Wake Forest University '22

Newark Science '18

For email chains: b.aaron3693@gmail.com

Around 10 years of debate experience. I competed in LD/Policy for six years at Newark Science and did 2.5 years on-off of college debate at Wake Forest University. Nowadays, my primary job is completely unrelated to debate and I've been out out of the activity for 4 years now. This is to say, my topic knowledge is limited to the tournaments I've judged at these past couple of months. I don't spend my days thinking about debate specific arguments so don't presume I know what you're talking about.

I was coached by people from Rutgers so a lot of my thoughts on debate will probably reflect theirs. For context on me though, I was primarily a Kritikal & soft-left debater and coached in that variety as well. I also dabbled in a lot of framework debates.

Rather than I having a bunch of opinions on how debates should be and making this paradigm needlessly long, I understand how arguments work. Make good ones and I'll follow. In other words, I don't care what you read so long as you do it well.

That being said....I can't evaluate tricks or hard core phil. Short sentence blips don't process well mentally (or emotionally...) for me. Please don't pref me if this is the only thing in your toolbox. Every argument needs to be fully fleshed out with a claim, warrant, and impact.

Misc things:

Please be CLEAR. Do not forsake clarity for speed. You are slower / less clear than you think. I'Il clear you 3 times max then your speaks will get docked for any subsequent call-outs.

Have fun in CX. It's my favorite (most underutilized) aspect of a debate round.

I love examples and non-abstract argumentation.

"Tabula rasa" judges are lying to you. My experiences in life will always inform my thinking which means don't be racist, sexist, or offensive.

And, please for the love of everything, be timely! This is my biggest pet peeve. Don't steal prep (yes, asking a random question to your partner counts as prep time). Don't go over your speech time. CX ends at the timer.

Updated January 2023

Email: greg.achten@harker.org please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: he/him/his

Pref Shortcuts: 1: substantive arguments about the topic 2: mainstream K's, good T debates 3: Theory, Pomo K's 4: Phil 5-6: Tricks

Overview

I expect the debate to be conducted as though it were a classroom setting. As such inappropriate behavior, specifically cursing, will not be tolerated. If you choose to curse during the debate expect dramatically lower speaker points. Further, if the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to highly sexual or sexualized performances, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.

My background prior to coming to Harker in 2010 was almost entirely in college policy debate though I have been coaching LD since then and Public Forum since 2016. But it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates.

I do not judge very much anymore but enjoy judging when I am able to do so! Despite not judging a great deal I am very involved in our team's evidence production and preparation and judge lots of practice debates in class so my topic knowledge is fairly strong.

.

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: I am familiar with most mainstream critical arguments that are prevalent but anything outside of that is likely to require more explanation. I took a handful of continental philosophy classes in grad school but that was a long time ago and my knowledge of a lot of the underlying literature for lots of critical arguments, particularly high theory, is likely lacking. Having said that I think I am an ok judge for critical arguments, especially when executed technically. I often find the strongest elements of K's to be the link and the weakest to be the alternative, though of course this varies from argument to argument. I also think impact turning is an underutilized strategy though I get that can be hard to pull off at times in LD.

Critical Affs: I think the affirmative should have a meaningful relationship to the topic. Thus topical, soft left affs are often very strategic. I am very sympathetic to t/framework against affs with little or no relationship to the topic. In these debates I think the best aff strategy is to impact turn framework, depending on what that looks like in the context of the aff. But overall I am likely not the best judge for non-T affs.

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Although I do take a fairly strict view of the topic and am willing to enforce that view when teams do a good job of arguing topicality. I often find topicality arguments that are not based on expert/technical definitions of key terms of art in the resolution to be fairly hard for the negative to win. I am also more likely than most judges to vote on reasonability if well explained and this is true for most theory arguments as well.

In debates about counterplan theory, I probably err slightly neg. on most theory issues, though I have voted aff. on things like PIC’s bad, etc. so I am not terribly biased. The main exception is that I think that a lot of mainstream counterplans that compete on the function of the affirmative are not competitive (think consultation, delay). I am kind of a sucker for the argument that counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive though this is not something I will automatically check in on, especially if the negative has strong explanations for their defense of their counterplan.

I am generally in favor of conditionality but there are instances where the negative takes it too far especially in LD. For example, 5 multiplank counterplans where all of the planks are individually conditional is not ok. In general anything more than 3 conditional arguments is pushing it for me.

I am a solid no on judge kick. Make strategic choices.

Theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are non-starters. Don’t waste your time.

Theory arguments are generally too underdeveloped for my tastes so if that is a key part of your strategy invest some time.

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances. I will not allow debaters to insert re-highlighting of evidence, it must be read aloud in the debate like any other piece of evidence.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.

Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery (especially important in online debates), quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards lack of clarity. I will say clear once or maybe twice and if clarity does not improve afterwards I will flow the things I understand and the speaker's points will decline significantly. I will not vote on a card or argument I was incapable of flowing. I will under no circumstances flow from the speech doc.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

Jenny Achten
Harker School
San Jose, CA

Flowing

Do your best to flow and not just read the speech document. I might look at the document a little but will flow by listening.

Style?

Most of you need to slow down. Either: 1) you are not really gaining time because you are gasping/stumbling/repeating yourself/mumbling/interjecting meaningless phrases like "in a world in which we win" in an effort to go fast, or 2) you are speaking in a monotone that makes cards sound like a meaningless buzz. I give higher points to debaters who have natural sounding voices and breathing patterns + have speeches that are dense in substance/efficient. If you can do those things while speaking quickly, great!

Also, be professional. No swearing, no rudeness, no harassing speech etc.

CX/CF?

It is a speech—it should be 3 minutes long (no “I’ll take prep for an extra question”). Also, stand up, face me, and ask questions.

Argument preferences?

My argument preferences are below but they rarely matter all that much. I have voted for consult, non-plan affs, ASPEC etc. Ultimately, I will be flow oriented so just do your best.

Topicality?

I will vote on T if the interpretation is well developed and predictable (not arbitrarily designed to exclude the aff). Do what you need to but your NC will be more impressive if it is free of throw-aways. I do not think that the aff should have to specify more than what the resolution demands.

Theory arguments need to be well warranted and not just used to avoid debate about the topic. It will be hard to convince me that T is an RVI.

Critiques?

They are fine. I'm especially interested in the practical impacts of any philosophical discussion. "How would X worldview help or hurt actual people?", is more useful than a technical trick.

CPs?

Multiple, especially multiple and contradictory, conditional positions are maybe a problem. Counterplans that result in doing the entirety of the plan are very vulnerable to theory.

Final notes?

Qualifications are a big deal if you bring up the issue. Positions written entirely by quacks (wipeout comes to mind) can be beaten without counter-evidence if the debaters make smart analytics. Warrants also matter so make comparisons.

Card clipping is serious cheating and I will intervene and vote against you if I am sure that you were clipping. Also, saying "mark that card" without physically marking it is not OK. I am very uncomfortable with students paraphrasing when evidence is first presented or inserting brackets etc. Please quote the text as it was written and find better evidence if the language does not suit your purposes.

Please set up a document sharing method. If you do not share evidence with your opponent(s), I will assume you do not wish the judge to review your evidence either and will assume it is weak. Also, I think that disclosure is good! When people hide, I wonder if their evidence or arguments are just so terrible that they cannot stand scrutiny? Or, is there something wrong with how the evidence is cut? Would your opponents discover ethical issues? At least I hope that folks who don't disclose also refuse to scout or look at the wiki.

durham, emory, head-royce.

add: idontpostround@googlegroups.com AND breakdocs@googlegroups.com

everything is up for debate.

intervention is the worst. all arguments read will be evaluated unless the flow or tab says not to. they need a warrant logically tied to an implication, you must be able to extend them, & they can only win my ballot.

i almost never open docs. speaks are most closely correlated with well prepared, well-executed strategy.

substantive defaults include: new arguments in final speeches are bad yet must be called out (except 2ar). aff has burden of proof. no judge kick nor inserted rehighlightings. ncm, ci, no rvis, dtd, text of interp.

if im judging pf, here's fiona hu's paradigm.

have fun & good luck!

Coach for (most of) Lynbrook and some other schools.

If you are sharing documents for LD, kindly do the needful and include the following addresses:

debate@adarshag.com

breakdocs@googlegroups.com

Don't include the second email if you have a question for me. I only check the first. Do include the second email for all email chains. I prefer email chains to Speechdrop unless there are ≥10 observers, in which case Speechdrop is probably better.

You can always ask about marked cards (the highlighting was partially read) before CX. Send out a marked doc if you mark more than 3 cards. You don't need to delete unread cards from a marked doc. I will delete 0.25 speaker points for every flow clarification question asked outside CX or prep that isn't about partially read (marked) cards. Cards that weren't read aren't "marked" – they're unread. Please ask about these in CX or prep. A doc that deletes the unread cards should be made during someone's prep or CX time.

I generally don't write down author names. Please don't use it as your only reference when going through the case page.

I need to be able to flow without the document open. Please be clear.

I am not ideal for Ks that don't prove the aff is a bad idea.

Structural Ks need to implicate ontology in their arguments. Similarly, abstract concepts like "revisionism" don't mean anything until implicated. People treat it as a must-win condition but never implicate it in the actual impact scenario, leaving me confused about why winning it ever mattered/what the impact of winning it was.

I am bad for substantive phil debates. I would much rather judge tricks (which I can somewhat understand, but am still terrible for) than a straight ref of a moral framework I don't understand. I barely understand how hijacks work, even outside of debates. I will not give a coherent RFD.

Michael Harris (and to some extent, Sean Kennedy) recently convinced me that judgekick almost certainly breaks LD speech times. I will default to no judgekick until a justification for it is presented.

Similarly, Anish Bhadani recently convinced me that negative fiat breaks LD speech times. This practice is unfortunately too embedded in the community to default against, so I'll increase speaker points for those who win without exploiting it. I will not penalize you in any way for utilizing fiat if you do end up being negative. Do what it takes to win.

Email chains and questions: evanalexis[at]gmail.com

About Me - He/Him Gunn High School '20 WUSTL '25. Debated college policy @ WashU. Judged every format, coached policy and LD.

General - Tech > Truth. Do your thing. Be kind to each other!

K vs. Policy Affs - Yes. Not a big fan of big overviews. Both sides should clearly explain their framework interpretations and their implications. Aff perms should be explained past the tagline (at least in the 1AR). I default to judge kicking the alt.

K Affs - Go for it. Voted every possible way on T. On the neg, case is underrated and can be your 2NR. Presumption threshold is lower. I default to yes perms in KvK debates.

T - Neg needs a caselist. Reasonability is a question of the counterinterp, not the 1AC. I default to competing interps.

DA - Both 0 risk and 100% risk exist. New 1NR turns case analysis is fine.

CP - Nothing's off the table until the aff reads theory. Logic is by far the best standard in competition debates. Condo is probably good. I default to judge kick. Presumption defaults the way of least change from the status quo.

Case - Underdebated. Most 1AC internal links are hot trash. Case turns are viable 2NRs.

Theory - I will vote on disclosure, ASPEC, etc. I default to rejecting the argument—not the team—without a good warrant past telling me I should drop the other team.

Speaks - Average around 28.5 for varsity policy. ~4-2 debate around 28.7. Below 28 there should be something specific for you to reevaluate. Being mean to your opponent will lose you speaks. Speaks are my decision, not yours.

Flow/Evidence - I flow on my computer with the doc side-by-side. I attempt to maintain line-by-line grouping for the purposes of my evaluation; explicit signposting will help with this. I have the speech document open during the speech solely for ensuring you are not clipping. I do not flow tags/analytics from the document. I will read your evidence during prep time and value high-quality evidence. Debaters should justify inserting rehighlightings into the debate. I don't want a card doc unless I ask for one. Given that I flow on my computer, I may not maintain eye contact during your speeches—I am probably write down what you are saying instead.

LD - Largely the same as policy. I am well-versed in the substance of most phil debates, but may not recognize the argument you are making unless sufficiently explained (less caught up on the "meta"). I will vote on "tricks," but probably will not enjoy it either. That also means you should frontload more of your arguments into the 1NC so they will not be new.Speaks inflation is worse in LD so I will be giving higher speaks in line with that.

Misc. - Be kind to each other! Friendly roasts and jabs are not the same thing as straight up rudeness/meanness. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round. If you still have questions after a debate, email me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

Buck Arney (He/Him)

buckarney@gmail.com

Northwestern 27'

Head-Royce 23'

Last Update: 2/11/25

Top Level Thoughts:

Tech > Truth

I love this activity, it had a profound impact on my life and still does, and I hope it does for y'all as well. Please treat others with respect and have fun in this activity as for many this activity is a place people call home.

In college I go for nearly exclusively policy arguments and in high school I went for nearly exclusively critical arguments.

Generic neg strats with very little clash with the aff have to be one of my biggest problems with debate, conversely highly strategic and thought out neg strats are my favorite part of the activity.

I am very disinterested in debate rep. I love seeing upsets and hate that the community for some reason prevents them from happening due to rep. If you are really the best you should beat everyone.

Flowing Practices:

I flow on my computer using excel as I cannot handwrite proficiently enough to flow. I flow straight down.

I will have the 1AC and 1NC docs open, after that I WILL NOT open any docs until after the round if reading evidence is necessary.

Argument Specifics:

Counterplans: Great for these and love a good pic. I am good for evaluating a process debate but lean aff on competition (For the IP topic I am probably more neg biased because they seem uniquely nuked). However, neg teams are almost always better at process competition because of prep bias which means you should not be deterred if you are confident in your competition debating.

Disads: Good for these, go for what you want here.

T: I love T debates. Well thought out T debates are some of the best debates to watch. If you believe the aff in the round is not topical please go for T.

K:The K is a great argument when it is accompanied with well-thought-out contextual link and impact debating. Without that I am pretty uninterested. I am well versed in kritiks that pull from ableism, security, asian, and black studies. I am just not good for the microaggresions K like at all, obviously will evaluate it technically but I think not only is it in the opposite direction of the literature that it is paired with but it also can be very trivializing.

K-Affs: Went for a K-AFF for most of highschool and I am down the middle when it comes to T v these affs. This is not an ideological pre-disposition rather it is an issue with teams either being terrible at going for a K-Aff or terrible at going for T. K-Affs need to have an answer to SSD and TVA that is CONTEXTUAL to their aff, if they do not have this it is a very uphill battle. Teams going for T have to answer the specificity of T-USFG disads, disads are not just policing, and if you answer the DA like this you will probably lose. I also recommend going for things outside T-USFG, teams generally have horrible answers to Cap, T-Tactics, T-Parametrics etc.

If your Kritikal aff is not adjacent to the topic the bar for a negative ballot is at the floor.

Theory: Solid for theory and don't really have any ideological predispositions except that I think condo is conclusively good and have not really been convinced otherwise, obviously if it is dropped I will probably vote for it.

Extra:

I am not a huge fan of speaker point inflation, but I am also not going to fight it because I am not an old-head "debate was better when we spoke off tubs and I had to carry a printer cross-country" type of person.

I love innovation, if you are actively innovating arguments in debate please pref me and I will probably give you good speaks and advice

+.1 for good sports references or just being funny overall

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

College Debate: rundebate@gmail.com

High School Debate:asafuadjayedavid@gmail.com

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

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

-Rutgers

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

Two primary beliefs:

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

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

FW

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

Kritiks

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

CPs

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

1. No judge kick

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

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

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

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

DA’s

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

Plans

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

Presumption.

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

LD Specific

Tricks

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

Debated: Norman High School (2005- 2009), University of Oklahoma (2009-2014)
Coached: University of Texas at San Antonio (2014-2015), Caddo Magnet High School (2014-2015), Baylor University (2015-2017), University of Iowa (2017-2022), Assistant Director of James Madison University 2022-2023

Currently: Assistant Director of Debate at Baylor University, Assistant coach at Greenhill High School

email: kristiana.baez@gmail.com

Updates- Feb 2023

Think of my paradigm as a set of suggestions for packaging or a request for extra explanation on certain arguments.

*Judge instruction, judge instruction, judge instruction!*

Sometimes when we are deep in a literature base, we auto apply a certain lens to view the debate, but that lens is not automatic for the judge. Don’t assume that I will fill things in for you or presume that I automatically default to a certain impact framing, do that work!

*Argument framing is your friend.*

“If I win this, then this.”

"Even if we lose ontology, here is why we can still win.” This is important for both debating the K and going for the K.

Zoom debate things:

Don’t start until you see my face, I will always have my camera on when you’re speaking!

Clarity over speed, please- listening to debates over zoom is difficult, start out more slowly and then pick up pace, but don’t sacrifice clarify for speed.

Ethics violations-Calling an ethics violation is a flag on the play and the debate stops. Please, please do not call an ethics violation unless you want to stop the debate.

---

Top level thoughts: This is your debate, so above all-- do what you do, but do it well!
My debate career was a whileee ago. I primarily read Ks, but I have also done strictly policy debate in my career, so I have been exposed to a wide variety of arguments. I like to think that I am a favorable judge for Ks or FW. I have coached all types of arguments and am happy to judge them.

I judge the debate in front of me and avoid judge intervention as much as possible. In this sense, I am more guided by tech because I don't think you can determine the truth of any debate within the time constraints. HOWEVER, I think you can use the truth to make more persuasive arguments- for example, you can have one really good argument supported by evidence that you're making compelling bc of its truthiness that could be more convincing or compelling than 3 cards that are meh.

FW/T

I judge a good number of T v. K aff debates and am comfortable doing so.

Sometimes these debates are overly scripted and people just blow through their blocks at top speed, so I think it's important to take moments to provide moments of emphasis and major framing arguments. Do not go for everything in the 2NR, there is not enough time to fully develop your argument and answer theirs. Clearly identify what impact you are going for.

Internal link turns by the negative help to mitigate the impact turn arguments. Example- debating about AI is key to create AI that does not re-create racial bias. TVA can help here as well!

The definitions components of these debates are underutilized- for example, if the aff has a counter interp of nuclear forces or disarm, have that debate. Why is their interp bad and exacerbate the limits or ground issues? I feel like this this gives you stronger inroads to your impact arguments and provides defense to the aff's impact turns.

K aff's- It is way less compelling to go for impact turns without going for the aff and how they resolve the impact turns. You cannot just win that framework is bad. It is more strategic for the aff to defend a particular model of debate, not just a K of current debate.

Kritiks:

Updated- It’s important to find balance between theoretical explanations, debate-ification of arguments, and judge instruction. More specifically- if you have a complex theory that you need to win to win the debate, you HAVE to spend time here. Err towards more simple explanation as opposed to overly convoluted.

Think about word efficiency and judge instruction for those theoretical arguments.

Although, I am familiar with some kritiks, I do not pretend to be an expert on all. That being said, I think that case specific links are the best. Generic links are not as compelling especially if you are flagging certain cards for me to call for at the end of the round. It seems that many times debaters don't take the time to really explain what the alternative is like, whether it solves part of the aff, is purely rejection, etc. If for some reason the alternative isn't extended or explained in the 2nr, I won't just apply it as a case turn for you. An impact level debate is also still important even if the K excludes the evaluation of specific impacts. It is really helpful to articulate how the K turns the case as well. On a framing level, do not just assume that I will believe that the truth claims of the affirmative are false, there needs to be in-depth analysis for why I should dismiss parts of the aff preferably with evidence to back it up.
The 2NR should CLEARLY identify if they are going for the alternative. If you are not, you need to be explicit about why you don't need the alt to win the debate. This means clear framework and impact framing arguments + turns case arguments. You need to explain why the links are sufficient turns case arguments for me to vote negative on presumption.

CPs- I really like counterplans especially if they are specific to the aff, which shows that you have done your research. Although PIKs are annoying to deal with if you are aff, I enjoy a witty PIK. However, make it clear that it is a PIK and explain why it solves the aff better or sufficiently. Explain sufficiency framing in the context of the debate you're having, don't just blurt out "view the cp through the lens of sufficiency"--that's not a complete argument.

Generic cps with generic solvency cards aren't really going to do it for me. However, if the evidence is good then I am more likely to believe you when you claim aff solvency. There needs to be a good articulation for why the aff links to the net benefit and good answers to cp solvency deficits, assuming there are any. Permutation debate needs to be hashed out on both sides, with Da/net benefits to the permutations made clear.

DAs- I find it pretty easy to follow DAs. However, if you go for it I am most likely going to be reading ev after the round, so it better be good. If your link cards are generic and outdated and the aff is better in that department, then you need to have a good reason why your evidence is more qualified, etc.

Make the story of the DA AND your scenario clear, DAs are great but some teams tend to go for a terminal impact without explanation of the scenario or the internal link args. Comparative analysis is important so I know how to evaluate the evidence that I am reading. Tell me why the link o/w the link turn etc. Impact analysis is very important, timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc., so I can know why the Da impacts are more important than the affs impacts. A good articulation of why the Da turns each advantage is extremely helpful because the 2ar will most likely be going for those impacts in the 2ar.

Theory- I generally err neg on theory unless there is a really good debate over it. Your generic blocks aren't going to be very compelling. If you articulate why condo causes a double turn, etc. specific to the round is a better way to go with it. I think that arguments such as vague alternatives especially when an alternative morphs during the round are good. However, minor theory concerns such as multiple perms bad aren't as legitimate in my opinion.

Other notes: If you are unclear, I can't flow you and I don't get the evidence as you read it, so clarity over speed is always preferable.
Don't be rude, your points will suffer. There is a difference between being aggressive and being a jerk.
Impact calc please, don't make me call for everyones impacts and force me to evaluate it myself. I don't want to do the work for you.
The last two rebuttals should be writing my ballot, tell me how I vote and why. Don't get too bogged down to give a big picture evaluation.

Accomplish something in your cross-x time and use the answers you get in cx and incorporate them into your speeches. Cx is wasted if you pick apart the DA but don't talk about it in your speech.

College Prep (2015-2019), Wake Forest (2019-2023)

ADA 2023 Champion, CEDA 2023 Co-Champion, 2023 Copeland Panelist, NDT 2023 Quarterfinals, NDT 2022 Octafinalist, NDT 2021 Doubles

Coach at George Mason & Harker

anadebate07@gmail.com

for college policy debates: please also add masondebatedocs@gmail.com

TLDR:

My only actual hardline stances are that I believe line-by-line is good, we should care about how we impact other people, and impact calculus wins debates.

I make decisions based on complete arguments, which require claims, warrants, and impacts/implications.

My favorite debates to judge are the ones in which teams do what they do best. I appreciate in-depth preparation and high-quality clash more than anything.

I am most excited about judging case vs disad debates. Debates not about the effects of the plan are less persuasive, less educational, and less engaging to me in almost every way.

I prefer to judge debates in which the Affirmative is about the topic, and the Negative disagrees with the Affirmative's proposed change from the status quo.

I prefer not to judge a debate about an issue that would best be resolved outside the constraints of a competitive debate.

I try to flow every word said in speeches & cross-ex unless instructed otherwise.

I think about debates in terms of strategic moves and argument function --- explaining arguments on that meta level is the most compelling and understandable to me, especially in debates with complex legislative nuance and/or critical theories.

I do not flow RVI's - I only flow complete arguments.

I refuse to vote on disclosure or other norm based theory arguments unless a) it is entirely conceded b) i witnessed MISdisclosure with an intent to lie or cheat --- anything else is not worthwhile for anyone's time. New AFFs are good.

I try to be very predictable in my decision-making, given I believe debate takes a lot of work, dedication, and time, which judges ought to respect by evaluating debates technically by flowing and comparing each argument as presented. This means I also only evaluate arguments presented in speeches and remove my hands from my keyboard when the timer goes off. Cross-ex matters, but I can not vote on arguments not made in speeches.

Prep time includes flow check questions. Prep time ends when the doc is uploaded in the email.

Framework debates:

My least favorite debates, but I judge them the most

Impacts? Fairness is an impact, but you gotta do impact calc & can't skip out on warrants. I struggle to see how clash is an external impact but am open to hearing otherwise - for me, clash seems to be, at most, a sliding scale/question of maximization - but you provide a warrant otherwise and I'll write it down. Topic education is guided by predictable limits and/or explaining why the (specific) ground you gained/lost is good/bad.

TVA vs Switch Side? I think 2NR strategy is guided by AFF strategic vision, so my preference is probably based on technical concessions and/or context of the debate.

Models vs Violation? Your call, I've judged both and evaluated each on technical bases. The AFF probably has responses to each, so I don't find one approach more true/right than the other. I'm just line-by-line oriented.

Impact turn vs Counter-interp 2AR? Your call! I only think it's strategic that you pick one or the other and full send - typically starting on the Framework flow with your one major disad to the NEG's interp and impacting it out is the start of many winning 2ARs in front of me. If you go for the counter-interp, don't expect me to fill in blanks either way if it can or cannot solve the NEG's offense. If you're going for impact turns to the NEG's model/interp, then explain why that outweighs/turns NEG offense and probably best to have defense to their interp/model as well.

The NEG can win in front of me that case ought not outweigh Topicality, but you should say that. I do not auto-let kritikal AFFs leverage the case against Topicality if the NEG has presented reasons why I shouldn't evaluate that offense; I think the AFF should answer that argument. My burden for answering this argument is rather low, which is why I tend to be less persuaded by Framework interps about the NEG not being required to meet the burden of rejoinder. I like debates where teams disagree with one another, so this interpretation of what debate can and/or should be isn't something that I really find compelling. That doesn't mean the AFF doesn't have to respond, but I definitely think your offense is magnified by this interpretation of debate and explaining why that's true is compelling to me. However, if this is your approach on either side, you just have to win on the technical debating level, and you'll most likely get my ballot.

AFF v K on NEG? Overly specific AFF interps are less compelling than some version of weighing the effects/justifications against the K, and they tend to link far harder to NEG offense. I'm not a 'will always weigh the case' nor a 'loves the fiat k' truther - I just like impact calculus, comparison of warrants, and explanation of any solvency claim presented. You should still answer the links if going for framework or at least say why the case outweighs or solves the links.

General Debate Thoughts:

I auto-judge-kick.

Theory debates aren't fun to judge, but I understand the strategic utility on both sides. 1 reason condo is good & impact calc >> spending a certain amount of time.

I'm not great for competition debates; I don't like evaluating scripts read at each other with minimal impacts and direct engagement on the line by line.

If util and/or consequentialism are wrong, you have to say how I should evaluate impacts otherwise. I don't fill in the blanks for either side. Good impact calc tends to win debates in front of me.

Will vote AFF or NEG on presumption

T debates aren't my favorite to judge but Limits ---X--------------- AFF Ground

You must read the re-highlighting aloud if the other team did not read those exact words in the card. If not reading the rehighlighted words aloud, you can also read the line(s) in cross-ex or explain the implication and what the rehighlighting means for my ballot in the tag of the rehighlighting. I think debate is a communication activity, not one where I read cards on my own and independently decide. However, that doesn't mean low-quality ev constitutes a good argument.

I will let you know if I need a card doc - I probably won't. I strongly dislike judge intervention, so I aim to read every card during the debate as it is read to understand the context and completeness of every argument presented during each speech.

I am FAR more persuaded by negative criticisms that prove why the Affirmative as presented is bad, not just nonsolvent. I tend to struggle to see how the Negative does not have to respond to Affirmative defensive claims to the K -- framing out Affirmative offense still requires technical debating.

I stop flowing when the timer goes off.

I care about debate. I don't particularly appreciate when teams read cringe and questionably ethical backfile checks designed to mess with opponents.

I think disclosure is, in nearly every case, good. I have zero tolerance for misdisclosure, lying, and shady practices designed to evade clashing with your opponent.

If high-theory kritikal arguments are your bread and butter, just please lead with implications and claims that I can break down into impact-forward arguments. I just don't know how to spell or define some of the words you say very fast, but I will evaluate every debate as objectively as possible always / nevertheless.

I appreciate historical examples as explication for argumentation, almost as much as an explanation of their relevancy to your argument / comparison to your opponents' warrants.

Speaking:

Speed = arguments effectively communicated per minute.

Clarity >>

Speaker Points? I try to default to this table's scale

[30 = nearly impossible to get/seniors at last tournament

29.9-29.7 = fabulous & expect to be in deep elims

29.6-29.4 = excellent & elim worthy performance

29.3-29.1 = good & expect to break

29-28.7 = median

28.6-28.4 = room for improvement

28.3-28 = some hiccups & things to work on

27.9-27.6 = room to improve and there is some debate stuff to learn

27.5 -27 = there is a lot of room to grow

26.9 and below = something went pretty wrong]

LD:

Not great for LD nonsense unless you want to explain things to me with an emphasis on impact calc & judge instruction.

I do not flow nor know how to evaluate phil, skep, tricks, and the like. If you do not defend some form of consequentialism, I am most likely not your judge.

In LD, I do not believe the 1NC/AR has the burden to rejoin frivolous, ridiculous theory arguments placed in the 1AC/NC to avoid clash.

Counterplan theory is fine. Litmus test is if the argument is prevalent in the activity of policy debate, it's probably fine.

Except animal wipeout or using people's spiritual beliefs to justify extinction --- this is NOT educational, not productive for HIGH SCHOOLERS, and is something I will refuse to evaluate as an EDUCATOR. I will not flow Benatar or the like - you would be better off making any other argument possible.

I would certainly prefer to not a LD debate with arbitrary disclosure norms; i think these debates and theory shells are worse for novices and access issues.

The most TLDR:

If I cannot explain your argument to you ethically or technically, the odds are that I cannot vote for you.

RVI's, hypotesting & tricks are nonstarters.

shawnee mission south '23, university of southern california ‘27

toc 2025: if you are committed to usc, please conflict me… but please say hi !! i would love to talk all things usc and usc debate!

mcbradleydebate@gmail.com

general:

if you ask for a marked copy when less than 3 cards were marked and/ or have to clarify what ev was read without taking cx or prep, your speaks ceiling is a 27.

the round should start on time. the amount of stalling and general lack of timeliness has become egregious recently.

judge instruction wins debates. evidence quality matters. smart analytics can beat bad cards.

"if i win ontology i auto win a link" thats not how that works.

affs should respond to the resolution. what that looks like is up for debate, and i am truly impartial about whether or not it entails reading a plan text.

you will lose for clipping. the other team does not need to call it out. #communicationactivity.

RE: my flowing practices while judging -- it varies. sometimes i am only reading cards during 1ac/1nc, other times i am flowing and also reading 1ac/1nc (always checking for clipping). i flow what is said/ read, i do not flow “off the doc”. i have a pretty good ear but am a slow typer. if there is an argument that is so important that it must be in the decision, you will be better off slowing down so i can flow it.

RE: speaks -- won't disclose them.

brief rant:

Debate technically, flow, compare evidence, don’t engage in bad-faith practices (hiding arguments, being sketchy in CX), and know your cards. Often, the 1ar in LD would experience far greater payoff from indicting horrible neg ev/ argument quality than reading more cards. Many DA links are tagged to say something that is not substantiated by the article, counterplan texts are often written incorrectly, and most all internal net benefit evidence is bad, but these indicts must be made in the 1ar. Counterplan competition should be established early-on, and you must send perm texts. “Presumption = my side because it’s harder to be my side” is absolute nonsense.

finally:

Ks: Do not go for the fiat Kand a link to the plan in the same 2nr. Defending more is better than defending less. You should be prepared to answer the impact turn.

Note for teams going for settler colonialism: Reading Tuck and Yang and then not defending material decolonization is an injustice to the literature. Take that as you will.

Updated April 2025

Prefs Guide:

1 - K v. K, Policy v. K, K v. Policy

2 - Plan v. Plan

3 - Phil

1,082,576 - "Tricks"

Quick Overview:

(1) Please make an e-mail chain, add elizabuckner17@gmail.com to it, and title the subject "[Tournament]: [Team] (Aff) vs. [Team] (Neg)"

(2) Play to your strengths - don't over-adapt based on what you think I want to see.

(3) I reward bold and strategic decision-making - go for the straight turn, capitalize on double-turns, make strategic pivots etc. I have judged too many rounds lately where I feel like debaters are reluctant to "go all-in" on an argument because they deem it too risky.

(4) I read the doc to compare what your evidence says to your explanation of it - discrepancies are only relevant to my decision insofar as your opponent tells me so.

(5) Keep your own prep time - I will not track it for you.

(6) Cross-ex is a speech, show me you're prepared for it.

(7) Speak Clearly - I used to think almost everyone in debate had better hearing than me, but I've realized it's actually just that unclear speaking is so normalized that only its inversion is remarkable, e.g. "wow they are such a clear speaker!" Do your best to ensure that I can hear every word and it will be reflected in your speaks.

K AFF vs. Framework:

-Aff: fine for impact turn and/or counter-interp strategies but you need to commit to one or the other--typically the earlier the better. I don't think it's super strategic to read a counter-model without definitions - offense against predictability seems more intuitive than defense in that scenario. Many neg teams are sidestepping models based offense by paring down to just-this-round - make sure your offense assumes this.

-Neg: I want to see more defenses of instrumental topic education - decisively winning that question straight turns most aff offense, which may outweigh its vulnerability to some of the defensive arguments that fairness avoids. Make sure you're extending defense that actually answers the aff's offense. "Go to tab" doesn't solve impact turns to your research model and the fairness paradox isn't guaranteed to uplayer every aff argument. Showing you understand how your arguments actually interact with theirs will go a long way.

Policy AFF vs. K:

-One side wins framework. I will not arbitrarily bridge the interps and establish a middle ground. However, one team may lose framework but win the debate should they properly layer their arguments, e.g. "consequentialism is a justification for our reps so we win under the neg's interp."

-Aff: I wish more teams went for contingency + a rigorous defense of their scholarship as an impact turn to the links - too often teams get sidetracked into sweeping impact turns about heg, capitalism, and crackdown when I would be more persuaded by "we are right about x and it's important to think about the problem/solution this way."

-Neg: just moot the plan. It's more strategic, simpler to explain, and likely more aligned with the scholarship you're reading. Very few K's function via traditional cost-benefit analysis and "don't weigh case" is the simplest way to communicate that in debates. I'm open to the more CP/DA approach as well but I find that works with the Cap K and little else. When you're debating soft left affs, you can often find ways to solve the aff - otherwise outweighing/mooting it is best.

K vs. K:

-Teams that are ahead on the purpose of debate/competition and the role of the judge will likely win. Presumption can flip either way - debate it out.

-Aff: I think the value of perms in KvK debates is often over-stated; realistically, they only get you past bad link arguments. I appreciate when affs generate offense vs. the K rather than try to agree with as much as they can.

-Neg: win a link to their performance (meaning, any critique of something they said or did in the debate) and you'll probably win. don't win a link to their performance and you'll probably lose. pretty unconvinced by the modern renditions of the "ballot k" - it seems non-falsifiable at best and projection at worst.

Policy vs. Policy:

I haven't judged a ton of these debates so I don't have many hard opinions, but I am increasingly interested in doing so. +.2 speaks if you pref me for these. Don't assume I have topic knowledge.

Updated 4/10/25 Post-NDT

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

Topic thoughts - AI Prohibitions -

This topic sucks.

I think that most disads lack link uniqueness and the ability to generate a link to the aff, I know this isn't exactly the negative debaters fault but it does mean that I have a certain threshold for evidence that needs to be met.

Being negative on this topic seems impossible.

Just finished judging the Western Kentucky, I hate to beat a dead horse but this topic is BAD.

Topic thoughts - ICC/UNCLOS -

Aff ground seems interesting in terms of what teams can defend, I haven't judged on this topic at all so I am not as familiar with topic acronyms as you'd like me to be.

"T - and/or means all" is an abomination and are a perfect example of why T debates in this event suck 90% of the time.

Neg k links seem to be pretty alright, I certainly enjoy the link angles here, and I prefer neg teams to take up specific criticisms of the institutions the resolution talks about rather than like "international relations/institutions bad."

I have not judged high school LD since Greenhill in the fall, since then I have judged primarily collegiate policy debate along with some collegiate LD. What does this mean for you? Unsure yet, but more than likely I might be a bit stingier with speaks than normal (also given the tournament), my willingness to put up with nonsense is a lot lower (nonsense = tricks, frivolous theory, and arguments that induce an eye roll when read). For adaptation purposes, I have been spoiled in an event with cohesive warranting and debating for the past 7 months, PLEASE: read an affirmative that defends something (a plan, an advocacy of some kind, or a carded philosophical framework) and negate that something with arguments that prove it is bad (kritiks with links to the aff/the epistemology of the aff, a counterplan + disadvantage, impact turns, a carded philosophical framework).

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Yes insert rehighlightings, caveat is that it must be from the same portion of the article that the respective side cuts, if you read a part not introduced in the debate, you must read it out loud.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Colin Quinn.

Friends of mine in debate whose takes I agree with at least partially: E. Cook, Dylan Jones

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8-8.5/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others and need a bit more hand holding)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theory - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, this year will mark my 9th year in debate. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 700+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. Those (probably too many) debates have ranged everywhere from local circuit tournaments, the TOC, and to the NDT, but I would say most of my time judging is in national circuit LD, with college policy debate coming in right behind that. I think the reason I judge so much is because I think judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX). Independently, I coach Berkeley Carroll JH, Jasper SG, Plano West AR, Plano West NS, Plano West RC, and Riverside Independent JD.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Jordan (TX) institutionally, and with American Heritage Broward CW, Barrington AC, Bellevue/Washington Independent WL, Clear Springs EG, Clear Springs MS, Greenhill EX, McNeil AS, and Vestavia Hills MH.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are decided by me, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

If it means anything, I think most of my debate takes are in camp "2N who had to be a 2A for a while as well so I think mostly about negative strategy but also think that the aff has the right to counter-terrorism against negative terrorism."

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be pleased.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, impact calculus, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters posture too much. I don't care, and it annoys me. Debate the debate, especially since half the time when debaters posture it's about the wrong thing. There is a difference between being firm, and being performative.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2025 and y'all have been using technology for how long????).

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and especially when it's not about the specific terms of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 737 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff exactly 52.24% of the time.

My speaks for the 2024-2025 season have averaged to be around 28.633, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.543.

I have been a part of 220 panels, where I have sat exactly 13.18% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

"Give me thirty speaks." How about I give you a 27 instead?

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

Thoughts on conditionality/dispositionality are in the theory section.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 9 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just be able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more because sometimes the permutation is indeed a nonstarter.

For aff teams answering the K, going for framework does not automatically make the risk of the link zero, especially when there is no judge instruction on why your interp would exclude their link arguments. That necessitates that you need to answer the link most often time, especially if there's a turns case argument. I have had too many debates where the 2AR was just framework with no link defense, and I end up voting neg quickly because of conceded link turns case arguments that the 2NR say directly affect the plan's implementation.

Framework only matters as much as you make it matter. I think both sides of the debate are doing no argument resolution/establishing the implications of what it means to win framework. Does that mean that only consequences of the implementation of the plan matter, and I exclude the links to the plans epistemology? Does that mean that if the neg wins a link, the aff loses because I evaluate epistemology first? Questions like these often go unresolved, and I think teams often debate at each other via block reading without being comparative at all. Middle ground interps are often not as strategic as you think, and you are better off just going for you link you lose, or plan focus. To sum this up, make framework matter if you think it matters, and don't be afraid to just double down about your interp.

Link uniqueness matters a lot for me as well, this is where I think framework becomes a large guiding question for how I evaluate the rest of the debate. You don't need to win framework if you have non-unique links to the aff that are resolved via an alternative that commits to a material action and is not just "lets adopt new epistemologies," so long as you win the plan trades off with the commitment toward that alternative.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons I will be extremely thankful. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Grove, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Marxism, Moten and Harney, New Materialism, Psychoanalysis, Reps K's, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, Security, Settler Colonialism, and Weheliye.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Abolition, Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Bataille, Cybernetics, Disability Literature, Puar, and Queer pessimism.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

For other k v k debates, I think the emphasis needs to be offense, offense, offense. Often when teams just throw a bunch of cards at an aff there is little resolution of how arguments interact with one another, this is where I think think line by line debating is necessary to ensure that I keep track of the debate in the most clean way possible.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

In my heart of hearts, I probably am very slightly aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner. If you are an aff debater reading this, my response to you is to innovate and to try to emphasize technical debate rather than posturing, you have an aff and you should definitely use it to help substantiate your arguments.

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me enjoy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's and instead

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

Subject formation? Yeah debate probably influences it, it's definitely shaped my research practices, interests, etc. However this isn't as much a game over issue for T-Framework teams as you think it is, as I think that subject formation can be strategically levied against K teams as well.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the resolution. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, and you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. I think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be more than dismissive if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges. If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Dipositionality is fake, genuinely don't understand how teams can defend dispo and say that it is any radically different than conditionality.

Counterplan theory is probably a reason to reject the argument.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. If you think there is a violation you either stake the round or don't make an argument about it.If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. If I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory arguments like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

I will evaluate every speech of the debate sans there being an ethics violations that stops the flow of the debate.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic modesty > confidence in skep debates, confidence > modesty in phil v phil debates

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good/heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Why are we obsessed with bad T arguments that do not have an intent to define words in the topic in the context of the topic? Come on y'all, act like we've been here.

Speaks:

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

Peninsula, Cal State Fullerton

Cal State Fullerton BW

Bakersfield BB

Previously Coached by: Shanara Reid-Brinkley, LaToya Green, Travis Cochrain, Lee Thach, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, and Parker Coon

Other people who influence my debate thoughts: Vontrez White and Jonathan Meza

Emails

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com

College: debatecsuf@gmail.com jaredburkey99@gmail.com

2024-25 Update:

IPR: 18

Energy: 14

LD Total: 79

College: Going to be coaching Cal State Fullerton more so I expect to be judging college, have a depth of topic knowledge, and be doing more research for the team.

HS: Mostly will be in LD this year, I imagine I will be judgeing policy teams a few times this year and help out with the Pen policy kids from time to time.

Cliff Notes:

1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.

2. Who controls uniqueness - that comes 1st

3. on T most times default to reasonability

4. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - I think this is most of the debates I have judged and it's probably my favorite type of debates to be in both as a debater and as a judge. I would like to implore policy teams to invest in substantive strategies this is not to say that T is not an option in these debates, but most of these critical affs defend some things that I know there is a disad to and most times 2AC just is flat-footed on the disad. 2As fail to answer PICs most times. 2ACs overinvestment on T happens a bunch and the 2NR ends up being T when it should have been the disad or the PIC. All of this is to say that T as your first option in the 2NR is probably the right one, but capitalize on 2AC mistakes

5. No plan no perm is not an argument --- win a link pls

6. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.

7. Theory debates are boring --- conditionality good --- judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality

Specifics:

K --- The lack of link debating that has occurred for the K in recent years is concerning, the popularization of exclusive-based FW has diminished the value of the link debate. That being said I understand the strategic utility of the argument, but the argument less and less convinces me. I will not default to plan focus, weigh the aff, or assume weigh the aff when each team is going for exclusive fw. This is all to say that the link argument is the predominant argument and the K of fiat as a link argument is not convincing at all. Smart 2Ns that rehighlight 1AC cards and use their link arguments to internal link turn/impact turn the aff should win 9/10 in front of me. All to say that good K debating is good case debating.

FW--- Fairness its an impact but also is an internal link to just about everything --- role of the negative as a frame for impacts with a TVA is very convincing to me - only this debate matters is not a good argument, these debates should be a question about models of debate - carded TVAs are better than non-carded TVAs and are a sure fire way to win these debates for the negative --- I would describe myself as a clash truther most times, debate is net good maximizing clash preserves the value of debate --- 2As whose strategy is to impact turn everything with a CI is much more convincing to me than attempts to use the counterinterp as defense to T, although can be persuaded by the counterinterp being defense to T

DA--- Fast DAs are more convincing, turns case arguments good, any DA is fair game as long as its debated well

CP --- Must know what the CP does with an explanation --- good for functional competition only, not the biggest fan of text and function or textual only.

T --- Boring.

LD Specific:

1. Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

4. Phil - Been convinced more and more about Phil thanks to Danielle Dosch, I would still say I am not the best for Phil

5. Tricks

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Ultimately, I have come to conclusion that debate is a game but this game also has real life effects on the people who choose to participate in it. Therefore,BE NICE, HAVE FUN, and DO YOU!!!

I have found in my time debating that there are a few things that debaters are looking for when they read judging philosophies (including myself) so I’ll get straight to the point:

K's:I’m fine with them and have run them for quite some time in my career. However, this does not mean run a K in front of me for the fun of it - rather it means that I expect you to be able to explain your link story and the way the alternative functions. I find that most teams just make the assumption that the Aff doesn’t get a perm because "it’s a methodology debate". That’s not an argument, give me warrants as to why this is true if this is the argument you are going to for. K Aff's are fine often times debaters lose sight of the strategic benefits of the Aff, So a simple advice I can give isDONT FORGET YOUR AFF!!

DA's:In general I like strong impact analysis and good link story. Make logical argument and be able to weigh the impact story against the Aff.

CP’s: I am open all types of CP’s you just have to prove the competitiveness of said CP and make sure it has a net benefit.

FW: Again….Debate is a game but this game has real life implications on those who choose to engage in it. I think FW can be strategic against some Aff’s but don’t use it as a reason to not engage the Aff. Win your interpretation and weigh your impacts. Aff’s: don’t blow off FW answer it and engage it or tell me why you are not engaging in it.

Theory: Not a big fan of it, but make sure you slow down as to ensure I get all the arguments you are making. But do you!

Cross X: I think this is the best part of debate and LOVE it. Don’t waste those 3 min, they serve a great purpose. I am ALWAYS paying attention to CX and may even flow it.

***Please remember that I am not as familiar with the high school topic so don’t assume I know all the jargon ***

Last but not least,watch me!(take hints from the visual cues that I am sending)

vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

NDT quarterfinalist reading K arguments.

Have coached every argument at high levels.

Ask question before debate for specifics.

Avg speaks 28.5, find myself lowering speaks as unstrategic choices are made.

Tech over Truth; I find myself intervening frequently because debaters leave key issues unresolved.

If I nod, I agree, if I laugh I think ur argument is funny, could be good, could be bad.

Persuasion, evidence quality and intuition all play a role in determining who has technically won a controversy.

I am better than most of the pool for theory, but despite my reputation I am actually not very good for theory debaters. I think every theory shell is false. Theory relies on concessions to win or strategic errors - I have no problem voting for conceded arguments but properly debated, I don't think I would ever vote for theory. Condo is maybe workable. Obvious exception for Topicality.

Topicality vs K Aff - I think I lean aff in these debates in theory, but lean neg in practice: framework is just easier to execute then K aff.

Flow constructives off the doc. Flow rebuttals entirely without doc. Willing to adjust based on debater request. You should probably signal for my attention if you are extemping arguments during constructives.

Judge kick depends on mood. Would prefer you gave explicit instruction.

Your best strategy is to make me want to vote for you. I am likely influenced by extreme subconcious bias when attempting to render "technical decisions." (i.e. swayed by good ethos and rhetoric)

However, I do not have strong argumentative or ideological preferences, just would appreciate if you were thoughtful about the content and execution of the stratgies you deploy.

Cross-ex and other affective aspects such as presentation and performance are very important for both speaks and how willing I am to vote for you.

I get irritated by what I perceive to be poor strategic choices and reading parts of your script that are irrelevant.

Speaks rewarded to those who make judging enjoyable.

Debates are enjoyable when both sides answer each other arguments with specificity and adapt to the circumstances of the round.

Find skepticism more persuasive than most judges. This might be game-breaking for the neg. Unsure what to do about this problem.

I am probably more tolerant to arguments deemed morally hazardous, such as moral skepticism, nihilism, death good, trigger warnings bad and deleuze. However, I do not desire to inflict harm to debaters so will leave the option open to pause or end the round if an argument introduced may have unsafe implications.

UPDATED FOR RIDGE DEBATES 2024 (POLICY DEBATE SECTION)

Please add me on the email chain: antoninaclementi@gmail.com AND ridgenjdebate@gmail.com

Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.

If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.

I err Tech over Truth

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers

Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu, ndt ceda) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.

• If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.

Policy:

- Same as LD, feel free to ask questions not covered in the LD paradigm.

- I think 4-6 is a pretty good number of off. I like having a good amount of case engagement still. Obv, if your a one off team stick to that but I think 4-6 is a good max for me.

- Running multiple CPs is fine
- Full disclosure: I have not judged on the 24-25 policy topic and I am not familiar with it at all so keep that in mind. My first rounds judging on the topic will be ridge debates. Further, in the spirit of full transparency I am not super familiar with IP jargon so keep it to a minimum or at least like send analytics in a doc so I can look up a word I do not know so I fully understand the impact of what your saying.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Pref Shortcut:

1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks

2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks

5/6 - tricks, phil

Framework (Value/Value Criterion):

With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.

Counterplans:

I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong net benefit. Needs to have all components. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.

Theory Shells:

Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose. With that said I DESPISE round report theory or something like must be open text I think cites and bare minimum disclosure solves.

I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.

I think…

New affs good

Condo good

PICs good

Consult CPs bad

Vague alts bad

TW good

Delay CPs are fine

but hey maybe you can prove me wrong

RVIs:

I strongly dislike RVIs - they are ridiculous

Topicality:

I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. I would say I have a mid threshold for T and I am open to a full collapse but give a through LBL. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.

K's:

Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. TBH I am not super familiar with lots of the academic jargon involved in K lit break it down for me and keep it simple. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan. Stay away from super techy academic jargon. Unless you are hitting a critical aff I really do not like psychoanalysis Ks.

Cap K:

Do not read Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD. With that said I like cap Ks and vote on them frequently

DA/Policy Affs:

Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.

Note on Politics DAs

LOVE THEM

K Affs

I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does! I usually do not vote on T - FW. Super happy to K affs that make SENSE are organized and do not have technical jargon that even the debater running it does not understand. Know you’re lit and read it proudly and your creativity will be rewarded.

Tricks

• Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
• I am super open to trix bads theory
• Just have a substantive debate. Please.

Phil

• Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
• some phil is cool. I like pragmatism and that’s kinda it tbh.
• I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig

Spreading:

I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. PLEASE SEND ANALYTICS. ESPECIALLY THEORY SHELLS IN THE DOCS. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.

Signpost:

I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.

CX:

I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.

Impacts:

These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.

Speaks:

I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you will. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.

Flex prep:

If you use flex prep your bad at flowing

Post Rounding:

If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.

Public Forum:

Same as above

• Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
• I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
• I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad

Parli:

• Same as LD
• Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
• I like numbering of args and clear signposting

TLDR:

Do whatever, have fun, make sense and make my job is easy and write the ballot for me in the last 30 seconds to minute of the NR and 2AR. Debates not that deep - if you don't agree with my decision that's fine but handle your loss with grace and class - trust me it benefits you in the long run. It is statistically impossible that every judge who votes you down is a "Screw" ????

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/y iconcerns please feel free to email me (antoninaclementi@gmail.com).

Send me docs please: copland.nicholas@gmail.com

Sophomore at UNC Chapel Hill. Did 3 years of circuit LD.

Basics:

Dont be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. This will be an automatic loss and the lowest speaks possible.

LD:

I prefer policy style rounds however, I am ok with pretty much anything LARP, performance affs, Ks, phil, and theory (not frivolous). Plan on overexplaining most things and always tell me why something matters.

Please no tricks, frivolous theory, and disclosure will never be my number one priority in round.

0.5 Speaks boost for GOOD NFL or NBA metaphors (know ball).

PF:

Don't be a jerk

I prefer more lay PF (if you want to spread try policy) but am fine with anything so please run what you want.

0.5 Speaks boost for GOOD NFL or NBA metaphors (know ball).

1 Speaks boost for quoting Doctor Suess.

email chain:

backslash309@gmail.com

add breakdocs@googlegroups.com as well

top level:

Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.

In regards to Policy vs K debate, if I were biased either direction, it's probably in favor of policy, but I don't think this matters in a technical debate where your arguments have warrants. Do with that what you will.

Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses. If an argument is introduced in a speech where no such response is valid, it carries little weight, for example: I am not going to think fairness categorically outweighs education if fairness outweighs is introduced in the 2AR.

(9/11/24) Because of this, claims start from zero and are built up through warrants. I do not want to judge tricks debates. I will abide by the above paragraph with far more scrutiny than I have in the past. Theory and phil debates are still fine, but I'll be much more hesitant to vote on blippy shells, analytic skep triggers, and other less warranted args than I have in the past.

random thoughts:

Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

In the absence of paradigm issues, I'm going to evaluate theory contextually. This means I will only grant you the logical implication of the words you say, and will not automatically grant you assumptions like drop the debater. For example, if a 1AR tells me "PICs are a voter cuz they steal the aff", this logically means that PICs are a bad argument, but doesn't explain why the neg should lose for reading it. Functionally, this means I'd default drop the argument absent any explanation. This headache can be easily avoided through warranted, extended arguments.

K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate.

I default to judgekick.

I am a relatively new parent judge who prefers traditional debate. Please go slow in the round and do not assume that I understand esoteric arguments. I like when debaters emphasize their voters and consistently tie their framework to their arguments. Remember to give me voters for the round during your last rebuttal speech. Keep debate jargon limited and do not be overly aggressive to your opponents during cross.

Quick prefs:

I will NOT evaluate progressive debate or spreading.

tech > truth (to an extent - do not abuse this)

I am still listening even if I am not flowing.

for the most fair round, outline how I should be voting and evaluating arguments (limit judge intervention)

*Create a way to share evidence before the round has started (I prefer using an email chain - cindyapril@gmail.com)

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School.

daviddosch@gmail.com

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Isidore Newman '23 and Wake Forest '27

Debating for Wake + Coaching/Cutting Cards for Greenhill LD

send docs - greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com - make the email chain name descriptive ie. Tournament Name Round X Flt X - Team 1 [AFF] vs Team 2 [NEG]

TOC: Seniors who have committed to or are considering enrolling at Wake, please conflict me! If you have any questions, feel free to reach out.

---

Be a decent human being.

Tech >>> truth, but truth influences the amount of work it means to technically win something as well as your speaker points.

To vote on an argument, I must understand it and it must be on my flow. I flow and evaluate every speech. I flow straight down and do not flow author names. 80/20 on the question of paper vs laptop. I never flow from the doc. I will look at the doc at times to check for clipping (which if you do, you will loose without your opponent bringing it up).

I strive to make decisions without intervention, if I must intervene I will vote for the team that requires less.

You will like my decision more if you slow down.

You can insert rehighlightings of cards read in the debate and perm texts. However, inserting 10 rehighlightings will result in me missing things.

I am unpersuaded by a 30 speaks spike or eval. I will not disclose speaks.

I think zero risk is possible. I evaluate things probabilistically except for debates about models (ie. violations, framing, etc.) which are yes/no questions.

Evidence quality matters as much as debaters make it matter.

There is no flow clarification section in debate, take prep, or cx. Marked docs do not need to delete cards not read. Flow.

Arguments have a claim, warrant, and an impact. I will only vote on complete arguments. Topic research is good, slop is bad. Late-breaking debates are bad.

Post-rounding is good. Feel free to email me with questions (just make sure someone else (preferably a coach) is cc'ed for safety reasons).

Be nice to less experienced debaters or at the very least do not waste my time.

---

CP: No judge kick unless the negative says it. I am good for competition debates, worse for theory debates.

T/Theory: Bad for reasonability without a bright line, good for reasonability with a bright line. If I am using competing interps, you must have an interp which you meet.

Ks: Good for both sides. Framework is a yes/no question. Internal link comparison + explaining what offense matters under your model matters more to me than other judges.

Graduated from CK McClatchy High School in 2020. Graduated from UC Berkeley 2024. Currently DoD at Berkeley. Conflicts: CK McClatchy, West Campus, Harker, Cal, misc friends.

he/him

Of course i want to be on the email chain. nick.fleming39@gmail.com

Moreover, the 1AC needs to be sent out before the official start time for the debate, unless it is new. Speaker point deductions are in order for debaters that fail to do this.

I flow straight down on my laptop. I frequently flow CX in college policy debates. How/if I flow is non-negotiable.

I frequently take a while to decide college debates. Don't read into it too much.

Novices/Middle Schoolers

Please ignore basically everything in this paradigm. Do not worry about any of my idiosyncrasies and do not try to accommodate them. Just do your best!

College Specific Note

The debate must start on time. Tournaments are increasingly time-pressed and decision time gets shorter every year. As such, I expect college debaters to not only start on time, but minimize delays as much as possible during the debate. You are too old to still be confused about the email chain. The more decision time I have, the linearly better your decision will be. This applies less to JV/novice debates, obviously.

Important Stuff

Below are many feelings about debate. Precisely none of them overcome technical debating, with the exception of the couple clearly flagged. I have rendered numerous decisions for conditionality, against framework, and for the argument that capitalism is sustainable. If my feelings were determinative, I would never vote for these arguments. There is a great deal of wiggle room, but it is exclusively accessed through technical debating.

My two least favorite things on earth are self-importance and cowardess. Don't do either of them.

I think I care more than other judges about judge instruction. Telling me how to read/understand cards, how to frame warrants, etc. will be taken very seriously when the debate comes to an end. Smart, strategic judge instruction and framing will quickly earn speaker points.

Policy Debates

Most of my paradigm is about k debate because I have far less feelings about policy rounds. That is not to say I am not a good judge for them. My favorite debates to judge are big, in-depth policy rounds that are vertically oriented and evidence intensive. That being said, I have far less instruction to offer you because those rounds are more straight-forward to evaluate. Important thoughts:

I will reward smart turns case arguments and clever analytics above a wall of cards in these debates.

I frequently find that my decisions hinge on my ability to connect a very persuasive sounding 2ar to arguments made in the 1ar. I could be described as a “line holder” with regards to newness in the 2ar.

I have an increasing admiration for debaters willing to throw down on substantive issues regarding the topic. All else being equal, you will receive higher speaks for a great 2NR on the squo than a great 2NR on process.

I believe being affirmative is fundamentally easy. On those grounds, I err neg on basically all theory. This is significantly more true for policy than LD, but my instinct to resolve theory in favor of the neg will remain strong.

Planless affs ---

I generally think that debates are better, more interesting, and more educational when the aff defends a topical plan based on the resolution. On the other hand, I am also entirely unconvinced of the merit of this activity, full stop.

I have been in many of these debates, both answering and going for topicality. My time as a k debater raised my threshold for the aff a bit because I have first hand experience with how easy it can be to beat framework with args that suck. If you are going for an impact turn to T without a counter-interpretation, you should probably win offense against model v model debates.

I like impact turns a lot. I am a good judge for heg/cap good, and a bad judge for affs that don't want to defend anything. In my opinion, if you have taken a radically leftist position and forwarded a structural kritik but are unwilling to debate the most surface level right-wing propaganda, you are both bastardizing the literature and being cowards. I will not be convinced that your indictment of settler colonialism/some other superstructure is conveniently okay with whatever the neg has impact turned. Inversely, if you are a k team that is ready to throw down on these questions, I will consider you strong-willed, brave, and smart.

Skills/clash solve the case with a big external, a TVA, and a robust presumption push on case is the quickest way to my heart.

Similarly, presumption pushes against affs that are just built to impact turn T are very persuasive.

I am increasingly persuaded by the fairness paradox.

I am unpersuaded by the trend of affs being topic-adjacent and answering framework with "you could have read x DA."

I don't like offense that hinges on the subject position of your opponent or me as a judge. I also very strongly prefer not to be in charge of your mental health, livelihood, or identity. EDIT 11/21: have received questions about this and would like to clarify -- args about value to life, ressentiment, etc. are totally fine. I don't want be in charge of you as an individual -- meaning your role in the community, your mental health, or your sense of self.

Kritiks -

Neg - I consider myself fairly sufficient in most kritik literature and have researched extensively, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your theory. I don't think its fair of me to just fill in gaps for you (for example, deciding in my own head what it means if you "win the ontology debate.") The best way to win in front of me is to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without framework. If your argument is about you and contains no theory, I am a decidedly bad judge for you.

Aff - Impact turn things. Weigh the aff against the alt for more than just fairness -- see my framework thoughts for the neg above. If you are going soft left against the k that is also fine, but sounding nice and in the direction of whatever your opponents say doesn't tell me why the link doesn't turn the case.

Theory -

I am not very good at judging T debates against policy affs. I like reasonability and precision, and my record is pretty decisively aff, despite not having strong feelings about T. At least an outside chance this means I am simply not doing a very good job evaluating the debates.

I tend to be lenient with all neg shenanigans. Consult 2N PTSD rant above.

I largely think if cps compete, they are legit. I can sometimes be convinced otherwise, but if your theory argument is just "this counterplan is bad," I am going to be convinced by neg arbitrariness arguments,

That being said, I am pretty decisively aff for a lot of process competition. Teams would be well advised to reformulate their theory arguments as competition arguments in front of me. I am gettable on the intrinsic perm but it is an uphill battle.

Please do not go for condo in front of me. I have no idea why the neg thinking they can kick a counterplan or an alternative is a voting issue -- simply saying conditionality is bad is not sufficient for me to nuke the other team from the debate. I have never participated in or seen a debate between competent opponents in which even the most egregious abuses of conditionality effected the decision. If the neg drops it twice, I guess you have to go for it. I can think of very few circumstances where it is a good idea otherwise. Slightly more sympathetic for LD because of 1AR time pressures, but still will lean heavily neg and will cap speaks at 29 for the aff (assuming perfect debating otherwise --- if you go for condo, you should expect your points to be in the 28-28.5 range.)

Online Debate

If my camera is not on, please assume I am not ready for you to begin speaking.

I would very much appreciate if you could record your speeches in case there are internet issues while you are talking.

Even the clearest debaters tend to be tougher to flow in an online format. I understand that this comes with some strategic cost, but I will reward you with speaks if you go a little slower than usual and make sure to be extra clear.

LD:

I am fine with flex prep if you want to ask questions, but I am not going to pay attention like it is a CX. If you need to clarify things, that's fine, but treating flex prep like time to make arguments is clearly egregious.

Edit 2/11/23

If you do not ask for a marked document in your debate, I will add .1 to your speaker points. Unless your opponent legitimately marked cards, your speaker points will be capped at 29 if you ask for one. Flow better. Asking about what was and wasn't read is CX time. Every time you ask "did you read x" that's minus .1 speaker points.

EDIT 4/10/22: adding this after judging ~120 LD debates:

As my record indicates, I overwhelmingly vote neg in LD debates. Usually, this is because the 1AR runs out of time and drops something important, and I feel like my hands are tied on new 2AR args. That in mind -- 1ARs that set up big framing issues, start doing impact calc, and cut out superfluous arguments in favor of barebones substance will be rewarded with speaker points and usually the ballot. Aff teams, the entire activity seems to be stacked against you -- so debate accordingly, and don't waste time on useless stuff like condo.

I am gettable on Nebel/whole rez, but don't usually find it particularly persuasive. Seems counter-intuitive.

Please go easy on the theory -- I get that its a big part of the activity, but if your plan going into the debate is to go for a theory arg, you shouldn't pref me. I am usually going to vote neg.

I am not 100% familiar with all of the LD nomenclature so I may need a little explanation of things like "upward entailment test" and other LD-specific vocab

No RVI's ever under any circumstances

running list of arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

new affs bad

no neg fiat

plan focus allows you to say the n word in debates

my opponent did something outside the round that they should lose for

RVI's

Misc.

- Consider me dead inside -- moralizing and tugging on my heart strings will only earn you negative speaks - debate is not about individual feelings, and I will not consider yours when deciding who won.

- It is distracting and rude to talk to your partner at full volume while the other team is speaking.

- I strongly believe that you should be allowed to insert rehighlightings of evidence that has already been read in the debate if you think it goes the other way/want to add context to an argument. Please do not abuse this by inserting a million rehighlightings, but I will be hard to convince that it is not okay to do so in moderation (especially in the 1AR.)

- Please do not ask me for high speaks -- you lose half a point every time you bring it up

- I will only flow the person who's speech it is (edit: Feel less strongly about this during the 1AC/1NC)

- It is a damning indictment of our community that I even have to say this, but the debate will end immediately if it gets even remotely physical at any point. This includes touching other debaters' property. If this is any way surprising, confusing, or offensive to you, strike me.

- There is nothing more off-putting to me than debaters who take themselves too seriously. Please stop acting like this is anything other than a silly game we all want to win at.

• In that same vein, being rude does not make you cool, funny, or brave. Snarky CX comments, saying mean stuff in speeches, etc. will make me dislike you and actively hope that you lose the debate. If I think you are too rude, I will say something after the round and take pleasure in giving you bad speaks. If it gets to the point where I am saying something to you, you should assume I bombed your speaks. If you are a team cannot moderate your rudeness, or you cannot make your arguments without being mean, please strike me and save us both a headache.

Public Forum (copied from Greg Achten)

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

hi my name is nicholas (u can and should call me nick/ nick ford) i did ld for niceville high school in nwfl my senior year on the circuit & am currently a second-year at columbia studying comparative literature; if you are planning on applying there, feel free to ask me questions about it/ the application (ik college apps are hard lol)

email: nicevilledebates@gmail.com -- email chain > speechdrop unless there's like, a lot of people in the room

*for anything EXCEPT docs, pls contact me through my personal email (nicholasaford2@gmail.com)

quick prefs:

*to clarify: these are based on how comfortable i am in evaluating these types of arguments -- i will evaluate anything, but i'm less good at evaluating certain things

k/performance - 1

theory - 1

friv theory/trix - 1/2

LARP - 3

common phil positions (kant/util) - 3

other phil - 4/5

if you have any questions email me/ reach out over fb messenger etc.

general:

just be clear -- if i can't flow the argument you probably shouldn't go for it

tech>truth, if you cant extend an argument or warrant or it forces me into a paradox, i'm not voting on it

not evaluating 30 speaks.

the way I think about safety in debate has changed over the past year. i will intervene if i believe that one or both debaters is making the round unsafe in any way, shape, or form. i believe that there is a difference between an ivi for safety (e.g., 'kant is racist, their endorsement of kant is a reason to vote them down to reject racism') and making a round unsafe (e.g., repeated misgendering, using slurs inappropriately).

i will not evaluate 'tabroom solves' for the latter.

i will evaluate 'tabroom solves' for the former.

if you feel as though a safety violation has occurred and i have not stopped the round, you need to explicitly say to me "can we stop the round, i do not feel safe" or something similar and we will proceed from there.

easy ways to get higher speaks with me:

be funny/clever/do something unique and interesting

easy ways to get lower speaks with me

wasting my time

being generally unstrategic

sending files as google docs/ pdf

k/performance:

identity ks are cool; non-identity ks are cool. like technical k debate; don't like you expecting me to know your lit base. lbl>>>long overviews. extremely bored by k debaters who don't do lbl work and expect to win when they don't answer key args.

theory:

no theory is friv. answer standards. do weighing. fine for the rvi. no defaults. extend paradigm issues.

trix:

totally good for tricky rounds, but i think they can get very messy very quickly. implicate things on the flow. arguments need warrants.

LARP(policy) and lay:

fine for this, but extremely bored by lay debate. be nice to novices/ debaters going to their first circuit tournament. no i wont nuke your speaks for reading theory/k/trix against a lay/novice debater.

phil:

i never read phil so i'm significantly less familiar with these arguments. i'm probably okay for kant but tend toward over-explanation when reading less common phil positions like deleuze, heidegger, etc.

note for PF: not a pf judge. good for the kritik. maybe good for theory. great for trix (altho not sure what tricks exist in pf lmao)

UPDATE FOR STANFORD:

1 - I do NFA-LD, but am unfamiliar with some of the idiosyncrasies of HS-LD (tricks, phil, etc). If this is your style, it would benefit you to go slow and explain more than spurt arguments at rapid-fire pace. I am by far the most familiar with what your community calls "larp" debate.

2 - I have done a light dusting of research on the UNCLOS/ICC topic (I coach a small handful of middle schoolers, so I did a topic lecture), but no one would confuse me for an expert. See the above recommendation if your argument is far outside the literature base/is very complicated.

3 - In addition to the email listed below, please add ridgenjdebate@gmail.com to the chain :)

Prologue - Nuts and Bolts of My Judging

Have fun and learn something! Don't let a single bad debate round ruin your whole career (or even your weekend).

Hi! I'm Rae (they/them). I'm fine if you call me "Judge," "Rae," or "Mx. Fournier." I don't know why you'd call me anything else. Please don't call me "Mr." or "sir."

Yes email chains. My email is: reaganfbusiness@gmail.com. If you have questions before or after the round you can email me as well.

Experience:

Charles J. Colgan High School (2018-2022) - I debated at Colgan for 4 years in PF, and Policy, LD, and Congress for my senior year. I debated the water topic my senior year in policy, but I honestly did such little research I don't know if it matters that much.

Western Kentucky University (2022-Present) - I'm in my third year of debating at WKU, where I do NFA-LD and NDT-CEDA debate.

(Democracy, X / Nukes, Nukes / AI, Energy)

Do not run arguments about death being good in front of me. Do not read explicit material surrounding sexual assault in front of me. You will be dropped and given the lowest speaker points possible if you do this, and I will also probably talk with your coach. I am fine with non-graphic depictions of SA given a content warning.

If there is a problem with your opponent's evidence (ethical or otherwise), please bring it to them before you bring it to me.

If I think you're in the top 50% of the pool, you should get a 28.5 or above for speaker points. I don't try to make an exact science out of speaker points, because I don't think most judges follow those little charts they make. A lot of it is based on the context of the round and the tournament. You will be closer to the mean if you are in novice or JV because I struggle to identify who is at the top of the pack of these divisions, purely out of my own inexperience.

I've voted aff 57/95 (~60%) of the time. You might think I have a disposition towards the aff based on this paradigm, but I think I have a disposition against the way negs try to engage in many instances. In debates where everyone is dropping lots of arguments, I tend to default aff because the neg usually goes for the status quo and concedes that the status quo causes extinction. I’ve tried to be transparent about my prejudices to boost your chances of victory.

This paradigm makes me sound much less "tech over truth" than I actually am. I think listing out my biases is important, as that might affect the way I view arguments at the margins and/or impact what arguments I find persuasive, but I frequently find myself betraying these biases because of superior technical debating. I will say that I think I'm more concerned with resolving the truth of the arguments made than most judges, hence why I frequently want to read evidence after a debate.

Try to keep your own time. I start time when you start talking, and I stop flowing after your time runs out, and will call it shortly after. Not making me do that is really cool too, though.

Number your arguments! It makes things easier for you and for me. In that same vein, slow down on tags and analytics (esp. If they weren’t in the doc). Sidenote: Numbers organize arguments, they aren't replacements for arguments.

I’m fine with you “inserting” evidence if it is just for my visual reference, but if you want me to flow it as anything other than an analytic, you should be reading it because debate is an oral activity.

I am not a very fast flower, and I don't look at the docs during the debate which means that if you're speeding incomprehensibly through your 2nc to condo and I didn't get any of it, you dropped it! In general I am going to signal to you whether or not I like an argument via facial expressions and body language, which is largely out of my control. It would do you good, then, to look at me when you’re giving a speech. I won't clear you because I think it is unfair but I will try to make it as clear as possible when I don't get something.

Something I have seen that bothers me - you cannot strongarm me into voting for you. Calling me “stupid” if I don’t vote for a DA (something that has happened on the circuit I compete on) is a surefire way to cap your speaker points at 27.5, even if you win. The core of debate is persuasion, and I cannot think of a less persuasive strategy than yelling at me, threatening me, accosting me based on a decision I haven’t made yet, etc.

I update my paradigm a lot. This is because I’m learning a lot about debate after being a (mostly) lay PF debater in high school. This also has the fringe benefit of making me understand my own positions better, and scratch out takes that end up being not very sound.

Chapter 1 - My General Debate Philosophy

I like debates that include affs who read a topical plan, negs who read arguments about the plan (excluding process counterplans that do the aff, Ks that don't rejoin the aff, bad theory arguments like ASPEC, etc.), and debaters who cut a lot of cards and do not run from engagement. Still, I will try to fairly evaluate debates that do not fit this archetype.

I think death is bad because suffering is bad and because life is good, thus extinction is bad. It is difficult to persuade me that any of the things stated in the previous sentence are wrong.

I don’t like arbitrarily excluding arguments based on content alone (sans the above warning in bolded letters, but that is strictly for personal reasons, and if reading “death good” is something you have to do every round for some reason, you should strike me regardless). Assertions that an argument is “problematic,” “science-fiction,” or “stupid” are unlikely to convince me to vote for you absent an explanation. Although, the bar for explanation becomes lower the worse the argument is. If you would describe your argumentative preferences as “trolling,” “memes,” “tricks,” or anything in that region - I am a bad judge for you, as your opponent will have comparatively little work to do to defeat you. I have been described by some as "humorless" in debate, and "satire" or any of the previously listed argument types don't do anything for me.

I appear to have a much higher bar for what constitutes a complete argument than many. I think just referencing that an argument was made without explaining it or giving me judge instruction, particularly in the final speeches, is insufficient to persuade me on that issue. This is especially true if the argument doesn't make sense on its face.

As an extension to this, if I feel neither side has explained their case sufficiently, I'll default to card quality / reading the cards. If you don't want this to happen, explain your argument.

You should assume I know nothing about the topic, and debate accordingly. I’m a big dumb idiot who needs everything (especially acronyms if it is a very technical topic) explained to me. This, in my opinion, will not only improve your explanation and avoid making your speeches a jargon salad, but is also probably the best way to approach having me as your judge, given that I do very little topic research for high school resolutions (if any).

Try or die framing is very intuitive to me, and it should guide many late rebuttals where the neg is going for a disad. It is hard for me to vote neg if the aff has definitively won that the status quo causes extinction, and there is a risk that voting aff can stop that extinction scenario. Negs should mitigate this through 1) in-depth weighing and turns case analysis and 2) impact defense / uniqueness pushes. I think there are worlds where I could vote neg where just internal link or link defense is won on the advantage, but it would probably be a harder ballot to write.

Chapter 2 - Affs

I read up the gut, very topical affs in my own debating, and this is what I prefer to see debates about. I generally prefer big stick to soft left because I find the strategy of calling link chains fake to be generally unpersuasive, but I do not have any strong preferences here. I have also found some soft left affs to be frankly overpowered due to how true they are and to how little disads seem to link to them.

I think T/FW is true, but I by no means automatically vote neg in these debates. I think K teams have figured out ways to put a lot of ink out on the flow in addition to being more persuasive. However, I think that under closer examination, a lot of the arguments that these teams make are either (a) wrong or (b) misunderstanding the neg's argument. For instance, I find the claim that an unlimited topic is good because it gives more ground to the neg is facetious and is a blatant misrepresentation of the way neg prep happens.

Here’s how I prefer the traditional impacts to FW: Clash>Fairness>Skills

I don't know if fairness is an impact - but I think I'm more easily persuaded that it is than many other judges. I think the usual 2AC strategy of just saying “it’s an internal link” is insufficient given how much explanation FW debaters tend to give in the 2NC/1NR. I also think the aff probably relies on fairness as a value in the abstract as much as the neg does - else they would concede the round to have a much more educational conversation on the aff.

Clash as an abstract value, i.e., that it makes us better people by allowing us to come to new convictions about the world, seems extremely true. In my own personal debating career, deep debates over a singular resolution have allowed me to come to a very nuanced understanding about the topic. I think there’s also empirical research which backs this up, but I can’t remember the study.

I’m also fine with skills, especially since it’s frequently the more strategic option. I don’t know if it’s true that debate makes people advocates (it definitely gives them the tools to become better advocates, but I don’t know if there’s an actual correlation there). It also isn’t apparent to me that becoming an advocate is something that is something which can be exclusively achieved through plan-focus debate. A normative reason why debating the resolution you’ve been instructed to debate would be helpful for convincing me of this argument (e.g., learning about immigration policy is good to become an immigration lawyer and help people who are persecuted by ICE).

There are other impacts to FW, of course, but I’d like more explanation for these if you’re going to go for them in the 2NR, as I will be less familiar with them.

If you are for sure reading a K aff and I'm you're judge, here's what you can do to improve your odds:

• I need a strong reason in the 2AC as to why switch-side debate doesn’t solve all your offense.

• I prefer a well-thought out counter interpretation to impact turning limits.

• A functional critique of the resolution which mitigates the limits DA (if applicable)

If you're reading a K aff and I'm you're judge, here are some things that will not improve your odds:

• "Karl Rove, Ted Cruz, etc."

• Saying predictability is bad

• Saying that FW is intrinsically violent

Chapter 3 - Topicality (Not Framework)

Love it! I think that learning the difference in legal terms is incredibly valuable for topic education, and learning how to navigate those differences is a potent portable skill.

I think I'm better for reasonability than most judges. It doesn’t mean (despite popular explanations) that the aff is reasonable, but that their counter interpretation creates a reasonable limit for debate. Aff teams should abuse how flippant and blippy neg teams can be with the reasonability/competing interps debate.

Yet I still find myself persuaded by the neg in many debates on topicality. The aff frequently lacks explanation for what their version of the topic looks like, which makes it difficult to endorse it. Aff teams would do good by explaining what affs are topical under their interpretation, what kind of debates that invites, and why those debates are good.

Although I think in principle “T Substantial” having a quantitative definition is nonsensical absent a field-contextual definition, I find myself increasingly persuaded by negative pushes on this question. The argument that the resolution includes the word “substantial” for a reason, and that quantitative barriers are the only way to make the word matter, for instance, is compelling - especially if the aff meets a particularly low threshold of reductions/expansions (i.e., an aff that expands social security by 0.02% is probably not substantial).

Topicality is never an RVI. Don’t bother reading them.

Chapter 4 - Non-T Theory

SLOW DOWN ON THEORY PAGES-- I cannot flow as fast as you can talk. I get that you don't want to spend a lot of time on "New Affs Bad," but if I have nothing legible on my flow then if the neg goes for it, you're kind of toast!

I find the debate community’s shift towards counterplans which do the aff to be unfortunate. As a result, I am generally slightly more aff leaning on counterplan theory than some of my peers. However, I think the only reason I would reject the team absent a strong, warranted push by the aff is conditionality.

In general, theoretical arguments against counterplans should be articulated as reasons why it is not an opportunity cost, not why I should reject the team/argument.

Disclosure-- I will steal what Justin Kirk says about disclosure because I agree with it 100%: "While I am not an ideologue, I am a pedagogue. If you fail to disclose information about your affirmative or negative arguments on the wiki and then make a peep about education or engagement or clash in the debate, you better damn well hope your opponent does not mention it. Its about as close to a priori as I will get on an issue. If your argument is so good, what is the matter with a well prepared opponent? Disclosure is a norm in debate and you should endeavor to disclose any previously run arguments before the debate. Open source is not a norm, but is an absolutely preferable means of disclosure to cites only. If your opponent's wiki is empty, and you make a cogent argument about why disclosure is key to education and skill development, you will receive high marks and probably a ballot from me."

I hate the trend in high school LD where people read frivolous theory/tricks, I’m not persuaded by it, and you’d be better off reading substantive arguments.

Chapter 5 - Counterplans

I obviously have big feelings about process counterplans. Functional and textual competition is probably a good standard, though objections to textual competition also seem legitimate. I'm not too familiar with deep competition debates, so slowing down if this is going to be a big part of your strategy is a good call in front of me.

I'm honestly not very familiar with 2NC counterplans strategically speaking - heads up. I'm not necessarily opposed to them, but be slower when explaining why you get them if contested.

I am not a huge fan of uniqueness counterplans, though part of this could also be due to my inexperience in judging and hitting them in my own debate career.

Sufficiency framing seems intuitive to me, therefore affs should try to impact out their solvency deficits to the counterplan rather than sneezing a bunch of arguments in the 2AC and hoping the block drops something (I once judged a round where the 2AC read like, 12 solvency deficits which, from my perspective, all made no difference on whether or not the counterplan was sufficient to solve the case). If I have to ask at the end of the 2AC on the CP, “so what?” you have failed to convince me.

I will never vote on a counterplan that had no evidence attached to it when it was first read UNLESS that counterplan uses 1AC ev to solve it (i.e., if the aff's advantages aren't intrinsic). An example of this would be in the NFA-LD Democracy Topic (2022-23), where everyone read affs that said that we should ban a certain interest group from lobbying (ex. the pharmaceutical lobby) and then read advantages about how good medicare for all/price caps for drugs would be. These affs got solved 100% by reading an analytic counterplan that just passed these policies. Even if you are doing this, you should be inserting a piece of 1AC ev or justifying it analytically. I think a good standard is that you need to have solvency evidence that is on-par quality wise with the 1AC. If the 1AC has no solvency advocate then I guess you're fine.

Chapter 6 - Ks

I am not well-read in most K literature, I’ll be honest. Explain things slowly, and try not to use your favorite $100 word every other word in a sentence.

Some would describe me as an aff framework + extinction outweighs hack. I think if debated evenly against most Ks, I do lean aff on this (especially framework), but I'm definitely not opposed to alternative forms of impact calculus and frameworks. I struggle specifically with understanding what the neg's model of debate ACTUALLY looks like.

Take the following example: neg says the 1ac is a research project and any part of it is up for debate. So specific lines from the 1ac evidence that aren't highlighted that might be problematic are up for debate? Most debates I've seen have the neg say yes. Cool! Does the aff get to read unrelated lines from the 1ac evidence that are objectively morally good as offense? If no, why not? Does the neg get to critique the broad idea of incrementalism divorced from the plan? Under this interp, obviously yes. Then, does the 2ac get add-ons that explain why incrementalism is good, listing examples that aren't the plan? (e.g., campaign finance reform, public option for healthcare, etc.) If the aff doesn't get to do either of those, how do they generate reciprocal offense against the negs infinite, tiny claims against the 1ac's epistemology?

I don’t like how many judges just refuse to evaluate framework debates and arbitrarily pick a middle ground - this harms both teams as it arbitrarily has the judge insert themselves into the late rebuttals which is completely unpredictable and not reflective of the debate that happened. This is perhaps my strongest ideological predisposition. I will pick either the aff interp or the neg interp, and make my decision accordingly. This is only true if no one successfully advocates for a "permutation" of the two interps - though, saying "everyone gets their stuff" gets wicked quick under any real examination.

I prefer links that critique the impacts or implementation of the plan. I do not like links which point out a flaw in a not underlined portion of one 1ac card that seems largely irrelevant to the argument the aff is making (sidenote: this is not a "specific" link because it has nothing to do with a claim the 1ac has made).

If you’re a K debater, this all might seem a bit daunting. I admit, I do have a bias towards the policy side of the spectrum. However, superior evidence, technical debating, and explanation can overcome every bias I have presented to you. I promise that if I am in the back of the room, I will try to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible. This has been made plainly evident by my voting record of preferring both kritiks and K-affs on net, due entirely to superior debating.

Epilogue - Weird things that didn’t fit anywhere and I think make my preferences unique

I do not care nearly as much if you reference my paradigm compared to other judges who "cringe" when you make clear that you care about adaptation. I've judged so many rounds where it is evident one (or both) teams decided to completely ignore the fact that I am the one who is in the back of the room. Referencing my paradigm is not only a signal that you've read it, but I believe that a paradigm is a contract that I have signed that indicates how I will vote.

Open CX is fine, don't be obnoxious though. 2Ns and 2As, please let your partner ask and answer questions I'm begging you. (Especially 2Ns, though). Policy debate is a team activity, and part of working in a group is trusting other people. Talking over your partner destroys your credibility.

In and outs are fine - never judged one of these but I truly don’t care as long as both debaters give one constructive and one rebuttal each.

Playlist Update: TFA '25 - i like music a lot, it was going to be my career before debate ruined my life. i listen to a confusingly wide range of it. debaters and coaches can recommend me a song to listen to during prep or decision time - good enough songs may merit a small (+0.1) speaks bump for everyone in the room. a friend told me since i ask debaters to recommend me music, i should put the music i'm listening to here for reference. currently listening to Texas Flood - Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble.

TFA Rant - a few big updates that i think matter for strategy and speaker points. nothing new per se, but this season has accelerated my final metamorphosis into a grumpy old person judge and made a few tendencies that generally ring true to me stick out more than usual:

1. neg teams need to read better cards and read cards better. i am not the card machine i used to be, and i will never knock the 2n hustle - sometimes the 2nr just has to be slop by necessity - but i am increasingly frustrated by the absence of quality, aff-specific evidence produced by 1ncs - cutting 2-4 cards about the 1ac's legal framework being nonsense is a much more winning addition to neg strat than the third process counterplan. most affs on this topic do not solve, are not key to the impact, read cards that say nothing, and are an ungodly amalgamation of legal standards that were never meant to intersect in the way 2as are forcing them to - the number of advantages that can be reduced to zero by a smart cx and recuttings or even just close readings of 1ac evidence is only matched by the number of 2ns that fail to do it. i get this topic is rough for the neg, but it's not that rough - we can cut a real disad, a case turn, or a deficit every once in a while (or even, god forbid, go for the K). IP bad is not astounding by any means, but with smart debating and good cards it beats 80% of what qualifies as a neg generic on this topic (*cough*sui generis*cough*).

2. i am increasingly astounded by how good i am for the "soft left" aff. this may be related to the above, but most disads and net benefits have laughable internal links and in no coherent world are a higher risk than the aff. this is not carte blanche to say "menand 5" at the impact and move on, but it is to say that if you are reading a 1ac that is built to capitalize on defending an impact that is "smaller", but starts at 100% risk, you should take me extremely high and expect speaker points bordering on irresponsible if you can execute. i am in no way bad for extinction in these debates, but "util=trutil" is increasingly less an argument and more a dogma judges and debaters cling to, and quality evidence and smart cx beats nonsense 2nr ramblings about 1% risk + 10 cards citing Bostrom/MacAskill and the CSER that border on sociopathic. this could also be me just getting bored of abstractions like "try or die" vs "timeframe controls the direction of turns case" as a substitute for real impact calculus, though, so reading an aff with a real advantage and making smart answers to the disad likely helps you here as well.

3. clash debates suck and framework teams are getting worse. this is not to say i am worse for framework - i am as good, if not better for it, than ever - but it is to say that the 2ns who seem most committed to the idea framework is an engaging and responsive negative strategy are making the best possible case for why it isn't one. most 2ncs and 2nrs are scripted essays with zero allusion to the aff or it's evolution through the debate, and your blocks are brain-meltingly boring. if you gave the same 2nr impact overview on a disad regardless of what aff scenarios you were weighing it against it would be lazy and unstrategic debating (maybe a bad example, since 2ns do this one a lot now too), yet i have heard the same "clash turns the case" speech a billion times without explanation of the contours of said "clash" or what parts of "the case" it turns, which has led to an increasing aff win-rate. look, i'm maybe in the minority of "k people" at this point who actually agrees fairness is an impact and framework substantively answers these affs - but you gotta, you know, answer the aff with it. come on, gamers.

4. k teams are getting annoying again and 2as need to stand on business more. the first time i saw antonio 95 in a neg doc this year i almost had a stroke. 90% of 2ns who go for "microaggressions" as a framework angle couldn't define the term if pushed. i can't really blame neg teams though - the reason these strategies win is because 2as are failing to call stupid stupid and instead pretending calling tabroom over the imaginary microaggression that is "reading a plan" is a substitute for answering the K and forcing the neg to win a real link argument. if the 2nr is 5 minutes of ontology and fiat bad, the 2ar can and should punish them by straight turning this for 5 minutes straight. framework alone is not a neg win condition, it just sets one - 2as need to have the guts to win under it anyways or double down on setting their own so we can get out of this mess (because that's how the meta finally shifted away from this last time we were here). in general, 2ar brute-force against the K needs to make a comeback.

5. debaters should try to be jerks less. i'm not a decorum fiend by any means, and this isn't to say you can't have swagger or enjoy throwing down, but the level of outright posturing has far outpaced any justification for it from debaters. i was *also* annoyingly self-righteous earlier in my coaching and debating career and probably felt every debate was a chance to prove something or settle some imagined beef, so i really get it, but we all grow up eventually, and i cannot help but cringe at this sort of thing in retrospect. i promise you being level-headed and direct while simply debating better is far bigger aura than whatever is happening in most CXes these days. debate is a community of profound differences, but everyone i've ever met in debate tends to agree on a few things: none of us had to show up or do this on a random weekend, this whole thing kinda sucks when you take it too seriously, but we ultimately do it anyways for a shared love of the game. there are far too few rounds in a debater's (or even judge's) career to waste it on being annoying about nothing.

All chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com

and, please also add (based on event):

HSPD: dulles.policy.db8@gmail.com

HSLD: loyoladebate47@gmail.com

CPD: uhoustondebate@gmail.com

please have the email sent before start time. late starts are annoying. annoying hurts speaker points.

Dulles High School (HSPD), Loyola High School (HSLD), University of Houston (CPD) - if you are currently committed to debating at the University of Houston in the future, please conflict me. If you're interested in debating at UH, reach out.

please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are all fine.

he/him/his - do not misgender people. not negotiable.

"takes his job seriously, but not himself."

safety of debaters is my utmost concern at all times. racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. not tolerated - i am willing to act on this more than most judges. don't test me.

debated 2014-22 (HSPD Oceans - NDT/CEDA Personhood), and won little but learned lots. high school was politics disads and advantage counterplans with niche plans. college was planless affs and the K, topicality, or straight turning an advantage. i'm a 2N from D3 - this is the most important determinant of debate views in this paradigm.

overall, flexibility is king. on average, i'm happiest in debates where the aff says "plan, it's good", the negative says "disad" or "kritik", and lots of cards are read, but high-quality, well-warranted arguments + judge instruction >>> any specific positions - Kant, planless affs, process counterplans, and topicality can be vertically dense, cool debates. they can also be total slop. every judge thinks arguments are good or bad, which makes them easier or harder to vote on, usually unconsciously. i'm trying to make it clear what i think good and bad arguments are and how to debate around that. i'm a full time coach and i judge tons of debates (by the end of the 24-25 season, i will have judged 900 rounds since graduating in 2019), but my topic/argument knowledge won't save bad debating. i flow carefully and value "tech" over "truth", but dropped arguments are only as good as the dropped argument itself - i don't start flowing until i hear a warrant, and i find i have a higher threshold for warrants and implications than most. i take offense/defense very seriously - debating comparatively is much better than abstractions.

quoth Bankey: "Please don’t be boring. Your pre-written blocks are boring." increasingly annoyed at the amount of rebuttal speeches that are entirely read off a doc. a speech off your flow that is obviously based on the round that just happened with breaks in fluency/efficiency will get higher speaks than a speech that is technically perfect but barely contextual to the debate i'm judging.

Wheaton's law is axiomatic - be kind, have fun. i do my best to give detailed decisions and feedback - debaters deserve no less than the best. coaches and debaters are welcome to ask questions, and i know passions run high, but i struggle to understand being angry for it's own sake - just strike me if you don't like how i judge, save us the shouting match.

"act like you've been here."

details

- evidence: Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” Richard Garner: "I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting"

- organization: good (obviously). extend parts your argument as responses to theirs. follow the order of the previous speech when you can. hard number arguments ("1NC 2", not "second/next"). sub-pointing good, but when overdone speeches feel disjointed, substitutes being techy for sounding techy. debating in paragraphs >>> bullet points.

- new arguments: getting out of hand. "R" in 1AR doesn't stand for constructive. at minimum, new args must be explicitly justified by new block pivots - otherwise, very good for 2NRs saying "strike it".

- inserting cards: fine if fully explained indict of card they read – new arguments or different parts of the article should be read aloud. will strike excessive insertions if told if most are nothing.

- case debates: miss them. advantages are terrible, easily link turned, and most aff's don't solve. solvency can be zero with smart CX, close reading of 1ac ev, and analytics. executing this well gets high speaker points.

- functional competition: good, makes sense. textual competition: silly, seems counterproductive. positional competition: upsetting. competing off of immediacy/certainty: skeptical, never assumed by literature, weird interpretation of fiat and mandates. plank to ban plan: does not make other non-competitive things competitive. intrinsicness: fine, but intrinsic perms often not actually intrinsic. voting record on all these: very even, teams fail to make the best arguments.

- process counterplans: interesting when topic and aff specific, annoying when recycled slop. insane ideas that collapse government (uncooperative fedism), misunderstand basic legal processes (US Code), and don't solve net benefit (most) can be zero with good CX. competition + intuitive deficits > arbitrary theory interps.

- state of advantage counterplan texts is bad. should matter more. evidence quality paramount. CX can make these zero.

- judge kick: only if explicitly told in a speech. however, splitting 2NR unstrategic – winning a whole counterplan > half a counterplan and half a case defense. better than most for sticking the neg with a counterplan, but needs airtime before 2AR.

- "do both shields" and "links to net benefit" insanely good, underrated, require a comeback in the meta. but, most permutations are 2AC nothingburgers, making debates late breaking - less i understand before the block = less spin 1AR gets + more lenient to 2NR. solve this with fewer, better permutations - "do both, shields link" = tagline, not argument.

- uniqueness controls link/vice versa: contextual to any given debate. extremist opinions ("no offense without uniqueness"/"don't need uniqueness") both seem silly.

- impact turns: usually have totalizing uniqueness and questionable solvency. teams should invest here on top of impact debate proper.

- turns case/case turns: higher threshold than most. ideally carded, minimally thoroughly explained for specific internal links.

- impact framing: most is bad, more conceptual than concrete. "timeframe outweighs magnitude" sometimes it doesn't. why does it in this debate? "intervening actors check" who? how? comparing scenarios >>> abstractions. worse for "try or die" than most - idk why 100% impact x 2% solvency outweighs 80% link x 50% impact. specificity = everything. talk about probability more. risk matters a lot.

- the K: technical teams that read detailed evidence should take me high. performance teams can also take me - i coach this frequently with some success, and i'm better for you than i seem (most teams are terrible at recognizing/answering arguments within performances). good: link to some 1AC premise/mechanism with an impact that outweighs the net benefit to a permutation, external impact that turns/outweighs case, a competitive and solvent alternative. bad: antonio 95, "fiat illusory", etc. devil's in the details - examples, references to aff evidence, etc. delete your 2NC overview, do 8 minutes of line-by-line - you will win more.

- aff vs K: talk about the 1ac more, dump cards about the K less - debate on your turf, not theirs. if aff isn't built to link turn, don't bother. "extinction outweighs" should not be the only impact calculus (see above: impact framing). perm double bind usually ends up being dumb. real permutation and deficit > asserting the possibility of one - "it could theoretically shield the link or not solve" loses to "it does neither" + warrant.

- framework arguments: "X parts of the 1AC are best basis for rejoinder/competition because Y which means Z" = good, actually establishes a framework. “weigh the aff”/“reps first” = non-arguments, what does this mean. will not adopt a “middle ground” interp if nobody advances one – usually both incoherent and unstrategic. anything other than plan focus prob gives the negative more than you want (e.g: unsure why PIKs are bad if the negative gets “reps bad” + "plan bad"). consequently, fine with “delete plan”, but neg can win with a framework push that gives links and alt without doing so.

- clash debates: vote for topicality against planless affirmatives more often than not because in a bad debate it’s easier for the negative to win. controlling for quality, I vote for the best K and framework teams equally often - no strong ideological bent. fairness or a specific, carded skills impact >>> “clash”. impact turns and counterinterps equally winnable, both require explanation of solvency/uniqueness and framing against neg impacts + link defense. equally bad for "competition doesn't matter" and "only competition matters". language of impact calculus (“turns case/their offense”, higher risk/magnitude, uniqueness, etc) helps a lot. both sides usually subpar on how what the aff does/doesn't do implicates debates. TVA/SSD underrated as offense, overrated as defense - to win it, i need to actually know what the aff/neg link looks like, not just gesture towards it being possible.

- best rounds ever are good K v K, worst ever are bad ones. judge instruction, organization, specificity key. "turns/solves case" >>> "root cause", b/c offense >>> defense. explaining what is offense, what competes, etc (framework arguments) >>> "it's hard to evaluate pls don't" ("no plan, no perm"). aff teams benefit from "functional competition" argument vs 1NCs that spam word PICs and call it "frame subtraction". "ballot PIK" should never win against a competent aff team. Marxism should win 9/10 negative debates executed by a smart 2N. more 2NRs should press case - affs don't do anything. idk why the neg gets counterplans against planless affs - 2ACs should say this.

- critical affs with plans/"soft left" should be more common. teams that take me here do hilariously well if they answer neg arguments (the disad doesn't vanish bc "conjunctive fallacy").

- topicality: for me, more predictable/precise > “debatable” - literature determines everything, unpredictable interpretations = bad. however, risk is contextual - little more precise, super underlimiting prob not winner. hyperbole is the enemy - "even with functional limits, we lose x and they get y" >>> "there are 4 gorillion affirmatives". reasonability: about the counterinterpretation, good for offense about substance crowd-out and silly interps, bad for "good is good enough". plan in a vacuum: good check against extra/fx-topicality, less good elsewhere. extra-topicality: something i care less about than most. extremely bad for arguments about grammar/semantics.

- aff on theory: “riders” to the plan, plan being "horse-traded" - not how fiat works. counterplans that fiat actors different from the plan (including states) - a misunderstanding of negation theory/neg fiat. will probably never drop more than the argument. neg on theory: literally everywhere else. arbitrariness objection strong. i don't think new affs justify neg terrorism - seems silly, 2ns should pre-emptively case neg things - but i do think being neg justifies it. i consider conditionality a divine right and will defend it with religious zeal. RVIs don't get flowed. these are the strongest opinions in this paradigm. i am an unapologetic hack on these matters.LD theory shenanigans: non-starter.

- disclosure: good, but arbitrary standards bad. care little about anything that isn't active misclosure. new unbroken affs: good. "disclose 1NC": lol.

- LD “tricks”: disastrously bad for them. most just feel like defense with extra steps. nobody has gotten me to understand truth testing, much less like it.

- LD phil: actually pretty solid for it. well-carded, consistent positions + clear judge instruction for impact calculus = high win-rate. spamming calc indicts + a korsgaard card or two = less so. i appreciate straight turn debates. modesty is winnable, but usually a cop-out + incoherent.

- if the above is insufficiently detailed, see: Richard Garner, James Allan, J.D. Sanford (former coaches), Brett Cryan (former 2A), Holden Bukowsky, Bryce Sheffield (former teammates), Aiden Kim, Sean Wallace, (former students) and Ali Abdulla (best debate bud). my ordinal 1 for most of college was DML.

procedural notes

- flowing: i do it on my laptop. i have pretty bad hearing damage in my left ear (tinnitus), and i don’t flow off the doc. i will occasionally open docs during CX or prep time if a particular card becomes important, but this is not something you should bank on to save you being incomprehensible. i consider myself really good at flowing, but clarity matters a lot – 2x "clear", then I stop typing, put my hands up, and stare at you uncomfortably until you catch on. debaters go through tags and analytics too quickly – give me pen time, or i will take pen time. you can ask to see my flow after the debate.

- terrible poker face. treat facial and bodily expressions as real-time feedback.

- i have autism. i close my eyes or put my head down during a speech if i feel overstimulated. promise i'm still flowing. i make very little eye contact. don't take it personally.

- card doc fine and good, but only cards extended in final rebuttals – including extraneous evidence is harshly penalized with speaks. big evidence enjoyer - good cards get good speaks, but only when i'm told to read them and how.

- CX: binding and mandatory. it can get you very high or very low speaks. i flow important things. "lying by omission" is smart CX, but direct dishonesty means intervention (i.e: 1NC reads elections, "was elections read?", "no" = i am pausing CX and asking if i should scratch the flow).

- personality is good, but self-righteousness isn't really a personality trait. it's a game - have fun. aggressive posturing is most often obnoxious, dissuasive, and betrays a lack of appreciation for your opponents. this isn't to say you can't talk mess (please do, if warranted - its funny, and i care little for "decorum"), but it's inversely related to the skill gap - trolling an opponent in finals is different from bullying a post-nov in presets.

- prep time ends when the doc is sent. prep stolen while "sending it now" is getting ridiculous. if you are struggling to compile and send a doc, do Verbatim drills. i am increasingly willing to enforce this by imposing prep time penalties for excessive dead time/typing while "sending the extra cards" and such.

- there is no flow clarification time – “what cards did you read?” is a CX question. “can you send a doc with the marked cards marked” is fine, “can you take out all the cards you didn’t read” means you weren't flowing, so it'll cost you CX or prep. not flowing negatively correlates with speaks. be reasonable - putting 80 case cards in the doc and reading 5, skipping around randomly, is bad form, but objecting to the general principle is telling on yourself.flow.

- related to above, if you answer a position in the doc that was skipped, you are getting a 27.5. seriously. the state of flowing is an atrocity. you should know better. flow.

- speaks: decided by me, based on quality of arguments and execution + how fun you are to judge, relative to given tournament pool. 28.5 = 3-3, 29+ = clearing + bidding, 29.5+ = top 5-10 speakers + late elims, 30 = perfect speeches, no notes. no low-point wins, generally - every bad move by a winning team correlates to a missed opportunity by the loser.

- not adjudicating the character of minors I don’t know regarding things I didn’t see.

- when debating an opponent of low experience, i will heavily reward giving younger debaters the dignity of a real debate they can still participate in (i.e: slower, fewer off, more forthcoming in CX). if you believe the best strategy against a novice/lay debater is extending hidden aspec, i will assume you are too bad at debate to beat a novice without hidden aspec, and speaks will reflect that. these debates are negatively educational and extremely annoying.

- ethics challenges: only issues that make continuing in good faith impossible are worth stopping a debate. the threshold is criminal negligence or malicious intent. evidence ethics requires an impact - omitting paragraphs mid-card that conclude neg changes the argument; leaving out an irrelevant last sentence doesn't. open to alternative solutions - i'd rather strike an incorrectly cited card than not debate. ask me if i would consider ending the round appropriate for a given issue, and i will answer honestly. clipping requires a recording to evaluate, and is an instant loss (no other way to resolve it) if it is persistent enough to alter functional speech time (criminal negligence/malicious intent, requires an impact). inexperience grants some (but minimal) leniency. ending a debate means it will not restart, all evidence will be immediately provided to me, and everyone shuts up - further attempt to sway my adjudication by debaters or coaches = instant loss. loser get an L0 and winners get a W28.5/28.4. all this is out the window if tabroom says something else.

- edebate: it still sucks. i keep my camera on as much as possible. if wifi is spotty, i will turn it off during speeches to maximize bandwidth, but always turn it back on to confirm i'm there before speeches. assume i am not present unless you see my face or hear my voice. if you start and i'm not there, you don't get to restart. low-quality microphones and audio compression means speak slower and clearer than normal.

closing thoughts

i have been told my affect presents as pretty flat or slightly negative while judging - trying to work on this - but i truly love debate, and i'm happy to be here. while i am cynical about certain aspects of the community/activity, it is still the best thing i have ever done. debate has brought me wonderful opportunities, beautiful friendships, and made me a better person. i am very lucky it found me, and i hope it can be the same for you.

take care of yourself. debaters increasingly present as exhausted and malnourished. three square meals and sleep is both more useful and better for you than overexerting yourself. people underestimate how much even mild dehydration impacts you. it's a game - not worth your well-being.

good luck! have fun!

- pat

Hi! I'm Andrew, but people also call me gongo. I did LD at Harvard-Westlake, got 18 career bids, and reached finals of the TOC. I graduated in 2021.

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

Email: debatedrillsdocs@gmail.com

Top level:

1. As a senior, I read only big-stick policy positions. This should tell you what types of debates I'm most comfortable judging, but it shouldn't dissuade you from reading your favorite args (exception: tricks).

2. Clarity is very important to me. If you are incomprehensible while spreading your speaks will get tanked and I will stop flowing. 90% of debaters need to slow down and over-enunciate.

Non-T Affs:

I'm probably 60/40 biased in favor of T framework against non-T affs. Arguments like truth testing make intuitive sense to me.

I went for the cap K against non-T affs a lot as well. It's also a good option.

Ks:

I like these more than my argumentative history would imply. I think good K debates are a lot of fun to judge but really dislike bad K debates. Good K debaters should read the source literature and really understand their argument.

I really like impact turns against the K. Heg good and cap good are awesome, provided you go for them correctly.

Arguments couched entirely in terms of you or your opponent's personal identity/out-of-round actions are probably bad.

CP/DA:

I'm sympathetic to 1AR theory and very lenient in competition debates against cheesy process counterplans. However, 1AR theory debates are generally late breaking and annoying - I'll hold the line against 2AR explosions of 1AR blips, especially when there's not much in-round abuse (1 condo/1 pic).

I read ev, good ev is important.

T/theory:

I'm not the best at evaluating either of these arguments - as a debater, I rarely went for either except as last-ditch efforts. This isn't to say that I don't want to vote on them, but I do prefer substantive debates.

I'm definitely better for T than theory. Nebel T is probably wrong, but I'll vote on it (reluctantly) if you win it.

I'll default competing interps, but I'm very persuaded by in-round abuse claims and reasonability. This also means I don't like nonsense theory arguments (e.g. non-resolutional spec shells, shoes theory).

Philosophy:

Probably biased towards util. Permissibility and presumption triggers, including calculation/aggregation impossible, are ridiculous to me, but I'll vote on them if conceded.

If your opponent reads a nonsense contention, concede their framework and go for turns!

I went for the race/colorblindness K against phil a lot, and I like the argument.

Tricks:

I'll be very sad voting on conceded 1-line blips. The worse an argument is, the lower your bar for answering it. And if I don't understand your argument in the speech it was presented, I'll give your opponent leeway in terms of new answers in the final rebuttal speech.

Intentionally being harmful, oppressive, disrespectful, rude, misogynistic, racist, bigoted, and every other adjective to describe a person I wouldn't be proud to have on my team will drop your rank, your points, your win record. I don't care what school you are from and who your coach or parents are - making others feel unsafe and unwelcome will not be celebrated or tolerated.

Before you ask, I do not exchange e-mail addresses with children. If you think that I need to be able to read your speech in order to understand your argument because you don't know how to articulate yourself properly, maybe don't pref me or ask if I want the speechdrop or whatever.

Second, unless instructed to by tournament staff, I do not disclose. Reflect on your performance after the round. Talk to others for feedback. You'll get an RFD when you get it.

Something that has sadly come up quite a bit recently - you need to be aware of your surroundings and who is listening and watching. Being rude to your opponents or judges, even in off-hand comments to your friends before rounds start, will cause you to lose speaker points.

And last, being on your phone during a person's speech or performance will cause you to lose. Every. Single. Time. AGAIN: BEING ON YOUR PHONE DURING ANOTHER PERSON'S SPEECH WILL CAUSE YOU TO LOSE EVERY TIME, EVEN IF YOU'RE THE MOST AMAZING SPEAKER I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY WHOLE LIFE. Don't be a jerk.

As an experienced judge in speech and debate, a former competitor in LD and speech events, and a current coach who values the history and tradition of the events, I want to emphasize that I do not believe that speed and volume are the sole indicators of a skilled debater. I appreciate the qualities of persuasion, clear communication, and depth of argumentation over speed. Here are some key points to consider if you want to convince me of your argument:

1. Speak clearly and enunciate your words. Ensure that your arguments are easy to follow, and don't rush through your points. Take your time to explain your ideas thoroughly.

2. A contention, by definition, is not a topic. It is a claim. Your contention should never be "international law", but should be an argument ABOUT the topic.

3. Support your arguments with relevant evidence and examples. Cite credible sources and use data when appropriate. Avoid cherry-picking data or misrepresenting facts.

4. Show that you have a deep understanding of the topic. Go beyond surface-level arguments and provide nuanced analysis.

5. Engage with your opponent's arguments thoughtfully and respectfully. Refute their points with evidence and logic rather than resorting to aggressive tactics.

6. Use cross-examination as an opportunity to clarify your opponent's arguments and highlight any weaknesses in their position. Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor during cross-examination.

7. Maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout the debate. Avoid personal attacks or disrespectful language towards your opponents. At the end of every round, you should walk away having learned something. Interfering with someone's ability to learn something from this activity because you are being rude is not cool.

8. Be mindful of your allotted time and manage it effectively. Don't rush through your speech to fit in more content. It's better to deliver a well-structured and persuasive argument within the time limit.

Remember that the art of debate is not just about winning arguments but also about fostering a respectful and constructive discourse. I value debaters who uphold these principles and contribute to the tradition of civil and persuasive discourse in speech and debate.

I can handle spreading - however, there are many of you who can't. You actually can't spread but think that you can and end up slurring through every word you say. Your speeches should still be coherent. All of you would benefit from a vocal coach to work on breathing techniques because you tend to lose your stamina partway through and begin to sound quite ridiculous.

At the end of the day, learning how to adapt to your judges will go a long way. Most of us are giving up our weekends for no pay, questionable food, and over 20 hours of sitting in uncomfortable chairs listening to children who think they are smarter than us. Sometimes you are smarter than us, but most of the time you underestimate our backgrounds and disrespect the fact that we are here for YOU and the advancement of your career in speech and debate.

As far as speech and IEs go, I am here to be informed and entertained. I do not tolerate cultural appropriation - be mindful of your accents, gestures, and intent. If you do not identify with a character ethnically, pick a different character. If you are highlighting the very real trauma of people in these rooms and have no experience with it and are performing it with the only intent of getting trophies, know that it comes through in your performances and is noticed.

Affiliations - Current coach at Kent Denver School, Newark Science, and Rutgers University-Newark. Current Director of Programs at the Denver Urban Debate League. Previous coach at University of Kentucky. Previous competitor in NSDA CX/Policy, NDT/CEDA, and NPTE/NPDA. Some experience judging British Parliamentary and Worlds Schools/Asian Parliamentary.

>>> Please include me on email chains - nategraziano@gmail.com <<<

TL;DR - I really like judge instruction. I'll vote for or against K 1ACs based on Framework. Clash of Civilization debates are the majority of rounds I watch. I vote frequently on dropped technical arguments, and will think more favorably of you if you play to your outs. The ballot is yours, your speaker points are mine.Your speech overview should be my RFD. Tell me what is important, why you win that, and why winning it means you get the ballot.

Note about RFDS - I give my RFDs in list order on how I end up deciding the round, in chronological order of how I resolved them. Because of this I also upload my RFD word for word with the online ballot. I keep a pretty good record of rounds I've judged so if anyone has any questions about any decision I've made on Tabroom please feel free to reach out at my email above.

NEW: Note about flowing - Prompted by recent conversations about docs/flowing. I will have both my flow and your document open on my computer during your speech. During a speech, I will only be looking at the speech document when I think you're reading internals on a piece of evidence to follow along and make my own marks on what portions/cards you've read. I also will have the speech document open during CX when debaters are referencing specific cards and I usually will reread evidence for understanding when debaters are taking prep time. All other times will be just the flow open. I will not use the document to 'correct' my flow and an argument's existence in the document is not proof it happened in the debate - if I didn't hear it, it didn't happen. If I heard something that sounded like an argument but it was otherwise incoherent, your opponent is only burdened with answering the incoherent version of the argument. I am reasonably compelled to believe that a 'thumbs down' motion and/or 'booing' may be sufficient to answer some of those incoherent arguments.

>>> Other Paradigm Thoughts <<<

1. Tech > Truth

The game of debate is lost if I intervene and weigh what I know to be "True." The ability to spin positions and make answers that fit within your side of the debate depend on a critic being objective to the content. That being said, arguments that are based in truth are typically more persuasive in the long run.

I'm very vigilant about intervening and will not make "logical conclusions" on arguments if you don't do the work to make them so. If you believe that the negative has the right to a "judge kick" if you're losing the counterplan and instead vote on the status quo in the 2NR, you need to make that explicitly clear in your speech.

More and more I've made decisions on evidence quality and the spin behind it. I like to reward knowledgeable debaters for doing research and in the event of a disputable, clashing claim I tend to default to card quality and spin.

I follow along in the speech doc when evidence is being read and make my own marks on what evidence and highlighting was read in the round.

2. Theory/Topicality/Framework

Most rounds I judge involve Framework. While I do like these debates please ensure they're clashing and not primarily block reading. If there are multiple theoretical frameworks (ex. RotB, RotJ, FW Interp) please tell me how to sort through them and if they interact. I tend to default to policy-making and evaluating consequences unless instructed otherwise.

For theory violations - I usually need more than "they did this thing and it was bad; that's a voter" for me to sign my ballot, unless it was cold conceded. If you're going for it in the 2NR/2AR, I'd say a good rule of thumb for "adequate time spent" is around 2:00, but I would almost prefer it be the whole 5:00.

In the event that both teams have multiple theoretical arguments and refuse to clash with each other, I try to resolve as much of the framework as I can on both sides. (Example - "The judge should be an anti-ethical decision maker" and "the affirmative should have to defend a topical plan" are not inherently contradicting claims until proven otherwise.)

Winning framework is not the same as winning the debate. It's possible for one team to win framework and the other to win in it.

Procedural Fairness can be both an impact and an internal link. I believe it's important to make debate as accessible of a place as possible, which means fairness can be both a justification as well as a result of good debate practices.

3. Debate is Story Telling

I'm fond of good overviews. Round vision, and understanding how to write a singular winning ballot at the end of the debate, is something I reward both on the flow and in your speaker points. To some extent, telling any argument as a chain of events with a result is the same process that we use when telling stories. Being able to implicate your argument as a clash of stories can be helpful for everyone involved.

I do not want to feel like I have to intervene to make a good decision. I will not vote on an argument that was not said or implied by one of the debaters in round. I feel best about the rounds where the overview was similar to my RFD.

4. Critical Arguments

I am familiar with most critical literature and it's history in debate. I also do a lot of topic specific research and love politics debates. Regardless of what it is, I prefer if arguments are specific, strategic, and well executed. Do not be afraid of pulling out your "off-the-wall" positions - I'll listen and vote on just about anything.

As a critic and someone who enjoys the activity, I would like to see your best strategy that you've prepared based on your opponent and their argument, rather than what you think I would like. Make the correct decision about what to read based on your opponent's weaknesses and your strengths.

I've voted for, against, and judged many debates that include narration, personal experience, and autobiographical accounts.

If you have specific questions or concerns don't hesitate to email me or ask questions prior to the beginning of the round - that includes judges, coaches, and competitors.

5. Speaker Points

I believe that the ballot is yours, but your speaker points are mine. If you won the arguments required to win the debate round, you will always receive the ballot from me regardless of my personal opinion on execution or quality. Speaker points are a way for judges to reward good speaking and argumentation, and dissuade poor practice and technique. Here are some things that I tend to reward debaters for:

- Debate Sense. When you show you understand the central points in the debate. Phrases like "they completely dropped this page" only to respond to line by line for 3 minutes annoy me. If you're behind and think you're going to lose, your speaker points will be higher if you acknowledge what you're behind on and execute your "shot" at winning.

- Clarity and organization. Numbered flows, references to authors or tags on cards, and word economy are valued highly. I also like it when you know the internals and warrants of your arguments/evidence.

- Judge instruction. I know it sounds redundant at this point, but you can quite literally just look at me and say "Nate, I know we're behind but you're about to vote on this link turn."

I will disclose speaker points after the round if you ask me. The highest speaker points I've ever given out is a 29.7. A 28.5 is my standard for a serviceable speech, while a 27.5 is the bare minimum needed to continue the debate. My average for the last 3 seasons was around a 28.8-28.9 and will typically start at this range when assigning points for the debate.

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

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head of Debate at Lynbrook High School.

+0.2 speaks for starting early when possible

CIRCUIT LD PARADIGM

1. Am very good for 'Phil' – it's my favorite part of LD debate. In my view, LD debate is supposed to be, at least partially, about the criterion.

2. Be clear, slow down on tags, and pause between separate arguments. I don't flow off the speech doc.

3. Am bad for policy v policy. If this is the debate you want to have, you should make the following adjustments:

a. Dedicate a portion of your rebuttal speeches to explaining the story of your advantage/disadvantage in the simplest possible terms.

b. Policy debates most of the time look like assertion wars to me. One side asserts this thing will happen if we pass the resolution, the other side asserts that it won't. Please address this problem by focusing on the warrants of the arguments. It will also behoove you to go more slowly as you're doing this so that things are maximally clear to me.

c. Policy debaters seem to hide behind cards a lot. They read a piece of evidence in the rebuttal and think that this is a substitute for making an argument. If you read a bunch of cards against the case and don't do any analysis or explanation of why your cards provide better warranting than the arguments being answered, the debate looks an awfully lot like a tie to me. In general, the primary job in a debate is to break ties and to explain why I should defer to you.

My view is that right after reading a piece of evidence, a debater should provide some explanation as to why the evidence is particularly good/specific/uses better warrants than the other side's evidence. Then in the next speech, when they extend the evidence, it has more weight, especially if their opponent conceded the analysis. If the first time you do comparison is in the final speech, I might just disagree with what you're saying, plus it's hard as a judge to defer to one side's comparison over another without intervening.

TLDR: don't treat LD like a policy round that gets cut off after the 1AR. If you do that, the debate will inevitably look late-breaking. Read fewer arguments and spend more time in that initial speech doing analysis/comparison.

d. If it hasn't been clear yet from the above, in front of me you should definitely do more judge instruction than you think you have to. Seriously, I have very little background with policy arguments. It isn't instantly obvious to me how things work.

4. I don’t vote on disclosure theory. There wasn't disclosure when I competed, and I thought that was a much better system, for many reasons –

a. It required both sides to actively pay attention during the debate, to flow diligently, to use their brains during prep time to come up with responses

b. Due to a., speeches were generally more responsive. Debaters did more signposting, explained things a lot more clearly, and were better at judge instruction because a rigorous flow was the reference point and not a speech doc.

c. The debates nowadays are super focused on evidence. I'd rather people read less evidence and spend more time explaining their arguments and making responses about what links/steps/warrants are missing in their opponent's case.

d. I have no idea why the aff should have to commit itself to reading a particular case or version of a case 30 minutes before the debate has even started.

e. In a world without disclosure, tournament environments are generally more relaxed. People socialize more and aren't spending 30 minutes freaking out before their round.

5. 1AR theory: if you want to be able to go for it later, you have to invest time developing it and pre-empting the 2NR. I very rarely vote on 1AR theory, not because I'm opposed to it, but because the 2AR almost always sounds new.

6. I almost never read cards after the round. This means 'inserting rehighlightings' is unlikely to be effective in front of me. Instead you should be reading aloud specific lines from their evidence that disagree with their claim.

7. Speaks: I usually give between 28 and 29.

Debated for and currently coach at Strake Jesuit

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Tech > Truth

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Do not read eval or give me 30 speaks I will not evaluate either

Additionally do not swear in round or use profanities it will effect speaker points.

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them but these are my preferences.

Tricks - 1

Larp - 3

Phil - 1

K - 4

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

*I will never give higher speaks/a 30 based on a "give me 30 speaks" shell.

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

Do not use profanity in round. I will lower speaker points if you do.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Conflicts: Edina HS, Isidore Newman, University of Minnesota, Kenwood SW.

umnakdebate [at] gmail [dot] com -- add me to the chain please!

TOC Update:

The most important information about preffing me is that I believe that debate is a communication activity. If you're unclear, including during card text, I'll clear you, and I won't flow what I can't understand. If your card highlighting is incoherent fragments of words rather than sentences, I will not pretend that your arguments make sense. If you choose to abandon line by line refutation with signposting while giving your speeches, expect that I will do the same in your RFD.

NDT/CEDA Paradigm:

I believe debate is best when debaters give speeches using a line-by-line format. The way that many speeches are given now diverges from my understanding of how to evaluate debates technically. When debating in front of me, you should read in a way that is comprehensible, including card text. You should be flowing the debate. Answering arguments that weren't read guarantees low speaker points, and you must take prep or CX time to ask clarification questions about what was read from the doc. You should answer arguments in the order presented and use numbers or other signposts whenever possible. Avoid long overviews and cloud clash. As much as I believe in judge flexibility, you need to help me to give the decision that you would be happy with.

Flowing: I will flow either on paper or on my laptop, depending on the vibes that day. I have dysgraphia, so if I am flowing on paper, please be sure to slow down on analytics and give pen time. I will follow along on docs during the 1AC and the 1NC to check for clipping, and after that I will not look at docs at any point in the debate unless instructed to read evidence. For me, reading docs does not substitute for clarity; if you are so unclear that I can not understand the words coming out of your mouth, that constitutes clipping. I'll clear you twice, and then I will vote against you for clipping. I will attempt to line up arguments on my flow but will flow top down if your speech organization renders that impossible.

My convictions about debate:

Debate matters. What we do here has significance.

Debate is a game into which debaters put hundreds of hours. Debate to win, and try your best to have fun while doing it. Judges have the privilege of watching high quality debates and are trusted with the responsibility of adjudicating them, so I will put as much effort into making my decision make sense as possible.

Evidence matters. You should read high quality evidence, and you should understand the evidence that you introduce into the debate. You should debate about the qualifications of your evidence. Your evidence should be highlighted into sentences that make arguments, not incoherent fragments of nouns and verbs.

You should read good arguments. The debaters I enjoy watching the most make good arguments that show that they have researched and thought about the topic in depth. Of course, my decision will be based on the technical execution of arguments in the round, but bad arguments generally only necessitate bad answers.

Style matters. Judges are never just making their decisions purely off of the flow. You should debate like you want to win.

Debaters should treat each other with a modicum of respect. Every judge and opponent is a human being. I don't believe in enforcing notions of politeness or respectability, but you shouldn't needlessly make the debate a hostile place. If you behave in a way that is immediately hazardous to the safety of other debaters or say that racism is good, you will lose.

Relevant information about preffing me:

The style of debate that I spend the most time thinking about is critiques. I pretty much only ever read Ks while doing college policy, and most of my coaching since then has either been coaching critiques or coaching policy debaters on how to answer them. Given my background, that's the style of debate where I am most comfortable adjudicating debates and offering high-quality feedback. Don't let that deter you from doing you though. I have voted on all styles and types of arguments and I care more about proficient execution than seeing debaters pander to me based on how I debated.

I definitely wouldn't consider myself an expert on the topic. Most of my research has been on the critical side of the topic. I have a surface level understanding of the popular affs and off-case positions, but I probably won't understand all your acronyms or topic norms. Tread lightly.

I'm not a huge fan of generic counterplans that could be read identically from topic to topic, and usually I think that if evenly debated, they would not establish an opportunity cost to the aff. I understand concepts in counterplan competition like mandates of the plan, intrinsicness, limited intrinsicness, etc. but I probably judge less than 10 debates a season that involve these concepts.

Topicality is a relevant concern and should be debated against policy affs. I tend to view topicality as a question of interpreting the words in the resolution, and I won't check out on reasonability just because a bunch of other teams also read this aff.

Debates with planless affirmatives are often challenging for me to evaluate when the negative goes for topicality. Procedural fairness can be an impact, but you need to convince me that is the case by doing more than spamming "fairness paradox". I am increasingly frustrated in debates where the 2AC or 1AR catastrophically fumbles an off-case position that is not topicality, and the 2NR is T anyways. Don't introduce off case positions if you can't credibly go for them. I struggle to understand how to evaluate topicality without comparing different models of debate.

LD-style phil/tricks arguments: I am conversant in these given my LD background. I would strongly prefer not to adjudicate a debate where you read these arguments without understanding what they actually say, and I will hold you to a high standard in explaining them. Ethical questions around consequentialism vs. deontology are obviously relevant to the topic, but if you don't understand how to execute these arguments, don't read them.

I will not adjudicate arguments about conduct outside of the round I am presently judging.

tl;dr

tech > truth, but i'm more likely to be persuaded by dynamic and engaging speakers

i'm bad at flowing. removing cards from your case and slowing down will enormously help you win my ballot.

if you try to use tech to box out less experienced/trad LD opponents you will not win my ballot. slow down, drop the jargon and meet them at their level to have the best chance to win.

i don't really care about cards, make smart arguments.

i flow arguments, not authors. if you reference an argument by the author, i will have no idea what you are referring to

i like K debate but i'm not experienced with it. slow down, explain in plain english, and clearly label the parts. K affs are cool but i prefer it if they still defend the resolution.

collapse, collapse, collapse. going for everything wins you nothing

Long Version for Tryhards and People With Too Much Time

I competed for 8 years in high school + college and am now the head coach at West High School. I've done pretty much every IE as well as Congress, NFA LD, British Parliamentary (kinda like worlds), IPDA and NPDA (parli) debates. My paradigm explains the default biases I have when judging, but I'm more than prepared to drop those assumptions if you make an argument that I should.

Also, if my ballot feedback seems rude, I'm sorry! I try to give concrete, actionable suggestions using as few words as possible so as to fit more good info into your ballot. I try to be maximally clear with my feedback, which can sometimes result in sounding short or rude. Please be aware that is not my intention!

On Accessibility

Accessibility is an a priori voting issue for me 100% of the time. Don't let the debate get toxic. Racism, sexism, queerphobia, etc. is not acceptable in this space. And for those of you identifying as dudes; don't be a debate bro.

I prefer progressive style LD just because that's the form I'm most familiar with, but I do ask that debaters adapt to the style your opponent is comfortable with. This doesn't mean you need to take it easy on less tech-experienced opponents, but it does mean you need to make the round a space where they can understand your arguments and articulate responses to them. Essentially, I'm tech > truth, as long as both sides understand the tech at hand. If the status of your opponent's counterplan is "what's a conditionality?", then there is absolutely no way I am flowing your condo shell. If you run disclosure T against a trad aff with no plan text, I sign my ballot before the 1AR.

Spread at your own risk! I'm okay with some speed, but you should only speak as fast as you can enunciate. If your words are slurring into one another, I simply won't be able to flow everything, and I'm more likely to be persuaded by arguments against your case. That said, if both teams are fine with speed, I'm fine with it too, and will do my best to keep up.

I also believe that the use of excessive speed to exclude less experienced/speed capable debaters is ascourge upon technical debate and I am absolutely itching to vote on speed bad arguments. If a clearly overwhelmed debater asks you to slow down, you refuse, and they say that they were excluded from the round because of it, I will sign my ballot then and there. If you intend to read your case faster than average debate speaking speed, you should always ask your opponents and the judge to clear you if they need it, and actually slow down if they do. There is no educational value to an activity where your opponent can't engage with you.

On Critical Debate:

I like a good K, especially when it's more niche than 'capitalism bad', but I doubly don't love when people run Ks they are obviously unfamiliar with and cannot explain in lay terms. I won't automatically vote down a non-topical K aff but I think the framework explanation you would need to justify torching neg ground will probably go way over my head.

You know what I love way more than a kritik? Critical framework on a policy case! I have a degree in political science and am a total policy wonk (I listen to public policy podcasts... for fun) but I also appreciate critical theory. To me, the theoretical perfect aff combines critical framework with radical public policy wonkery to solve a very real but small-scale problem.

On Impact Weighing

I practice rolling my eyes by listening to debaters try to make everything somehow link to an existential impact. Please don't do that. I don't want to roll my eyes at you.

Let's talk about anything else! Localized environmental impacts, impacts to non-human life, non-existentially threatening global conflicts, quality of life, cultural genocide, etc. I believe anything can be an impact if you have the framework to justify it, and I LOVE talking about non-terminal impacts.

Please don't bore me with econ arguments. I've honestly never heard a good one, and that includes from actual economists.

On Evidence

Most of my experience is with limited prep debate, so I believe cards help your argument but do not make it for you. It is entirely possible to win my ballot without a shred of evidence. Basically, here's how I evaluate arguments:

Strong carded arguments > strong analytical arguments >>> weak carded arguments > weak analytical arguments >>>>>>> your only rebuttal being "they didn't have a card for that"

Extend arguments, not authors. I don't flow authors.

Take up any evidence-related issues with tab or hash it out in round.

On Theory

I am totally willing to vote for theory, but you have to collapse to it. I think it's a little cheesy to say your opponent has made the round so unfair they need to lose, but also that your disad is still in play.

I am not generally persuaded by potential abuse arguments. I like using T as a strategy (time waster, distraction, link to disads/K, etc.) but if you're arguing that the purpose of T is to check back on abuse, then voting on it without demonstrated abuse cheapens the effectiveness of it.

I'm totally down for the RVI debate!

Congress: Congress is my favorite event to judge and was my favorite to compete in. I judge Congress on the paradigm of relevancy; essentially, what did you do or say to make me remember you? That means I evaluate the entire round, not just your speeches. Did you make main motions? Did you step in to correct a PO who made a mistake? Did you push for a germane amendment to legislation? Did other people say your name a lot? How often did I hear you asking questions? There's a lot more to Congress than just giving speeches. Make sure I remember your name.

Pre-written speeches are a plague upon this event, so they receive an automatic point deduction and will almost certainly result in you ranking lower than an extemporaneous speaker. Congress is definitionally, per the NSDA handbook, an extemporaneous speaking event. Notes are highly encouraged, just not fully written speeches. I also think reading speeches off electronic devices is pretty cringe. This event is like 90% downtime, you absolutely have time to transcribe your points onto a notepad in between speeches. If you just get rid of the laptop and put a couple bullet points on paper, that is possibly the easiest single way to make it to the top of my ballot.

Another easy way to win my ballot is by having fun with it! I firmly believe there is no such thing as too many jokes. Props are fun, go nuts with it! Make the round interesting. Call people out, by name. Lean into the roleplay elements, start beef with your fellow Representatives.

For my presiding officers: if you run a fast, fair, and efficient round, you'll rank in the top half of my ballot. Your job is to facilitate as many speeches as possible. Know the rules and follow them. ALWAYS DENY MOTIONS TO EXTEND CROSS EXAMINATION. Extending cross might be the only thing I hate more than pre-written speeches.

Know your role in the round. The first speakers on each side should construct the key points of the debate. Subsequent speakers should raise niche issues, build on arguments made by earlier speakers, and focus on rebuttal. Late-round speakers should try to crystallize the round, weigh impacts, etc. If you give a killer constructive as the last speech in the round, you won't be ranked very highly. If you are unable to keep the round interesting with new arguments and lots of clash, expect to lose points. If the debate is stale, I welcome any and all attempts to previous question.

Also, minor pet peeve, but you shouldn't say something is unconstitutional without saying exactly which part of the constitution it violates and why! This is congressional debate and the US constitution is a necessary paradigm to abide by, but if the Bush administration can come up with a creative argument to defend torture under the Constitution, you can figure something out.

PF: If I am judging this event it is against my will. Why can the negative speak first? Why are there so many cross examinations? What on earth is the point of the final focus? Ridiculous event!

All kidding aside, in the rare event I do judge PF, it's on the flow, but don't think you can get away with trying to make PF into policy. They literally made this event for the sole purpose of not being policy, and as a judge I have an obligation to uphold that norm. That means no plans, no counterplans, no theory, and no topicality.

And please, please please please please please don't talk over each other in cross. Even though I almost never judge this event I have somehow seen more debate bro-ery in PF than every other event combined. Don't be rude. Debate is a game, don't let it get to you.

IEs: The time limit for memorized events is ten minutes, not 10:30. The grace period exists to give you a buffer in case you go over, not an extra 30 seconds of material. This is doubly true if you choose to time yourself or use time signals! It's one thing if you go over without knowing your time, but if you go over while you're looking at a timer, that's pretty clear time limit abuse and your ranking will reflect that.

Gordon Krauss

Add: gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Background: Claremont '21, UCLA '25

Affiliation: Peninsula, ModernBrain.

Main

Debate would be incoherent and boring if every argument was evaluated as a yes-no question, e.g. "does the bill pass?" or "is there a link", and it leads to absurd outcomes, like judges voting on dropped "link turns case" when the aff has link defense and the neg does not have a reason the plan can't solve. Thus, I will evaluate debates probabilistically and will not grant zero or one-hundred percent risk to an argument, even if dropped, unless the full theoretical weight of the argument is explicitly conceded by the other team.

This means that if you're extending a permutation (that's not 'do counterplan'), you need a deficit. If counterplan, need a net benefit. If normative philosophical framework, need a reason the plan is good or bad according to that framework. It also means that kritik links need impacts--proving that the aff can't solve anything and doesn't make sense is important, but I won't vote on presumption, so you're better off developing offense.

The exception to this is topicality and other procedurals, like truth testing. I think that these are not like other arguments because they provide the neg with an escape hatch to avoid substantive debates. I am therefore persuaded by arbitrariness/reasonability arguments against these but will obviously vote for a topicality argument that's well supported by the topic literature.

--generally, an argument like "and/or" or "the s at the end of 'states' is a blare plural" are non-starters, unless dropped.

Outside of my strong preferences (1. offense-defense; 2. most neg theory/topicality arguments are cowardice), I will try to evaluate the debate as technically as possible, based on the arguments made in the debate and how well they line up with each team's evidence set. That said, I do care quite a bit about evidence quality. I wish more teams talked about it and did explicit evidence/warrant comparison but usually end up reading evidence to see if it actually says the things the debaters are saying. If it does not, I will reduce its risk significantly.

30 SPEAKS IS DEAD AND YOU HAVE KILLED IT - search "30 speaks" in the rant doc for specifics

i have (not so) recently shortened this paradigm cuz it was getting really ranty - if you would like to see my thoughts on specific arguments, feel free to look at my rant doc

Intro

• I’m Eva (they/them) - i prefer to be called Eva over judge but say whatever you're used to/makes you comfortable. I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating - I currently coach at Hawken. I primarily coach traditional debate, but have qualed kids to the TOC and my kids are very all over the place with what they read, so I've coached basically every style

• Email: evathelamberson@gmail.com put me on the chain but speechdrop is better :) i think docs are a good practice even for lay debaters and i would prefer if you send analytics

• Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds

TL;DR FOR PREFS i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the rant doc if you're interested in my specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously

i believe debate is a game and it's not my job to tell you how to play it; i will be happiest when you are debating the way you enjoy the most and are best at

i consider myself a fairly flexible judge and try not to be biased toward any particular style - hacking is one of the worst things a judge can do, other than just not paying attention. i enjoy clash debates where each debater is going for their favorite or most comfortable strategy. i try to make the decision that operates the most logically under the paradigm/framing that has been most robustly defended throughout the round - if a round feels difficult to resolve I will lean towards arguments that I feel make the most sense, are the easiest to vote on, have the most instruction on them, etc. my strongest preference is against doing work for you - non-applied implications, explanations, etc. are things i will not do for you

IF YOUR ROUND HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR VBI AT ANY TOURNAMENT you can contact me with questions or concerns regardless of who recorded it - i can not upload it, change the visibility, etc.

accessibility:

• round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, i would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.

• DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND, i'm a germaphobe.if there are covid/illness precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.) i'll always have masks on me if you want

Hello! I am a parent judge but I have judged some traditional rounds since 2022. My email is catchup.liang@gmail.com if needed for questions / the email chain.

Please refrain from using extreme debate jargon and stick to more policy-esque positions since I'm rather unfamiliar with judging others.

Also, please speak slower so that I can flow well and avoid spreading.

Finally, please be kind to each other and be respectful (don't cut each other off, etc.)

Been involved with the game in some way since 2008, do as you wish and I shall evaluate it in the way that I feel requires the least interference from myself.

NDT 2025 update:

nothing here has changed but feel the need to say a few things.
I hate when people write they haven’t judged much on the topic but I feel required to say that’s me this year. I have judged my requisite nine debates and cut zero cards I am just the vibes guy for the tournament so do not expect me to have deep topic knowledge or awareness of the common thoughts the community has developed on the topic (both in wording and actualization).

I am NOT the judge for your counterplan competition debates. I already abhor judging theory debates and these have gotten to a level that I don’t even want to spend the time sifting through your six word highlighted cards to decide four different definitions. Yes plantext writing has become atrocious that we should allow negative advocacy attrition but the flip side of that coin is why do I let the aff subject me to an incredibly stale debate to decide yes/no on perm do the counterplan. Go for substance please or only theory. Less time in theory minutia is better for me, just tell me it’s absurd for affirmatives to answer these modern counter plans and why and I’m probably in, don’t make me do this “should” etc shtick

I feel I read less evidence than most judges. I do not follow along on the doc and will not piece it back together for you. If you want me to do this and you haven’t sold the warrants in said evidence to me I will judge the debate based on my reading of said evidence so take that as you will.

I am more and more unpersuaded by “topicality is bad takes” that rely on the history of “policy” team utilizing it to omit certain opinions. I by no means wish to say I want to get rid of non traditional affirmatives, if you look at my coaching history it should be clear those are part of the reason I love this game, I just mean to say I think going for the lowest hanging fruit in the impact turn debate is not the best strategy.

Send your email before stopping the timer. I’m starting to not understand how we stop prep but then ten clicks happen before we say sent and by the end of debate each speech post 1ac has added 4 minutes to the debate. If you had to be up at the tubs once you said end prep I’m taking the same stance for the stands these days but seems only logical to me.

Thats the end of the my old man get off my lawn rant for the NDT. Congrats to everyone on qualifying, continued participation in this world is incredible and I appreciate yall for being here.

Regular or “older” philosophy-

Put me on the chain please: debate.emails@gmail.com, I not follow along with the documents other than some cursory glances during prep time if a card intrigues me. I still may ask for specific cards at the end of the debate so I do not need to sort through each document, I appreciate it in advance. I may also ask for permutation and Counterplans texts since y’all speed through these things nowadays like an armadillo in the thicket.

I believe that debate is a communication activity with an emphasis on persuasion. If you are not clear or have not extended all components of an argument (claim/warrant/implication) it will not factor into my decision.

I flow on paper, it is how I was taught and I think it helps me retain more information and be more present in debates. I would appreciate yall slowing down and giving me pen time on counterplan texts and theory arguments (as well as permutations).

The most important thing in debates for me is to establish a framework for how (and why) I should evaluate impacts. I am often left with two distinct impacts/scenarios at the end of the debate without any instruction on how to assess their validity vis-à-vis one another or which one to prioritize. The team that sets this up early in the debate and filters the rebuttals through it often gets my ballot. I believe that this is not just true of “clash” debates but is (if not even more) an important component of debates where terminal impacts are the same but their scenarios are not (i.e .two different pathways to nuclear war/extinction).

While I think that debate is best when the affirmative is interacting with the resolution in some way. I have no sentiment about how this interaction need to happen, nor a dogmatic stance that 1AC’s have a relation to the resolution.

I have voted for procedural fairness and have also voted for the impact turns. Despite finding myself voting more and more for procedural fairness I am much more persuaded by fairness as an internal link rather than a terminal impact. Affirmative’s often beat around the bush and have trouble deciding if they want to go for the impact turn or the middle ground, I think picking a strategy and going for it will serve you best. A lot of 2NRs squander very good block arguments by not spending enough time (or any) at the terminal impact level, please don’t be those people. I also feel as if most negative teams spend much time reading definitions in the 1NC and do not utilize them later in the debate even absent aff counter definitions which seems like wasted 1NC time.

My small 2024ish update on framework/topicality is- I think teams have gotten far worse at going for the impact turns and might be better served explaining why their change in stasis point is good and still allows us to debate a portion of the resolution. I’ve voted far more for “unpredictability is good” than “topicality is racist.” Telling me a team going for topicality is the same as the “prl” lacks all three components of an argument. I’m still very down to check in on topicality is a tool used to eliminate perspectives from debate but I think the level of explanation has declined to a point where it’s hard for me to vote on in recent years. I have voted for fiat causes heart attacks almost as many times as I have for “you dropped competition shapes debate means you shouldn’t evaluate the impact turns.” As someone who judges a lot of clash debates I am hopeful to see innovation on BOTH sides of this game. I may be crazy (probably am) but I enjoy judging clash debates and encourage everyone to diversify these debates more often than the every 6-10 year cycle it feels we have been on.

While it does not impact how I evaluate the flow I do reward teams with better speaker points when they have unique and substantive framework takes beyond the mostly prewritten impact turn or clash good blocks that have proliferated the game (this is also something you should be doing to counter the blocktastic nature of modern framework debates).

It would behove many teams and debaters to extend their evidence by author name in the 2NR/2AR. I tend to not read a large amount of evidence and think the trend of sending out half the 1AC/1NC in the card document is robbing teams of a fair decision, so narrowing in and extending the truly relevant pieces of evidence by author name increases both my willingness to read those cards and my confidence that you have a solid piece of evidence for a claim rather than me being asked to piece together an argument from a multitude of different cards.

Prep time ends when the email has been sent. In the past few years so much time is being spent saving documents, gathering flows, setting up a stand etc. that it has become egregious and ultimately, I feel limits both my decision time and my ability to deliver criticism after the round. Limited prep is a huge part of what makes the activity both enjoyable and competitive. I said in my old philosophy that policing this is difficult, however I will now take the extra time beyond roadmaps/speech time into account when I determine speaker points.

I find myself frustrated in debates where the final rebuttals are only about theory. I do not judge many of these debates and the ones I have feel like there is an inevitable modicum of judge intervention. While I have voted for conditonality bad several times, personally my thought on condo is "don't care get better."

Plan-text writing has become a lost art and should invite negative advocacy attrition and/or substantive topicality debates.

Feel free to email or ask any questions before or after the debate. I have been privileged to coach some incredible competitors and judge some awesome debaters, I will do my best to give yall the same level of judging I think they deserve(d) and beyond.

Above all else enjoy the game you get to play and have fun.

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

Experience:

Competitor-- Winston Churchill (2008-2012)

Assistant Coaching--

Past: Jenks (2012-2015) Reagan (2015-2017) Winston Churchill (2018-2023)

Currently: Texas (2017-present)

Nick Loew - GMU'24 - 4x NDT qualifier, 1x NDT Doubles

nickloew14@gmail.com

masondebatedocs@gmail.com [College ONLY Please]

You should read whatever arguments you are most comfortable with and want to go for. None of my opinions about debate are so significant that they overdetermine deciding who won based on the individual debate in front of me.

Tech > Truth. Complete arguments require warrants to substantiate them.

T vs Plans- I enjoy well-researched and substantive topicality debates. On the other hand I dislike contrived and unpredictable interpretations that are arbitrary in nature. (T LPR on the HS immigration topic > T substantially limit on the college alliances topic).

T vs K Affs - I almost always was on the neg going for T in these debates. In front of me the aff is best set up for victory by presenting a counterinterpretation that seeks to solve the negs offense alongside impact turns to the negs model, although of course you can also win with impact turns alone. For me I will say the latter is more difficult as I struggle to vote aff when there is no counterinterp extended in the 2AR to solve some amount of limits/ground.

CPs - I enjoy specific CP strategies that include topic/aff specific evidence. In competition debates I likely lean affirmative when there is relatively equal debating and the neg has presented a CP that generically competes off of certainty or immediacy.

Ks - I like Ks with links to the plan and alternatives that attempt to solve the links impact compared to Ks that rely entirely on framework strategies. That being said, I have still voted for positions that were solely critiques of plan-focus or fiat for example. Overall, I think I’m alright for most critical positions on the neg.

Theory - Often I find myself deciding that conditionality is good.

If you have any specific questions feel free to email me.

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

Lincoln Douglas:

I strongly believe in affirmative disclosure.

Theory: I am mostly unfavorable towards/dislike one sentence theory arguments that seem and are arbitrary in nature. Furthermore, I am unlikely to believe that most theory arguments aside from condo are reasons to reject the debater (ex: solvency advocate theory/states theory/agent CPs etc… is not a reason to reject the team).

Please attempt to be clear. I have found this to be a problem more often in LD likely because of the short speech times.

FAQ: (Copied from Jasmine Stidham's paradigm)

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you. Theory thoughts above.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments however I do not judge many phil debates. You may need to do some policy translation/over-explanation however so I understand exactly what you're saying.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: Avoid reading evidence from debate blogs. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. T whole-rez generally is fine.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'aspec' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. I am annoyed by strategies that rely on your opponent dropping analytics that weren't sent in the document.

Q: RVIs? No 1AR theory?

A: Nope.

Lexington '22. Qualified for the TOC twice.

Email: breakdocs@googlegroups.com

Policy: I am more comfortable with this style of debate than some may assume. I err towards more impact calculus and judge instruction. I enjoy election and PTX debates. I'm fine with T and process CP debates since it forces better AFF writing. For a DA to turn the case, it must turn the affirmative's internal links. I am generally persuaded that the link controls uniqueness, but for less probabilistic uniqueness claims (elections, politics, etc.), I can be convinced by the inverse. I am a fan of smart UQ CP's that artificially create DA's and/or side step impact turns. Default to judge kick.

Phil: Please read framework hijacks. Don’t shoehorn in bad offense just to read the philosophy you want—you’ll likely lose. I prefer carded philosophy over analytical justifications, but either is fine. Frameworks are an offense filter but if you’re reading epistemic modesty, be sure to explain how I should correctly resolve the round under that framework. "Extinction outweighs" is a contention level argument that needs to be paired with a warrant for consequentialism. Skep vs K Affs is legit.

Theory: There’s no such thing as "frivolous" theory but I am great for reasonability and drop the argument. Weighing and judge instruction are critical because theory debates can easily turn into a wash. I enjoy creative combo shells and unorthodox interpretations.

Tricks: This is a broad category. I like philosophical tricks and skepticism but dislike underdeveloped spikes and paradoxes. Stick to a few tricks and be ready to defend them when answered. Arguments start from 0 to 100, so ensure they include a clear claim, warrant, and impact.

Kritik: I’m persuaded by plan focus and extinction outweighs. I favor fairness arguments when going for T-Framework, though I am willing to vote on clash as well. I am quite terrible for K v. K debates.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Hi! I'm Sam. Harvard Westlake '21, Vanderbilt '25. Email chain or speech drop please: samantha.mcloughlin@harker.org but I'd prefer speech drop. LD TOC qual 4x + 20 bids + won some tournaments (Valley, Yale, Stanford, etc) in high school - reading policy args, some basic T/theory, and some Ks/topical K affs (settler colonialism, fem IR, etc). I also coached for the past three years (more or less all over the argumentative spectrum) and currently coach for Harker, so I have some topic familiarity.

Everything in this paradigm (minus the hard and fast rules) is just a preference - my strongest belief about debate is that it should be a forum for ideological flexibility, creative thinking, and argumentative experimentation. I realized this paradigm was way too long so I tried to bold stuff for pre-round skimming.

Hard and Fast Rules--

I will not flow off the doc and I am not calling clear just for fun. I'm so for real, it will not just affect your speaks, you will lose the round because I don't have your arguments down. In the 1AC/off case in the 1NC, I'll follow the doc if I'm worried about clipping, and flow by ear (without the doc) if I think that you may be unflowable. Every rebuttal, the doc is closed. If I can't tell if you are reading all the words in your cards, I will assume you're not.

There's no flow clarification slot in a debate - take CX or prep if you need to ask what was read (exception is marked cards).

Won't vote on any arg that makes debate unsafe. This includes any arg that denies the badness of racism/sexism/etc, or says death good (args like spark/wipeout = ok, cuz it doesn't deny the value of life, it's just fancy util maths that says extinction better preserves the value of life). If your opponent wins your argument is repugnant (absent any larger framing or judge instruction), I'll drop the argument, unless you presented your argument with the agreement that it was repugnant (ie, if you admit your position is racist, but attempt to say that doesn't matter), in which case I will consider your repugnance purposeful and drop you.

Ev ethics - stake the round on it (ie W30 to the person who is right and an L with the lowest possible speaks to the other) if evidence is misrepresented (an omitted section contradicts or meaningfully alters the meaning of the card). I think a good litmus test for misrepresentation is: does the article agree with the claims presented in the card? If it's missing a sentence or two at the beginning/end of a paragraph but it doesn't change the meaning of the card, you're better off reading it as theory. To make everyone's life easier, just cut ev well (this means full citations, full paragraphs, in alignment with the author's intent).

Clipping = an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Speaks are my choice, not yours (put away 30 speaks theory). Also, won't disclose speaks.

For online debate, I expect that you record all your speeches in case you, your opponent, or I drops out.

Argument TLDRs--

Defaults: reasonability on theory, competing interps on t, drop the debater on t/theory, no RVIs, T>theory>everything else, comparative worlds, fairness + education are voters, policy presumption, epistemic confidence

^All those can be easily changed with a sentence.

K debate - Line by line >> long overviews. Winning overarching claims about the world is helpful, but you need to apply those claims to the specifics of your opponents arguments or else I will not do those interactions for you. Framework is important (honestly most of the times in policy v K debates, the person who wins fw wins the round). Links to the plan are preferred, but not necessary - the less specific your links, the more fw matters, and the more persuasive the permutation is. I also tend to think debate should be about arguments, not people, which means I'll likely be unpersuaded by personal attacks or "vote for me" arguments. I'm more persuaded by skills impacts on T Framework than fairness, and more persuaded by non topical affs that impact turn things than try to find a middle ground.

Policy - Yay! Zero risk not a thing but arguments still must be complete to be evaluated. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. Read your best evidence in the 1NC - I'll be persuaded by arguments that the 2NR doesn't get new evidence unless it's directly responsive to the 1AR. Big fan of creative and topic specific counterplans <3(consult __ is usually not creative).

Theory - PICs and condo are probably good. Other CPs (international fiat, agent, process etc) are a bit more suspicious. All of this is up for debate. Descriptions of side bias are not standards. The more frivolous the shell = the truer reasonability and DTA are, and the lower the bar for answers. On that note, reasonability and DTA are under-utilized.

Philosophy - [GBX edit -- realized I've spent too long in debate and am now solidly fine with phil/actually think about it a good bit. Will enjoy a substantive philosophy round.] Not the area i'm the most comfortable in, but I'll try my best. I'd love to see a well explained phil debate, but I will not enjoy a blippy phil round that borders closer to tricks debate. I'd rather you leverage your syllogism to exclude consequences rather than relying on calc indicts. Debaters should take advantage of nonsensical contention args.

Tricks - I don't think a model of debate predicated on the avoidance of clash (ie relying on concessions) is an educational model. My test for whether an argument falls under this model of debate is: ask yourself if you would be willing to go for an argument if it was responded to competently. The same idea also extends to the formatting of your argument (ie you should delineate + thoroughly explain all your arguments with clear implications). I won't purposefully insert my personal beliefs about the value of tricks debates into the round, but it does mean that I'll probably be more receptive to arguments that indict tricks debate as a model. Some arguments are truer than others, and it's easier to win true arguments in front of me than false ones. I also default comparative worlds, and have given more than one RFD that boils down to "X trick was won but there's no truth testing ROB under which it matters." Up-layering tricky affs with Ks or strategic theory is smart, and when leveraged correctly make claims of new 2NR responses more persuasive.

Lay - I have respect for good lay debaters since I know I could never be one. That said, I will definitely evaluate the debate on a technical level regardless of the style. Good lay debaters can beat circuit debaters by strategically isolating key arguments. Circuit debaters vs lay debaters don't need to modify their style of debate, but should do everything they can to be accessible (explain stuff in CX, send docs, etc) (same applies to debates where there is a large skill gap).

Misc - My threshold for independent voters is high. Emphasizing this after a couple rounds where it's been relevant.

Rant Section--

Tech > truth, but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.

I'll deal with irresolvability using the "needs test" - the burden of proof falls on the side that "needs" to win the argument (ie the burden of proof is on the neg in the perm debate because the neg needs to beat the perm, but the aff doesn't need to win the perm).

I won't vote on arguments telling me to "evaluate the entire debate after X speech" that are introduced in X speech - it generates a contradiction. Also, the 2AR is after all the speeches before it - interpret this as you choose.

Likes/Dislikes--

Likes: plans bad 2NR on semantics if you understand the grammar behind it and are not reading someone else's blocks, creative and non-offensive policy impact turns, creative process CPs (no this is not the ICJ CP or consult the WTO), plan affs (yes I realize this contradicts with my first like), multiple shells bad, Ks with links to the plan, presumption/case presses vs non T affs, topical K affs, reasonability/DTA on frivolous theory, collapsing, flashing analytics

Dislikes: the grammar DA, RVIs, plans bad 2NR on semantics when you don't understand the grammar behind it, plans bad 2NR that's just reading off someone else's doc with no topic specific analysis, standard spec, buffet 2NRs, hidden args, non T affs that are an FYI not an advocacy, combo shells that don't solve their offense, "strat skew", "this argument is bad" [then doesn't explain why the argument is bad], "that's an independent voting issue" [doesn't explain why it's a voting issue past just the label] (this also applies to 1AR arguments not labelled as voting issues that magically become voting issues in the 2AR), "what's a floating PIK" "what's an a priori", being rude or interrupting your opponent (especially if you're more experienced or in a position of power) (at best it adds nothing at worse it's unkind)

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

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

specific thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaks: I give them fr.

Shreeram Modi (he/him)

Lynbrook, NYU, Break Debate, Poly Prep.

debate@smodi.net, breakdocs@googlegroups.com

You can find my full judging record here. This speaks to my judging proclivities better than a paradigm would.

Tech over truth. What is 'true' for the purposes of the debate is entirely based off what the debaters have said. The nature of the argument, its delivery, or how it relates to real world truth have no bearing on my evaluation of it. The degree to which a claim is warranted is the degree to which a response must rise.

Flowing. I flow straight down on excel, I will not flow based off the speech doc nor attempt to reconstruct my flow based off it. I may refer to evidence after the round to resolve questions my flow is insufficient to answer.

My strongest conviction is that debaters should try their utmost to win, the rest is all malleable. Go for the most strategic arguments, not necessarily the ones that maximize clash or display bravery. I will reward strategies that improve your chances of winning, and not punish you for taking the easy way out.

COUNTERPLANS

---Will judge kick unless told otherwise.

---Equally good for "functional" and "functional and textual"

---Most theoretical objections to specific 'types' of counterplans would be better expressed as competition.

KRITIKS

---Offense needs uniqueness, the 2NR going for the kritik either needs framework to generate uniqueness from the AFF's performance, an alt that functions as a uniqueness counterplan, or needs to go for unique links as DAs to the plan.

---Planless AFFs vs Topicality need DAs to something the NEG's model mandates or offense generated from their performance.

---Not sure how to 'weigh case' vs an in-round microaggression. The 2AR going for this will almost certainly lose.

MISC

Debaters should be flowing. You don't need to flash analytics. Similarly, there is no flow clarification slot in debate; cards should be marked orally but you do not need to specify which cards/arguments you did or did not read.

Speaker Points. They are mine, not yours; I will not evaluate speaker point theory. The logical conclusion of evaluating this genre of arguments is that everyone reads and agrees to speaks theory at which point they serve no purpose.

---Higher speaks: Making good strategical decisions, knowing a lot about debate/the topic/the world, being engaging to watch, being clear will lead to higher speaks.

---Lower speaks: Not having your tech in order, excessive dead time, answering arguments that were in the doc but were not read, making bad strategic decisions, wasting CX, being mean/tactless, and having cards and documents not formatted properly using verbatim styles will lead to worse speaks.

Insult my brother. While I won't award higher speaks for this, I'll probably find it funny. However, if the insult shows an obvious lack of knowledge or is just corny, I may treat you disfavorably.

My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com

Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

LD Paradigm

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Hi! I'm Sonali (she/they)

Harrison High School '21, Cornell University Dec '24

For speech docs: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

tl;dr pref me high if you read Ks/performance/trad and strike me if your strat is tricks

Newark 25 note: I think I have started to care less and less about what people read in front of me. What I want is clarity. I don't care that I read Tuck & Yang a million times in high school, I want you to explain it to me like I am 5. This is especially true for positions I never read. If you insist on reading phil (for example! this applies to literally every other form of debate tho) in front of me, I want a definition of every word that is not in the common lexicon.

Stanford 25 note: pleeeeeeeease slow your roll for online debate :( I can't vote for arguments I didn't hear/didn't know where you put them on the flow and that sucks for everyone involved. ALSO please signpost and make it clear where on the flow you are. It's especially hard to keep up with rounds with a lot of layers via online debate. Make it clear which argument you are responding to, otherwise I'll prob miss it. (Harvard 25 addendum: yeah this all applies to in person debate too. I'm slow, go max 70% of your top speed in person)

Accommodations & Accessibility

Please tell me & your opponent any accommodations you may need before the round. Content warnings are good.

Also just in general, the nicer and more accommodating you are, the better speaks you'll get. That doesn't mean let your opponent walk all over you, but it does mean try to genuinely answer their questions & be kind. I love sass but there is a difference between being sassy and being mean :/

It is always in your best interest to send pre-written analytics. This is a good practice that I reward with better speaks. I can't vote on something if I don't have it flowed and sending analytics in your speech doc is a great way to make sure I have it flowed.

I always want a marked doc.

Speaks

I control what speaks you get so I'm not listening to "give me a 30." Feel free to read it but don't be surprised when you get a 26 :( Also judges who say "bring me a coffee for +0.2 speaks" are weird and predatory. Debaters are kids, get your own coffee.

I don't disclose speaker points.

General Notes

I graduated 4 years ago and don't coach so tournaments are my only exposure to the topic (read: idk nuances of the topic). I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear (I will slow & clear you as much as I need - I have a processing disorder)

Stolen from Rebecca Anderson's paradigm: "please stop spreading against lay opponents. It does not make me want to vote for you. probably a low-point win at best so it is not in your best interest" --> if you can't beat a lay opponent without spreading, you probably don't deserve the win

Stuff about me that influences me as a judge

- I read mostly (read: pretty much only) Ks and performance in high school so that's what I'm familiar with (Ks meaning setcol, antiblackness, fem, etc.)

- I don't care if you're topical or not

- I'm not good at flowing theory and I only really want to see it if there is actual abuse happening. I am very sympathetic to gut checking frivolous theory, especially when it's against a K/K aff.

- I love trad debate! This is my second favorite type of debate after K/Performance.

- larp is fine

- Phil: If I didn't learn anything about phil & high theory from four years of debate I promise you I will not learn about it from a 40-minute round. would not recommend reading phil & high theory in front of me (I'm including psychoanalysis in this or anything dense that requires me to have previous knowledge in a lit base)

- I'm like 70% truth 30% tech (truth > tech)

- The burden of proof is on you to explain your theory to me. I'm not going to do research to understand you.

- By the end of the round, I need to be able to explain whatever it is I am voting for. If I can't do that, I'm not voting for you. I feel like there has been a trend in debate towards being hypertechnical, but at risk of sounding like a lay judge, it makes you lose sight of the big picture and what it exactly is you're telling me to vote for

- pretty please don't read more than 3 offs in front of me :) it is so so so confusing

- don't read tricks & frivolous theory in front of me xoxo

- Disclosure is prob good unless you have a good reason to not disclose. Using the wiki is good unless you have a good reason not to use the wiki

- --> I will vote on disclosure theory (prefer it read as a K but I'll vote on it in theory form)

- BUT you don't need to disclose new affs/new advocacy texts

In conclusion pref me high if you read Ks/performance/trad and strike me if your strat is theory & tricks (Harvard 25: also phil! probably should strike me if you want to read phil)

Want more info? Here's a much longer paradigm that I used to have up but then deleted because no one was reading it! Now I'm putting it back because why not!

Framework

I love framework (not t-framework)! I think it is genuinely the most important part of any round. I have seen so many rounds where only one person reads a framework, the other person reads offense that doesn't link, and the person who read framework spends too much time answering the offense. Use your framework to exclude the other person's offense! That's what it's there for!

ROB/ROJ of "vote for the better debater" is silly. It is a waste of time to read that in front of me. If you do, I determine who the better debater is via who links to the more specific ROB (ex: aff reads a ROB of combatting antiblackness. neg reads better debater. I determine who the better debater is via who has the best method of combatting antiblackness). Furthermore, the "anything else is arbitrary" applies to "vote for the better debater as well" - as a judge I can arbitrarily/subjectively decide you're the worse debater and drop you. Don't read this in front of me if you want good speaks.

I don't like util and I think it's racist. But if those args aren't made in round, I will use util if both debaters tell me to, but your speaks will not be happy.

Theory

Everything I said earlier in this paradigm is still true, but here are some more specifics.

I don't think fairness exists. Debate is inherently an unfair activity that prioritizes whiteness and maleness and many other normative identities. Fairness is not the voter you should go for in front of me, I will rarely vote on it. Education is the much better choice, accessibility is even better.

Debate is not a game. It has real impacts on people.

If you are reading T I need a TVA

I don't think tabroom checks violence in round

Ks

I love Ks. I am familiar with fem, setcol, and antiblackness. That being said, I am not doing work for you just because I read from a certain lit base when I did debate.

Do not read afropess in front of me if you are not black! I am more than happy to give you an L20

I do not understand psychoanalysis so if you want to read it in front of me, it is best to not spread through it and clearly explain what exactly it is you are arguing. I have sat through many psychoanalysis lectures at debate camp and have taken a course in it in college and I still really do not get it lol

Links of omission are not links

Phil

Again, I have sat through many phil lectures for many different philosophers at debate camp and don't get it. Probably not the move in front of me unless you are willing to not spread and explain everything like I am 5 years old :)

Conclusion

At the end of the day you should read what you want (as long as it is not discriminatory). However, if you read something that I have outlined as confusing to me in this paradigm, I need you to go much slower and explain what exactly it is I am voting for. 9/10 times I will vote for the person with the most coherent ballot story. Have fun & stay safe!

0. General:

chain for policy/general questions

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

chain for ld (pls add both)

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Coaching: Isidore Newman, Coppell, IVA High

Conflicts: a few LAMDL teams.

Debate Shoutouts: Deven Cooper, Dayvon Love, Diego "Jay-Z" Flores, Erika Linares, Geo Liriano, Jaysyn Green, Daniel Medina, Destiny Popoca, Lauren Willard, Cameron Ward, Isai Ortega, Andres Marquez, Elvis Pineda, J-Beatz, Dorian Gurrola, Aless Escobar, Jean Kim, and all of #LAMDLGANG.

"IR topics are cool bc we learn abt the world and stuff" - E.C. Powers, Wyoming Debate 5/22/23.

1. Pref Guide:

General: Currently entering my junior year and currently debate for CSULB (2 years of NDT-CEDA debate, 3 1/2 of LAMDL Debate) and have about 2 years of circuit judging experience. I care a lot about debate. Whether or not I should can be changed by persuasive argumentation.

Judging Style: I judge based what's on the flow, and the flow only. Judge intervention is silly and I try not to do it unless I absolutely need to fill in the gaps. Offense/Defense paradigm is how I evaluate debates, and will vote for the team that did the better debating unless told otherwise. Dropped args are true args, but need to be impacted out. No judge kick, make your own decisions and for the love of god start the round on time. Speaks will reflect all of these instances.

There are little predispositions that I have about debate that cannot be changed by good debating. Any endorsement of violence/racism/homophobia/transphobia is an auto-L + nuked speaker points. Ev-ethics includes shifty citational practices/ev misconstruction or clipping. All ethics challenges stop the debate with no room for continuation. In most scenarios I'm not looking at the doc, which means you should probably have a recording of the speech as proof.

I care about evidence quality far less than most judges. In most instances, substantive debating overrides bad debating with assertion of (X) piece of evidence or (X) author, however I prefer both a good combination of both. I care more about line by line, 3rd/4th level testing, and in-depth clash as opposed to just "how good evidence is". If I wanted to read evidence, I would read a book. I judge debates to see debaters debate out arguments, and reading evidence as a starting point for an RFD when not contested seems paradoxical to the activity.

I do not yell clear during C.I.A. level ear-torturing tactics. Clarity is important, and if you are unclear, the decision and speaks will reflect such. If you ask me about an argument that you "made" that didn't have the effect on a decision you thought it did, it's because you either a. did not explain it well enough to make it that way or b. it was absolutely incoherent and I did not hear or understand it.

LD Specific: Do what you want, everything else applies from above applies.

2. Random/Misc:

Good Speaks Guide: Please do not delay the round/lallygag around, be excessively rude to your opponents, or endorses/argue for any isms. If you start the round on time, set up the email chain before I get into the room, and be generally funny/charismatic, you will get good speaks.

Song Challenge: I usually start speaks at 28.5 and move up/down depending on performance. On a softer note, I usually will listen to music while I write my RFD. Most times, I already have decided a winner after the 2AR has ended, but I always go over my flow/notes one last time before I write or submit my ballot. I love listening to new music, and I listen to every genre imaginable. That being said, I love to hear the tunes y'all have been jamming to recently. To encourage such behavior, debaters have an opportunity to garner extra speaks based on their music suggestions. Each team is allowed to give me one song to listen to while I write my RFD. It cannot be a song I've heard before. If I like the song, you will receive a +.1 to your speaker points. If I don't like it, you won't receive any extra, but I also won't redact any from your original score.

Advice/Help: If you are from LAMDL, debate for a UDL or public school without coaching, I'm willing to help with advice or questions y'all may have.

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell. if your opponent indicates you are going too fast for them, you should adjust. i am comfortable with debaters "slow"ing their opponents speech in good faith to increase the value of the debate. i prefer a negative strategy constructed of fewer, robustly developed positions to one with many under-developed ones.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

8 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• take seriously my role as a classroom teacher - will be comfortable giving decisions like "i was uncomfortable voting for ___ even though it was technically won" - the blank could be filled with skepticism, death good, etc. - i find it difficult to imagine that i would ever vote for a model of debate that said kritiks should wholesale be rejected

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

The following practices will significantly lower your speaker points in front of me:

• any argument that i should evaluate the debate prior to the end of the 2ar

• flow clarification questions

• spreading or otherwise engaging in circuit norms that exclude less-experienced debaters from meaningfully participating in the debate round
• reading through theory/topicality blocks at high speeds
• mis-citing a piece of evidence by only reading one name on a piece with two authors, shortening a last name, etc.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR/econ heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (i will not vote for shells where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Hi, I'm Max, I'm a third year out who did LD for 3 years. Won the TOC and a couple of other tournaments, read predominately policy arguments but dabbled a bit in critical international relations theory, settler colonialism, and ethical philosophy.

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

Paradigm:

Add me to the chain, maxvperin@icloud.com

-- Debate is a game (not sure why this is a controversial take in an activity with rules where we compete to win and have fun) – it’s a really fun game that can teach us lots of cool things, but don’t take it too seriously/please be nice in round/have basic human decency

Big fan of strategies that:

-- Spend most of the NC on impact turns

-- Use advantage counterplans and smart case presses to punish bad affs

-- Use long, good evidence

-- Don’t rely on the other debater dropping/mishandling arguments

Strongly dislike strategies that:

-- Are designed to avoid clash

-- Allow you to read off a script during a rebuttal

-- Try to explain all society/history/IR/etc. with a theory from the depths of god knows where in academia

-- Ask for 30 speaks (you will receive a 25)

Might vote you down for/won’t vote for strategies that:

-- Ad hom other debaters/force me to evaluate out of round events (exception is disclosure)

-- Say racism/sexism/other isms good (will def vote you down for this one)

Other things to know:

-- I find clash and especially fairness standards in T Framework to be extremely compelling, and if debated equally I lean heavily negative in clash debates. On a truth level, fairness is clearly an impact, though it's often a bit tricky to explain why in a manner that's not tautological, so I'll be impressed by 2nrs that give that explanation persuasively

-- That said, while I'd recommend reading a topical plan, you certainly don't have to read a big stick policy aff - I think that well constructed topical K affs that materially solve for some instance of a structural impact through a plan and leverage a critical theory of power to do impact calculus and attack the internal links of disads and counterplans are extremely cool.

-- When reading a kritik against a policy aff, case defense and predictions Ks are your friend. It's extremely difficult to win a framework argument that excludes the advantage or a reason a high probability extinction impact doesn't outweigh, and "reee ontology and the ROTB means the aff disappears" certainly won't cut it on either of those fronts. Instead, you should attack the parts of the aff that are most vulnerable, i.e. the shitty internal links.

-- Behind nuclear strategy and IR theory, I think formal logic is one of the coolest areas of study/literature that can be used in debate. However, I also hate bastardization of it. Tricks debaters, do with that information as you will.

-- I think that a lot of popular theory and non-topic specific topicality arguments (condo, nebel, etc.) are fairly obviously bad arguments, and gain strategic value almost exclusively from the fact that they exploit the time structure in LD very effectively. Because of that, I'll be very sympathetic towards the debater answering theory in most of these situations.

- On the topic of silly arguments, psychological theories that have been rejected by 99% of psychologists and readings of history that have been rejected by 99% of historians are probably silly – there’s a reason they exist in debate, English departments, and nowhere else

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I clear you, be clear.

Assistant Coach for Immaculate Heart

Speech Drop > email chain but if you must: passionfruit11905@gmail.com

Policy

CP competition cards need to be in the 1nc

Zero risk is not a thing

Ks
Not very familiar with most K literature so don’t assume I know anything

Fairness is important and I am often persuaded by a case outweighs 2ar

Link walls and framework interpretations need to be in the 1nc— links should also be very specific to the affirmative

The words "post" and "pre" fiat are meaningless to me

Phil

I find it hard it vote for aprioris, paradoxes, etc. unless you have won truth testing, but truthfully I find it hard to vote for those arguments at all. Unsure as to why I find myself judging tricks debates and would prefer not to judge them

I have a strong distaste for analytically justified frameworks — I will hear out your phil AC/NC (I do enjoy philosophy debate), just please read cards

Theory

The more frivolous the shell, the lower the threshold for response

I'm not a fan of Nebel T, impacts that have to do with "novice inclusion" and nit-picky disclosure arguments. I do not feel confident in my ability to evaluate frivolous theory debates and would prefer not to judge them

K Affs & T FW

Neg leaning in these debates, fairness is the best impact

I am unfamiliar with k v k debate

Random

Read offensive re-highlightings, insert defensive ones. Link walls should never be inserted

I flow cx, it's binding

Flow clarification happens during prep/cx

If you are reading an ev ethics violation/clipping stake the round on it and have proof/a recording. Don't read this as a theory argument.

LD: please add my email AND breakdocs@googlegroups.com. please do not add me to a speechdrop. read this section and the must reads.

i have argumentative preferences I have attempted to list below. however, i will not let these affect the result of the round. my main caveat is if the argument doesn't exist in policy, you will probably need to explain it. this includes strange acronyms and phrases that seem to only exist in LD like "does x trigger y". stop asking for marked copies and a million questions about which cards were and weren't read. these are CX or prep questions.

carving out exceptions to technical evaluation is very arbitrary. the only exceptions i have is if a debater wants to stop the round, i think the safety of debaters is at risk, and giving you speaker points just because you asked. no judge is a true blank slate. i will subconsciously use my understanding of arguments and norms to inform my decision, but try my best to check it back.i have rarely been offended by arguments other than LD norms that hinge on the kindness of their opponents showing them their entire hand. judge instruction is paramount. if an argument is new, you must flag it as such and explain why i should not evaluate it. the only exception is the 2ar, where the other debater cannot do so.

i am not perfect. i flow straight down. i have missed arguments before, but would say i flow about 80-90% of most arguments, but certainly paraphrased. to incentivize better communication,i no longer flow off the doc. i will glance at the cards to make sure you're not clipping, but not copy paste. this means if you have complex perm texts, short shells, a slew of tiny cards, or similar, you definitely need to make sure to signpost/slow down/be very clear. if i miss something or just don't understand it, i have no qualms telling you "i didn't get that". this also applies for things referenced in later speeches - if you say "the usfg should...customary international law...ban...unclos" and i couldn't flow even the gist of the counterplan because you sounded like you were in an underwater helicopter, i don't know what to tell you.

Tech--x--------Truth

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

Phil-------x---No

Theory--------x--Substance

Disclose------x----Unverifiable

Tricks----------x-Literally anything else

GCB+30 speaks---------x-Please stop

More NC arguments/cards--x--------New in the NR

the neg is getting away with murder----x------teams should be better at being aff

policy: read below.

i am semi-involved, but haven't extensively cut cards on IP. i did not judge at camp, but have judged ~20 rounds and 10 practice debates on this topic. a detailed judging record (including arguments read) is here, poached from David McDermott.

must reads:

1. joe, not judge. i'm not that old. yes, email chain. joerhee779@gmail.com
2. email subject should be include tournament, round, teams, and codes. ex: 2021 TOC - Round 4 - Mitty AP (Aff) vs Little Rock GR (Neg)
3. safety and integrity are prior. do not touch each other, me, or anyone's property, say slurs, misgender, etc. outside help is prohibited. each debater must give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal, unless there's a maverick situation that has been pre-approved. speech times are non-negotiable. do not clip. clipping = misrepresenting evidence. if you skip a word on accident, don't worry. if you skip a sentence, several words, or even paragraphs, in more than one card, i will be less forgiving. these are an auto-L and lowest speaks possible.
4. send out the 1AC and be ready to give it at start time. deleting analytics and excessive downtime between the email being sent out will incur prep.
5. communication first. pausing for pen time, not spreading through blocks like they're cards, and being clear when reading cards is imperative. rehighlightings that explain warrants beyond the tag should be read.

me:

1. little rock central '22, vanderbilt '26. human and organizational development major, data science minor. you can ask about vandy if you want after a decision has been made or through email.
2. read basically everything in high school as a 2A and 2N. did two tournaments in college. did the toc once. broke there. qualed twice. read about 55-60% K/45-40% policy args. I research more Ks and K answers than anything else. i judge about 40% policy v. policy, 35% policy v. K, and 25% K v. K debates (adjusted for varsity debates alone). i am probably ideal for an impact turn or policy v. K debate, but am confident i can evaluate anything.
3. i agree most with Debnil Sur.

argument evaluation:

1. tech over truth. arguments must have a claim, warrant, and implication. i must be able to explain what i flowed to the other team, not agree with it. worse warrants should be (and are) easier to beat. yes, you can win death/war/warming good, no condo, racism outweighs T, fairness is an impact, etc. however, if i didn't hear/understand the argument (including clarity), i won't vote on it, so hide arguments at your own risk. explaining the importance of dropped arguments 1-3 is more important than extending dropped argument 4. if i can't resolve the debate using tech alone, something has gone horribly wrong.
2. i will not judge personal character. i lack the resources and willpower to discuss debaters' personal lives. barring a debater saying we ought to openly hate entire groups of people online on a publicly accessible website (screenshots are not evidence), i am unwilling to vote on minors' actions. if someone says something that could be problematic, i will likely correct it after the fact, not drop the debater. you are free to make this a link argument or voting issue, but i will evaluate it like any other argument.
3. evidence quality matters and is under-debated. a good analytic can beat a bad card, but no cards decreases the chance of a win. evidence comparison is underutilized, but if no one mentions it in the debate, i will not make it part of my decision, nor insert my personal opinion on the evidence unless someone only says "read it after the round" .
4. i am very expressive. if i don't like an argument, it will show, but i have still voted for teams i made faces at.
5. debaters work hard, so i will not give a lazy decision. if you disagree post-round, please explain why and i will walk through my reasoning with you.

specific arguments:

1. Ks: framework is important, and i will only vote on an interp introduced in the debate. i do miss when debaters went for other tricks than the fiat K like link turns case or impact calc, but i'll evaluate the flow technically. in K v. K debates, unsure why framework and impact calculus suddenly disappears and why "no perms in a method debate" is a truism.
2. K affs: vs. T, choose either a counter interp or impact turn strategy. i am ok with fairness, clash, or education when actually explained. TVAs are usually meh unless the aff is close to the topic. SSD is slightly better but may link to DAs. impact turns like heg/cap/state good are fine. i vote aff when the neg drops DAs to T or can't explain their impact. i vote neg when the aff drops tricks like the ballot pik or subjectivity defense.
3. T: offense-defense. reasonability doesn't make sense without a counter-interp. thoughts on theory are essentially the same, except that because they lack evidence, most claims like aff and neg bias are usually unwarranted.
4. CPs: a. solvency deficits must be real, otherwise write a better aff. b. most theory objections would be better phrased as competition, though i'm 50/50 on the legitimacy of most counterplans. c. i've heard enough competition debates to know what's happening. d. not sure why people aren't reading more advantage counterplans.
5. DAs/case: many DAs and affs are fake, especially the internal link. presumption/zero risk is possible, but is a high bar. 2As - during the 2AC please actually explain line-by-line warrants. half the time it is incomprehensible. 2Ns - exploit 2A posturing and bad evidence quality. read more than just impact d. impact and straight turns are fun, but stay organized.

speaks:

speaker point inflation is terrorism. i will use a wider range than the average judge. more stats are in the judging record linked above.

below 27.0 - reserved for ethics violations.

27.0 - 0.0 percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.5 - 17th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28.0 - 33rd percentile speaker at the tournament.

28.5 - 50th percentile speaker at the tournament.

29.0 - 67th percentile speaker at the tournament.

29.5 - 83rd percentile speaker at the tournament.

30 - 100th percentile speaker at the tournament.

this is the baseline based on speeches. how to get higher or lower:

1. good CX. "tag team" cx is fine, but if one debater is taking every question, speaks will suffer. don't ask a bunch of questions like "what cards did you read" or "can you explain the aff". hard limit is 2 before speaks start dropping.

2. humor, kindness, and demeanor. don't have to be nice all the time because i get debate's competitive and tensions are high, but making a good joke, being generally respectful to others and making debate a better place are all great.

My email is taj@unitingthecrowns.com

2023 NDT Champion

2023 CEDA Champion

I used to read plans and afropess. I used to do LD in high school.

The Black Chorus Sings

I coach at American Heritage and have been coaching privately for 6 years now. My email for speech docs is: Stevescopa23@gmail.com.

General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.

- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such.

Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced.

T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. Otherwise should be fine.

T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times.

Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and warren. The more specific the links the better.

Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.

Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.

Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:

1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well

6) Successfully going for an RVI

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time - win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

debatesheff@gmail.com

If policy ALSO add lcandersoncx@gmail.com

If LD ALSO add breakdocs@googlegroups.com

Policy debater at the University of Houston '26

Coach for Seven Lakes HS, LC Anderson WS, and Break Debate

Basics

1. I flow top down on an excel template and do not have the document opened during speeches. I will read evidence while making my decision, but my decision lay solely in the words the debaters use on my flow. I will email debaters a copy of my flow if requested.

2. I am deaf in my left ear which makes clarity very important. If I cannot hear every work in the card text, then I will say clear. If I say clear twice and nothing changes, I will stop flowing.

3. I do not like wasting time in debates. 1AC should be sent before start time. You must use either prep or cross if you seek to ask flow clarification questions.

4. Don’t misgender people.

5. Tech over truth, but dropped arguments are only as good as the dropped argument itself. I have a higher threshold for a warrant than most i.e. If someone makes the argument “Severance is a voting issue pink fuzzy monster”, I will not vote on the argument because there is not a warrant attached to the claim that makes logical sense.

6. The people who receive the highest speaks from me are the people who do good judge instruction, clean line by line, smart strategic decisions, and are generally pleasant in round. My speaks start at 28.5. If you want an easy 27.5, answer a position that was not read in the 1NC.

7. when debating an opponent of low experience,i will heavily reward giving younger debaters the dignity of a real debate they can still participate in(i.e: slower, fewer off, more forthcoming in CX). if you believe the best strategy against a novice/lay debater is extending hidden aspec,i will assume you are too bad at debate to beat a novice without hidden aspec, and speaks will reflect that. these debates are negatively educational and extremely annoying. (Thanks Pat)

8. not adjudicating the character of minors I don’t know regarding things I didn’t see.

9. I have been most influenced in the way I think about debate by the following people: Michael Wimsatt, Patrick Fox, Sripad Yadagiri, and Brett Cryan.

Details:

The burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder

Most of my expirence debating is in policy and I have equally gone for planless affirmatives and framework Ks as I have plan affs and process counterplans. This means for LD that I am not great for a lot of detailed phil debates outside of Kant v. Util, in depth theory debating, or moral skepticism.

Evidence-

Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

I normally read the important pieces of evidence that the 2NR/2AR tell me to read while making my decisions. I really enjoy quality evidence that looks good and makes the argument you tell me it does. However, as stated above, this does not make up for evidence comparison.

Counterplans-

I default judge kick unless argued otherwise. I am firmly neg on condo and thus have an extremely low bar for answering it. If the negative somehow messes up condo it can still be a 2AR.

I lean neg on most questions of counterplan theory outside of I-fiat, private actor fiat, and multi actor fiat. However, I feel like all these arguments are better made as competition arguments rather than theory arguments.

Equally fine for text and function vs just function. Textual alone doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

I love quality advantage counterplan writing. Most affs do not have a plan-key warrant in 90% of their scenarios, and negative debaters should exploit this fact far more than they are currently doing.

Disadvantages-

Please stop putting together slop and calling it a DA. I think 1NCs can sacrifice their throwaway DA that they will never go for in favor of more cards on their good DAs.

2NRs need more big turns case pushes on both the impact and link level. 2NRs also need more time on the comparative level of internal link and impact scenarios. Simply saying the DA is faster than the aff does not mean anything absent judge instruction tied to why that matters.

Kritiks-

I am unsure of what the words role of the judge/role of the ballot means outside of framework justifications. I am best for delete the plan and plan focus.

I am not great for performance teams. I am good for more “techy” teams that read good evidence.

Policy Aff v. K

Aff: Talk about the aff more, read less generic cards, No you probably didn’t do a microagression, Go for what the aff is built to defend, the more defensively you debate the more likely the negative will get a link.

Neg: Talk about the aff more, read less generic cards, no the aff probably didn’t do a microagression, Apply the theory of power more, det rid of the overview and do line by line.

K v. K

I go for Maoism 99% of the time when I negate K teams. I think K teams are bad at responding to the Cap K and people should be far more comfortable going for it.

Aff: Apply the theory of power to explain the links, make framework arguments, read better cards, explain the net benefit to the permutation

Neg: Do the theory of power debating on the link debate and delete your overview, pull more lines from the aff, explain how the alt solve the links, explain why the links are DAs to the permuations.

Planless affirmative v. topicality

Aff: Biggest problem aff teams have is lack of picking a strategy and instead just trying to throw everything at the wall and hope it sticks. You should delete the fluff from the 1AR and over develop the strategy you want to go for in the 2AR.

Neg: Fairness is good, do the explanation of why fairness matters/outweighs, better for carded skills than whatever clash means. I think of T as a DA to not reading a plan, explain it that way.

elijahjdsmith AT gmail.com

March 25 Update:

The number of parent judges at octos bids, RR's, and the TOC is getting out hand. I don't mind someone who has been judging as much as their kid has been debating for 2 years in the back of the room. That person is experienced. Someone who judged at your season opener or semis bid in October and then popped up at the TOC is crossing the line.

I will judge you like the best judge you brought to the tournament. If you are bringing unqualified judges to Octos bids and post-season RR's and tournaments be prepared for a traditional NSDA judge.

I like judging debates where students rise to the occasion. Who doesn’t? I also respect debaters who are polite but confident in their ability to win. You can press the other team, but let’s be mature about it.

The passive-aggressive way debaters hold their phone timer up or tell me that their opponent went 3-4 seconds "over" time is something I’m not a fan of. I’m also not a fan of the correction of prep time by 1-2 seconds—“you actually used 25, not 23 seconds.” The constant tension of “are they stealing prep?” in every interaction makes debate so awful. I promise that 2 seconds didn’t lose you the debate. No judge has ever said, “Jeez, I was gonna vote for you, but that half-sentence at the timer was just so well-developed I can’t.” Just win.

I understand that not every debate is going to be the national Finals. Act like you’re here to get to finals. Give 100% every round. I’ve written dozens of long paradigms that students ignore. This is really my one inflexible requirement across events. We spend too much time doing this to just participate. Compete.

Fewer arguments and one excellent card with a slow conversation are better than 50 bad cards. I won’t reconstruct debates to find answers. I prefer a structured NSDA 2AR to a blitz of random stuff.

You can ask questions after a debate. If you’re asking why I didn’t vote on the thing you spent 3 seconds of your speech on, you’ve answered your own question. My RFD will be less about the line-by-line and more about what you can do or know next time.

Policy, PF, LD thoughts below

Policy

condo after 4 off

explaining the function of cards in the 2AC is the best way to get ahead of the block and to make your card dump seem responsive.

yes, process cp but need a lot of explanation.

K 2NC- don't rant. Structure, warrants for turns case, line by line.

education>fair but i've voted on both.

reasons and warrants.

LD

-complete arguments.
-will give a 27 for being unclear. do speaking drills before the round. slow down.
-condo can be bad after the 3rd off.
-good policy + K is great
-traditional is great

-basic phil is fine.

-if you call your argument a trick it is nonsense. 20 speaks

education > fairness but i've voted on both.

PF debate:

For camp/Fall 25, if I am in a PF judge pool, I'll evaluate whatever you present based on my judging preferences above. I started the 2024 school year with back to back teams spamming policy backfiles they didn't understand and attempting to spread (despite never having done so) because I was judging. Please don't do that. Do what you do with the materials you know well.

Please only read carded evidence.

Any evidence you plan to read in a debate I'm judging should be sent before the speech. If I want to verify that your evidence exists, I will look at it. I will reduce your speaker points if you don't do this.

Hi, I'm Allyson Spurlock (people also call me Bunny)

She/Her

allysonspurlock22@gmail.com

I did policy debate for 4 years at CK McClatchy High School in Sacramento, CA where I qualified to the TOC three times and was a Quarterfinalist. I currently coach LD for Harker.

I will diligently flow the debate, read the relevant evidence flagged by the final rebuttals, and assign relative weight to arguments (which originate completely/clearly from the constructives) in accordance with depth of explanation, explicit response to refutations, and instruction in how I should evaluate them.

I have few non-obvious preferences or opinions (obviously, be a respectful and kind person, read qualified/well-cut + highlighted evidence, make smart strategic choices, etc).

I have thought a lot about both critical and policy arguments and honestly do not think you should pref me a certain way because of the kinds of arguments you make (HOW you make them is pretty much all I care about). Judge instruction is paramount; tell me how to read evidence, frame warrants, compare impacts, etc.

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, but your speeches need to do the work of extending/applying specific warrants. Condo is probably good, but many CPs I think can be won are theoretically illegitimate/easily go away with smart perms. Debating the risks of internal links of Advs and DAs is much more useful than reading generic impact defense.

Framework debates:

Different approaches (on both sides) are all fine, as long as you answer the important questions. Does debate change our subjectivity? What is the role of negation and rejoinder? What does the ballot do? Fairness can be an impact but the 2NR still needs to do good impact calculus/comparison.

Policy Aff v K:

FW debates are often frustratingly unresolved; the final rebuttal should synthesize arguments and explain their implications. Because of this, it is often a cleaner ballot for the 2NR to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without winning framework. 2ACs should spend more time on the alt; most are bad and it is very important to decisively win that the Neg cannot access your offense.

Misc:

+0.2 speaker points if you don't ask for a marked doc after the speech

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its a LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus it makes a a majority of my decisions. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech. Collapsing is important in the summary and final focus. Yes you can go fast if you are clear. I am open to theory and kritical argumentation - just ensure you are clearly warranting everything.

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

Pronouns: she/her

Yes, put me on the chain: jasminestidham@gmail.com

Please let me know if there are any accessibility requirements before the round so I can do my part.

JKS

I coach full-time at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. Previously, I coached at Dartmouth for five years from 2018-2023. I debated at the University of Central Oklahoma for four years and graduated in 2018. I also used to coach at Harvard-Westlake, Kinkaid, and Heritage Hall.

LD skip down to the bottom.

High school policy debate 2024-25

I am not actively coaching a high school policy team this year. This means you can truly treat me as a blank slate when it comes to IPR. I have zero predispositions or biases. I don't know your acronyms or the community consensus on certain issues. I did coach at Dartmouth on the college antitrust topic, so I am somewhat familiar with that topic area.

January 2024 Update -- College

The state of wikis for most college teams is atrocious this year. The amount of wikis that have nothing or very little posted is bonkers. I don't know who needs to hear this, but please go update your wiki. If you benefit from other teams posting their docs/cites (you know you do), then return the favor by doing the same. It's not hard. This grumpiness does not apply to novice and JV teams.

At the CSULB tournament, I will reward teams with an extra .1 speaker point boost if you tell me to look at your wiki after the round and it looks mostly complete. I will not penalize any team for having a bad wiki (you do you), but will modestly reward teams who take the time to do their part for a communal good.

Tldr; Flexibility

No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. I have coached strictly policy teams, strictly K teams, and everything in between because I love all aspects of the game. I would be profoundly bored if I only judged certain teams or arguments. At most tournaments I find myself judging a little bit of everything: a round where the 1NC is 10 off and the letter 'K' is never mentioned, a round where the affirmative does not read a plan and the neg suggests they should, a round where the neg impact turns everything under the sun, a round where the affirmative offers a robust defense of hegemony vs a critique, etc. I enjoy judging a variety of teams with different approaches to the topic.

Debate should be fun and you should debate in the way that makes it valuable for you, not me.

My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application.

If I had to choose another judge I mostly closely identify with, it would be John Cameron Turner but without the legal pads.

I don't mind being post-rounded or answering a lot of questions. I did plenty of post-rounding as a debater and I recognize it doesn't always stem from anger or disrespect. That being said, don't be a butthead. I appreciate passionate debaters who care about their arguments and I am always willing to meet you halfway in the RFD.

I am excited to judge your debate. Even if I look tired or grumpy, I promise I care a lot and will always work hard to evaluate your arguments fairly and help you improve.

What really matters to me

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, probably more than other judges. Stop reading cards that don't have a complete sentence and get off my lawn. I can't emphasize enough how much I care about evidence comparison. This includes author quals, context, recency, (re)highlighting, data/statistics, concrete examples, empirics, etc. You are better off taking a 'less is more' approach when debating in front of me. For example, I much rather see you read five, high quality uniqueness cards that have actual warrants highlighted than ten 'just okay' cards that sound like word salad.

This also applies to your overall strategies. For example, I am growing increasingly annoyed at teams who try to proliferate as many incomplete arguments as possible in the 1NC. If your strategy is to read 5 disads in the 1NC that are missing uniqueness or internal links, I will give the aff almost infinite leeway in the 1AR to answer your inevitable sandbagging. I would much rather see well-highlighted, complete positions than the poor excuse of neg arguments that I'm seeing lately. To be clear, I am totally down with 'big 1NCs' -- but I get a little annoyed when teams proliferate incomplete positions.

Case debate matters oh so much to me. Please, please debate the case, like a lot. It does not matter what kind of round it is -- I want to see detailed, in-depth case debate. A 2NC that is just case? Be still, my heart. Your speaker points will get a significant boost if you dedicate significant time to debating the case in the neg block. By "debating the case" I do not mean just reading a wall of cards and calling it a day -- that's not case debate, it's just reading.

I expect you to treat your partner and opponents with basic respect. This is non-negotiable. Some of y'all genuinely need to chill out. You can generate ethos without treating your opponents like your mortal enemy. Pettiness, sarcasm, and humor are all appreciated, but recognize there is a line and you shouldn't cross it. Punching down is cringe behavior. You should never, ever make any jokes about someone else's appearance or how they sound.

Impact framing and judge instruction will get you far. In nearly every RFD I give, I heavily emphasize judge instruction and often vote for the team who does superior judge instruction because I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible.

Cowardice is annoying. Stop running away from debate. Don't shy away from controversy just because you don't like linking to things. This also applies to shady disclosure practices. If you don't like defending your arguments, or explaining what your argument actually means, please consider joining the marching band. Be clear and direct.

Plan texts matter. Most plan texts nowadays are written in a way that avoids clash and specificity. Affirmative teams should know that I am not going to give you much leeway when it comes to recharacterizing what the plan text actually means. If the plan says virtually nothing because you're scared of linking to negative arguments, just know that I will hold you to the words in the plan and won't automatically grant the most generous interpretation. You do not get infinite spin here. Ideally, the affirmative will read a plan text that accurately reflects a specific solvency advocate.

I am not a fan of extreme or reductionist characterizations of different approaches to debate. For example, it will be difficult to persuade me that all policy arguments are evil, worthless, or violent. Critical teams should not go for 'policy debate=Karl Rove' because this is simply a bad, reductionist argument. On the flip side, it would be unpersuasive to argue that all critiques are stupid or meaningless.

I appreciate and reward teams who make an effort to adapt.Unlike many judges, I am always open to being persuaded and am willing to change my mind. I am rigid about certain things, but am movable on many issues. This usually just requires meeting me in the middle; if you adapt to me in some way, I will make a reciprocal effort.

Online debate

Camera policy: I strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but there are valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Tech glitches: it is your responsibility to record your speeches as a failsafe. I encourage you to record your speeches on your phone/laptop in the event of a tech glitch. If a glitch happens, we will try to resolve it as quickly as possible, and I will follow the tournament's guidelines.

Slow down a bit in the era of e-sports debate. I'll reward you for it with points. No, you don't have to speak at a turtle's pace, but maybe we don't need to read 10-off?

Miscellaneous specifics

I care more about solvency advocates than most judges. This does not mean I automatically vote against a counterplan without a solvency advocate. Rather, this is a 'heads up' for neg teams so they're aware that I am generally persuaded by affirmative arguments in this area. It would behoove neg teams to read a solvency advocate of some kind, even if it's just a recutting of affirmative evidence.

I will only judge kick if told to do so, assuming the aff hasn't made any theoretical objections.

I am not interested in judging or evaluating call-outs, or adjacent arguments of this variety. I care deeply about safety and inclusion in this activity and I will do everything I can to support you. But, I do not believe that a round should be staked on these issues and I am not comfortable giving any judge that kind of power.

Please do not waste your breath asking for a 30. I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen.

Generally speaking, profanity should be avoided. In most cases, it does not make your arguments or performance more persuasive. Excessive profanity is extremely annoying and may result in lower speaks. If you are in high school, I absolutely do not want to hear you swear in your speeches. I am an adult, and you are a teenager -- I know it feels like you're having a big ethos moment when you drop an F-bomb in the 2NC but I promise it is just awkward/cringe.

Evidence ethics

If you clip, you will lose the round and receive 0 speaker points. I will vote against you for clipping EVEN IF the other team does not call you on it. I know what clipping is and feel 100% comfortable calling it. Mark your cards and have a marked copy available.

If you cite or cut a card improperly, I evaluate these issues on a sliding scale. For example, a novice accidentally reading a card that doesn't have a complete citation is obviously different from a senior varsity debater cutting a card in the middle of a sentence or paragraph. Unethical evidence practices can be reasons to reject the team and/or a reason to reject the evidence itself, depending on the unique situation.

At the college level, I expect ya'll to handle these issues like adults. If you make an evidence ethics accusation, I am going to ask if you want to stop the round to proceed with the challenge.

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

LD Specific

Updated November 2024 before GBX to reflect a few changes.

Conflicts: Harvard-Westlake (assistant director of debate 2018-2022), and Strake Jesuit (current affiliation).

My background is in policy debate, but I am fluent in LD. I co-direct NSD Flagship and follow LD topics as they evolve. I am a hired gun for Strake Jesuit.

If you are asking questions about what was read or skipped in the speechdoc, that counts as CX time. If you are simply asking where a specific card was marked, that is okay and does not count as CX time. If you want your opponent to send out a speechdoc that includes only the things they read, that counts as your CX time or prep time -- it is your responsibility to flow.

You need to be on time. I cannot stress this enough. LDers consistently run late and it drives me bonkers. Your speaks will be impacted if you are excessively late without a reasonable excuse.

I realize my LD paradigm sounds a little grumpy. I am only grumpy about certain arguments/styles, such as frivolous theory. I do my best to not come off as a policy elitist because I do genuinely enjoy LD and am excited to judge your debate.

FAQ:

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments like I am with tricks. I do not judge many phil debates because most of the time tricks are involved, but I don't have anything against philosophical positions. I would be happy to judge a good phil debate. You may need to do some policy translation so I understand exactly what you're saying. I've gotten a lot more fluent in phil recently and truly don't have anything against it.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: No, you shouldn't. He's a very nice and smart guy, but cutting evidence from debate blogs is such a meme. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles and you'll be fine. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. To be clear, you can read T:whole rez in front of me, just not Nebel blog cards.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'new affs bad,' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. Can you throw them in the 1NC/1AR? Sure, that's fine. Will I be persuaded by new affs bad? No.

Q: Will you ever vote for an RVI?

A: Nope. Never. I don't flow them.

Q: Will you vote for any theory arguments?

A: Of course. I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

Q: Will you vote for Ks?

A: Of course. Love em.


Any other questions can be asked before the round or email me.

swicklespencer@gmail.com

Won the toc, harvard, yale, and a few other tournaments

- Arguments must have a claim, warrant, and implication. "condo is a voter bc skew" is not that

- Certain arguments violate my role as a judge. i will not vote on eval or "neg doesn't get arguments" even if conceded

- I enjoy good policy vs k debates.

- I like process cps, T, and impact turns. aside from that, pretty inexperienced with policy

- Theory is fun and i don't really have a bar for frivolous, but the more silly the shell the less strategic it is for you

- I like philosophical tricks ie contingent standards, but i really hate theoretical tricks ie "if i win one layer, vote aff"

- 30 speaks theory, "did you read this", and not looking up from a doc for 6 mins = 28.5 speaks max

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

Affiliation: Marlborough (CA), Apple Valley (MN)

Past: Peninsula (CA), Lexington (MA)

Email: ctheis09@gmail.com — but I prefer to use speechdrop.net

Big Picture

I like substantive and engaging debates focused on the topic's core controversies. While I greatly appreciate creative strategy, I prefer deeply warranted arguments backed by solid evidence to absurd arguments made for purely tactical reasons.

I find the tech or truth construction to be reductive — both matter. I will try to evaluate claims through a more-or-less Bayesian lens. This means my knowledge of the world establishes a baseline for the plausibility of claims, and those priors are updated by the arguments made in a debate. This doesn’t mean I’ll intervene based on my preexisting beliefs; instead, it will take much more to win that 2+2=5 than to prove that grass is green.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" — Carl Sagan

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" — Christopher Hitchens

Default Paradigm

I default to viewing resolutions as normative statements that divide ground, but I’m open to arguments in favor of alternative paradigms. In general, I believe the affirmative should defend a topical policy action that's a shift from the status quo. The negative burden is generally to defend the desirability of the status quo or competitive advocacy.

Affirmatives should advocate a clearly delineated plan or advocacy, which can be the resolution itself. The aff's advocacy text is the basis for negative competition and links, and as such, it must contain any information the aff feels is relevant to those discussions. Affs cannot refuse to specify or answer questions regarding elements of their advocacy and then later make permutations or no-link arguments that depend on those elements. "Normal means" claims can be an exception but require evidence that the feature in question is assumed. Proof that some possible version of the aff could include such a feature is insufficient. Refusal to answer direct questions about a particular element of the advocacy will likely take "normal means" claims off the table.

I prefer policy/stock arguments, but I’m certainly open to critical or philosophical positions and vote for them often.

If you refer to your arguments as “tricks,” it’s a good sign that I’m not the best judge for you. Debaters should, whenever possible, advance the best arguments at their disposal. Calling your argument a "trick" implies its value lies in surprise or deception, not quality.

Note: an odd topic construction could alter these priors, but I'll do my best to make that known here if that's the case.

Topicality

Generally, affirmatives should be topical. I have and will vote for non-topical positions, but the burden is on the aff to justify why the topicality constraint shouldn't apply to them.

Topicality is a question of whether the features of the plan/advocacy itself being a good idea proves the resolution. This means I will look unfavorably on a position that is effects topical, extra-topical, or related to the topic but doesn't in and of itself prove the resolution.

In topicality debates, both semantics and pragmatic justifications are essential. However, interpretations must be "semantically eligible" before I evaluate pragmatic advantages. Pragmatic advantages are relevant in deciding between plausible interpretations of the words in the resolution; pragmatics can't make those words mean something they don't. I will err aff if topicality is a close call.

Theory Defaults

Disclosure is good.

Conditionality is good.

Default to judge kick.

No inserting evidence. Re-highlights should be read aloud.

Kritiks

I am open to Ks and vote on them frequently. That said, I’m not intimately familiar with every critical literature base. So, clear explanation, framing, and argument interaction are essential. Likewise, the more material your impacts and alternative are, the better. Again, the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof. It will take more to convince me of the strongest claims of psychoanalysis than that capitalism results in exploitation.

Establishing clear links that generate offense is necessary. Too often, Ks try to turn fundamentally defensive claims into offense via jargon and obfuscation. A claim that the aff can’t or doesn't solve some impact is not necessarily a claim the aff is a bad idea.

It's essential that I understand the alternative and how it resolves the harms of the Kritik. I won't vote for an advocacy that I can't confidently articulate.

Arguments I will not vote for

An argument that has no normative implications, except in situations where the debater develops and wins an argument that changes my default assumptions.

Skep.

A strategy that purposely attempts to wash the debate to trigger permissibility/presumption.

A contingent framework/advocacy that is "triggered" in a later speech.

Any argument that asks me to evaluate the debate after a speech that isn't the 2AR.

Arguments/Practices I will immediately drop you for

Mis-disclosing/disclosure games. I believe a few emerging practices cross the line into mis-disclosure and intentional deception, they will result in a loss:

• Hiding/adding theory arguments or tricks in the constructive without including them in the doc that's disclosed pre-round and/or the doc sent out in the debate. This is intentional deception.
• Disclosing AC cards that you don't intend to read. It's intentional deception that sucks up prep time and skews NC strategy. It's understandable if it's a card or two, but I routinely see debaters disclosing 10+ cards they don't read.

Clipping. (There is an emerging practice of including long descriptive tags in the docs sent out during debates but only reading truncated versions. I consider this clipping adjacent. By sending analytics, you're representing that they were read in the round.)

Any argument that concludes that every action is permissible.

Any argument that creates a hostile environment for either myself, the other debater, or anyone watching the debate.

Any argument that explicitly argues that something we all agree is awful (genocide, rape, etc.) is a good thing. This must be an argument THAT THE DEBATER AGREES implies horrible things are ok. If the other debater wins an argument that your framework justifies something terrible, but it is contested, then it may count as a reason not to accept your framework, but it will not be a reason to drop you on its own.

Public Forum

I only judge PF a few times a year, mostly at camp. Arguments are arguments regardless of the format, so most of my typical paradigm applies. The big caveat is that I strongly prefer teams read actual cards instead of paraphrasing evidence. I understand that there are differences of opinion, so I won't discount paraphrasing entirely, but I'll have a lower bar for indicts. Also, I'm not reading ten full articles at the end of the debate, so I'd appreciate it if you could prepare the paraphrased portions in advance.

email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Framework > Theory > Tricks > K > LARP > Bad Tricks

Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm before round. The line above just indicates my preferences for type of round and my approximate knowledge area.

- Don't say "We"

- Do NOT say "Is anyone not ready" it annoys me greatly please just ask if everyone is ready and wait for positive confirmation

- Time yourselves

- No "Eval After"

- Arguments must have a warrant when read, concession does not constitute a warrant on its own without a warrant being extended.

- Conceded arguments must still be explicitly extended, the extension can be fast and I am lenient with such extensions for the 1AR and 2AR.

- Not a fan of hiding tricks.

- No arguments for more speaker points. Earn the speaks with efficient and quality arguments.

- Don't expect me to know or utilize any policy norms, e.g. "judge kick"

*Updated November 2023*

CONTACT INFORMATION

Email: thurt11@gmail.com

LD NOTE

I've been in debate for fifteen years as a competitor, judge, and coach. In that time, I've almost exclusively done policy debate (I think I've judged <10 LD rounds ever). That's to say, judging LD at the Glenbrooks will be a bit different for me.

I don't think you'll need to dramatically adjust how you debate. In fact, I'd prefer to judge you in your best style/approach/form. Relatedly, I don't think I'm particularly ideological, and I'm like not a bus driver or parent who has been dropped into the judge pool. That said, be aware of my still-developing topic knowledge, norms of LD, and theory. I will do my best to resolve the debate before me. That said, folks should know that I'll likely have many idiosyncracies of someone who has basically always been in policy debate.

PF NOTE

Much of what is said about LD is true here too. Some thoughts on evidence that I stole from Greg Achten:

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION

I debated for four years at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Go Packers/Brewers/Bucks! In college, I debated for four years at Michigan State University, earning three first-round bids and a semifinals appearance at the NDT.

Currently, I work on the non-debate side of Michigan State, doing education data analysis, program evaluation, and professional development. On the side, I coach for Georgetown University. I still love debate, but it is no longer my day job. Given that, I'm not a content expert on this topic like some of your other judges might be.

More generally, any given debate can get in-depth quickly, so you should be careful with acronyms/intricacies if you think that your strategy is really innovative or requires a deep understanding of your specific mechanism. Teams sometimes get so deep in the weeds researching their business that they forget to provide a basic explanation for the argument's context/history/background. Instead, they jump into the most advanced part of the topic. If something is creative, that's an issue because it's likely the judge's first time hearing it.

Everyone says it and almost no one means it, but I think that you should debate what you care about/what interests you/what you're good at doing. In other words, put me in the "big-tent" camp. All of the stuff below is too long and shouldn't impact your debating (maybe besides the meta issues section). It really is just my thoughts (vs. a standard), and is only included to offer insight into how I see debate.

META ISSUES/ABBREVIATED PHILOSOPHY/STRIKE CARD ESSENTIAL

1. Assuming equal debating (HUGE assumption), I'm *really* bad for the K on the neg/as planless aff. I find myself constantly struggling with questions in decision-time like: Does the neg ACTUALLY have a link to the plan's MECHANISM or even their SPECIFIC representations? What is the alternative? How does that advocacy change the extremely sweeping and entrenched problems identified in the 1NC/2NC impact evidence? If it's so effective, why doesn't it overcome the links to the plan? If the alt is just about scholarship/ethics/some -ology, how does that compare to material suffering outlined by the 1AC? This year, some of these biases are accentuated by the "disarm" and negative state action planks of the topic. On the affirmative, I think there are many creative ways to critically defend the idea of ending nuclear weapons (especially by the "United States" rather than the "United States federal government"). On the negative, I have hitherto been unimpressed with the Ks of "disarm" (like the ACTUAL "We end the nukes and dismantle them because they risk horrific US first use/nukes are bad" disarm) I've seen.

In the end, when I vote negative for Ks or affirmative for planless affs, it's generally because the losing team dropped a techy ballot like ethics first, serial policy failure, or "we're a PIK." Do you, don't overadapt, and feel confident that I approach every debate with the intention of deciding the question of "who did the better debating?" REGARDLESS of the subject of the debate. Relatedly, know that I'm excited to have the chance to evaluate your arguments (even if it's really late and I'd rather not be judging at all in the abstract) basically no matter what you say. Instead, I would take my above biases as things to keep an eye out for from your opponents/come up with novel responses to/overcover/etc.

2. College debate made me more oriented to tech than truth. In my experience as a debater and judge, ignorance of tech resulted in a callous dismissal of arguments as “bad” and increased judge intervention to determine what is “correct” instead of what was debated in the round and executed more effectively. That said, truth is a huge bonus, and being on the right side makes your task of being technically proficient easier because you can let logic/evidence speak a little for you.

3. I care about evidence quality - to an extent. Debate is a communicative activity, and I'm not going to re-read broad swaths of evidence to ensure that your opponents read a card on all their claims. To be clear, I do think that part of my role in judging is comparing evidence *when it's contested and through the lens with which it was challenged.* Put concretely, if your 2NR says "all their evidence is trash and doesn't say anything" or is silent on evidence comparison, I'm not gonna be doing you any favors and looking at the speech doc. I'm certainly not going to be reading un-underlined text in 1AC/1NC cards without explicit direction of what I'm looking for. Instead, if you're like "Their no prolif cards are all before Kishida and only talk about means vs. motive," I'm happy to read a pile of cards, looking to assess their quality on those two grounds. If that sounds time-consuming for your final rebuttals, it is. You should create time by condensing the debate down to the core issues/places of evidentiary disagreement.

4. Every round could use more calculus and comparisons. The most obvious example of this thesis is with impact calc, but I think there is a laundry list of other examples like considering relative risk, quality of evidence, and author qualifications. As a format, any of these comparisons should have a reason why your argument is preferable, a reason why that frame is important, and a reason why your opponent’s argument is poor/viewed through a poor lens. In the context of impact calc, this framework means saying that your impact outweighs on timeframe, that timeframe is important, and that while your opponent’s impact might have a large magnitude, I should ignore that frame of decision-making. Engaging your opponents’ arguments on a deeper level and resolving debates is the easiest way to get good points. Beyond that, making a decision is functionally comparing each team’s stance/evidence quality/technical ability on a few nexus questions, so if you’re doing this work for me you will probably like my decision a lot more.

5. I hold debaters to a high standard for making an argument. Any claim should be supported with a warrant, evidence, and impact on my decision. Use early speeches to get ahead on important questions. For instance, I won’t dismiss something like “Perm do Both,” but I think the argument would be bolstered by a reason why the perm is preferable in the 2AC (i.e. how it interacts with the net benefits) instead of saving those arguments for the 1AR/2AR. By the way, you should consider this point my way out in post-rounds where you're like "but I said X...It was right here!" For me, if something is important enough to win/lose a debate, you should spend a significant amount of time there, connect, and make sure your claim is *completely* and *thoughtfully* warranted.

6. All debates have technical mistakes, but not all technical mistakes are equal or irreversible. Given those assumptions, the best rebuttals recognize flaws and make “even if” statements/explain why losing an argument does not mean they lose the debate. I think debaters fold too often on mistakes. Just because you dropped a theory argument doesn’t mean you cannot cross-apply an argument from another theory argument, politics, or T to win.

7. I'm a bad judge for yes/no arguments like "presumption," "links to the net benefit absolutely," or "zero risk of X." I think the best debaters work in the grey areas.

8. Things people don't do enough:

a) Start with the title for their 1NC off case positions (i.e. first off states)

b) Give links labels (i.e. our "docket crowdout link" or "our bipart link")

c) Explain what their plan actually does - For instance (in college), what nuclear forces do you disarm? Who does it? What is the mechanism? I've decided that if the aff is vague to an egregious extent, I'll be super easy on the negative with DA links and CP competition. Aff vagueness is also a link to circumvention and explains why fiat doesn't solve definitional non-compliance. I will say, I'd rather lacking aff clarity (e.g. when aff's include resolutional language in their plan and say "plan text in a vacuum") be resolved by PICs/topic DAs than by T. I don't think that the negative gets to fully define the plan or have some weird positional competition vision for T even if I think 2As frequently dance around what they do. Punish affs for ambiguity and lazy plan writing for the purposes of T on substance!

d) Call out new arguments - I don't have sympathy if you *wish* you said no impact in the 2AC. There are times that I wish it existed, but there isn't and can't be a 3AC. I will say that for mostly pragmatic reasons, I'm not to the point of reviewing every new 1AR argument. I'll protect the 2NR for the 2AR, but you have to do the work before that.

9. Random (likely to change) topic thoughts:

a) Both sides are likely to get to some risk of Russia and/or China nuke war. The best 2Ns/2As will dehomogenize these impacts based on scenarios for escalation and their internal links.

b) Be careful your UQ CP doesn't overwhelm the link to your DA. Sometimes the neg goes a bit too far. I do love a good UQ CP though!

c) This is a rare topic where I'm less interested in process stuff! Who would've thought?

d) Debated equally, I'm 60/40 that we should include NFU subsets and "disarm" actions that fall short of "elimination/abolition." I get the evidence is good. I'd just abstractly rather have these arguments as affs than PICs/would prefer a bit more than the smallest topic since single payer.

GENERIC DISPOSITIONS

Planless affirmatives – The affirmative would ideally have a plan that defends action by the United States (least important). The affirmative should have a direct tie to the topic. In the context of the college resolution, this means you would have a defense of decreasing nukes/their role (pretty important). The affirmative MUST defend the implementation of said "plan" - whatever it is (MOST important). While I will NOT immediately vote negative on T or “Framework” as a procedural issue, if you don’t defend instrumental implementation of a topical plan *rooted in the resolutional question*, you will be in a tough spot. I’m especially good for T/Framework if the affirmative dodges case turns and debates over the question if nukes are good or bad. In particular, I am persuaded by arguments about why these affirmatives are unpredictable, under-limit the topic, and create a bad heuristic for problem-solving. Short version is that you can do you and there is always a chance I’ll vote for you, but I’m probably not an ordinal one for teams that don’t want to engage the resolutional question.

I do want to say that at tournaments with relaxed prefs, I will do my absolute best to keep an open mind about these assumptions. That shouldn't be read as "Thur says he's open to our planless aff - let's move him up to push down 'policy' people." It should be read as if I come up at one of these tournaments, you might as well do what you're most comfortable with/what you've practiced the most instead of over-adapting.

Critiques—Honestly, just read the first point in the "meta issues" section. I understand neolib/deterrence/security pretty well because they were a big part of my major. If you want to push against my confusion on the K (as a concept), you need to have specific links to the plan’s actions, authors, or representations. Again, trying to be honest, if you're itching to say Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, death good, etc., I'm not your guy. On framework, the affirmative will almost surely be able to weigh their 1AC (unless they totally airball), and I'm pretty hesitant to place reps/scholarship/epistemology before material reality. One other thing - substitute out buzzwords and tags for explanation. Merely saying "libidinal economy" or "structural antagonism" without some evidence and explanation isn't a win condition.

In terms of being affirmative against these arguments, I think that too often teams lose sight of the easy ballots and/or tricks. The 1AR and 2AR need to “un-checklist” those arguments. In terms of disproving the critique, I think I’m pretty good for alternative fails/case outweighs or the permutation with a defense of pragmatism or reformism. Of those 2 - I'm best for "your alt does nothing...we have an aff..."

Case- I’m a huge fan. With that, I think that it’s very helpful for the neg (obviously?). I believe that no matter what argument you plan to go for, (excluding T/theory) case should be in some part of the 2nr. In the context of the critique, you can use case arguments to prove that the threats of the 1AC are flawed or constructed, that there are alternative causes to the affirmative that only the alternative solves, or that the impacts of the affirmative are miniscule and the K outweighs. For CPs, even if you lose a solvency deficit, you can still win because the net benefit outweighs the defended affirmative. Going for case defense to the advantage that you think the CP solves the least forces me to drop you twice as I have to decide the CP doesn’t solve AND that the case impact outweighs your net-benefit. That seems like a pretty good spot to be in.

CP- My favorite ones are specific to the 1AC with case turns as net benefits. Aside from that, I think that I am more inclined than most to vote aff on the perm when there is a trivial/mitigated net benefit vs. a smallish solvency deficit, but in the end I would hope you would tell me what to value first. I had a big section written up on theory, and I decided it's too round-dependent to list out. I still think that more than 2 conditional positions is SUPER risky, functional > textual competition, competition is dictated by mandates and not outcomes (i.e. CPs that are designed to spur follow-on are very strategic), judge kick is good, consult/condition/delay/threaten generally suck, and interpretations matter A LOT.

Topicality- People have started flagging violations based on things not in the plan (solvency lines, advocate considerations, aff tags, 2ac arguments, etc.). This is a bad way to understand T debates. The affirmative defines the plan, positional competition is bad, plan text in a vacuum makes sense, and the way to beat teams that include resolutional language in the plan is on PICs not T.

I default to reasonability, but I can be convinced that Competing Interpretations is a decent model. The negative does not need actual abuse, but they do need to win why their potential abuse is likely as opposed to just theoretical. That is, I'll be less persuaded by a 25-item case list than a really good explanation of a few devastating new affirmatives they allow. If I were to pick only one standard to go for, it would be predictable limits. They shape all pre-round research that guides in-round clash and ensure that debates are dialogues instead of monologues. Finally, as a framing point, I generally think bigger topics = better.

SPEAKER POINTS

They're totally broken...

I'll try to follow the below scale based on where points have been somewhat recently.

29.4 to 29.7 – Speaker Award - 1 to 10

29.2 to 29.3 – Speaker Award - 11 to 25

28.9 to 29.1 – Should break/Have a chance

28.4 to 28.8 – Outside chance at breaking to .500

28 to 28.3 – Not breaking, sub-.500

27 to 27.9 – Keep working

Below 26 – Something said/done warranting a post-round conversation with coaches

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team - Coach World Champions 2023

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – January 2025

Please put me on the email chain –timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge) I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom, which is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events.) I am still actively coaching and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 –Debate is a communication activity– I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.”

Speech > speech doc.

2 –Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency”– aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 –Evidence is important- In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 –Online Debating– We have had several years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire for it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 –Disclosure is good (on balance)– I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 –Zero risk is a possibility– There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 –My role as a judge- I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 –Debate the case– It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 –Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier– While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 –Cross-examination matters– Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 -Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging)- You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move. Counterplans that have multiple planks are fine but solvency cards for those planks to the level you might expect an affirmative to have solvency cards/explanations seems fair to me.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

I am unlikely to vote on “decide the debate after X speech” arguments.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve?

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

Contact Info (please add me to email chain):

Email: ntom18@mail.strakejesuit.org

Facebook: Neville Tom

Paradigm:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I haven't been judging as much lately so getting a bit back up to speed with how things are moving now in LD.

Main things:

1) Don't do any -isms

2) Make things very clear in the final rebuttal speeches

UPDATED: 4/6/2025

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest. I have a particularly difficult time hearing and flowing fast analytics, particularly when they are blippy, so deploy this strategy at your own risk.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence and Speech Document Sharing

Barring extenuating circumstances (e.g. a tech meltdown), speech documents should be shared with your opponent and me electronically. I will not evaluate arguments shared with me but not your opponent.

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red-flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. Reading 30-speaker-points theory will result in a severe reduction in your speaker points.

I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. A false accusation of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

The Kinkaid School, Vanguard Debate

'24 NDT Doubles

ptraxlerdebate@gmail.com

HSLD: vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

Basics

1. I will flow on paper and then decide the debate based on the arguments on said flow, conditioned by the caveats and biases delineated further below. If I do not have paper, I will flow on Excel.

2. My hearing is bad. Clarity is extremely important. If you're unclear, I'll yell "clear" twice, and then play games on my phone.

3. I prefer clash. I detest tricks, RVIs, and most non-resolutional theory. If you're wondering whether your argument constitutes a "trick", you probably shouldn't read it.

My desire to vote for you goes down the more I believe you are just trolling. If you don't care, I won't either.

4. If you ask for a 30, I will give you the lowest speaker points permitted by the tournament.

5. Introducing a callout, character assassination, or otherwise unverifiable beef will result in an auto-loss, the execution of rule 4, and the contacting of Tab and/or coaches.

6. There is no flow clarification period. Asking for a marked doc or "what was X argument" is CX or flex prep.

7. Inserting is fine until someone makes an argument about it.

Plans

Your advantage(s) are probably bad. However, the neg rarely takes time to explain why, and frequently opts to only meekly extend impact defense. A neg that can exceed this practice will be rewarded.

Counterplans

Judge kick unless argued otherwise or the CP is unconditional. "Conditionality bad" is a non-starter and will be met with a verbal interruption.

Fine for both "must compete functionally" and "must compete functionally and textually". Textual competition seems difficult, but I am not diametrically opposed to it.

I dislike recycling. Most process CPs probably fail to resolve their net benefit, solve case, and are structurally incoherent.

Theory is best when couched as a competition argument and is never a reason to reject the team. I am frequently persuaded by neg appeals to arbitrariness - "process CPs bad" is untenable. "Must only fiat the resolutional actor", however, is fine.

Intuitive analytic advantage CPs are under-utilized. The glaring lack of "plan key" is astonishing and should be punished more frequently.

Disadvantages

Your politics DA is likely an incomplete 1NC argument and can be quickly vaporized with well-informed analytics.

Impact calculus is, by definition, comparative. Explaining your impact and sprinkling in terms like "magnitude" without referencing the advantage probably does not constitute comparison.

Topicality

I don't have a strong opinion on reasonability vs. competing interpretations. Reasonability should have offense that can outweigh the neg's gut check/arbitrariness standards.

Kritiks

I am very bad for "middle ground", but good for either "no K" or "no plan".

The neg should explain how they generate uniqueness for their offense, whether that is via an alternative or framework argument. However, I can be persuaded by "reject things that are bad".

The aff frequently forgets that they read an advantage, which causes the 2AC to debate on the neg's playground. Less generic card reading and more leveraging the aff vs. their theory of power, links, alternative, and framework arguments.

Planless Affs

Framework is an argument that demonstrates the utility of debate, i.e., why debate is good (and ideally, why it is good for the aff).

Fairness is good, but there is no reason it should be the entire 2NR. The substantive justifications for fairness are compelling, but are too simple to require 6 minutes.

I think about framework very similarly to a disadvantage - the opportunity cost to voting aff is topical debates. The neg should utilize turns case language, which is best accomplished via skills, not fairness.

Very rarely is "subject formation" explained. I am bad for "debate can change your opinion/turn you into an activist", and very bad for "debate can't change subjectivity at all". There is a middle ground that naturally favors the neg.

The TVA/SSD are overestimated in their ability to mitigate impact turns, but excellent at demonstrating turns case/offense (when explained meaningfully). The TVA is also not a CP.

I am not very good for kritik vs. kritik debates (yet).

Westwood TS ' 24 — (2A)
UPenn '28
wwayushdebate@gmail.com
westwoodcx@googlegroups.com

--

Tech over truth. No exceptions. Strategy, ethos, and presence can go a long way in influencing your speaker points—the decision, however, is a product of my evaluation of the arguments on my flow.

Any of my biases can be overcome with good debating. But they are as follows:

Topicality

-- Offense-Defense

-- I almost exclusively went for PTIAV on the affirmative against T in high school.

-- Predictability controls debatability.

-- Not very persuaded by reasonability.

Kritikal Affirmatives

-- Impact turns are the best strategy against topicality.

-- Went for fairness or clash in high school—mostly the former, especially my senior year.

-- Not many other thoughts—if you think you can out-tech the other team, my biases here won't matter at all.

Kritiks

-- On the neg, the best strategy is to moot the aff. On the aff, the best strategy to make the debate solely about the plan.

-- I have no idea what middle-ground standards like "philosophical competition" are.

-- In my experience as a 2A, the most threatening argument in this category was always the fiat K.

-- Most other criticisms that rely on links to the plan—either materially or epistemologically—weren't persuasive.

Counterplans

-- My high-school debate partner prayed to the god of functional competition every night before bed. Naturally, I think I've seen it all—from the birth of textual topicality to resolution-based offsets. Have I thought about this niche as much as Ishan? Hell no. But I am comfortable adjudicating a counterplan competition debate.

-- Functional competition alone is probably best.

-- Textual and functional competition has merit, although even as a 2A, it has never really made sense to me. A textually competitive CP has a net benefit predicated on the mere exclusion of words in the plan, regardless of their definition or meaning (otherwise, the delineation between this and functional competition is blurry). Yet, in the context of this model, the community still prescribes meaning to those excluded words? No one seems to know the answer.

-- Textual or functional competition is difficult to win.

-- I'll default to judge-kick if the status is conditional. I will not do so if the status is unconditional. If dispositional, it'll depend on the conditions.

-- Non-USFG fiat bad is a good argument.

-- Presumption flips to the world of least change.

Disadvantages

-- I extended the politics DA often as a 1N in my senior year. No particular strong feelings—just make sure you're telling a story.

-- I love economy-based DAs: inflation, rates, exchange markets, capital flight, investor certainty, etc. Some of the most memorable debates I've had were on this argument—both sides. That being said, I likely have a higher bar than others for this category of DAs: I won't let it influence the decision, but I won't hesitate to ramble a bit in the postround if there is a misunderstanding.

-- Impact calc, please.

Case

-- I will vote on try-or-die. There are a lot of misunderstandings about the term, and I find that it is easiest to understand by visualizing the world of the aff and neg. If extinction is guaranteed in either one of the worlds, then as a decision-maker, I must default to the world where there is a chance of surviving. "If the neg only goes for solvency takeouts, then the aff controls try or die. If the aff drops an internal net-benefit to a CP and only extends deficits, then the neg controls try or die. This is a relevant consideration. Both sides should always be aware of whether they access try or die and either point this out or explain why it is irrelevant." -- R.P.

-- 1AR must always formally extend an impact to make it a 2AR option. The 2AC should ideally recognize dropped impacts from the 1NC.

-- As for 2AC case debating, you should aim to do a little bit better than "[insert defense] doesn't assume what [insert impact card] says" and moving on. I do, however, have a lower standard for the 2AC compared to the 1AR and 2AR.

Miscellaneous

-- I prefer cameras to be on in online debates. I will not punish you if you choose to keep it off though, especially if there are tech issues or background distractions.

-- If you're going to the bathroom or getting water, you don't need to take prep—just be quick and please be respectful of everyone's time.

-- You don't need to send analytics.

-- Mark your cards.

-- If you want to know the arguments I went for when I debated: my high-school wiki.

If you disagree with my decision, please feel free to post-round—provided it is done respectfully.

Lowell '22

Cal '26

Email Chain

Policy: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail [dot] com

LD: tsantaylor [at] gmail [dot] com

Policy

Lay Debate: I'll evaluate the debate as a slow round unless both teams agree to go fast. Adapt to the rest of the panel before me.

Topicality: It's the negative's burden to prove a violation. I will vote for either, obviously depending on technical debating, but I am more persuaded by precision/predictability than debatability offense.

Counterplans: Tell me whether or not I should judge kick. Advantage CP planks should have rehighlightings or solvency advocates to be legitimate. Deficits should be clearly impacted out from the 2AC to the 2AR for me to vote on them.

Disads: Turns case arguments, aff-specific link explanations, and ev comparison matter most for me. Logical, smart analytics do just as much damage as ev.

Ks: Most familiar with cap/setcol/security/IR Ks. I evaluate framework first to frame the rest of my flow. Contextualization to the aff, turns case analysis, and pulling lines from the 1AC are really important for the link debate.

K-Affs/KvK: I have the least experience judging these debates. "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 aff." - Debnil Sur

Theory: Condo is good.

LD

I primarily judge LD but I've never competed in the activity and don't coach the specific tricks/phil arguments, so I am not a good judge for them. I am really unlikely to vote on the activity-specific theory arguments, like RVIs.

Explicit judge instruction and good impact calc/comparison go a long way for determining how I vote. This is especially true when you're aff, given the speech times.

Your speaks will be lowered for stopping prep and THEN putting together your speech/card doc, or for egregiously asking what was or wasn't read after your opponent's speech.

Misc.

I usually don't read evidence at the end of the debate unless debaters explicitly tell me to and send a compiled card doc.

Read whatever you want - if an argument is truly so bad that it shouldn't be debated, you should be able to beat it with zero cards and three sentences. However, if you read an argument that your opponent specifically told you not to/said not to on their wiki or become actively violent in the round, auto-L.

+0.1 speaks if you make fun of a Cal debater, Cal coach, Debnil Sur, or Jessie Satovsky and I laugh

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

Notre Dame '23 (2A/1N for 4 years)

UC Berkeley '27 (2A/1N)

You can just call me Molly

TL

• Tech > Truth. Very few, if any, of my personal opinions will shape my RFDs. If you’ve won the argument to my understanding, I will vote for it.

• Time your own speeches and prep

• Judge instruction is super important to me, especially in rebuttals. I am not a mind reader and you are often less clear than you think.

• I love CP + DA debates and ptx holds a special place in my heart

• I am fairly expressive and do not hide displeasure or confusion well, so look at me

• Yes I have always been a 2A, I don’t feel as if this

Topicality

• I do not extensively research or keep up highschool topics especially what is and is not topical, so I recommend against throwing out a lot of acronyms or assuming my knowledge

• case lists are the most effective way for me to compare visions of the topic

• competing interps > reasonability

• smaller topics are probably better for innovation

Disads

• Any debate with a disad I love to hear

• I love ptx disads but I also know a truly garbage one when I see it

• turns case and impact calc are your best friends and should start early (on both sides)

Counterplans

• Agent CPs are my favorite

• I am extremely neutral on process CPs, but not debated well I lean aff on most perms

• I dislike super contrived adv cps, but logical ones that exploit poor aff writing are good. Be clear about the planks that you kick.

• Do impact calc between the solvency deficit and disadvantage, otherwise you are letting me decide

• I default to judge kick

Kritiks

• If you go for Ks consistently, I am not the best judge for you. I don't dislike them, I simply never went for them so I may not default in your favor. If you debate well and don’t leave it up to me you should have no problem.

• I prefer links to the plan, at least the topic. Does not have to be cards but lines should be taken from the 1AC

• Don't read a super long overview, it just sounds like words to me. Do the work on the line by line.

• Floating PIKs are probably bad

K Affs

• If you read a K aff, I am not the best judge for you, however, I am also not the worst. You will have to do more work explaining your disads to FW than you would in front of K judges. What is intuitive/obvious to you might not be for me.

• Consistency of explanation of aff offense is SO helpful. Super shifty K affs make me upset and more importantly, I am much less likely to grant you weight of 2AR offense if it was not rooted in an explanation started in the 1AR.

• If you read a high theory K aff I am less likely to vote for you compared to an indentity aff. I understand them less and have the honest pre-disposition of thinking your offense is kinda dumb

• I really need your aff to do something. Just explain to me what you solve, if you don't solve anything this round will be hard for you

Neg v K Affs

• Presumption is great. I find it challenging to 0 an aff on a sentence or 2 of a 2NR (this is also true of policy affs). You are much more likely to win a presumption debate in front of me if the 2NR takes the extra 15 seconds to actually engage with the 1AR answers.

• Fairness is an impact. 2NR can be clash or fairness, whatever you chose is fine with me.

• TVAs and SSD are great. I find that 2Ns expect me to fill in some of the reasons as to why these would solve the aff intuitively. I am unwilling to do this work for you.

• I was a 1N and took the Cap K or Cap good in every 1NR I ever gave. If you feel inclined to put me in a K v K debate, I am the most familiar with this one, but also don’t. I think neg team's sitting on a usually poorly answered K affs don't get perms debate is a winning debate

Soft Left Affs

• The framing page will be an uphill battle for you. I like util.

• I find it hard to vote for these affs when the 2NR is a CP and a DA.

Theory

• Slow down half a step, I’m a moderate speed typer

• I think condo is fine. If the negative has done something actually abusive (my personal brightline is around 5-6 condo and/or a very long adv cp) explain the in round abuse. Otherwise go for it as you please.

• Dispo probably does not solve anything other than research, if you want to change my mind then explain it

• International fiat and changing the whole world fiat is bad. This includes K alt stuff.

• Perm theory debates are cool. Limited Intrinsicness good/bad are the theory debates I had the most and judge the most. I am very neutral on the question. I find often that neg teams win on a deficit to the intrinsic perm than the theory debate.

Speaks

• If you yell and are mean I will nuke your speaks. You are allowed to be loud and passionate, but there is a level of respect that needs to be maintained for your opponents at all times.

• On a happier note I like snarky remarks and sassy answers. Just be funny with it

• If the top of the final rebuttal is why I should vote for you and has judge instruction you're doing yourself a favor

Re-highlighting

• Have the theory debate over whether it can be inserted or not, I will evaluate the debate based on the outcome

• If you choose not to have the theory debate I will default to letting ev be re-inserted. I changed my position on this issue because I want more debaters to do it, and forcing teams to read re-highlights seems to discourage quality ev idicts

• However, I will not do the debating for you, don’t insert re-highlighting without explaining or implicating it in the debate. So only insert the amount of evidence you can reasonably explain

Hi! Let’s begin with the reality that I’m what’s often called a lay-judge in the policy debate world, but with a twist. I teach high school English, and I have a deep appreciation for rhetoric, logical reasoning, and persuasive communication. I competed in policy debate in high school a while ago, but I am still learning and growing as a judge. I want you to know how I approach rounds so you can adapt accordingly.

My personal email is qmwallace89@gmail.com

TL;DR (What You Should Know About Me):

• Spreading is fine, but clarity, signposting, and explanations matter more.

• I value well-warranted arguments that are carried through the round.

• Clash (direct engagement with your opponent’s arguments) is critical.

• Explain how evidence connects to your argument and impacts the round.

• I reward persuasive, nuanced analysis and strategy — not just who speaks fastest.

Longer Version (How to Win My Ballot):

1. Spreading and Clarity Balance:

I can keep up with some spreading, but if you’re only reading cards super fast without stopping to summarize, explain, and weigh, you risk me missing something critical to your case. I appreciate when debaters slow down for key arguments, give short summaries of evidence, and clearly connect how a card supports your position or weakens the other team.

2. Importance of Clash and Carrying Arguments:

I vote for the team that answers and extends their arguments throughout the debate. If you drop an argument, or if your opponent answers it well and you don’t rebuild it, I will weigh that accordingly. You should signpost clearly, respond directly, and show me how your argument interacts with theirs.

3. Explain, Don’t Just Reference Cards:

If you read a great card, tell me why it matters. What does this evidence prove? How does it impact the debate? Does it respond to a specific argument? Explicitly tell me how it affects the flow.

4. Topicality, Kritiks, Counterplans, Theory:

I will do my best to evaluate all arguments, including T, Ks, CPs, and theory, but explain them in a way a smart, engaged but still-learning judge will understand. Don’t assume I’m steeped in debate jargon or niche literature. I appreciate when debaters unpack the core of critical arguments and explain their relevance to this specific debate.

5. Rhetorical Skill and Strategy:

I reward debaters who demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the round — those who can adapt, highlight the biggest points of clash, and show how their strategy holds up under pressure. If you point out a logical fallacy, or show why an opponent’s evidence doesn’t support their conclusion, that’s great debate to me.

6. Organic, Natural Moments — Be a Human in Round:

I like to see debaters think on their feet, make strategic choices, and respond to each other in a way that feels real, not robotic. If you can engage directly, and sometimes with originality or humor, that stands out.

7. Impact Weighing and Framing:

Tell me why your impacts matter more and how I should evaluate the round. Don’t just assume I’ll default to a specific framework unless you’ve made a case for it. Walk me through how I should weigh arguments (magnitude, probability, timeframe, reversibility, etc.).

Final Thought:

I do my best to be fair and open-minded. If you’re clear, clash well, explain your arguments, and help me understand how to evaluate the round — you will do well in front of me. Thanks for adapting, and good luck!

Email chains: vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

Inquiries: lydiawang327@gmail.com - I do not check this one during tournaments, so please do not send email chains here.

Sammamish '23, University of Houston '25

Coaching Kinkaid & Vanguard Debate

Top level:

Shortcut---Policy/Theory/K>Phil>Tricks

Callouts, Ad homs, screenshots = auto loss. I am not here to evaluate the character of the debaters in the round, just the arguments that are made. If there is an issue with safety in the round, you should contact your coach. This doesn't mean no disclosure theory, screenshots here are fine if you also forward the email chain to me/ link to wiki.

Explain the rehighlighting if it is important---debate is a communicative activity, if you say "insert rehighlighting" with no explanation of the evidence, it will not end up on my flow.

---There are only speech time, cx time, and prep time, there is no such thing as flow clarification time---this is either prep or CX.
I try to pay attention in CX but honestly my attention span sucks, if something is important tell me during CX.
I don't open the doc when I flow, so if there are contestations over extemped arguments then you also need to flag it because I honestly don't know if an argument is in the doc or not until it's mentioned or after the debate.

Policy:

- Default judge kick unless it's contested.

- Condo is good, Dispo does not mean you can set whatever condition you want, it means the NEG can't kick it if the AFF has straight turned the net benefit.

- Love a good politics debate - better for spin on evidence here than most others. However, smart AFF analytics can take out poorly constructed politics DAs.

Planless AFFs:

- Prefer AFFs that clearly defend and commits to a concrete action/advocacy out of the 1AC.

- It will be hard to convince me that framework is "psychological violence".

- Dislike framework 2NRs that assume every 1AR DA is the "policing DA", I feel very comfortable voting AFF on a DA to framework if the 2NR doesn't interact with it or do judge instruction about why other arguments on the flow takes it out.
- Fine for intrinsicness debates against disads, would rather the AFF justify this earlier in the debate rather than later.

Ks:

- Should prove that the plan is a bad idea.

- Prefer Ks that are functionally DA+CP that turns and solves case, but am also fine for framework Ks when done well.

- Uninterested in listening to super long overviews that don't serve any strategic purpose.

LD:

- Strike me if you plan on spreading through 30 lines of analytics the same way you spread through a card, if you are unflowable I will just flow in my head. (People seem to be ignoring this recently, slow down on analytics or you will get 27 speaks.)

- "Debate is hard" is not a real warrant for theory. Default DTD, No RVIs, and Competing Interps on theory. I actually enjoy a good theory debate but the second it becomes affirming harder vs negating harder I will be sad.

- Evidence matters---I will not follow along during your speech but will look at evidence that is debated out in the round. Good research will be awarded with good speaker points.

- Been judging alot of phil rounds recently, I'm not good for these debates so err on the side of more judge instruction.

- No new 2NR cards unless you can point to which 1AR argument it directly answers. There is NO 2NC in LD.

- If your argument relies on your opponent dropping it for you to be able to win on it, then I probably will not like it - Clash is necessary for good debates. I do not vote on: Eval after 1AC/1NC, 30 Speaks theory, "I'm the GCB", No AFF/NEG analytics,

She/Her

alice.debatedocs@gmail.com

Affiliations: Heights '23, Coaching Harker LD

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

TL;DR

My two goals when I judge are to (1) ensure that the space is safe for everyone and (2) evaluate the debate in front of me as neutrally as possible so long as it is not one of the 7 things below.

I strongly dislike intervention, but also think that, to some degree, it is inevitable regardless of the judge. I have tried to structure this paradigm to explain how to predict when/what intervention may occur + how to prevent it/overcome my natural intuitions.

I believe that debate is a research AND communication acitivity. This means I want to understand your arguments as you are reading them, I want you to tell me how I should be evaluating parts of the debate and evidence, and I do not want to (and will not) read documents to help me understand what is going on in the round.

Debate should be fun!!! :)

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

PF Update (Bellaire):

Please do not paraphrase evidence. Additionally, please make sure to have the full information available when citing a source in a speech (see below for evidence ethics).

Send each other evidence at the beginning of speeches, NOT between speeches during an untimed period.

I have not judged PF before and my background is only in LD and Policy, therefore I will not understand many structural things.

Kritiks, CPs, and theory do not make much sense to me in PF unless they are reasons the resolution are true/false.

If you want me to evaluate something it MUST be in a final speech. Additionally, you must answer arguments following the speech they are originally made. The only exception is the first two constructive speeches since I believe the norm in these speeches is you can introduce new arguments and are not required to contest arguments directly in the speech before. If your opponent does not extend offense in the speech following your defense against it, you do not have to extend the defense because I will stop evaluating the offense.

In PF, I understand the affirmative burden to prove the resolution true and the negative to prove the resolution false. The "burden of rejoinder" for the negative does not make sense because sometimes the negative goes first and I am not sure how you predict the aff plan and then rejoin it if you do not know what it is?

Non topical affirmatives for the reason above are a non-starter in PF.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Will not evaluate:

(1) ad homs/ arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you talk to a coach)

(2) any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, etc.) The round will end.

(3) eval after [x] speech

(4) give me/my opponent [x] speaks

(5) no aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument.

(6) arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

(7) anything I did not flow and understand the implication of in the original speech. This means if you HIDE arguments you run a HIGH risk of them not being evaluated. Even if I do catch them, speaks will be lowered because I will be annoyed by your unwillingness to fully read and defend your arguments.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

General Thoughts:

(1) When I make decisions I first think about the following things in the following order to determine what piece of offense I am voting on: (a) the highest layer based on arguments in the round, (b) the winning framework, and (c) the winning offense under that framework.

(2) If you talk to me like I know nothing/very little you will be happier with my rfd. Not only does this increase the likeliness that I understand each of your arguments, but it also increases the likeliness that the round breaks down/is evaluated in a similiar way to how you thought about it.

(3) I will vote for any argument with a claim, warrant, and impact/implication (so long as it is not something on the list above). Obviously true arguments have a lower threshold to win than obviously false arguments simply because the burden to warrant the argument is much lower if it is already something I believe. To clarify: when I say "obviously true" arguments I do not mean arguments I personally believe, but arguments that a majority of people generally agree on as fact, such as "the sky is blue".

Here is a list of arguments that if evenly debated will be hard to convince me of. I understand it is kind of unclear what "even debating" is, but you can minimize the risk that I think something is evenly debated by doing judge instruction or explicit evidence comparison, which I will use even if it goes against my intuitions:

- the aff cannot weigh case
- extinction does not matter at all (especially vs phil positions that seem to care about preventing bad consequences to some degree)
- the affirmative cannot read plans
- the best model of debate is not one where the aff is at least tangentially related to the resolution
- 2nr/2ar theory is legit

(4) It greatly annoys me when debaters read arguments they misrepresent. For example: (see the explanation of what indexicals actually are)This does not mean that I will vote against arguments that you misrepresent, but know that you are responsible for warranting every part of the argument and cannot just rely on name-dropping the argument, literature base, or author in place of a warrant. Additionally, I reward well researched and properly represented arguments with better speaks.

(5) I WON'T flow off the doc and will only pull it up in constructives to check randomly and make sure you aren't clipping. I have gotten very comfortable recently "clearing" people and that is because debaters have gotten particularly unclear during long analyic blocks and the bodies of cards. I understand going faster during the text of cards BUT you should not become mumbly/unflowable. I am not reading off the document and want to understand the warrants of your arguments/evidence as you read them.

(6) I will only go back to read evidence once the entire debate is over if (a) I need to because there is a lack of comparison or (b) you tell me to (which you should do if your evidence is very good or your opponents is worse!). If I have to read evidence because of (a) I will likely be upset because I will feel like I had to intervene somewhere to determine what the better arguement was. Additionally, if you are telling me to read evidence, it is in your best interest to tell me what part of the evidence is really good or why the evidence is better to increase the likelihood I view the evidence in the same way you do.

(7) Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as I can understand the specific implication of the rehighlighting from listening to your speech. For example: "[x card] concludes [explanation of different conclusion from original argument], INSERT REHIGHLIGHTING" is okay, "they are wrong, INSERT REHIGHLIGHTING" is not.

(8) The following is a list of "defaults" I have about debate. I think that every default on this list can change as a result of the debate and there should not be an instance when I need to use a "default" because you should be warranting these arguments in the round if they are relevant.
- presumtion negates unless the negative reads a cp, in which case it affirms

- permissibility negates

- comparative worlds

- I will NOT judge kick unless I am told to. Preferably you would do more than say the words "judge kick" and also justify why it is good.

- competing interps, dta, no rvi on theory

^ Note: I still think terminal defense is possible vs an interp... ie even if you win competing interps, theres no counter-interp, but the other side wins an "i-meet" I will not vote for the shell because an "i-meet" is terminal defense since the shell no longer has a violation.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Disclosure

The disclosure norms in debate are out of hand. I think disclosure is good. That does not mean you have to disclose if I am judging you but know if you are shifty, lie, or avoid questions I have no problem (a) tanking your speaks (<27) or (b) if you lied, automatically voting against you. Lying is unethical in a similar way to evidence ethics are and I have no problem voting against you if you lie. If you are shifty/avoid questions I will vote on the flow but know your speaks will be ruined and I will be sympathetic to the shell.

- I have judged 5+ debates in the past month where someone makes the argument “screenshots are unverifiable.” If someone says this the answer should not take more than 5 seconds and should just be “they are verifiable in the same way evidence is”. Along these lines – I have added a screenshots section to evidence ethics.

- You should be disclosing over some form of messages. If someone insists on disclosing in person/refuses to over messages, you should still ask over messages and screenshot them not answering. I don’t care if you then went and disclosed in person, send it over messages or you are not getting the I-meet.

- If you don’t want to disclose you should just say you aren’t disclosing and be willing to defend that model of debate. Don’t do things like say the aff is new when it isn’t, say you will disclose and then not, lie about which aff is being read, be unclear what is changing in the aff, etc.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Evidence Ethics

- I think that evidence ethics are a stop round issue, though if you want to just read it as a shell that's fine too and I’ll evaluate it on the flow. If you want it to be a stop round issue say something along the lines of “I want to make an evidence ethics claim, here is what happened” If you are correct W, if you are wrong L with lowest speaks

- Screenshots should not be fabricated. If a screenshot is fabricated, you should treat it as evidence ethics, and it is a stop round issue. I will verify screenshots the same way evidence is verified—by going to the source. This can be one of two things depending on the fabrication a) checking the laptops of the email or b) checking the wiki website

- The following are things I will vote on as a stop-round issue

* clipping (this includes verbally cutting your cards in a different place than your updated doc indicates… I will flow where you say “cut”)

* Citations that are missing or incorrect in one or more of the following parts (given that the information is available): Author name, year, article/book title, URL

* deleting text from the middle of the card/article (this includes replacing it with ellipsis)

* not including full paragraphs/ only having cards with partial paragraphs

* brackets that change the meaning of the text

* including/adding text into the card not from the original article

- If I catch one of these things but no one else does, I won't vote against you, I'll just lower your speaks.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Speaker Points

- I'll start at a 28.5 and work up/down from there. 28.5 is average.

- I find myself bumping speaks for: being particularly nice in round/to your opponent, reading an argument/a strategy I haven't seen in a while/ever, creative 2nr/2ars, giving a winning 2nr/2ar I did not think of during prep, rehighlighting evidence, efficiency.

- You will lose speaks for: being overly rude/aggressive, splitting 2nr/2ars unnecessarily, going for the incorrect 2nr/2ar, misexplaining arguments, an unstrategic cx, reading bad arguments (1 line tricks!), poor time allocation, if I feel like I have to intervene because of lack of evidence comparison/weighing.

- I try to base speaks primarily on strategy & execution.

I have been in/around speech & debate for 20 years; I competed in HS & college & have been coaching ever since. I am a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.

LD: quoting the inimitable Jack Ave, with whom I agree on all things, LD or otherwise: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please (I'll provide my email address in-round).

PF: I'd rather not need to read any docs/evidence in order to decide how I'm voting, but if it comes down to that, I will (begrudgingly) scrutinize your evidence. Feel free to run any experimental/non-traditional arguments you want, but please make these decisions IN GOOD FAITH. Don't shoehorn theory in where it doesn't apply & don't run it manipulatively. I am admittedly not techy-tech girl, but I am always listening comprehensively & flowing.

Congress: I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.

Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.

Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.

Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.

Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks. The round can only be as engaging, lively, and competitive as you make it - pettiness brings everyone down.

Debater at Northwestern: Add me to the chain: davidwu2027@u.northwestern.edu

I have an immense respect for debate as an activity.

Tech over Truth.

Stanford --

+ 0.3 speaks to both teams if you start within 5 mins of pairings blasted

+ speaks if you are winning and sit down early.

+ speaks for every minute of prep you don't use. Make sure I'm aware of this.

Just a note: I am currently in a graduate level Kant class. My bar for voting on phil is through the roof. Read it at your own risk.

You should not pref me if you're not willing to have a technical debate, and make it quick and efficient.

If you call a TKO and you're right I'll give both sides 30s. If not you take the L and I'll give speaks accordingly.