative nihilist---in hundreds of debates, I have not come close to stopping one. So if I do, you really messed up, and you probably know it.

6. I am open to a Technical Knockout. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, not yours) and explain why it is unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out.

Be mindful of context: calling this against sophomores in presets looks worse than against an older team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

7. Not about deciding debates, but a general offer to debate folk reading this. As someone who works in tech, I think it is a really enjoyable career path and quite similar to policy debate in many ways. If you would like to learn more about tech careers, please feel free to email me. As a high school student, it was very hard to learn about careers not done by my parents or their friends (part of why I'm in tech now!). I am happy to pass on what knowledge I have.

Above all, be kind to each other, and have fun!

A little background:
I was an LD and Policy debater at CSU Sacramento from 2012-2015. As a policy debater I was a 1A/2N. As a debater, I have run most arguments including high theory on the AFF and NEG, please feel free to run any argument.

That being said, I will address important questions here, as they arise:
CPs - I really love specific CP's that make a concerted/evidenced attempt to subsume some specific aspect of the aff. If you go and cut one of your opponent's solvency articles and made a CP out of it, I'm gonna think that you're at least relatively awesome.

Disads - I love them, but think it's kind of silly that they've turned into a "who can read more cards" contest. I think smart analytical arguments are incredibly valuable/underrated and, although I do not read evidence if I can manage, would prefer to hear two pieces of wonderfully specific & warranted link evidence than six cards with one word in reference to the aff somewhere at the bottom.

Framework & Topicality – To me, this is simply/should be questions of what we should do when we enter a debate round, why that version of the activity is a good one, and how your methodology is the most effective/productive. If you are able to answer those questions, you’re in a good position. I will not on face reject a non-topical affirmative, but for goodness’ sakes, please have an answer to topical version of the aff. Topicality requires deep and warranted explanation and I am definitely not familiar enough with your literature critiquing topicality itself to comfortably vote on it unless you really flesh it out. (What does the phrase "flesh it out" really even mean? Weird.)

I believe that the affirmative should defend a topical plan action taken by the “USFG,” however, I do not think this is the ONLY thing that the affirmative can or “should” necessarily be held to doing. If the affirmative chooses NOT to defend the implementation of a topical plan, they must also explain to me how voting aff achieves something in the context of your arguments (i.e. an explicit explanation of how my ballot will do anything besides signify the winner and loser to the tabroom). 

If a negative team reads topicality or framework against a non-topical affirmative, there MUST BE SOME ENGAGEMENT of the affirmative’s argument in order for me to justify voting neg… I believe that topicality is an a-priori issue and comes first in almost every instance, and I absolutely do not think that reading topicality is wrong or EVER a reason to vote against the negative (unless it’s explicitly offensive, of course); however, if the affirmative is making arguments about why their ethics precede topicality or something of the like, the negative will not be able to win simply BECAUSE they ran topicality. 

Other things that are still quite important:
For better or worse, I am NOT going to call for a bunch of evidence after the round unless it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Most commonly I have called for evidence on a Politics DA.

I really enjoy a hefty & comparative case debate in the block.

If you are rude to your opponent in cross ex, I will be so distracted by your attitude that I will probably not want to listen to your answers or give you good speaker points. People who make smart arguments & are KIND to their partner/opponents will get really good speaker points.

When prep stops that means so do you fingers and lips, once time has stopped there is no note taking or conversing about the debate. I do not consider flashing prep time unless during paperless blunders I get the feeling that something shady is happening. In those instances I will start prep again. 

GENERAL

1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die.

6. Theory: Inround abuse > potential abuse.

7. Debate is a simulation inside a bigger simulation.

NEGATIVE

TOPICALITY: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that resolves the voters. If you go for potential abuse, explain what precedents they set.

FRAMEWORK: When the negative runs framework, specify how you orient Fairness & Education. If your FW is about education, then explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If your FW is about fairness, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts absent a fair debate, and why your framework precedes Aff impacts and/or is an external impact.

DISADVANTAGES: Start with impact calculation by either outweighing and/or turning the case. Uniqueness sets up the timeframe, links set up probability, and the impact sets up the magnitude.

COUNTERPLANS: Specify how the CP solves the case, a DA, an independent net benefit, or just plain theory. Any net benefit to the CP can constitute as offense against the Permutation.

CASE: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff evidence. Sign post whether you are making terminal defense arguments or case turns.

KRITIKS: Framing is key since a Kritik is basically a Linear Disad with an Alt. When creating links, specify whether they are links to the Aff form and/or content. Links to the form should argue why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a competing pedagogy. Links to the content should argue how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then like, sure.

AFFIRMATIVES

TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVES

PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS: If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of defense against the negs extinction level offense. Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, why extinction comes before value to life, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative. i might be an "extinction good" hack.

PLANS WITH STRUCTURAL IMPACTS: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, probability/timeframe, and no link & impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a method debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change.

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES

As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Intersectionality, Postmodernism, Decolonization, & Afropessimism. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.

K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively, "We know the problem, and we have a solution." This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

K BECOMING AFFS: Truth is bad. These affs point to complex differences that destabilize the underlying metanarratives of truth and power, "We problematize the way we think about problems." This includes Postmodern, Intersectionality, & Performance affs. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

    My basic preference is for well explained and impacted arguments over techie line-by-line tricks. Basically, if you want me to vote on an argument, then the argument should be a substantial chunk of your speech and not a one liner on the flow. Slow it down and explain your arg. I'm not saying I won't listen to speed; I am saying in most debates fast doesn't equal better. Debate isn't Costco - More Cards/Arguments are Not Necessarily Desirable.

 

The Specifics: Topicality & Theory - I am ok with some T debate. Make sure the violation is clear and the substance of the debate is worthy of the time you are putting into it. Other theory is mostly a non-starter for me. I don't vote on the specs. If you are going for theory (not topicality), then you probably aren't winning this round.

 

Disads - The key to a good DA debate is impact calculus.

 

Counter-plans - Sure, why not? I'm a policy maker at heart.I err neg on all counter-plan theory. Basically, Counter-plan theory, for the most part, is a non-starter with me.

 

Kritiks - I'm not a fan of generic kritiks and rarely vote for a kritik without a plan specific link. If your idea of a good argument is Zizek, Nietzsche, or any generic K, then I'm not your judge. In terms of framework, I err negative. The K is part of debate - accept this and debate it. Use your aff against it.

 

Performance Aff's - I believe the aff should defend a clear USFG should policy. I am a policy maker.

I am Head Coach at Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I have judged hundreds if not thousands of debate rounds. [updated: February 20, 2018].

So long as your arguments are not philosophically repugnant, I expect arguments, interpretations, frameworks and other positions that intentionally exclude your opponent's offense. Simple Ballot Strategy: Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat.

Parsimony, relevance and path of least resistance: I am a critic of argument. I am very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative in how you do it. Assertions without warrants mean very little to me and invites me to supply meaning to positions if you do not articulate what you mean. I look at the flow and ask, "to vote aff, what does the aff have to win?" ... and ... "to vote neg, what does neg have to win?" from there, I look at each of the arguments, evidence, and how well each side has put the issues together in a bigger picture. Most times, the simpler explanation (that takes into account and explains away the opposition) is likely to carry the day. The longer the argument chain, the more effort it takes to evaluate it, the easier it is to vote against you.

Full Case Disclosure Should Be Mandatory: Hiding your case is an excuse for bad debating and if you can't win without a trick, maybe you should rethink your strategy. I may have (some, slight) sympathy for not disclosing before you break new, but very little.

RVIs and Reverse Voter Standards: Fewer better explained standards are better than 20 blips.

Theory, rightly, checks abuses. Articulate the violation, standard and remedy. Actual demonstrated inround abuse is far more persuasive than hypothetical abuse.

Cross-Ex: I flow CX. I don't mind additional questioning during prep. I see little to no benefit to arguing in CX. Please refer to CX responses in your speeches.

Rebuttals: Let's admit that all debaters make new responses in rebuttals. Let's admit that new arguments are permissible when they are extensions of prior positions or answer to args by the opposition.

Win/loss/Points Disclosures: If I don't volunteer the information, please ask me. All good judges disclose.

Judges should be accountable for their decisions. Ask questions. How else do you learn what I was thinking in the round? How can can you improve in front of me? That said, I will follow the tournament's rules regarding disclosure. Also know, that I will be arguing behind the scenes in favor of disclosure. I will do my level best to answer your questions in a clear and concise manner; I may not see the round you did and maybe we can both learn from an after-round discussion.

That's the best I can promise.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

Debated 4 years of HS (Winfield, Kansas), 2 years in College (Los Angeles City College, CSUFullerton)

Coach for SUDL

General Thoughts (whatever "thinking" is)

I am open to anything. I am also incredibly judgmental. I would rather hear a unique, new argument with perhaps less precise execution than the tightest strategy executed in the most boring way possible. That being said, what I would rather hear and what will win a substantive debate may not be the same. Use your own discretion; you are the debater, right? Don’t be mean and overbearing. Don’t be too timid.

Policy arguments (whatever "policy" is)

Implementation and the allowed viability of current affairs are important if you're going this route. The more precise the better. I'd like to feel how far the effects of my ballot travel, gloriously stamping the world with my verdict; as a god would upon mortal puppets.

Critical Arguments (whatever "ontology" is)

These are the arguments with which I have the most familiarity. Please don't buzzword me to death here.

I am inclined to believe that permutations to “critical arguments” make little to no sense unless the aff is already winning substantive arguments on the link and impact level. Impact comparison and/or link turns will be necessary if you want me to vote for these so-called "permutations".

Topicality/Theory (whatever “is” is)

If you know what you’re talking about or have a crafty violation, I’m certainly willing to vote on topicality. That being said, I have a higher threshold on topicality than most. However, your "fairness" "education" "ground" abuses aren't worth my time. Tell me the direct violation and I'll decide how you were afflicted in the round (by watching the round). If you prove no affiliation with the resolution, or a direct connection through the resolution, I will vote on topicality first and then weigh the impacts. If the abuse warrants my ballot, then you will win my ballot.
Aff should at least discuss its pertinence to the resolution and/or debate or have a cogent defense of the presentation of your argument or a criticism of the necessity of such discussions. If someone tells me that these affs don't matter, I will listen to their arguments and remain open to persuasion on the issue. Not unexpectedly, I find that the smart cheaters are often very far ahead on these debates. Take that for what it is.

Additional Note On Topicality/Theory: I have seen T violations that had real world impacts (as opposed to in-round impacts) that link the definition of the word to impacts for a disad. This is genius, and if you can do it you should try. My favorite 2AC analysis happened when a debater showed the performative contradictions of conditional neg arguments as framing for impact calc beyond the life-or-death story run by the neg. I think there is an interconnected approach to the debate that involves holistic unity (literally, not like "you should try some lavender that burn" holistic).

“My” background (whoever “I” am)

Raised in KS, living in CA. I used to be a Nietzsche debater, then transferred to UCD and read everything he wrote, and Plato/Aristotle, most of the Modern types, did graduate work on Plato and Weber, suffered a short obsession with DuBois and Hegel, then panicked when none of it helped me study int'l econ. I am confident that most people don't debate Nietzsche right, and it doesn't matters that they can't. Something happens in there. I am a hard nerd for bureaucratic politics and regime cooption. I'm the type to get really excited about information systems or comparing organization structures. While debating I took most organization cooption examples from the fall of the USSR. I have a life outside of that stuff though, as I hope you do as well. If you can make me laugh during a debate, that will bode well for you. But don't try too hard. Trying too hard is like caring too much about not being a fascist: it only makes you a fascist.

Lastly, I plagiarized a lot of this from an old friend who's now an IP lawyer, and I think that's so funny. FYI all

Very experienced judge and coach for Saint Francis high school. I will consider pretty much any arguments that are not blatantly sexist, racist or crudely discriminatory (blatant is the key word here, much of this stuff is debatable and I will try not to punish you for my general feelings about your arguments).

It is important to me that debaters be respectful and polite to each other, this puts the spotlight on the arguments themselves and I am not a fan of extra drama.

I try hard to be fair and the following things help me do that:

- I rarely call cards. I like to focus the debate on the analysis given by the debaters (of course I will usually give more weight to analysis that is taken from qualified sources). I do not like to decide debates on random parts of a card that neither debater really focused on. I will call cards if I forget what they said, if there is a conflict about what they say and I can not remember, or if I am personally interested in the card.

- I try to judge on the flow in the sense that I evaluate the debate on the arguments presented, explained and extended into the rebuttals. I will occasionally do the work to weigh impacts or decide framing if the debaters are not doing that for me.

- I will not yell "clear", so mumble and slur at your own risk (I don't yell clear because I don't want a team to find that sweet spot where I can understand them but their opponents can not). I will also not evaluate arguments that I can not hear. I do not read speech documents during the debate rounds, sometimes I will look at them after the round (see calling cards stuff above).

Argument preferences:

I am cool with critiques on the aff and neg.

I am cool with framework (I like the debaters to work this out and I am pretty neutral on this question).

I like clarity (both in speech and arguments). I am not impressed by things that are "too complex" for me to understand but I will do my best to try to make sense of it. I am confident enough to not pretend I know your position and I will not fill in the blanks for you.

I am cool with policy arguments.

I have a wide breadth of knowledge but little depth on certain positions, don't assume I know your literature.

Speaks:

I give high speaks for clarity, efficiency, a pace that I can flow, respectfulness and occasionally speaking style.

I feel like the speaker point range I give is pretty close to average (I am not a reliable source of high speaks for everyone, but I will reward excellent debate with high speaks).

Contact info

mail all speech documents to: headofthewood@gmail.com

anything else (if you want me to read the e-mail or respond): thomaswoodhead@sfhs.com

Debating: St. Vincent de Paul ‘2012-2014 (TOC qualifier 2013, 2014); UNLV 2014-2015

Coaching: St. Vincent de Paul 2014-2018

Last time I updated my paradigm was on wikispaces. If you can find it, you may learn a bit more about my philosophy than what I include below. I spent most of my debate career going for the K. I read K affs and went for Condo regularly. I read cap and now I am a cog in the machine. I do not want to have to do your work for you so think critically, engage with the other team's argument(s) and make my role easy.

Here is some stuff I think that I stole from Laila McClay's philosophy that applies to me (I hope you appreciate the irony considering some of the stmts below):

Kritiks – ONLY READ K’s THAT YOU UNDERSTAND. For the AFF, you need to engage with the K. I think the Perm debate is probably the most important part of the K debate. The Neg shouldn't group all the perms. They Aff should make multiple perms. I like smart debaters who do their own work and know what they are talking about.

K Aff's/Performace - I am fine with all of this. Be smart and show me you know what you are talking about. I tend to be a little more comfortable when the AFF has some sort of stable advocacy statement, but that is just a default and not a requirement.

I think morally repugnant arguments should be answered by the other team with in-round discourse/language shapes reality arguments.

Each speech is a speech act, not a written exchange of arguments. Debaters need to pay more attention to what is said rather than just relying on what is in the speech doc.

updated 1/14/16

 

you and/or  your coach are looking through a ton of paradigms, and are wondering, who is this person? do i want them to judge me? do they like x. y. or z kinds of debate? do they know what they are doing? what can i do to win this judge?

 

well i hope this helps you out a little bit, i’ll keep it as short as i can

 

who am i?

Sadaf

Previous job, assistant/head coach for echs ‘10-’15

current job, coaching middle school

i’ve judged just about everything, and a quite a few tournaments, Cal, USC RR, Stanford, CPS, some mid level cali tournaments, leagues and BAUDL.

 

do you want me to judge you?

when judging any round, i look for a few things,

clarity in speaking ( fast or not )

a good clear story for your aff or neg,

and reasons why you’ve won.

 

do i like x, y, or z?

it’s simple and goes across most styles of debating, i’m a fan of alternative styles of debate as well as straight policy. i’m game for anything really. really really.

 

do i know what i am doing?

i do flow, and will follow as well as i can, look for cues if you’ve lost me at all, mostly looking at you with a blank stare, pen on paper.

it’s your job to do the work, i can’t think for you. i will try as hard as i can to not intervene, but there have been rounds where gut takes over, and someone literally will out debate you in my eyes. there is more to debate than spewing cards and yelling, ethos, logos and pathos matter.

asking me to do work, will screw someone. be warned

 

what can i do to win this judge?

give good roadmaps,

care about what you’re saying, or at least convince me you care

looking like you’re enjoying yourself

don’t be a bigot

dank memes

 

ok, cool, thanks, bye & goodluck.

Jimmy Z.

 

Polytechnic School ‘14

Stanford University ‘18

Last Updated: August 2014

 

 

Background: I debated all four years in high school in both LD and policy. This is mainly due to the fact that I debated at a small school where partnerships and schedules were not always consistent (LD=maverick policy). I didn’t really compete on the national circuit as much as I would have liked to, but I have done so in both LD and policy.

 

General: I’m ok with most arguments in either policy or LD. I do come from a policy background, so I do prefer plans, DAs, CPs, etc. in LD over like meta-ethical framework heavy cases, but I will vote on either.

 

T and Theory: I actually enjoy watching these debates when the debater can have specific interpretations (i.e. more than one conditional CP bad vs. all condo bad). For most areas of theory, there is a good middle ground so wording of your interpretation is pretty important. I default to competing interpretations on T. I also lean towards condo good (unless it’s like something absurd like seven conditional CPs), but I can be swayed, especially in LD.

 

CPs/DAs: These are good, but hopefully your link chains aren’t too crazy and your solvency advocates are somewhat qualified. I do believe in terminal defense, but that claim should be made in round with some warrants.

 

Ks: Have a very clear thesis with these. Most Ks don’t have to be very complicated, but they do have a lot of jargon, and I’m not a fan of jargon. You shouldn’t assume I know what a master signifier is or what the discourse of the hysteric means as an alternative. If your opponent is confused and does not cover the K well, there is a higher standard on you to explain the K because 1) I could be confused and 2) you probably will have the time to make these explanations since most of their answers are not responsive.

 

Non-traditional arguments: Not very familiar with these, but I do understand if you tell me what the role of the ballot is and the framework on how I should decide who best meets the ROB and how your cases does that, then I will most likely vote for you.

 

 

Any other questions, just ask.

Amor Fati

All arguments are fine. I've been in debate for ten years and heard most of them. Don't make the debate round a hostile space for me, yourselves, or the other team, unless that's your argument and you're prepared to defend it. Basically just be nice.