Tabroom.com

53rd Annual Tournament of Champions

2025 — Lexington, KY/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Nihar Abhyankar Liberal Arts and Science Academy 3 rounds

Spencer Anderson McElligott Kenwood Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 7:02 AM CDT

Coach at Edina 22-current, and Kenwood SW 24-current. I have also helped out a handful of other critical teams across the country.

College policy debater at Iowa 23-26, (formerly Minnesota 21-23).

He/they

Yes, email chain: umnakdebate [at] gmail [dot] com.

If you are debating in front of me and feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or have another need, please let me know at some point and I will do my best to support you and meet your needs in that moment!

I also carry things like Advil, masks and bandaids at tournaments, especially when coaching - if you need anything, come find me, even if I am not judging you!

I love watching videos of historical and contemporary debates and I collect large playlists of them. I learned debate in part through analyzing videos of debates, and I record nearly every single debate that I’m in. If you want some recommendations of debates that might help you learn a particular style, skill, or argument, please ask me and I’d be happy to put together a playlist for you!

Toplevel

I will intervene into a debate in the context where the debate is made unsafe. This is my responsibility as an educator and does not require that students make arguments about it for me to stop a debate, dock speaks, award an L, or check in with a team or student.

When judging, I flow on the computer. I flow CX. If my computer is dead or broken I will flow on paper. I do not/will not flow off the doc or use the doc to correct my flow. In 95% of debates, this means I do not open a single doc the entire debate. I will flow the words I hear you say, including warrants in the body of cards.

I do this because I think it minimizes intervention and reconstructing the debate from evidence. It also rewards speakers who maintain clarity.

That said, I will read the cards that you tell me to read in final rebuttals – either yours or opponents’. I think judges too often give too much weigh to bad cards. If you tell me that a card is so bad or underhighlighted that the highlighted words do not support the tag, and I conclude that you're right, I will strike the card and probably boost your speaks for doing specific evidence analysis.

TL;DR – Prefs

When judging high school, I see my primary role as that of an educator. I take seriously the responsibility that comes with being entrusted with someone else's students. Debate’s accessibility for minoritized students matters very much to me. I therefore aim to give decisions and comments in line with this.

I am usually preffed as a clash judge. I have voted for framework against K affs, and vice versa. I have voted for Ks against policy affs, and vice versa.

I want to hear you read what you want to read, but your debating will probably require more judge instruction and more explanation of the content of your argumentation if you choose to read a policy strategy against a policy aff; I have judged ZERO high-level policy debates on this topic and participated in ZERO high-level policy debates in my college debate career.

People who have had a major influence on my thinking about debate: Tyler Snelling, Tessa Harper, Tim Edstrom, Ryan Cavanaugh, Mark Kivimaki, Grey Parfenoff, Akeem Anderson, Nolan Johnson.

Clash Debates – Extended Thoughts

I think critical argumentation has the potential to be the single most valuable and unique aspect of debate. I also recognize that many people treat critical arguments the same as any other argument, which is to say, they don’t let what they read affect them.

Neg framework vs K affs:

I am likely to vote negative when the negative reads a framework strategy that implicates the affirmative’s solvency. I am unlikely to vote negative when the negative reads a framework strategy that simply attempts to bracket out the affirmative. In other words, “Limits DA turns the aff” is a much more intuitive and persuasive argument than “don’t weigh the aff against T because I didn’t predict it”. I am significantly more compelled by clash-style impacts than fairness-style impacts.

I am likely to vote affirmative when the affirmative outframes the negative instead of trying to answer all of the minutiae. This is not to say that the aff should eschew the line by line entirely, but rather that the aff tends to win when they use big-picture thinking to obviate most or all of the negative's offense.

Arguments need warrants. “Fairness paradox” is not a warrant. “Go to tab” is not a warrant. Et cetera. If the 2NR does not extend an interpretation, a violation, an internal link, and an impact, I will not fill in the blanks for you.

Aff vs Ks:

I am likely to vote negative when the negative has a clear link, anchored in quotes from aff evidence or cx, that the negative sequences before framework.

I am likely to vote affirmative when the negative has a generic link that is not tied to specific moments from aff debating, or when the negative grants the aff that they get to weigh the case against K and the aff wins that their impacts outweigh or turn the neg’s.

Miscellaneous

Speed/Clarity. Current high school debate has a spreading clarity problem. If I can't hear you, I will clear you three times, and then I will put my hands in the air to signal that I am not flowing because I cannot hear you. I will not use the doc to fill in gaps.

Timeskew. Current high school debate has a problem with reading unviable offcase because of the notion that horizontal proliferation in early speeches is strategic. I find this trades off with depth of argumentation and irks me.

Block reliance. Current high school debate has a block reliance problem. I’m not saying never read blocks – but please do not spread through them at a speed where I cannot flow them. Please do not simply read blocks that don’t apply to the debate as a substitute for reactive, critical thinking. This saddens me and will impact your speaks.

Evidence Ethics Challenges.

Evidence ethics challenges are round-ending - if you initiate one, I will ask if you intend to stake the debate on it. If you say yes, I will use either the tournament rules (if they outline a process), or NSDA guidelines (if tournament rules do not outline a process) to adjudicate the challenge. If you say no, I'll strike the argument and the debate can continue as normal.

Thomas Babcock Newton 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 7:28 AM CDT

Istealprep@gmail.com

Top level

Debate is meant to be fun. I demand that you have it. If you can not find enjoyment in this activity do not ruin other peoples love for this activity.

***NDT/TOC Update: I have noticed a disturbing trend of more and more teams having evidence ethics issues. This includes but is not limited to: putting the wrong citation for their evidence, leaving out paragraphs in the middle of evidence, and getting information in the citation wrong (date and/or author). The community seems to have different standards for these types of arguments so I want to be explicit about mine. If you make an evidence ethics violation you must end the round and stake the round on the claim. I will then issue my decision based on if I believe there has been an evidence ethics violation. My decision will only be based on if there is in fact an evidence ethics violation. "we didn't mean to", "it wasn't done maliciously", and "we stole this evidence" are all irrelevant to me. You are responsible for the evidence you choose to enter into a debate.

Do not say anything obviously problematic or violent to the other team. I will end the round immediately and assign the lowest possible speaker points the tournament will allow.

Tech over truth. This applies to all arguments. If the other teams arguments are not backed by rigorous research then defeating them should be simple and easy. If you cannot defeat them without me intervening and asserting what I "know" to be true than by all definition you have lost the debate.

I will only consider arguments that happened in the debate about the debate. I am fundamentally uninterested in resolving any interpersonal beef you may have with another team.

If you do not feel safe engaging in a debate for any reason please communicate that to me, tab, and/or your coaching staff, and the necessary actions will be taken.

Planless affirmatives

Generally fine for these debates. I would prefer the 1AC actually defend a method and be related to the topic if possible instead of being a walking impact turn to framework but I digress. As long as you win your arguments and are ahead on the flow I will vote for you.

"vote aff cause it was good" means nothing to me. Explanations of why you resolve the impacts of the aff and why the ballot is key should come early and be contextualized well.

"Why vote aff" followed by "why not" is not compelling for the same reason. 1AC's have the burden of proof. I will struggle to burden the negative with rejoinder if I don't think the 1AC has met the burden of proof after 1AC CX.

Framework/T-USFG

Framework 2NR's tend to be too defense oriented to win most debates. Negatives should be impact turning or link turning aff DA's to framework more often. If not that then there needs to be a large explanation of why clash accesses aff offense and/or why they don't get an aff because of fairness.

Everything is and is not an impact. Fun, Clash, Fairness, Burnout, etc... You should explain why those things matter and why I should care.

KvK

Method v method debates in my mind lack the pre prescribed norms of competition that usually appear in policy v policy debates. You should use this to your advantage and explain how competition ought to work in a world where the affirmative is not held to a plan text.

Figuring out what the aff will defend and pinning them to that seems important, especially when the opportunities to disagree with the 1AC are already limited.

K's on the neg

If the aff is going for a framework that says "No K's" and the neg is going for a framework that says "No aff" then I will pick one at the end of the debate. I will not intervene and concoct a "perm" where the aff gets the aff and the neg gets their links. Of course you are free to advocate the perm/middle ground.

Explanation is usually much better when contextualized to links, alt, f/w, etc... and not a chunk of text for a minute at the top of a speech.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality as offense/defense just like every other argument in debate. Affirmative reasonability arguments are much better framed as reasons why limits are bad/an impact to overlimiting or precision.

Aff's should be more offensive when answering neg limits and grounds arguments. Most of the time the actual weight of these arguments seems stringent as best and made up completely at worst.

Evidence that describes topic mechanisms and lit direction are important. The same is equally if not more true for the interpretation debate.

Counterplans

Everything is legit until somebody says it isn't in which case then it becomes a debate. I think most affirmative theory arguments are much better deployed as competition arguments. I am unlikely to ever be persuaded by "solvency advocate theory", "process CPs bad", or the like, unless the neg completely whiffs. This doesn't apply when the neg CP doesn't pass the sniff test. I.e. international fiat, private actor fiat, etc...

I generally lean towards infinite condo being good. Obviously this is a debate that can take place and I will evaluate as offense/defense like normal, I just think the negative arguments in regards to this are much more compelling.

I default to judge kick but just please say it in the block.

0 Idea how anyone evaluates CP's besides sufficiency framing and I have yet to hear a alternative way to evaluate them. Grandstanding about sufficiency framing in the 2nr is about as useful as saying that they have conceded the neg gets fiat.

2NC CP's out of add-ons are fine. 2NC CP's out of straight turns are not fine. If it goes in the 1NC be prepared to hold the line.

Disadvantages

Fine for every politics DA you want to throw from your box. What fiat means can be debated like any other argument.

Link and Internal link turns case arguments are extremely important. Our nuclear war impact turns your nuclear war impact arguments are extremely not important.

Case

Try or die is important to me. If the negs only answer to case is solvency pushes but concedes the squo causes extinction and doesn't have a CP to remedy that then even a small risk the aff solves will almost certainly win them the debate. The opposite is true if aff drops an internal net benefit to a process CP, as the neg now controls try or die.

0% risk is definitely possible on both sides.

Misc

I will not read or consider rehighlightings you did not read yourself. Text must be actually read for it to matter, debate is a communicative activity and you must communicate. If you read it in cross-x and then insert it that is fine.

Cross-x can only make modifications to speeches if both sides consent. If the other team asks you about a card you do not get to scratch it in the middle of cross-x unless they agree. The same is also true for reading evidence obviously.

Cross-x is binding and I will be flowing it.

Speaker points are my decision and I will not listen to arguments about them. You can ask for a 30 if you want, but you will be wasting speech time.

Holland Bald Dallas Highland Park High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 13, 2024 at 8:28 AM EDT

for the toc: if you are a senior who has committed to or is considering committing to dartmouth, please conflict me. relatedly, feel free to reach out with questions about dartmouth, the team, etc!

background: debated at dartmouth college (2021-2025), westminster (2017-2021). hollandebate@gmail.com. put me on the email chain. do not call me "judge."

tl;dr: i believe that the best debates contain many topic-specific cards and line by line between two teams over consequences or core assumptions of topical affs. but you make the arguments - my job is to judge whatever you want to say, with jurisdictional exceptions.*

procedure / mechanics

pursuant to truf's request for disclosure: i will not have your speech doc open during your speech in in-person debates. i will flow what i hear. i will have your speech doc open during your speech in online debates because audio quality is significantly degraded online (and because glitches/lags are possible, etc). however, this latter policy is not an excuse to be unclear - i will still use my discretion in determining what i think is flowable. in both of these scenarios, i will be flowing on my computer. do not mistake me having my computer open for me having the doc open.

tech over truth, but low patience for shenanigans (if you are wondering whether your argument is a shenanigan, it likely is).

please debate like you are grown. i will do my best to evaluate the debate as technically as possible, but i am not a robot and i do not view debates as math problems that can be worked out formulaically. this mostly means two things: (1) it will be difficult to convince me that death or nuclear war are good provided a reasonably competent rebuttal by your opponent, and (2) being condescending, acting like you don't care/are too cool to be here, acting like someone is an idiot, and/or anything else that can be described as "bro-y" behavior will decrease your chances of victory.

i will be annoyed if you do not do line by line. i will be double annoyed if you then accuse the other team of "dropping" something.

ip topic: i know nothing. you must slow down and explain your arguments.

clarity: i care a lot about it. i will also be very amenable to arguments about why i should not allow an unclear team to re-characterize their arguments if i did not understand them the first time.

reading cards: research is extremely valuable, but cards do not substitute for debating. i will read cards if there is ev comparison in the speeches (great!) or the debate is close enough that i can't resolve it with my flow alone.

argumentative specifics

clash debates: the more you can do to make these debates not boring, the better off you will be. i've heard (and given!) the same robotic speeches on both sides a million times. the more you can get off of enthymemes and actually explain what is happening in the debate at hand, the better. put another way, performance influences my assessment of these debates; if one side looks like they're going through the motions of "a clash debate", they are unlikely to win.

Ks on the NEG:

good for them if they say a core concept in the 1AC is bad (especially because 2ACs are often really bad). bad for them if they could be read against any aff/on any topic and/or you dont look like you have done any reading.

in truth, i think "framework, no Ks" should be an uphill battle. conversely, so should "you link, you lose."

your framework interpretation should make sense, and you should explain how i evaluate the debate through it. i often find that the aff tries to proclaim the framework debate is a "wash" and so "we get to weigh the aff but they get the k." i have no idea how one would weigh "fiated plan action solves extinction" vs, for example, "extinction reps bad."

by "make sense," i mean that your framework interpretation, links, and alt should align. if your framework for judge evaluation is about scholarship, i will expect to hear links about 1ac research and an alternative way to conduct research. i will be befuddled if you have links to plan action and a policy alternative.

the obvious logical conclusion of many neg framework interps in my mind is plan inclusion - it would be nice if everyone would be honest about that and debate its relative merits.

yelling at cloud: why is everyone talking about whether debate "shapes subjectivity" all the time? is the neg ever REALLY saying "voting neg will make the aff team believe our argument and then they will be more ethical"? also, it strains credibility to say that this activity that we pour years of our lives into has no bearing on what we believe. maybe i am just outside of the meta here but the aff dedicating any real time to this feels like a trap.

Ks on the AFF:

very good for T with the above "don't be boring" caveat (which is a significant one that usually applies much more to the neg than the aff). much more amenable to impacts about the process of debate (clash, fairness) than its content (topic education, skills). conversely, i think impact turns about the reading of T / "debates about debate" are usually far more strategic than "our education / aff is important."

"ballot not key" / "debate not key" doesn't make much sense to me for the same reason that it wouldn't in a debate where the aff read a topical plan. i could see arguments more persuasively phrased in terms of the burden of proof.

the gospel according to turner: "I consider T an argument that doesn't specify the relationship between the debaters and the resolutional actor (i.e. how the debate is evaluated and what the role of the judge for evaluating the debate is still in question). To me, framework is a category of arguments that establish a limit that restricts not just the resolution but the role for the judge. I find most framework arguments unnecessarily restrictive in their interpretation about how we impact/assess a debate whereas a T interpretation can maintain significant freedom for different ways of couching an affirmative while providing predictable limits. For this reason kritiks of T are difficult for me to accept, while criticisms of framework have frequently been successful."

the NEG going for a specific position will likely be rewarded with high points.

i enjoy judging non-T debates, in particular when the aff applies their theory of the world / structural claims to critique the neg's advocacy instead of pretending everything is compatible with the aff. the more the aff tries to recharacterize their advocacy/theory later in the debate to avoid neg offense, the more sympathetic i will be to T.

counterplans:

if your counterplan could be recycled between topics, it likely counts as a "shenanigan" and i will be amenable to debatably-intrinsic perms.

both teams in a competition debate will be better-served by explaining what debates look like under their model than using a bunch of buzzwords. i will not fill in the gaps for you on things like "textual intrinsicness allows scramble perms, next." make complete arguments.

i care very little about permutation "texts" (and textual competition by extension). i would MUCH rather see a 2ac make 2-3 perms by explaining what each of them do and their strategic utility at length than mush-mouthing through six perms and saying the texts are "inserted." i am sympathetic to the neg saying the latter is vague / justifies sandbagging / whatever, and i care very little that the former didn't have "texts."

which way does presumption go? my understanding is that if the AFF is zero, the NEG wins, unless the NEG has gone for a deviation from the squo (CP or alt) and their offense is also zero, in which case the AFF wins. you can alter this calculus through debating.

theory:

slow down.

bricker: "Conditionality – it's feeling like a little bit much at the moment." the negation / theoretical case for conditionality is intuitive (neg just has to prove the plan bad), but its effects on debatability are often disastrous. which of these things outweighs is up to you.

theory arguments need to pass the "say the opposite" test. "condo bad - causes skew and decks clash" is sufficiently answered by "condo good - solves skew and creates clash."

i often find that objections in the vein of "this cp is too close to the plan" are better expressed as competition, not theory.

not convinced that states or international fiat negate "usfg should." i am, however, sympathetic to the debatability case for states. less so for international.

plans and counterplans: they should say something. i am very open to punishing a vague aff plan if the neg reads good normal means evidence (or just on theory, frankly). i am also very open to voting on "the neg's advantage counterplan to 'induce' solving a problem or 'increase' solutions is meaningless." you can overturn the former opinion with good debating (about whether the aff gets to define the scope of their plan), but it will be hard. i don't know how one would overturn the latter.

disadvantages: i think try-or-die is silly in reality but often persuasive if undercovered by the 2nr and extensively unpacked by the 2ar.

T vs plan affs: i don't share some judges' disdain for it. T debates, like theory debates, require you to slow down and explain what debates look like under your model.

*jurisdiction

trufanov: "Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator outweighs my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. You should give this line a wide berth."

awsare: "No double wins, devolution to another game, or soliciting audience participation. First to initiate receives a L and very low speaks." "Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Screenshots are not ev. I have neither the authority nor resources to launch an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, and pref sheets."

giampetruzzi: "I strongly believe you should email your opponents if you find an ethical issue with their evidence or strategy pre-round. Treating ethics challenges like case negs is worse for the integrity of the activity than the ethics issues in question."

Eleanor Barrett Liberal Arts and Science Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 13, 2024 at 11:21 AM EDT

Aff team loses .1 for every minute late the round starts. The 1AC should start on time, regardless of whether the neg is ready and set up on time.

I'm not a fan of small talk.

Emails for chain:

ebarrett.5210@gmail.com

lasadebatedocs@googlegroups.com (do not put this email on chain if LD)

Name the email chain with the format “Tournament name---Round---Aff team XX v Neg team XX”.

Freshmen at University of Michigan. Debated at LASA for 6 years.

Philosophy:

I appreciate that debaters spend hundreds of hours preparing for tournaments and make significant financial sacrifices to be here. I believe debate is a game, and judges have a moral imperative to fairly evaluate debates. When judges make decisions that don't accurately and impartially reflect the debating done in the round they do a profound disservice to the activity and disrespect all 4 debaters in the round. Personal beliefs, moral guilt, or social considerations should never affect the outcome of a debate, and they will not factor into my decisions. I would rather vote for my worst enemy going for my least favorite argument against my best friend if I thought they had won technically, then render a decision that did not reflect who did the better debating.

This is not to say I think I'm a perfect or even very good judge. As a debater, I tried to avoid preferring first year outs due to their inexperience and frequent inconsistency. It would be egotistical to try and promise my judging may not suffer from those flaws. I can, however, promise that I will try my hardest to judge debates impartially and dilligently. I know that the worst decisions debaters receive are felt viscerally and intensely. The idea of unjustly inflicting that feeling onto someone is frightening.

I encourage you to post round me or any other judge in order to better understand the decision or attempt to demonstrate why a decision is incorrect. The state of judging is an existential threat to the activity, and lazy, unobjective, and incompetent judges should be willing to incur public shaming as a cost to the dishonor they do onto debates.
Non-negotiables:

---Constructives are 8 minutes, Rebuttals are 5 minutes. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. Each debater gives 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. I will only flow words said by the person giving the speech.

---Ethics challenges require stopping the debate. I won’t vote on evidence ethics against cards that have previously been read unless you can show that you made a good-faith attempt to notify your opponents before the debate. I prefer injunctions that are less severe then making a team lose, like striking the card or argument. Clipping = L

---Debate is a communication activity. I flow the speech, not the doc. I usually flow on excel. I may check the doc for clipping a few times during each speech, but I often don't open the doc. I do not read tags or analytics in the doc, since it is impossible to segregate the information I'm receiving from the speech from the information I'm receiving from the doc. When I review evidence after the debate, I put it into invisibility mode to avoid accidently reading non-highlighted parts of cards. If evidence comparison occurs, I'll look at cards in context.

---Tell me how to write the ballot. Do not tell me how to assign speaker points. Since the W or L reflect who won technically, I view speakerpoints as being a sort of market-correction that can reward practices besides technical victory (although technical debating is certainly a factor). Examples: research quality, clarity, innovativeness, humor, organization, knowledgeableness, minimization of dead time, personality, strategy, CX skills

---I will not vote for an argument that’s new in the 2AR under any circumstance. An argument is new if my understanding of it changes from the 1AR to the 2AR.

---Tech over truth. Arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact for them to matter. If I can’t explain an argument to the other team after the debate I won’t vote for it. Truth effects tech because bad arguments can be more easily beaten.

---If you have a choice between winning the debate in 5 minutes and winning the debate in 30 seconds, I would much rather you win in 30. Winning without using full speech time will be heavily rewarded with speaks. Also, +0.1 for every 1 minutes of prep you do not take.

---I will only say "clear" in the case that your spreading on cards is approaching an ethics violation. Clarity of tags and analytics won't cause me to say "clear" since I think it would be interventionist to prompt debaters to make their speech more flowable.

---Try-or-die describes a situation in which extinction is inevitable and only one side has a chance of solving it. If one side accesses try or die I will vote for them.

Pre-dispositions (can be overturned easily if you win them technically):

---I believe the affirmative has the "burden of proof," or a task of proving the resolution is true, and the neg has the "burden of rejoinder," prompting it to disprove the affirmative. It is not-obvious to me why affirmatives that don't advocate for (or at least in the direction of) the resolution have met this burden of proof. I do not know why an affirmative being true or good merits an aff ballot if it does not meet the burden of proof of the resolution. Since the burden of proof precedes the burden of rejoinder, I am not sure why such affirmatives justify negation either. Further, in cases where the presented 1AC negates the resolution, I could easily be persuaded that I have a jurisdictional obligation to vote neg.
---This spiel is NOT to say I would not vote for a planless affirmative (see tech over truth above) but to disclose my predisposition. I think the best arguments on framework favor the neg and many presumption-style arguments are persuasive.

---I default to judge kick until told otherwise.

---I am not a fan of "inserting" rehighlighted evidence. If you do, you have to explain the lines that go your way for me to look at it, to the point that it may just be faster for you to read the rehighlight. I don't look closely at "inserted" charts that aren't explained, unless you read words in the chart.

---Theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. "X is a voting issue" requires a warrant to be a reason to reject the team.

---I’ll read evidence, but my evaluations of evidence can be easily overcome with evidence comparison.

---Presumption flips neg unless a the neg forwards a counterplan.

---Debates a game and fairness is an impact.

---I do not find glee at the thought of judging anti-intellectual arguments like extreme impact turns, but if you can't beat them you deserve to lose. I won't hesitate to vote on bad arguments if you win them.

---Since the 2NC is a constructive, new arguments can be legitimately introduced. Since the 1NR and 1AR are rebuttals, new arguments cannot be legitimately introduced. This includes counterplans, impacts, theory, and t violations.

---I am more intuitively persuaded by predictability/arbitrariness/precision impacts then limits/debatability in T, framework, competition, and theory debates. Words mean what they mean, and preferring a smaller or larger topic is subjective. Better for reasonability then the average judge.

---"Extinction outweighs" is very intuitive to me. However, I would not consider myself a member of the cult of extinction because extinction claims are often hyperbolic and rarely substantiated by impact evidence.

---I generally don't treat evidence written by debate coaches about debate with any more credence then arguments made by debaters about debate. There's a transparent conflict of interest, and I don't believe advanced communication degrees gives anyone more authority to speak about debate in light of the diversity of opinions about debate among members of the activity.

---I might not be the best judge for "technical debate bad" or "line by line bad" arguments, since I don't know how else to decide who won arguments in the debate. If you win I should vote for the side I think is most closely advocating for the truth, that may not go in your favor.

---I'm shocked by paradigms that say they would not evaluate philosophy debates and default to utilitarianism but also say they think fairness is an impact or that they will never vote for racist arguments because they are unethical. Many of the most espoused premised in debates are deontological, not utilitarian, claims, so refusing to evaluate competing ethical theories seems pretty intellectually lazy. That being said, I am not necessarily familiar with all the terminology and jargon in phil debates.

---I believe conditionality is permissible.

---I like functional competition.

---My record suggests that I am a better neg judge then aff judge. Sorry :(

LD-Specific:

---I'm unfamiliar with LD-specific terminology, so your arguments will be more persuasive to me if you explain using terms I would know. For example, assume I don't know what a "hijack" means but I do understand what to do with "Our moral philosophy link turns/solves the benefits of theirs."

---I am also not necessarily familiar with norms related to when new arguments can be legitimately introduced. I will use my best judgement but you might have to do a little bit more in terms of explaining why something new should be disallowed in the 1AR and NR.

Tristan Bato College Prep 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 2:03 AM PDT

Email Chain:tjbdebate@gmail.com

Assistant Coach at College Prep. Debated at Damien High School (2016-2020).

There are very view things content-wise that I actually have major predispositions about in debate. I do have some biases about some arguments but those are mitigated by clear judge instruction and impact comparison. I mostly desire to judge rounds with explicit ballot writing, line-by-line argument comparison, and impact calculus at the top of each part of the round. I know this sounds obvious, but I believe that the current state of debate is too centered around cloud clash and proliferating warrantless claims and hoping that the judge can resolve it themselves without explicit instruction.

My philosophy is simply that I will flow and listen to every part of the debate and evaluate it given the instructions of the 2NR and 2AR. Absent those instructions, I will try to reconstruct the debate as I saw it and make a decision based on how I view arguments which in many ways can frustrate and upset teams who fail to meet that minimum standard of argumentation. I do not mean this to be a warning but rather a reminder that debate is a communicative activity and that just because it sounds good in your head doesn't mean that is how it was conveyed to me.

Good line-by-line debating means extending not only a central claim and its supporting warrants but also giving some type of comparison between arguments that extends beyond publishing date and author qualifications. There must always be a focus on isolating good warrants and extrapolating how those should be impacted out compared to the opposing arguments. Without this very fundamental concept, debate turns into a comparison of monologues without genuine and effective clash, thus removing value from the activity. If in doubt, the "they say, we say" model is the best and most effective way to attack the line-by-line.

I reward teams that flow, signpost, and clearly segment the debate into identifiable arguments. Speeding through blocks all the way through the 2AR does nothing to influence my ballot and makes me rather upset since it just seems like a reading contest instead of contextual and reactive debating. I try to flow on paper without looking at my computer so the burden of communication is on the debaters. If you are not clear or are spreading to blocks at unchecked speed, you may be upset at my decision since I can only evaluate what I have on my flow. I am human and will make mistakes but I usually do not miss anything of great consequence on my flow but that still requires you to be clear and concise.

Below are some argument choices that I have specific thoughts about:

K-Affs vs. Framework -

I have voted for both sides in these debates. I really couldn't care less about what the 1AC is about. I prefer there to be some link to the topic but if you can a reason why there shouldn't be one then my feelings are irrelevant. Fairness is not a terminal impact to me. In most rounds, the negative just says that is an intrinsic good and that is about it. I think there procedural fairness is good because it can lead to discussions of the topic or solution based dialogue, but on its own there have been no compelling reasons why it is independently good. I am much more persuaded by framework arguments like topic education good, state engagement good, consequence-based clash good, clash and agonism good, and skills good since those have the capacity to effect real world decision making more. I have voted for fairness but I think that it more just seems like whining instead of a genuine call for resolution of cheating, given that there has probably never been a perfectly fair debate ever. I've voted on it because the aff has been technically behind but in closely contested rounds, I think I have a more aff leaning record against fairness. Honestly, if you want to go for this argument I don't mind because if you can win it on the flow then none of my thoughts matter, but if the aff is doing their job well, I won't just check out on it.

Microaggressions -

I would prefer that this argument be reserved for when there have been in-round incidents of interpersonal violence on the basis of identity instead of calling an argument serves as offense against you this. I have plenty of reasons why but the main two are this: 1. If a microaggression has occurred I will probably know that it has and my role has shifted to being the only adult in the room with young students and I will prioritize everyone's safety over the result of the round. I do not think that real instances of violence or aggression can or should be litigated with the power of the ballot. If this happens in a round, I will not hesitate to tell tab and the coaches of both teams what has happened since you all are students first and foremost and competitors second. I think the tab solves argument should resolve any other questions. 2. I think that calling procedural arguments microagressions trivializes true forms of violence in an attempt to win a ballot. This should not be the A strategy because it utilizes real forms of violence and creates what I believe to be a false equivalence with arguments that set a limit to discussion. I think that framework can be criticized for bracketing out content but those arguments are distinct from microaggressions.

Katie Baxter-Kauf St. Paul Central HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 10:24 AM CDT

Katie Baxter-Kauf (she/her pronouns)
2024-2025 Notes
St. Paul Central / Minnesota Urban Debate League
Chain emails: katebaxterkauf@gmail.com, stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com

Past useful info: I debated in high school in Kansas (Shawnee Mission East, 1995-1998), and in college for Macalester (1998-2001) (all policy plus a semester of HS LD and rogue college parli tournaments). I coached at Blaine High School (2000-2002), then the Blake School (2002-2003), some freelancing for Mankato West, Shawnee Mission East, and others (2003-2007), then for Como Park briefly when I came back to work for the UDL (2007-2008) and some side helping as needed at St. Paul Central. I coached college at the University at Buffalo and the University of Rochester (2003-2007). I ran logistics for the MNUDL from 2007-2011, when I graduated from law school and became a lawyer. I have judged 5-10 middle school or high school debates a year since 2011, and judged 25 policy debates in 2022-2023, and 50+ rounds in 2023-2024. I also serve as the Vice Chair of the Minnesota Urban Debate League Advisory Board.

General notes and TLDR version: (1) don't be a jerk; (2) I don't care about tag-team cross-ex, just don't yell at each other; (3) don't steal prep; (4) debates are public and that means that everyone is welcome, I will always defend what I do, people should feel safe, and I'll answer whatever questions anyone has afterwards; (5) fundamentally do what you want and I'll follow along; and (6) debate is fun and I'm so glad you get to experience doing it, and I'm honored to get to participate with you.

Argument notes after a couple years judging/coaching policy debate after a dozen years off: Debates are fundamentally the same as the way they were when I last coached and if anything I am surprised at how little argument and structure have evolved. I have no problem keeping up with you all and I have an exceptionally good memory. I at least sort of read along with speech docs and that seems to make it so that I filter my fundamental feeling that tech comes before truth through a lens of the quality of your evidence. I find the practice of interspersing theory arguments with substantive arguments a little hard to follow at times, especially when you put the substance parts in your speech docs but not the fast theory parts. If you want me to actually vote on these arguments or use them as direction on how to evaluate other arguments, like a permutation or a CP (instead of just using them for the time tradeoff or to make sure you don't drop something) you would be well served to make sure I can understand you. I have a fairly expressive face and am fairly chatty.

If someone who knew me a long time ago is giving you advice on how to debate in front of me, I will say that I am fundamentally the same person I have been since my very first day of debate practice but that the main way I have probably changed is that I have a higher voting threshold on arguments that are either blippy theory or fundamentally stupid (and recognized by all parties as such). I am a hard sell, for example, on the concept that the cap kritik that people read when I was in high school is still cheating 25+ years later, or that dumb unexplained voters mean that teams should lose absent some compelling justification. I also think that framework and conditionality debates are, at their core, boring, though I understand both the necessity and utility. If push comes to shove, I would always rather people talk about substance.

2024-2025 Topic Notes: I am a practicing litigator, primarily doing plaintiffs' side complex class action work (mostly data breach/cybersecurity/privacy, antitrust, and consumer protection). I am not an IP lawyer. What this means for you: I understand legal concepts and especially the process of litigation exceptionally well and I will know if you describe it incorrectly (and will probably tell you). This should not affect whether I vote for your incorrect argument, and I know more than anyone that a lot of these concepts are pretty esoteric, but accuracy will certainly get you higher points.

BUT, and MOST CRITICALLY: Fundamentally, I don't care what arguments you read. I want you to do what you think you do best and have a good time doing it. I would DRAMATICALLY prefer to watch a good debate on your preferred argument than a bad one on stuff you think I'd like. I am generally very well read and aware of stuff going on in the world, but have a humanities/literature/law school and not a realist foreign policy/science/economics background. I am fine in a heg/DA/CP debate. I have read a lot more of the critical literature than you think I have. I have general proclivities and stuff I know better than other stuff or literature I've actually read (and I have a fairly low threshold for gendered/racist/hate-filled/exclusionary behavior and/or language), but it's your debate, and I will do my absolute best only to evaluate the arguments that get made in the debate round. If you have questions about specific arguments, I'm happy to answer them.

POINTS: SORRY, I KNOW MY POINTS ARE TOO LOW. Am going to try adjusting up the half point I seem to be behind at circuit tournaments for the rest of the year and see how it goes. I follow instructions from Jake Swede at UDL tournaments. PLEASE don't take this personally - I think you're all great. Edit 1/6/25: this seems to have worked? Will keep doing it.

Carol Beard Clear Springs High School 7 rounds

Dustyn Beutelspacher Greenhill School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 10:00 AM EDT

Put me on the email chain: dustyn.beutelspacher@gmail.com

*For high school - please add greenhilldocscx@gmail.com

Affiliations: Debated at Niles West in high school, UTD in college. Now coach for UTD and Greenhill school

TL;DR:

Go for what you want to go for, if you got a K aff, make sure you can beat framework, if you go for a process cp, make sure you can beat theory, etc, etc, I will try my hardest to adapt and judge the round as objectively as possible.

I love line-by-line. The more you engage with your opponent's arguments, the more likely you are to win and the higher your speaks will be.

I have a higher threshold for dismissing an arg for being new than most judges, the exception being the 2ar

1 good card > 10 bad cards.

I won't vote on things that happened out of round or in other debates.

You can insert rehighlightings of the other team's evidence, text of a card only needs to be read once for it to be evaluated.

No racism/sexism/etc, be nice. Don't do that thing where you delete tags or read new affs on paper or stuff like that to make your speech harder to read.

I don’t mind when people call me judge.

Longer:

I've become more willing to comb through evidence over the years, but it's mostly out of curiosity since debaters seem to be getting better at spinning ev, obviously I have my limits, but the debate includes the debate over the evidence.

I think conditionality is good, it seems to be necessary in this day and age when topics are very broad. I've become more neg biased recently but maybe it's just my disillusion with one unwarranted sentence of condo bad somehow becoming an entire 2ar. Condo in general seems to have gotten significantly more shallow. There probably is some point at which condo becomes bad, but I can't truthfully see myself voting for condo bad absent some egregious neg strategy or technical error.

Since it has come up more than once, my stance on judge kick is that I will presume judge kick if nothing has been said on theory, if the aff wants to win no judge kick, then you must at least make the arg in the 1ar.

I have become a bit jaded on many process counterplans. I think they can be some of the most well researched, interesting, and topic and aff germane arguments in debate. That being said, there are also counterplans that have been recycled verbatim for the past few years, which I am personally not a fan of. I think theory/competition arguments which make this distinction would be very persuasive to me.

I like Ks the more specific the link analysis is. I tend to think of Ks as one or multiple thesis statements that, if won, should theoretically disprove the aff. This means the more you pull warrants from cards, explain the aff in the terms of your K, etc, the more likely it is that you beat the perm since that explanation makes links a lot more salient. That's a lot more persuasive than big aff/neg framework pushes to me

FW/T vs K affs. Since this is the only portion of a paradigm that matters for most pref sheets, yes I will vote on framework, yes I will vote against it. These debates seem to come down to impact comparison, as usually it seems hard to win either topical affs are necessary to prevent the entire collapse of this activity, versus framework is genocide, which makes winning as much of your impact quite important. Fairness impact seem to make intrinsic sense to me if debate is a game, but im not sure why that is a catch-all win if the aff wins debate rounds have impacts.

Guy Bloom Mamaroneck High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 12:15 PM EDT

Bronx Science 2023

University of Michigan 2027

Assistant Coach at Mamaroneck

Add this email: guybloom@umich.edu

The decision I give will consist primarily of arguments made in the final rebuttals; I'll try to stick to this as much as I can, though I will at some points have to insert my own interpretations of what was said.

Strategies which you can confidently defend are good in front of me. I take more seriously some arguments which others don’t. This obviously includes stuff like wipeout, but also "no neg fiat," intrinsicness tests, and "no topical counterplans." Appeals to how evil these arguments are won't get you very far in front of me.

If you read these arguments you should take them seriously. I get annoyed when I feel like I'm evaluating a bad joke delivered by a giggling highschooler.

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

Fairness is more persuasive than clash, but I ultimately think that pretty much all theoretical debates are unsound. Debate has a faulty and inconsistent approach when it comes to rules and their enforcement.

Certainly the fact that the resolution limits the topic reasonably and provides aff and neg ground is something that matters, but it's a mistake to say that because it matters it is the REASON we follow the rule. No, the reason we follow the rule is that the rule defines the game, and there's not much more than that (though this alone is a pretty much uncontestable justification for following rules). But because of theory debates, we all think that every time we follow a rule, it is because that rule is net-positive, and that following a rule is the result of some cost-benefit analysis. This approach where we view theory as a disad where the violation of the rule requires some impact feels wrong. The old-school "you need to follow the rules to be playing the game"-type arguments are underrated by the community. They also do not require winning that the game is good, which should make them strategic.

What I mean is this: the goodness of the rule should have no bearing on my decision to enforce it in any particular scenario. Perhaps chess would be better if the knight moved diagonally, but an arbiter cannot choose not to enforce the rules after coming to this conclusion; if they did so, the game being facilitated would cease to be chess. The goodness of the rules may influence our decision to play the game (or continue playing the game), but I don't think that one can choose to play the game without accepting all of its rules. This is a descriptive claim, because if someone did make that choice, I would say that they are no longer playing the same game.

For these reasons, I find most theory which takes the form "it would be good if we allowed/disallowed this practice" unconvincing. Resolutional theory probably gets around this, since it more closely resembles "this practice IS allowed/disallowed".

For what it's worth, I think jurisdiction is by far the best argument made by the negative in framework debates (though ultimately it is losing because topicality is descriptively not a rule, or atleast not one which I am obligated to enforce all of the time). My weird opinions shouldn't scare you, though, they've literally never had any bearing on how I've evaluated any debate round. If this does become relevant, though, in a theory debate, I would be very receptive to the argument "the resolution includes/excludes this thing, literally nothing else matters."

All this being said, I'd like to judge more counterplan competition debates. They have the same pitfalls as other theory (why should debatability be relevant to the definition of an opportunity cost?), but this controversy is actually kind of interesting. I think many arguments made here are nonsense (textual topicality, "what is a function?") but if you demonstrate a real understanding of what's going on you'll be rewarded. Textual + functional and functional only are both defensible. If I had to choose, I'd probably go with functional only, since that more closely aligns with the 'true' definition of opportunity cost.

A good quality in debaters is understanding what bullets you have to bite. If you defend utilitarianism, you probably have to answer the weird hypotheticals. I probably care more about this type of stuff than others.

I think that if you get risk low enough, it probably becomes zero. If there's a 0.01% chance the aff triggers the link to the disad, there's probably also a 0.01% chance the aff does some other butterfly effect thing to turn the link to the disad. Obviously, the aff team would have to make this argument for me to look at things this way.

"Sufficiency framing" is not the argument that the counterplan only needs to solve enough such that the net benefit outweighs the deficit. This is implied by the way we calculate risk in debate. The non-redundant form of this argument is that each aff internal link has some solvency "threshold", above which its potency is 100%, and even if the counterplan still solves worse than the plan, it surpasses the threshold and so it functionally solves all of the case. Think: "plan: give Guy $100 to buy a $20 burger,""counterplan: give Guy $20 to buy a $20 burger and invest the remaining $80 in the stock market."

I often disregard large parts of the debate when they are irrelevant to the ballot I write. That's not to say that I don't flow them, but I can quickly brush past arguments in evaluation if they don't meaningfully disagree with the other team's path to victory. If I conclude the negative wins that I shouldn't care about the consequences of the plan, then arguments about how bad extinction is and how good the plan would be for minorities become useless. Alternatively, if the aff wins I should only care about consequences, then I don't really care how problematic the representations of the 1AC were. Of course this extends beyond framework, but you understand the point.

I'm not the best flow and I'm kind of unforgiving if I don't catch something. I wish I wasn't, but the alternative would have me retroactively revising my flow if you tell me they dropped something I don't have, and that has obvious flaws. This probably means slow down or emphasize if something is important.

There are five scenarios in which I strike arguments off my flow:

1) The argument is new in the 2AR and does not respond directly to a new 2NR argument; this is the most obvious case and of course left up to my discretion, though I am pretty neg-leaning in these situations.

2) The argument is new in the 2NR, lacks a reason its newness is justified, and the 2AR points it out. Nothing further is required.

3) The argument is new in the 2NR, has a reason its newness is justified, but the 2AR answers those reasons adequately and points out that the argument was new in the 2NR. "Adequately" is hard to define, but the 2AR does get new answers to new 2NR arguments so this almost always favors the aff.

4) The argument is in a rebuttal speech before the 2NR, the opposing team claims it is new, and the accused team does not justify or dispute the newness. Nothing further is required.

5) The argument is in a rebuttal speech before the 2NR, the opposing team points it out, the accused team claims it is new or that the newness is justified (new answers to new 1AR offense, new answers to blippy theory, etc.), but the accusing team wins that it is new and that the newness is unjustified.

I believe this is comprehensive. Notably, this means in order for me to strike an argument, you must point it out as new (with the exception of the 2AR). So new 2NR arguments are perfectly fine if the 2AR does not point them out. Similarly, new 1AR arguments are fine if the 2NR does not point them out.

I would prefer if we minimized dead time. I'm not going to be excessive about forcing you to run prep for like, sending cards or something, but you really should have the document ready to send by the time you pause the timer. If you're incredibly inefficient about this type of stuff I will probably dock speaker points.

One last thing: I am human, so naturally I enjoy listening to people talk about things they care about. In evaluation this doesn't make a difference, but I'm more likely to award high speaks if I can tell you care about something, or at least are genuinely knowledgeable about it. I understand and agree with the robotic "tech over truth" approach when it comes to writing decisions, but the most enjoyable part of debate to me is that it allows people to "geek-out" in a setting which forces engagement. That is to say, I enjoy judging creative arguments greatly and am willing to hear about anything.

The status quo argumentative meta (as it relates to theory, Ks, other meta-debate stuff) is terrible. If there is something which seems obvious to you that no one else is saying, it's more likely than not that the status quo is wrong. Many of the novice-level inquiries about why debate is the way it is are more fruitful than we give them credit for. A lot of arguments which are uncontroversial should be and many which are controversial should not be. In general, I find people are not nearly as skeptical as they should be of the way debaters approach arguments about debate.

Ilan Boguslavsky Head-Royce High School 2 rounds

Jack Booth The Bronx High School Of Science 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:51 AM EDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

-great for impact turns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Version:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

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

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian Box Blue Valley North 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 7:42 AM CDT

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4@gmail.com

As of November 2024, I am actively working to increase my speaker points to match inflation. I will reward better points to well-researched teams who demonstrate command of topic literature in CX and their speeches. If a tournament gives 10 minutes of prep, I will increase your points for taking less prep.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I have found that most high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

At some level, this is just another old guy "be clear and flow!" paradigm, but I really mean it! Here are a few important things to consider when debating in front of me.

Use your flow to answer the other team's arguments. Don't read into your computer screen from start to finish.

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Highlighting is important. Definitely willing to lower the prioritization of an argument or ignore it entirely if it's highlighted nonsensically. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful indicits evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Establishing a clear interpretation is important. "Process bad" doesn't mean much to me.

The link comes first.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

Alex Brown Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Jeff Buntin Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 3:54 AM CDT

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

for email chains: buntinjp [at] gmail.com

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------------------------X----Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-------x--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is an impact-X------------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2017 speaker points---------------------X--------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive----------X---------------D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

New affs bad-----------------------------------------X-Old affs bad

Aff on process competition--X-------------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X- Real arguments

'Judge kick'----------------------------------X---Absolutely no 'judge kick'

Nukes topic--X-----------------------------------------Any other topic ever

Daryl Burch McDonogh 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 2:37 PM EDT

Daryl Burch

currently the director of high school debate for McDonogh

formerly coached at the University of Louisville, duPont Manual High School (3X TOC qualifiers; Octofinalist team 2002) the head coach for Capitol Debate who won the TOC (2014). McDonogh won the TOC in 2017. I have taught summer institutes at the University of Michigan, Michigan State, Emory, Iowa, Catholic University, and Towson University and Wake Forest as a lab leader.

I debated three years in high school on the kentucky and national circuit and debated five years at the University of Louisville.

I gave that little tidbit to say that I have been around debate for a while and have debated and coached at the most competitive levels with ample success. I pride myself in being committed to the activity and feel that everyone should have a voice and choice in their argument selection so I am pretty much open to everything that is in good taste as long as YOU are committed and passionate about the argument. The worst thing you can do in the back of the room is assume that you know what I want to hear and switch up your argument selection and style for me and give a substandard debate. Debate you and do it well and you will be fine.

True things to know about me:
Did not flow debates while coaching at the University of Louisville for two years but am flowing again

Was a HUGE Topicality HACK in college and still feel that i am up on the argument. I consider this more than a time suck but a legitimate issue in the activity to discuss the merit of the debate at hand and future debates. I have come to evolve my thoughts on topicality as seeing a difference between a discussion of the topic and a topical discussion (the later representing traditional views of debate- division of ground, limits, predictability etc.) A discussion of the topic can be metaphorical, can be interpretive through performance or narratives and while a topical discussion needs a plan text, a discussion of the topic does not. Both I think can be defended and can be persuasive if debated out well. Again stick to what you do best. Critiquing topicality is legitimate to me if a reverse voting issue is truly an ISSUE and not just stated with unwarranted little As through little Gs. i.e. framework best arguments about reduction of language choices or criticism of language limitations in academic discussion can become ISSUES, voting issues in fact. The negative's charge that the Affirmative is not topical can easily be developed into an argument of exclusion begat from predictable limitations that should be rejected in debate.

It is difficult to label me traditional or non traditional but safer to assume that i can go either way and am partial to traditional performative debate which is the permutation of both genres. Teams that run cases with well developed advantages backed by a few quality pieces of evidence are just as powerful as teams that speak from their social location and incorporate aesthetics such as poetry and music. in other words if you just want to read cards, read them poetically and know your argument not just debate simply line by line to win cheap shots on the flow. "They dropped our simon evidence" is not enough of an argument for me to win a debate in front of me. If i am reading your evidence at the end of the debate that is not necessairly a good thing for you. I should know what a good piece of evidence is because you have articulated how good it was to me (relied on it, repeated it, used it to answer all the other arguments, related to it, revealed the author to me) this is a good strategic ploy for me in the back of the room.

Technique is all about you. I must understand what you are saying and that is it. I have judged at some of the highest levels in debate (late elims at the NDT and CEDA) and feel pretty confident in keeping up if you are clear.

Not a big fan of Malthus and Racism Good so run them at your own risk. Malthus is a legitimate theory but not to say that we should allow systematic targeted genocide of Black people because it limits the global population. I think i would be more persuaded by the argument that that is not a NATURAL death check but an IMMORAL act of genocide and is argumentatively irresponsible within the context of competitive debate. Also i am not inclined to believe you that Nietzsche would say that we should target Black people and exterminate them because death is good. Could be wrong but even if i am, that is not a persuasive argument to run with me in the back of the room. In case you didn't know, I AM A BLACK PERSON.

Bottom line, I can stomach almost any argument as long as you are willing to defend the argument in a passionate but respectful way. I believe that debate is inherently and unavoidable SUBJECTIVE so i will not pretend to judge the round OBJECTIVELY but i will promise to be as honest and consistent as possible in my ajudication. Any questions you have specifically I am more than happy to answer.

Open Cross X, weird use of prep time (before cross x, as a prolonging of cross x) all that stuff that formal judges don't like, i am probably ok with.

db

Azja Butler Greenhill School 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 4:58 PM CDT

Paradigm Last Updated – Winter2025

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

Put me on the email chain :) azjabutler@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge Instruction....DO IT! In other words, tell me what you want me to do with the arguments you're winning and why! Judge instruction will often look different depending on your style of debate. While I do take this into consideration, I expect each team to synthesize their arguments and their relationship (offense/defense) to other moving parts of the debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is a must.

Please for the love of all that is pure and kind, FLOW! I hate "flow-check" questions and feel they reflect poorly on your ability to organize the debate. To be completely real with y'all I also think they are indicative of lazy debating. Don't get caught up.

General:

I consider myself a reflexive and flexible judge. Meaning, I make a frequent effort to judge a wide variety of debates. Debaters should be allowed to read arguments they feel confident and passionate about. However, I debated more critically--this being the case means I primarily judge "k v k" and "clash" debates. I enjoy these debates best and feel my feedback is the most fruitful for the students here. Regardless, I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and try to provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

If you consider yourself a team who debates primarily in the "traditional policy" camp, I would be cautious preffing me. While I can hang in these debates, and coach a number of these teams myself, my primary expertise is not in these arguments and their broader development within the community. If my time in debate has taught me anything, it's that a lot of policy teams/coaches see debate like math i.e. x argument + y argument + z concession + this particular card = this definitive result... I do not see debate this way. I never have. If you're expecting a decision that sounds something like that, then I am not the judge for you.

Yes, I care about evidence quality! I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I rarely will ever ask for a card document. I don't like reading evidence at the end of a debate in place of students making arguments and doing their own analysis. That being said, I understand that reading evidence has become a large part of judging, BUT because I'm not ever cutting politics updates please be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading evidence and what I should be looking for! I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you probably haven't done your job and will probably receive more judge intervention from me.

Clipping(skipping over words or speaking in such a way that I cannot make out the word that's supposed to be there) or cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss. I follow along more closely in 1AC and 1NC documents bc this is where clipping happens the most. After these speeches I rarely open sent documents and flow by ear.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing” you. If I have to clear you more than twice, your speaks will be affected.

Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + Planless Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base. You should be able to articulate why your strategy being located within debate is good.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out!

Goodluck and have fun! #RockChalk

@ the Nano Nagle (HS LD / PF)

"Did you read x card..." or "Which cards did you skip" are QUESTIONS so the CX timer should be started, this mess is flighted so please don't waste my or the tournament's time.

Arguments have three parts: 1] Claim 2] Data/Evidence 3]Warrant -- if these are not present your chance of winning in front of me are low.

I primarily judge high school and college policy -- at the point in which you integrate policy arguments, norms, and techne is the point in which I evaluate the debate as a 1v1 policy debate. I will take no notes.

I promise I have no problem clearing you or your opponent so please don't clear one another -- if it's actually unclear I will more than likely beat you to it.

I don't like having to read evidence in place of you all actually debating/making arguments. That being said if your evidence is just a series of one-liners / a sentence long, only partially highlighted I prob won't take your stuff seriously.

Don't read Kant in front of me and expect me to see the debate the way you do -- if you don't know that means: Don't read it.

AJ Byrne New Trier High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 4:59 PM CDT

ajbyrne1018(at)gmail.com -please put me on the chain.

I coach for New Trier and Northwestern.

I judged 80+ debates last year and am on track this year to judge even more this year. I like judging a lot and take it very seriously. The only things I love more than debate are my cat and the game Bloodborne for the Playstation 4®

I am far more truth oriented than other judges, I like evaluating the big picture and the interaction between arguments rather than reassembling the technical minutiae of the flow. Debate is a game of voting thresholds and virtually no argument exists in a vacuum.

----I reserve all rights to not vote for an argument if I don't understand it and you have to pinky-promise to not yell at me if that happens to you.-----

I find the proliferation of arguments involving microaggresions extremely disappointing - I will likely not vote for any of these arguments and could be persuaded that the frivolous use of these arguments is pretty harmful.

IF you feel like the other team has disrespected you in a way that they should therefore deserve to lose - stake the debate on it - and we can talk about it.

Args that I will never consider good enough to vote on: ASPEC, Conditions CPs (unless the plan specifies unconditional action), Animal Wipeout, T-Subsets on this year's high school topic, Any of the "edgy" impact turns, Sparking/Wiping out the aff in lieu of actually cutting case negs.

Flowing/Clarity: I do not flow off of the speech doc and will likely not have it open during speeches. Please do not read your blocks at top speed in front of me. I will greatly reward debaters who are putting in effort in the clarity, flowing, and organization aspects of their game. If you are standing up for a speech 2AC-onwards without your flows you are not debating the right way.

T vs K: I do not like judging big framework debates, not because I think that K teams are all cheaters but because these are debates where teams just brow-beat each other with their blocks they wrote in August and somehow expect the judge to come up with a satisfying RFD. I heavily rely on offense-defense while deciding these debates and will likely be more deferential to whichever team that kept the debate more organized. Reading T-USFG is not a violent speech act. I find most fairness pushes outside of the most basic establishment of procedural fairness pretty whiny. I am far more interested in clash and the vision each team has for how debate around the resolution should operate.

T vs Policy: I am not very good for the negative in this area. I find reasonability/predictability pushes very persuasive. I am not a member of the cult of limits, Literature limits almost certainly check and high schoolers should be encouraged to cut more cards. I will happily join the cult if I am presented with some good evidence though. I have no idea what Plan Text in a Vacuum means.

CP Theory: I don't vote for Conditions CPs. I think the aff's ability to go for theory is pretty dependent on the germaneness of the CP to the topic. Example: Consult Japan on a Nukes topic is probably pretty good! International Actor CPs on a Domestic topic seem pretty bad! The NGA CP is pretty bad.

My default is not kicking the CP for the neg in the 2NR - That being said you were probably in elementary school the last time I judged a debate that hinged on the CP linking to the net benefit.

I don't know what "non-resolutional theory" means.

Kritiks: I am not voting for the Framework Process CP. Framework is a defensive argument for the negative and I am easily persuaded that "you link you lose" is anti-educational. If the negative wins framework but fails to make inroads on other parts of the K I will vote aff on presumption. However, I am a total sucker for good alt explanation or a link analysis that puts a lot of doubt on the aff's ability to solve their internal links. I will give extremely high points for debaters that are able to use real world/historical examples to effectively bolster their arguments. I find a lot of 2ACs that attempt to answer the K absolutely dreadful.

DAs: Zero-risk is a thing. Plan Popular is not an argument that link turns an agenda DA.

I will look very grumpy during your debate - I am still very likely having a very enjoyable time, I just look like that most times.

Please refrain from talking to the other team when they are preparing for rebuttals

If you are rude to your partner I will call you out on it and give you a 26 - please be normal.

If you are not an active questioner/responder in your designated CXs I will be pretty punishing towards your points.

I miss the Security K :(

Ryan Cavanaugh Kenwood Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 27, 2024 at 6:18 AM CDT

Updated October 2024

Hi!

Ryan

Gemini

Rcav.debate@gmail.com

If you have questions about debating at Kansas or Iowa, feel free to reach out!

TLDR:Most of my personal experience has been with K debate but I am down to hear anything. Make complete arguments, have fun.

Background:

Debated for 4 years in Chicago/CDL for Northside College Prep (2016-2020). I debated on China, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales.

Debated for 4 years at the University of Iowa (2020-2024). I debated on Alliances, Antitrust, Personhood, Nukes.

I am currently a graduate student and coach at the University of Kansas. I was a lab leader at the JDI 2024.

As a debater, I was almost exclusively running K’s for the last 6 years of my career. My argumentative background is primarily in trans studies, Black feminism, and queer theory. I judge a decent amount of debates, high school and college, policy and K, and therefore have some experience adjudicating both.

Thoughts: This is a non-exhaustive list of observations, thoughts, opinions, and notes about me that may be relevant to how I evaluate debates. However, my job as your judge is to evaluate the arguments presented to me – not to give you my personal musings. Please feel free to run whatever arguments you want.

1. I flow on paper. I don’t usually look at the docs during the debate unless you tell me to (i.e. if there is a specific performative element of the 1AC that requires me looking at the doc, you should let me know.)

2. Make arguments! I often find, while I am judging debates, that people get too caught up in reading cards and getting shiny objected. Say things that are true. Figure out the spin. Find the offense. I care a lot about the application of arguments and less about the number of cards you read on a particular thing. Reading cards doesn’t substitute making good arguments, and the card is only as good as how it is used. An argument is a claim! A warrant! And reasoning!

3. Organizing arguments: The “big picture” v. “techy” dichotomy is not real, obviously I care about both. In terms of ~where to put offense~, I do find myself often preferring strategies that are closer to the overviewy side – i.e. putting best offense at the top and framing the debate through that. This is how I debated generally as well. Judge instruction matters a lot! Tell me what to do with your arguments and why they matter.

4. K debate thoughts, since this is likely what people are here for lol.

a. Neg K v. policy aff: Diversifying offense early on is good, going for too much in the 2NR is not good. I think the reason framework debates often don’t go well (and why judges often give weird decisions like “framework was a wash”) is because teams don’t go for offense and don’t think about the ~implications~ of their arguments for ~models of debate~. “Links to the plan” is a vague phrase but not something you need to go for if you’re running a framework heavy K, your offense just needs to have implications.

b. K affs: Impact turning predictable limits is the aff framework argument that makes the most sense to me. Fairness and clash are impacts but that doesn’t mean I’ll just assume they matter – make them matter! My voting record on framework is honestly probably fairly even aff teams most often lose when they don’t make offensive arguments. Neg teams most often lose because their arguments are generic and don’t engage the aff. Framework arguments that I don’t think make much sense (not that you shouldn’t say them – rather making clear my thoughts and noting that these arguments are often bad because people assume they have made a complete argument when they haven’t): the “fairness paradox”, “debate doesn’t change subjectivities”, “call tab if we did something offensive”. Again, the degree to which the aff needs to “do something” depends on how well you justify it with implications for each argument.

c. K v K: Well done K v K debates are my favorite to watch. I love performance things and am down for pretty much anything. Biggest thing in these debates is differentiating offense and framing.

5. Theory: A niche enough opinion that is worth including is that I think disclosure is inherently good and am likely more predisposed than average to vote for disclosure theory/new affs bad. Condo is fine but the more egregious it is the more likely I am to vote on condo bad. I almost never think "perf con" is a theory argument that is a reason to reject the team, make it a substantive argument.

6. Speaker Points: I try to start at a 28 and add or deduct points from there based on nuance, clarity, etc. I'd say on average my points generally range from 28.6 - 29.2 for teams in the middle to upper range of the tournament. I've never 'cleared' before and I likely won't unless it becomes necessary - if you are going so fast that it compromises your ability to speak clearly and effectively communicate your arguments, I will simply stop flowing.

Other things:

[For high school] Asking for a marked doc means that cards were marked, not that they didn't get to every card in the doc. If you want to ask which cards were read, you need to run cross-x or prep.

Random thought, it's called a "counterplan" not a "see-pee" this annoys me for no reason lol

Ethics Challenges:A few notes on what an ethics violation is and what it means:

An ethics challenge refers to something like a miscut piece of evidence, and amounts to stopping the debate. If it is called an ethics violation, the round stops - it is not debated out (unless tab decides otherwise, but if it is up to my discretion I will stop the debate).

Ethics violations are sometimes a necessity in situations of bankrupt research practices, but in my opinion is not a "strategy" for you to be prepped to go for if you think you are losing a debate. Posing such a challenge will result in me contacting tab about appropriate measures - whether that means me making the decision or the tab director depends on the tournament and circumstances. Some examples of ethics violations are internal omissions of evidence, straw mans, etc.

I understand that often times (especially in high school debate) citational or miscutting errors are not intentional or done with malice, and so please note I will not hold it against you personally if such a violation occurs. In the event of this situation, I will award a 28.8/28.7 to the team who wins and a 28.6/28.5 to the team who loses (again, absent intervention from tab/egregious violations that result in me awarding minimum speaks allowed).

Good luck, and have fun!

Matt Cekanor Northview High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 1:55 PM CDT

Experience-This will be my sixth year as the head coach at Northview High School. Before moving to Georgia, I coached for 7 years at Marquette High in Milwaukee, WI.

Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is mcekanordebate@gmail.com

*As I have gained more coaching and judging experience, I find that I highly value teams who respect their opponents who might not have the same experience as them. This includes watching how you come across in CX, prep time, and your general comportment towards your opponent. In some local circuits, circuit-style policy debate is dwindling and we all have a responsibility to be respectful of the experience of everyone trying to be involved in policy debate.*

I recommend that you go to the bathroom and fill your water bottles before the debate rather than before a speech.

LD Folks please read the addendum at the end of my paradigm.

Meta-Level Strike Sheet Concerns

1. Debates are rarely won or lost on technical concessions or truth claims alone. In other words, I think the “tech vs. truth” distinction is a little silly. Technical concessions make it more complicated to win a debate, but rarely do they make wins impossible. Keeping your arguments closer to “truer” forms of an argument make it easier to overcome technical concessions because your arguments are easier to identify, and they’re more explicitly supported by your evidence (or at least should be). That being said, using truth alone as a metric of which of y’all to pick up incentivizes intervention and is not how I will evaluate the debate.

2. Evidence quality matters a bunch to me- it’s evidence that you have spent time and effort on your positions, it’s a way to determine the relative truth level of your claims, and it helps overcome some of the time constraints of the activity in a way that allows you to raise the level of complexity of your position in a shorter amount of time. I will read your evidence throughout the debate, especially if it is on a position with which I’m less familiar. I won’t vote on evidence comparison claims unless it becomes a question of the debate raised by either team, but I will think about how your evidence could have been used more effectively by the end of the debate. I enjoy rewarding teams for evidence quality.

3. Every debate could benefit from more comparative work particularly in terms of the relative quality of arguments/the interactions between arguments by the end of the round. Teams should ask "Why?", such as "If I win this argument, WHY is this important?", "If I lose this argument WHY does this matter?". Strategically explaining the implications of winning or losing an argument is the difference between being a middle of the road team and a team advancing to elims.

4. Some expectations for what should be present in arguments that seem to have disappeared in the last few years-

-For me to vote on a single argument, it must have a claim, warrant, impact, and impact comparison.

-A DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link and impact argument is presented.Too many teams are getting away with 2 card DA shells in the 1NC and then reading uniqueness walls in the block. I will generally allow for new 1AR answers.

Similarly, CP's should have a solvency advocate read in the 1NC. I'll be flexible on allowing 1AR arguments in a world where the aff makes an argument about the lack of a solvency advocate.

-Yes, terminal defense exists, however, I do not think that teams take enough advantage of this kind of argument in front of me. I will not always evaluate the round through a lens of offense-defense, but you still need to make arguments as to why I shouldn’t by at least explaining why your argument functions as terminal defense. Again this plays into evidence questions and the relative impacts of arguments claims made above.

Specifics

Case-Debates are won or lost in the case debate. By this, I mean that proving whether or not the aff successfully accesses all, some or none of the case advantages has implications on every flow of the debate and should be a fundamental question of most 2NRs and 2ARs. I think that blocks that are heavy in case defense or impact turns are incredibly advantageous for the neg because they enable you to win any CP (by proving the case defense as a response to the solvency deficit), K (see below) or DA (pretty obvious). I'm also more likely than others to write a presumption ballot or vote neg on inherency arguments. If the status quo solves your aff or you're not a big enough divergence, then you probably need to reconsider your approach to the topic.

Most affs can be divided into two categories: affs with a lot of impacts but poor internal links and affs with very solid internal links but questionable impacts. Acknowledging in which of these two categories the aff you are debating falls should shape how you approach the case debate. I find myself growing increasingly disappointed by negative teams that do not test weak affirmatives. Where's your internal link defense?? I also miss judging impact turn debates, but don't think that spark or wipeout are persuasive arguments. A high level de-dev debate or heg debate, on the other hand, love it.

DA-DAs are questions of probability. Your job as the aff team when debating a DA is to use your defensive arguments to question the probability of the internal links to the DA. Affirmative teams should take more advantage of terminal defense against disads. I'll probably also have a lower threshold for your theory arguments on the disad. Likewise, the neg should use turns case arguments as a reason why your DA calls into question the probability of the aff's internal links. Don't usually find "____ controls the direction of the link" arguments very persuasive. You need to warrant out that claim more if you're going to go for it. Make more rollback-style turns case arguments or more creative turns case arguments to lower the threshold for winning the debate on the disad alone.

CP-CP debates are about the relative weight of a solvency deficit versus the relative weight of the net benefit. The team that is more comparative when discussing the solvency level of these debates usually wins the debate. While, when it is a focus of the debate, I tend to err affirmative on questions of counterplan competiton, I have grown to be more persuaded by a well-executed counterplan strategy even if the counterplan is a process counterplan. The best counterplans have a solvency advocate who is, at least, specific to the topic, and, best, specific to the affirmative. I do not default to judge kicking the counterplan and will be easily persuaded by an affirmative argument about why I should not default to that kind of in-round conditionality. Not a huge fan of the NGA CP and I've voted three out of four times on intrinsic permutations against this counterplan so just be warned. Aff teams should take advantage of presumption arguments against the CP.

K-Used to have a bunch of thoughts spammed here that weren't too easy to navigate pre-round. I've left that section at the bottom of the paradigm for the historical record, but here's the cleaned up version:

What does the ballot do? What is the ballot absolutely incapable of doing? What does the ballot justify? No matter if you are on the aff or the neg, defending the topic or not, these are the kinds of questions that you need to answer by the end of the debate. As so much of K debating has become framework debates on the aff and the neg, I often find myself with a lot of floating pieces of offense that are not attached to a clear explanation of what a vote in either direction can/can't do.

T-Sitting through a bunch of framework debates has made me a better judge for topicality than I used to be. Comparative impact calculus alongside the use of strategic defensive arguments will make it easier for me to vote in a particular direction. Certain interps have a stronger internal link to limits claims and certain affs have better arguments for overlimiting. Being specific about what kind of offense you access, how it comes first, and the relative strength of your internal links in these debates will make it more likely that you win my ballot. I’m not a huge fan of tickytacky topicality claims but, if there’s substantial contestation in the literature, these can be good debates.

Theory- I debated on a team that engaged in a lot of theory debates in high school. There were multiple tournaments where most of our debates boiled down to theory questions, so I would like to think that I am a good judge for theory debates. I think that teams forget that theory debates are structured like a disadvantage. Again, comparative impact calculus is important to win my ballots in these debates. I will say that I tend to err aff on most theory questions. For example, I think that it is probably problematic for there to be more than one conditional advocacy in a round (and that it is equally problematic for your counter interpretation to be dispositionality) and I think that counterplans that compete off of certainty are bad for education and unfair to the aff. The biggest killer in a theory debate is when you just read down your blocks and don’t make specific claims. Debate like your

Notes for the Blue Key RR/Other LD Judging Obligations

Biggest shift for me in judging LD debates is the following: No tricks or intuitively false arguments. I'll vote on dropped arguments, but those arguments need a claim, data, warrant and an impact for me to vote on them. If I can't explain the argument back to you and the implications of that argument on the rest of the debate, I'm not voting for you.

I guess this wasn't clear enough the first time around- I don't flow off the document and your walls of framework and theory analytics are really hard to flow when you don't put any breaks in between them.

Similarly, phil debates are always difficult for me to analyze. I tend to think affirmative's should defend implementation particularly when the resolution specifies an actor. Outside of my general desire to see some debates about implementation, I don't have any kind of background in the phil literature bases and so will have a harder time picturing the implications of you winning specific arguments. If you want me to understand how your argumets interact, you will have to do a lot of explanation.

Theory debates- Yes, I said that I enjoy theory debates in my paradigm above and that is largely still true, but CX theory debates are a lot less technical than LD debates. I also think there are a lot of silly theory arguments in LD and I tend to have a higher threshold for those sorts of arguments. I also don't have much of a reference for norm setting in LD or what the norms actually are. Take that into account if you choose to go for theory and probably don't because I won't award you with high enough speaks for your liking.

K debates- Yes, I enjoy K debates but I tend to think that their LD variant is very shallow. You need to do more specific work in linking to the affirmative and developing the implications of your theory of power claims. While I enjoy good LD debates on the K, I always feel like I have to do a lot of work to justify a ballot in either direction. This is magnified by the limited amount of time that you have to develop your positions.

Old K Paradigm (2020-2022)

After y’all saw the school that I coach, I’m sure this is where you scrolled to first which is fair enough given how long it takes to fill out pref sheets. I will say, if you told me 10 years ago when I began coaching that I’d be coaching a team that primarily reads the K on the aff and on the neg, I probably would have found that absurd because that wasn’t my entry point into the activity so keep that in mind as you work with some of the thoughts below. That being said, I’ve now coached the K at a high level for the past two years which means that I have some semblance of a feeling for a good K debate. If the K is not something that you traditionally go for, you’re better off going for what you’re best at.

The best debates on the K are debates over the explanatory power of the negative’s theory of power relative to the affirmative’s specific example of liberalism, realism, etc. Put another way, the best K debaters are familiar enough with their theory of power AND the affirmative’s specific impact scenarios that they use their theory to explain the dangers of the aff. By the end of the 2NR I should have a very clear idea of what the affirmative does and how your theory explains why doing the affirmative won’t resolve the aff’s impacts or results in a bad thing. This does not necessarily mean that you need to have links to the affirmative’s mechanism (that’s probably a bit high of a research burden), but your link explanations need to be specific to the aff and should be bolstered by specific quotes from 1AC evidence or CX. The specificity of your link explanation should be sufficient to overcome questions of link-uniqueness or I’ll be comfortable voting on “your links only link to the status quo.”

On the flipside, aff teams need to explain why their contingency or specific example of policy action cannot be explained by the negative’s theory of power or that, even if some aspects can be, that the specificity of the aff’s claims justifies voting aff anyway because there’s some offense against the alternative or to the FW ballot. Affirmative teams that use the specificity of the affirmative to generate offense or push back against general link claims will win more debates than those that just default to generic “extinction is irreversible” ballots.

Case Page when going for the K- My biggest pet peeve with the current meta on the K is the role of the case page. Neither the affirmative nor the negative take enough advantage of this page to really stretch out their opponents on this question. For the negative, you need to be challenging the affirmative’s internal links with defense that can bolster some of your thesis level claims. Remember, you are trying to DISPROVE the affirmative’s contingent/specific policy which means that the more specificity you have the better off you will be. This means that just throwing your generic K links onto the case page probably isn’t the move. 9/10 the alternative doesn’t resolve them and you don’t have an explanation of how voting neg resolves the offense. K teams so frequently let policy affs get away with some really poor evidence quality and weak internal links. Please help the community and deter policy teams from reading one bad internal link to their heg aff against your [INSERT THEORY HERE] K. On that note, policy teams, why are you removing your best internal links when debating the K? Your generic framework cards are giving the neg more things to impact turn and your explanation of the internal link level of the aff is lowered when you do that. Read your normal aff against the K and just square up.

Framework debates (with the K on the neg) For better or worse, so much of contemporary K debate is resolved in the framework debate. The contemporary dependence on framework ballots means a couple of things:

1.) Both teams need to do more work here- treat this like a DA and a CP. Compare the relative strength of internal link claims and impact out the terminal impacts. Why does procedural fairness matter? What is the terminal impact to clash? How do we access your skills claims? What does/does not the ballot resolve? To what extent does the ballot resolve those things? The team that usually answers more of these questions usually wins these debates. K teams need to do more to push back against “ballot can solve procedural fairness” claims and aff teams need to do more than just “schools, family, culture, etc.” outweigh subject formation. Many of you all spend more time at debate tournaments or doing debate work than you do at school or doing schoolwork.

2.) I do think it’s possible for the aff to win education claims, but you need to do more comparative impact calculus. What does scenario planning do for subject formation that is more ethical than whatever the impact scenario is to the K? If you can’t explain your education claims at that level, just go for fairness and explain why the ballot can resolve it.

3.) Risk of the link- Explain what winning framework does for how much of a risk of a link that I need to justify a ballot either way. Usually, neg teams will want to say that winning framework means they get a very narrow risk of a link to outweigh. I don’t usually like defaulting to this but affirmative teams very rarely push back on this risk calculus in a world where they lose framework. If you don’t win that you can weigh the aff against the K, aff teams need to think about how they can use their scenarios as offense against the educational claims of the K. This can be done as answers to the link arguments as well, though you’ll probably need to win more pieces of defense elsewhere on the flow to make this viable.

Do I go for the alternative?

I don’t think that you need to go for the alternative if you have a solid enough framework push in the 2NR. However, few things to keep in mind here:

1.) I won’t judge kick the alternative for you unless you explicitly tell me to do it and include a theoretical justification for why that’s possible.

2.) The framework debate should include some arguments about how voting negative resolves the links- i.e. what is the kind of ethical subject position endorsed on the framework page that pushes us towards research projects that avoid the links to the critique? How does this position resolve those links?

3.) Depending on the alternative and the framework interpretation, some of your disads to the alternative will still link to the framework ballot. Smart teams will cross apply these arguments and explain why that complicates voting negative.

K affs (Generic)

Yes, I’m comfortable evaluating debates involving the K on the aff and think that I’ve reached a point where I’m pretty good for either side of this debate. Affirmative teams need to justify an affirmative ballot that beats presumption, especially if you’re defending status quo movements as examples of the aff’s method. Both teams benefit from clarifying early in the round whether or not the affirmative team spills up, whether or not in-round performances specific to this debate resolve any of the affirmative offense, and whatever the accumulation of ballots does or does not do for the aff. Affirmative teams that are not the Louisville project often get away with way too much by just reading a DSRB card and claiming their ballots function the same way. Aff teams should differentiate their ballot claims and negatives should make arguments about the aff’s homogenizing ballot claims. All that being said, like I discussed above, these debates are won and lost on the case page like any other debate. As the K becomes more normalized and standardized to a few specific schools of thought, I have a harder and harder time separating the case and framework pages on generic “we couldn’t truth test your arguments” because I think that shifts a bit too strongly to the negative. That said, I can be persuaded to separate the two if there’s decent time spent in the final rebuttals on this question.

Framework vs. the K Aff

Framework debates are best when both teams spend time comparing the realities of debate in the status quo and the idealized form of debate proposed in model v. model rounds. In that light, both teams need to be thinking about what proposing framework in a status quo where the K is probably going to stick around means for those teams that currently read the K and for those teams that prefer to directly engage the resolution. In a world where the affirmative defends the counter interpretation, the affirmative should have an explanation of what happens when team don’t read an affirmative that meets their model. Most of the counter interpretations are arbitrary or equivalent to “no counter interpretation”, but an interp being arbitrary is just defense that you can still outweigh depending on the offense you’re winning.

In impact turn debates, both teams need to be much clearer about the terminal impacts to their offense while providing an explanation as to why voting in either direction resolves them. After sitting in so many of these debates, I tend to think that the ballot doesn’t do much for either team but that means that teams who have a better explanation of what it means to win the ballot will usually pick up my decision. You can’t just assert that voting negative resolves procedural fairness without warranting that out just like you can’t assert that the aff resolves all forms of violence in debate through a single debate. Both teams need to grapple with how the competitive incentives for debate establish offense for either side. The competitive incentive to read the K is strong and might counteract some of the aff’s access to offense, but the competitive incentives towards framework also have their same issues. Neither sides hands are clean on that question and those that are willing to admit it are usually better off. I have a hard time setting aside clash as an external impact due to the fact that I’m just not sure what the terminal impact is. I like teams that go for clash and think that it usually is an important part of negative strategy vs. the K, but I think this strategy is best when the clash warrants are explained as internal link turns to the aff’s education claims. Some of this has to due with the competitive incentives arguments that I’ve explained above. Both teams need to do more work explaining whether or not fairness or education claims come first. It’s introductory-level impact analysis I find lacking in many of these debates.

Other things to think about-

1.) These debates are at their worst when either team is dependent on blocks. Framework teams should be particularly cautious about this because they’ve had less of these debates over the course of the season, however, K teams are just as bad at just reading their blocks through the 1AR. I will try to draw a clean line between the 1AR and the 2AR and will hold a pretty strict one in debates where the 1AR is just screaming through blocks. Live debating contextualized to this round far outweighs robots with pre-written everything.

2.) I have a hard time pulling the trigger on arguments with “quitting the activity” as a terminal impact. Any evidence on either side of this question is usually anecdotal and that’s not enough to justify a ballot in either direction. There are also a bunch of alternative causes to numbers decline like the lack of coaches, the increased technical rigor of high-level policy debate, budgets, the pandemic, etc. that I think thump most of these impacts for either side. More often than not, the people that are going to stick with debate are already here but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences to the kinds of harms to the activity/teams as teams on either side of the clash question learn to coexist.

K vs. K Debates (Overview)

I’ll be perfectly honest, unless this is a K vs. Cap debate, these are the debates that I’m least comfortable evaluating because I feel like they end up being some of the messiest and “gooiest” debates possible. That being said, I think that high level K vs. K debates can be some of the most interesting to evaluate if both teams have a clear understanding of the distinctions between their positions, are able to base their theoretical distinctions in specific, grounded examples that demonstrate potential tradeoffs between each position, and can demonstrate mutual exclusivity outside of the artificial boundary of “no permutations in a method debate.” At their best, these debates require teams to meet a high research burden which is something that I like to reward so if your strat is specific or you can explain it in a nuanced way, go for it. That said, I’m not the greatest for teams whose generic position in these debates are to read “post-truth”/pomo arguments against identity positions and I feel uncomfortable resolving competing ontology claims in debates around identity unless they are specific and grounded. I feel like most debates are too time constrained to meaningfully resolve these positions. Similarly, teams that read framework should be cautious about reading conditional critiques with ontology claims- i.e. conditional pessimism with framework. I’m persuaded by theoretical arguments about conditional ontology claims regarding social death and cross apps to framework in these debates.

I won’t default to “no perms in a methods debate”, though I am sympathetic to the theoretical arguments about why affs not grounded in the resolution are too shifty if they are allowed to defend the permutation. What gets me in these debates is that I think that the affirmative will make the “test of competition”-style permutation arguments anyway like “no link” or the aff is a disad/prereq to the alt regardless of whether or not there’s a permutation. I can’t just magically wave a theory wand here and make those kinds of distinctions go away. It lowers the burden way too much for the negative and creates shallow debates. Let’s have a fleshed out theory argument and you can persuade me otherwise. The aff still needs to win access to the permutation, but if you lose the theory argument still make the same kinds of arguments if you had the permutation. Just do the defensive work to thump the links.

Cap vs. K- I get the strategic utility of these debates, but this debate is becoming pretty stale for me. Teams that go for state-good style capitalism arguments need to explain the process of organization, accountability measures, the kind of party leadership, etc. Aff teams should generate offense off of these questions. Teams that defend Dean should have to defend psychoanalysis answers. Teams that defend Escalante should have specific historical examples of dual power working or not in 1917 or in post-Bolshevik organization elsewhere. Aff teams should force Dean teams to defend psycho and force Escalante teams to defend historical examples of dual power. State crackdown arguments should be specific. I fear that state crackdown arguments will apply to both the alternative and the aff and the team that does a better job describing the comparative risk of crackdown ends up winning my argument. Either team should make more of a push about what it means to shift our research practices towards or away from communist organizing. There are so many debates where we have come to the conclusion that the arguments we make in debate don’t spill out or up and, yet, I find debates where we are talking about politically organizing communist parties are still stuck in some universe where we are doing the actual organizing in a debate round. Tell me what a step towards the party means for our research praxis or provide disads to shifting the resource praxis. All the thoughts on the permutation debate are above. I’m less likely to say no permutation in these debates because there is plenty of clash in the literature between, at least, anti-capitalism and postcapitalism that there can be a robust debate even if you don’t have specifics. That being said, the more you can make ground your theory in specific examples the better off you’ll be.

Yao Yao Chen Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 11, 2024 at 10:32 AM CDT

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know: do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
They give poorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
They reconstruct the debate and try to find the most creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that, when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
Evidence comparison is under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school. If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison.
When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points give highly organized and structuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, and emphasize key moments in their speeches.
Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview and do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them. I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NC for me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

Just like most judges, I prefer case-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
I think that I lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

Look and sound like you want to be here. Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
Argument resolution minimizes judge intervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
Demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate. If you're reading pre-scripted 2NC/2NR/2AR blocks without adapting the language to the specifics of your debate, you've only proven that you're literate but possibly also an NPC. I would much rather hear you give a 2NR/2AR without a laptop, just off your paper flows, even if it's not as smooth.
I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast, being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher points and never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards. It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

Daniel Christ Calvert Hall College High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 18, 2024 at 7:47 AM EDT

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

The bold is important highlights throughout. Enjoy

TOC UPDATE:If you are a sophomore/jr/undecided senior and are considering debating in college, find me and talk to me about TU debate!

Quick overview:

I debated at Calvert Hall for four years (2017-2021), debate at Towson University (2022-2025). I ran policy arguments in high school and some college, did performance debate in college.Make it simple for me, I don't like doing work. Run what you want and do your job to explain to me why it matters. I tend to be a pretty expressive judge so you will probably know when I'm following well, when I'm lost, when I'm thinking, etc.

yes I want to be on the email chain, christd550 [at] the google mail service .com

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

here's how I would pref me:

1 - Policy (soft-left) or policy vs the K

2 - K Affs/Identity Arguments/Performance Debate

3 - policy (heg/nuke war/super big stick things)

4 - High theory K's

Specifics:

Overview/Debate rant:

I think debaters have gotten too comfortable dumping cards and not really explaining them or using cards to make arguments instead of just being a debater and making arguments yourself. I challenge you to push yourself to make arguments and use evidence that is of higher quality instead of dumping cards that don't really have any warrants - y'all are smart, show me you are! With that being said -- I don't like "read the card after the round" or "insert rehighlighting" -- I think this allows me to inject too much interpretation into the round of how I think evidence interacts with each other instead of relying on what you tell me is most important; contextualize your ev for me!

Affs:

I think K affs are good for debate. I really like seeing you incorporate aspects of your performance into later speeches, and strategic cross-applications of your performance to answer things like framework. I have experience running plan-based affs and performance-based affs, I don't really have a preference either way and I am comfortable in both situations.

I think the most important thing for me is contextualizing how your specific method is able to resolve your impacts, this means I probably err neg on presumption in debates where solvency isn't well explained.

Neg:

DA:

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

Live laugh love the politics disad.

Neg teams should probably have a case-list or at least a categories to demonstrate what your vision of the topic includes, otherwise I'm not sure what topics will devolve to, especially if I am judging you on a topic that I don't have a lot of experience on yet.

Framework:

I think that being non-topical is also important but it's the affs burden to prove the role of engagement and why their model is preferable. I like model debates, what does your model justify vs theirs for the activity as a whole, why is this round the key internal link to your model, etc.

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

If you're aff give me specific examples of why the aff is uniquely good for debate/is topical.

CP's:

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

Theory:

Theory debates are often very late-breaking and difficult to resolve. I am not the best for lots of debate theory, especially without good line-by-line and comparison. I'm sure your theory blocks are great but what am I supposed to do with that and how does it interact with your opponent? See above: slow down so I get your warrants, especially when you are flying through a pre-blocked argument.

Condo:

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

K's:

Anything super high theory (Baudrillard, psychoanalysis, deluze, etc.) I'm not as familiar with the lit so you're going to have to explain it to me. I think critical engagement with each other and the resolution is really important. Do your thing but you might have to do more explanation than throwing buzzwords around.

Other Thoughts:

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

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

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

If I'm judging you in high school and you're interested in debating in college at Towson plz lmk after the round or visit this link -- https://www.towson.edu/cofac/centers/debate.html

accomplishments you don't care about:

3x NDT Qualifier

1x CEDA Octafinalist. Double Octafinalist

1x TOC Bid recipient

Sam Church Liberal Arts and Science Academy 3 rounds

Josh Clark Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 19, 2024 at 4:47 PM EDT

Joshua Clark

Montgomery Bell Academy - 2013 - current

University of Michigan - Institute Instructor (2007 - Current)
Email: jreubenclark10@gmail.com

Past Schools:
Juan Diego Catholic 09-13
Notre Dame in Sherman Oaks 08-09
Damien 04-06

Debating:
Jordan (UT) 96-98
College of Eastern Utah 99
Cal St Fullerton 01-04

Website:
policydebatecentral.com

Speaker Points
Points will generally stay between 27.5 and 29.9. It generally takes a 28.8 average to clear. I assign points with that in mind. Teams that average 28.8 or higher in a debate mean I thought your points were elimination round-level debates. While it's not an exact science, 29-29.1 means you had a good chance of advancing in elimination rounds, and 29.2+ indicates excellence reserved for quarters+. I'm not stingy with these kinds of points; they have nothing to do with past successes. It has everything to do with your performance in THIS debate.

Etiquette
1. Try to treat each other with mutual respect.

2. Cards and tags should have the same clarity
3. Cards MUST be marked during the speech. Please say, "Mark the card," and please have you OR your partner physically mark the cards in the speech. It is not possible to remember where you've marked your cards after the speech. Saying "mark the card" is the only way to let your judge and competitors know that you do not intend to represent that you've read the entirety of the card. Physically marking the card in the speech is necessary to maintain an accurate account of what you did or didn't read.

Overview
My 25 years in the community have led me to formulate opinions about how the activity should be run. I'm not sharing these with you because I think this is the way you have to debate but because you may get some insight about how to win and earn better speaker points in front of me.

1) Conceded claims without warrants - These aren't complete arguments. A 10-second dropped ASPEC is very unlikely to decide a debate for me. Perm, do the CP without a theoretical justification; it also makes zero sense. Perm - do both needs to be followed by an explanation for how it resolves the link to the net benefit, or it is not an argument.

2) Voting issues are reasons to reject the argument. (Other than conditionality)

3) Debate stays in the round -- Debate is a game of testing ideas and their counterparts. Those ideas presented in the debate will be the sole factor used in determining the winning team. Things said or done outside of this debate round will not be considered when determining a winning team.

4) Your argument doesn't improve by calling it a "DA" -- I'm sure your analytical standard to your framework argument on the K is great, but overstating its importance by labeling it a "DA" isn't accurate. It's a reason to prefer your interpretation.

Topicality vs Conventional Affs: I default to competing interpretations on topicality but can be persuaded by reasonability. Topicality is a voting issue.

Topicality vs Critical Affs: I generally think that policy debate is a good thing and that a team should both have a plan and defend it. Given that, I have no problem voting for "no plan" advocacies or "fiat-less" plans. I will be looking for you to win that your impact turns to topicality/framework outweighs the loss of education/fairness that would be given in a "fiated" plan debate. Affirmative teams struggle with answering the argument that they could advocate most of their aff while defending a topical plan. I also think that teams who stress they are a pre-requisite to topical action have a more difficult time with topical version-type arguments than teams who impact turn standards. If you win that the state is irredeemable at every level, you are much more likely to get me to vote against FW. The K aff teams who have had success in front of me have been very good at generating a good list of arguments that opposing teams could run against them to mitigate the fairness impact of the T/FW argument. This makes the impact turns of a stricter limit much more persuasive to me.

I'm also in the fairness camp as a terminal impact, as opposed to an emphasis on portable skills. I think you can win that T comes before substantive issues.

One note to teams that are neg against an aff that lacks stable advocacy: Make sure you adapt your framework arguments to fit the aff. Don't read..." you must have a plan" if they have a plan. If a team has a plan but doesn't defend fiat, base your ground arguments on that violation.

Counterplans and Disads: The more specific to the aff, the better. There are few things better than a well-researched PIC that just blind sites a team. Objectively, I think counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy are not legitimate. However, I still coach teams to run these arguments, and I can still evaluate a theory debate about these different counterplans as objectively as possible. Again, the more specific the evidence is to the aff, the more legitimate it will appear.

The K: I was a k debater and a philosophy major in college. I prefer criticisms that are specific to the resolution. If your K links don't discuss Intellectual Property rights this year, then it's unlikely to be very persuasive to me.

I also do not think Fiat bad is negative ground. Obviously, that can change based on the debate, but when so many K teams kick their topic-specific links to go for the Fiat K in the 2nr, I can't help but mourn how great the debate would have been actually negating the substance of the affirmative.

Impact comparisons usually become the most important part of a kritik, and the excessive link list becomes the least of a team’s problems heading into the 2nr. It would be best if you won that either a) you turn the case and have an external impact or b) you solve the case and have an external impact. Root cause arguments are sound but rarely address the timeframe issue of case impacts. If you are going to win your magnitude comparisons, then you better do a lot to mitigate the case impacts. I also find most framework arguments associated with a K nearly pointless. Most of them are impacted by the K proper and depend on you winning the K to win the framework argument. Before devoting any more time to the framework beyond getting your K evaluated, you should ask yourself and clearly state to me what happens if you win your theory argument. You should craft your "role of the ballot" argument based on the answer to that question. I am willing to listen to sequencing arguments that EXPLAIN why discourse, epistemology, ontology, etc., come first.

Conclusion: I love debate...good luck if I'm judging you, and please feel free to ask any clarifying questions.

To promote disclosure at the high school level, any team that practices near-universal "open source" will be awarded .2 extra per debater if you bring that to my attention before the RFD.

Eric Clarke Georgetown Day School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 11, 2024 at 5:48 PM EDT

--Highlights

Email: swwpolicy@gmail.com

Call me Eric instead of judge.

Have 1AC in the inbox by start time.

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

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

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

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

Please track your time.

--Experience

Been coaching for ~6 years. Debated policy throughout high school and college (Georgetown). The strategy was usually policy, but I have some experience going for the K at both levels. I also have some experience judging PF and LD at the high school and middle school levels.

--General

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

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

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

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

--Kritiks

General thoughts:

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

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

Specific stuff:

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

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

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

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

--Framework/Neg v K AFFs

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

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

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

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

--Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Misc

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

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

Tend to lean tech over truth

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

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

--Speaker points

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

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

David Coale Dallas Highland Park High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 8:24 AM CDT

Email chain, please use both of these addresses--

davidcoaledebate@gmail.com

highlandparkcx@gmail.com

tl;dr – I can't flow as well as I could in the George H.W. Bush Administration, but otherwise I'm reasonably sophisticated and open-minded. I love debate and want any round that I judge to be a fun exchange of smart ideas.

Personal:

I have an extensive, if dated, background in policy debate (1990 NDT and Copeland winner for Harvard College; 1986 TFA and UIL state champ in high school). I went to law school at the University of Texas where I coached some debate on the side - I was in the room when Bill Shanahan said "I think we should call it a 'kritik.'"

My son Camden is now a junior at Highland Park in Dallas. I've worked with him and the HP team for three years now. To my pleasant surprise and thanks to speech documents, I can flow reasonably well and have judged consistently since his novice year. You should see me as: (a) very knowledgeable about policy debate and how it works, (b) reasonably informed about this topic and the major K areas, and (c) a couple of steps slower with high speed than I once was.

Substance:

1. How to win good debates. I sometimes call myself the "Rip Van Winkle" of policy debate after being away from the activity for many years. Many customs and terms have changed. The key to winning good debates hasn't: Be good at identification, manipulation, and explanation of strategic interrelationships among arguments. That's what I'm listening for as a judge and is what you should do as a debater as well as you possibly can.

2. You do you. When I was in college, the separation between NDT (policy) and CEDA (value) debate was at its greatest. By dumb luck, I picked up a solid grounding about how kritiks work when they first appeared (the concept of the "alt," for example, is to me a modern innovation). And thirty years of law practice has made me much better at theory and topicality debates than I ever was back in the day. (I still have a particular interest in the 1AR, and recently wrote some thoughts about how to elevate your 1AR game.)

Absent other decision criteria, I will stay with my roots and apply an old-school legislative policymaker paradigm. But I will freely use other criteria if debaters say persuasively that I should and I have no particular prejudices or preferences in that regard. Just because I did something a certain way, a long time ago, doesn't mean (a) that you should too, in a very different time and place, or (b) that the old practice was all that great in the first place. Please make the arguments you want to make, at the speed and in the style you want to use, without over-adapting to what I might like.

(That said, I do have some largely timeless advice for novices and less-experienced varsity debaters, summarized in this chart, about the mechanics of extending shell arguments into the middle parts of a debate. The chart derives from timeless advice by the great Ross Smith that's available in this online video (h/t Adrienne Brovero for the link)).

3. A spew is not a theory debate.Debate theory is an interesting subject for discussion. But a handful of pre-scripted analytics, read too quickly for mortal understanding without a speech document, does not qualify as a discussion. I am unlikely to be persuaded on a theory argument that is not (a) set up comprehensibly in the first instance, and (b) connected in some way to what's actually going on in the debate.

4. A spew is not a theory debate. Really. Seriously. It isn’t. Please, debate theory - but don’t use long, blippy theory blocks as a time-filling proxy for more meaningful argument.

5. Arguments about law. My task as a debate judge is to judge the debate. I will not intervene on any argument about the law, the legal system, etc. That said, I'm not going to wipe my mind clean either. If you make arguments that ask me to draw upon my knowledge of the legal system, I will use that knowledge. On this year's topic, I've been impressed by the high quality of discussion about complicated legal issues, and while I have provided some "out of round commentary" after debates on some fine points, as of late March 2025 I have not relied on personal knowledge of the legal system in any material way to resolve a debate.

6. Speech docs. Many judges grumble that "debate is an oral activity" and sneer at speech docs. My opinion differs. I've been around courtrooms for many years and can assure you that human communication is both oral and visual. Quality speech docs are useful and enhance the overall credibility of your presentation. On that general subject, I recommend these videos from a good Dallas PR firm about how to set up your camera and mic for effective online debating.

7. Watch me. If I’m waving my hand at you to move on, you should take the hint. If I look like I'm lost, I'm lost and you should slow down a notch until I look un-lost. If I'm nodding "yes," whatever you're saying is working for me. In other words I have become Dallas Perkins in my old age.

Jeremiah Cohn Brooklyn Technical High School 4 rounds

Matt Conway Berkeley Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu July 18, 2024 at 9:05 PM EDT

jmu '25

affiliations: berkeley prep (2022-), solon and saint ignatius (2021-22)

mconcon4@gmail.com

bprep-debate@googlegroups.com

tl;dr

tech>truth

I primarily run policy arguments and coach critical ones.

will vote on 0 risk

I have found that aff teams are just not sufficiently extending solvency to any of their advantages, internal links, etc., thus the I find myself having a lower threshold for neg offense

speed is fine (I will only "clear" you once and then ill flow what I can)

call me conway or matt not judge (he/him)

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

clipping = auto L and 0

unlikely to vote on things that happened outside of the round

K Affs/FW

I think K affs should have some relation to the topic and am less persuaded by debate bad arguments. you don't need a c/I to win. I am persuaded by both fairness and clash. the easiest way to my ballot is establishing external offense vs internal link turns and do real impact comparison. presumption isn't gone for as much as it probably should. contextualizing the links to how they specifically destroy the ability of the alt to happen will help you out a lot. don't assume I know any of your lit.

you can win without an alt, however I prefer if you generate UQ from somewhere else rather then going for the k as a linear disad. I think teams spend way to much time on fw, in almost every case the aff gets to weigh the 1ac and the neg gets reps links.

CPs

I like well thought out advantage cps. affs don't utilize their 1ac enough when answering cps. condo is good, multi-plank condo is good. pretty much all other theory is probably a reason to reject the arg.

DAs

The politics DA was most of my high school career. I enjoy complex stories with clear internal link turns to the aff or some form of cirvumvention/a solvency take out. teams who explain how the direction of x shapes the direction of y are much more likely to win a close debate. I will probably not read you ev during the debate, but if the final rebuttals include a DA, please send a card doc.

default to competing interps but its not hard to get me to vote on reasonability. the simpler the definition/the clearer the violation the better.

misc

organization/signposting is important

I enjoy impacts turns/traps/double binds etc.

have fun

Connelly Cowan Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri August 9, 2024 at 6:48 PM EDT

connellydebate [at] gmail [dot] com

Mount Pleasant HS (TX) ‘22

Georgetown ‘26

3x NDT Qualifier, 1x FRALB recipient

---

TOC Specific Things:

1. If you are a current senior committed to or still considering Georgetown (class of 2029), pleaseconflict me. Also, please find me during the tournament! I'd love to meet you!

2. If you are a senior, please let me know before the debate is over. I want to take the opportunity to celebrate you and your hard work!

3. If you're not a senior and you're interested in either Georgetown debate or the GDS/DDI/GDDI, please let me know! I'd love to talk to you about them.

---

Yes email chain

Yes card doc

If you open source everything and tell me before the debate ends, you’ll get a .1 speaker point boost.

---

I will flow your speeches as they are given, without looking at the speech doc. I will only check the doc occasionally to watch for clipping.

I will render a technical decision based on my flow. The 2NR/2AR should put pieces together for me and resolve the debate, rather than just extending a bunch of unconnected arguments. If I have to put pieces together myself or figure out core components of your strategy because you haven’t fully explained them, I will find it a lot harder to vote for you.

I care a lot about evidence quality, but the debaters must do the relevant evidence comparison for it to factor into my decision. Point out gaps in the other team’s ev set, and give me frames for how I should read the card doc at the end of the debate. Good evidence comparison will be rewarded with high speaks.

I won't vote on things that occurred outside of the debate that I am judging.

---

The following are my tendencies, but none are rules:

-Condo probably good

-Absent debating, I will judge kickwhen doing so is logical. If the aff wins the CP links to the net benefit, I'll judge kick it. If the aff wins a permutation that shields the net benefit, I will not judge kick it.

-Good for reasonability/arbitrariness pushes on T, when the aff is right about them

-I am predisposed to think if one team doesn’t get it, the other does. For example, if the aff must be whole economy (no sector subsets) that seems to imply the neg gets sector PICs. I can be convinced to not think about it this way - but absent debating, I will default to this

-Good for the aff on process when debated evenly. Big “textual competition” hater.

-I think of competition and theory as interrelated. I’m unsure how I would decide between two reasonable interpretations of topic words without considering the normative implications.

-Better for the K than you might expect. Also very willing to vote on T-USFG and FW no Ks. Really hate the trend of calling things microaggressions that aren't. I think it is trivializing & bad pedagogically, and if the other team points this out, I will be very good for them

Jada Darby Northstar Academy High School - Newark 2 rounds

Ari Davidson Pace Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 3:00 AM PDT

WFU '23

Now at UT-Austin for grad school

Yes email chain — ask before the debate.

NDCA Update:

If you are a senior, please tell me either before the debate starts or right after it ends. I’d love the opportunity to congratulate your achievements and give you a speaker points boost. Getting to the end of a 4-year high school debate career takes hard work and deserves to be rewarded. Congratulations on getting here.

I think I value novel and well-thought-out strategies at the championships more than most as they reflect detailed preparation in service of a deep desire to win. Make your blocks actually respond to what your opponent says. Listen and flow the other team's speeches intently. Specificity wins debates, now more than ever.

Don’t clip. I’m paying attention to your doc and not afraid to tell you that you did it. I am not one to second guess myself and I usually highlight the lines you skipped in my copy of the doc in case I’m questioned about it. It’s a championship tournament, debates are won at the margins, and every debater should go in expecting to be given a fair shake. Especially in a time crunched activity like LD, clipping can make all the difference in determining a win or loss. I’ve certainly seen it happen before!

CX is not extended prep.

If you anticipate disclosure shenanigans and you want me to vote on an argument about it, I suggest you attempt to do disclosure while I am present. I know this is near-impossible given coaching responsibilities... do with that what you will. Obviously, if both teams agree on what had happened in the disclosure (ex: "it was new and they didn't disclose"), I will decide from those shared presumptions.

As I allude to in other parts of my paradigm, I flow in excel in line by line fashion. I look at the speech doc purely while cards are being read (for clipping + to assess evidence quality) and will not reconstruct parts of a speech if I couldn’t understand an analytic argument or tag. Please number your arguments when you are the first responder (1NC on case, 2AC on DA), answer arguments in order, and refer to your previous arguments by name and number in the final rebuttals.

I'd prefer you not refer to me by any name at all, but if nothing else please do not call me "chat." You are not a twitch streamer and we are real people.

COLLEGE CLIMATE TOPIC ADDENDUM: If you are a team that reads carded evidence, I expect quality to be very high and will find it hard to vote for you if your cards are from Exxon execs or bloggers without degrees when up against an opponent of near-peer skill level with better/more specific/more qualified evidence. Every author on all sides has a take on climate change. Say something smart about it!

Paradigm:

Say what you want and defend what you say. I reward clash of all kinds and dislike cowardice more than almost anything. I will attempt to write down every argument presented in the way you present it, regardless of your argumentative or speaking “style”, to repeat it in my RFD. This means clarity, both in argument explanation and words coming out of your mouth, is imperative. Don’t over-adapt to what you (probably wrongly) think I want to hear. Debate is for the debaters, just have fun and say smart things and I’m your judge.

The only caveat to this is I have very little interest in parsing through interpersonal disputes between debaters over events that occurred outside of the debate round. I understand that sometimes we have personal disagreements with one another as a community founded on discord, and I also understand that sometimes we don't feel comfortable sharing how we feel with the people we disagree with in other interpersonal settings — and that is reasonable. But I struggle to find why the solution to this is to have that precise conversation during a debate round and for judges to insert their own interpretations over events they have little knowledge of. This applies doubly to high school debate. Given this, while I will not ignore any words you say in a debate, you will notice that my decision proper will not pertain to/include the content of personal disagreements tangential to the topics of the debate. To clarify, if you find something the other team has said or done in the debate round to be objectionable, this is obviously fair game and I am more than happy to hear reasons why it should be a voting issue. I think issues of disclosure fall into this category as well given that prep time is part of a debate round and proper disclosure is what enables proper pre-round preparation.

Also, say words if you want me to judge kick the counterplan. I’m indifferent personally, but prefer to go with what debaters say out loud in a debate. If neg conditionality is not contested, saying “the neg should never be stuck with an option worse than the status quo” is sufficient.

Speaker Points:

My speaker points no longer vary as widely as they once did. This is because despite the fact that the quality of debates I judge varies widely, I am much more invested in using speaker points as a carrot than a stick because I prefer (inevitably) imperfect participation over universalized burnout. From now on, my floor will be at a 27. I do adjust my points to the tournament and division, so for example if you got a 29 at a regional and a 28.5 at a major it does not necessarily mean you got worse (in fact, your performance may have improved!)

My approximate scale for the open division is as follows (does not apply to JV and Novice):

You will not get a 30 unless it's your last prelim debate ever -- and even then, it requires spectacular debating. If you ask for a 30, your speaker points will have a 3 in them, but it won't be the first digit.

A speaker whose performance, if replicated, would land them a Top 5 award + deep elims will receive between 29.9-29.7. Most proficient and well-executed winning performances receive between a 29.6-29.4. Most winning performances receive between 29.3-29. Above average execution with a chance at clearing receives between 28.9-28.7

Middle of the pack gets 28.6-28: speeches need work on technical proficiency, block writing, proper use and comparison of evidence, etc.

Lower than a 28 indicates some or all of the following: speeches and CX execution need work including time management, we're not effectively answering the opponent's arguments (if paying attention to them at all), speech order is messy and not cohesive, speaker is unclear and could benefit from speaking drills, dead speech time, ineffective use of prep, speeches leave time on the clock, CX is spent asking clarification or "wouldn't you agree that..." questions.

Any lower than a 27 means something interpersonal has occurred and we will talk about it prior to speaker points coming out -- whether that is in the RFD, in a talk with your coach, or both.

LD Addendum:

I've been out of the game for a few years now, but I did just teach three weeks at NSD, which gave me a deep refresher across the vast LD argumentative spectrum.

I will not constitutively rule out any particular style of argument, but I will apply a strict "makes sense" test to all arguments. This applies just as much to a sparsely-highlighted DA as to a misrepresented K or a poorly-explained philosophy argument.

I will not pretend that I understood your arguments if you were unclear in your speech. Clarity comprises both structure, in explanation of arguments, as well as my physical ability to hear and type words coming out of your mouth. If an argument in the first constructive was 5 seconds long, but it comprises several minutes of the rebuttal(s), it will be hard to convince me that it was structurally clear enough to warrant deciding the debate on it (I'm looking at you, "resolved a priori"). If an argument was analytically made at top speed with no pen time and it does not appear on my flow in an earlier speech, it will be near-impossible to convince me that it was physically clear enough to appear in my decision given that my decisions rely on repeating words flowed back to the debaters.

Despite my belief that debate is for the debaters and you should be able to make the arguments you want, I will not pretend that I don't have biases.

Regardless of style, I prefer arguments to be about the topic. I prefer advantages to be germane to the plan presented. I prefer criticisms, on both the aff and neg, to use topic language throughout the evidence presented (whether that's carded evidence or organic scholarship). I prefer Process Counterplans to compete off core resolutional mechanisms. I prefer philosophical syllogisms to reflect core topic controversy rather than rely on tricks or theoretically-justified standards. I prefer topicality arguments to be grounded in evidence interpreting words in the resolution.

This is not to say that I will not vote on your generic positions. I will vote on any argument executed proficiently. However, there is a proportional, linear relationship between the specificity of your arguments and the energy necessary for your opponent to defeat them -- as one goes up, so does the other; as one goes down, so does the other.

An aside is that I find "truth testing vs. comparative worlds" to be a false dichotomy. Consequentialist ethical frames simply say that the way to figure out if the resolution is true or not -- that is to say, whether or not the actorought to pursue said action -- is to compare the hypothetical world in which the resolutional statement is enacted to one in which it is not. Counterplan competition is a great example of this -- you define words to prove that the counterplan does not, in fact, prove the resolutional statement to be true and that it instead is a legitimate opportunity cost thatdisproves the question of the resolution. TLDR: less "truth testing good: jurisdiction" and more "our ethical system proves the plan is intrinsically bad, so it should not occur despite its hypothetical positive consequences." Or vice versa, obviously.

Won’t flow RVIs. Make real arguments.

Also unlikely to believe that most non-resolutional procedural arguments aside from condo or spec are “voting issues.” Arguments in favor of reasonability, proportional punishment (rejecting the argument, not the team), and substance crowd-out will be prevalent in my decisions in these debates if made — but you have to make such arguments somewhere for me to vote on it.

After judging, observing, and coaching a significant number of LD debates at the first tournament, I have concluded this activity has a specific dearth of knowledge surrounding counterplan competition on all sides. Teams who effectively exploit this -- on both sides -- will see an exponential increase in win-rate in front of me. Do with this information what you will.

Procedural Addendum:

I follow along with speech documents because I am curious about evidence quality, applicability, as well as your adherence to the text of the evidence. I have noticed an epidemic of clipping across all debate events that I judge at all skill levels. Clipping is generally defined as misrepresenting the words in your evidence you actually read by highlighting more than what is spoken. The brightline of this is contested, but the most lenient, universally-agreed-upon one is "five words skipped in a row in any card, even once."

To this end, if I notice this, I will apply a "yellow card/red card" method for dealing with speaking infractions. I very much understand it's possible a debater has clipped despite their trying not to/without their knowledge. They're stressed, trying to go fast, and sometimes are reading cards they haven't read before (in some instances, they've never read cards before!). Even more, sometimes people have trouble processing words quickly so they don't even know that they've skipped anything because their brain hasn't told them or they're scrolling too fast. I am sympathetic to all of this. Given that, if I notice that a team debating in front of me has clipped and it seems unintentional (it's less than 5 words in a row here or there, or it only happens once), I will let you know after the debate as a warning for the future. If it happens again in another debate, the debater who clipped will lose with 25 speaker points. If it is particularly egregious the first time around, you may lose the debate without a warning. However, for the educational merit of the activity, I will still flow and detail a decision I would have given if it was not decided on clipping.

Yay debate!

Jordan Di Peninsula High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 7:25 AM EDT

Northwestern, Peninsula, GBN

Emails

High School: jordandi505@gmail.com

College: jordandi505@gmail.com;debatedocs@googlegroups.com

Evaluation

I will flow and decide according to that flow. Technical execution and judge instruction combined with that flow will override most preferences, mainly due to my lack of attachment to particular preferences. One exception to this is what I will describe as "frivolous" theoretical objections. The bar is higher for explanation, and justification of these arguments. I fear any attempt to impart objectivity over this category of argumentation could lead to egregious overcorrection.

I begin flowing during the 1NC on the case page. I will pay attention to 1AC and 1NC. I never have the doc open while flowing, but I will usually look at cards during cross-x and prep time.

Other than the fact that I will flow, everything is incredibly malleable. Judge instruction and framing should be utilized early and often to resolve central questions. Most things can and should be contested, ranging from impact calculus to the permissibility of “new” arguments to inserting a re-highlighting. If a team forwards a claim + warrant for how I should evaluate a particular issue, it is the burden of the other team to refute that. The only exception that comes to mind is if it’s “new” in the 2AR, where I will reasonably protect the Neg.

I tend to decide quickly. That rarely has anything to do with the quality of the debate. Rather, I have been able to follow the core questions of the debate, which allows me to evaluate it as the debate is ongoing.

I have zero desire to adjudicate anything not about the debate itself.

Potentially helpful statistics:

College (Clean Energy) - 35 debates. I voted Neg 24 times. 18 panels, sat 2 times.

High School (IP) - 40 debates. I voted Neg 30 times. 13 panels (excluding RRs), sat 3 times.

Planless Affs

Thus far, Aff teams that impact turn T have fared better in front of me than other approaches.

Debate is certainly a game, but it may be more.

T impacts about fairness / clash are more persuasive to me than others.

I think most 2ACs to even generic critiques, such as the Capitalism K, are poor and easily defeated.

The sole purpose of my ballot is to decide the winner / loser of a single debate.

The K should either be a DA to the plan or a framework argument that brackets the Aff out of the debate. I am worse for anything in the middle.

If both teams forward a framework argument, I will usually resolve that first. I will strictly to the interpretations forwarded by both teams. It's important for teams to clearly explain and compare the implications of their interpretations.

A note on “death good.” I won't vote for anything endorsing self-harm or violence against anyone in the debate. That differs from arguments like spark/wipeout, the "death k," or some revolutionary praxis. I think the line is generally between arguments about the people within the debate vs actual academic controversy.

I must know what the CP does, and what it solves to vote for it. The combination of a vague CP text with a lack of explanation is not persuasive.

“Process” CPs are fair game. I have no strong disposition against these strategies. I think I am relatively more persuaded by substance, as opposed to competition or theory, against these arguments than the average person. However, that is not to say I think most 2As are prepared to execute such a strategy (in fact, it seems to be quite the opposite). All that being said, I would prefer it if the CP had topic-specific evidence.

I am good for a model of competition based on “functional only” and “text and function.” Winning a model of “textual only” is a hard sell but not impossible.

Theory

Conditionality and judge kick are good. A longer ramble with specifics is below under “Long Conditionality Ramble.” My line is probably fiating out a straight turn to offense the Neg introduced.

Judge kick is my default. It will be difficult to make me not consider the status quo with only a theoretical objection. This must start in the 1AR.

Nothing is a voting issue aside from conditionality.

Most theoretical objections can be expressed through competition, and I would prefer that. This is mainly because most theory interpretations are incredibly arbitrary. There may be some exceptions to that, including, but not limited to, “fiating multiple governments” bad, “CPs must be policies,” and “fiating federal and sub-federal actors” bad.

Fiat is usually durable, good faith passage, and implementation of the plan.

Any "type" of DA is a free game, so long as you are prepared to defend it.

Recent and specific evidence is preferred but can be beaten by smart analytics and spin.

Fiating in offense is underutilized.

Turns case arguments (especially if carded) and “fast” DAs frequently swing debates for me.

Debatability is more important to me than predictability. This is not categorical, but when the difference in the predictability of both interpretations is minimal, I care more about the quality of debates.

Provide a clear vision of what the topic should encompass and directly contrast it with the opposing teams' interpretation.

Cards to support various parts of a T argument are underutilized.

Quibbles

None of these will decide a debate but may affect speaker points depending on my mood.

Here are some (I am sure the list will grow longer):

1. Please don’t refer to this paradigm. I have physically cringed every time this has happened, please stop. I might also prefer you refer to me as “judge” than randomly mentioning my name throughout a speech (though this is much more situation-dependent).

2. Poorly formatted speech documents. I follow along during CX and tend to read cards during prep and other dead time. Bad formatting makes this difficult and annoying. This is not to say you must format in a particular way, but relative uniformity of tags, headers, and the like would be nice. There should not be deleted headers, and tags, etc. This applies equally to card docs.

3. Too much dead time. Let’s pick up the pace, especially if you want to give me time to decide.

Others

Evidence ethics or anything else in a similar vein should typically be debated. That's what I prefer but if there is a clear violation consistent with tournament policy, the onus is on the debaters to direct me to stop the round and address it.

"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone uses gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

***Long Conditionality Ramble***

Here are my thoughts for the NEG. I don’t really have AFF thoughts other than maybe that these will be the most important things for you to grapple with. Things I am good for the NEG about:

1. I have yet to see a 1NC where I thought the 2A's job was so difficult that it would be impossible to substantively respond. For example, you don't NEED an 8 subpoint response with 5 cards to answer the Constitutional Convention CP. The flip side of this for the AFF is either establishing a clear and consistent violation from the 2AC onward or focusing on the "model" of debate to override my presumption that maybe this 1NC wasn't too bad.

2. NEG flex is great. Two sets of arguments are persuasive to me here. First, side bias. 2AR is certainly easier than the 2NR. I am unsure about "infinite prep," but I am persuaded that AFFs typically can answer most NEG arguments thematically. For example, having a good "certainty key" or "binding key" warrant addresses a whole swath of potential CPs. Second, the topic. Teams that appeal to the nature of the topic (honestly for either side) are persuasive to me. For example, the idea that appeals to "specificity" allows the AFF to murder core generics is one I find persuasive.

3. The diminishing utility of conditionality seems true to me. Appeals to "infinite condo" allowing the nth degree of advocacies is something I am presumptively skeptical about. There are only so many arguments in the NEG box that disagree with the 1AC in different ways. Take what I said about being able to answer arguments thematically to apply here. In addition, for the NEG to accomplish such a massive proliferation, arguments tend to be incomplete. Again, this was talked about above.

4. "Dispo" is a bit ridiculous. The 2AC must define it (the NEG needs to implicate this still). The only other thought I have other than the "plank + process spam" stuff (which I like) is that I can be persuaded "dispo" would mostly only ever allow one advocacy. It now seems intuitive to me that absent 1NC construction that made sure every DA was a net benefit to every CP, the 2A could force the NEG to have to extend everything but since one links to the net benefit, it would be impossible to vote NEG.

5. This is more of a random quibble that I think can be used to frame a defense of conditionality. It seems logical to me that the ability of the AFF to extend both conditionality and substance in the 1AR, forcing the 2NR to cover both in a manner to answer inevitable 2AR shenanigans (especially nowadays) is the same logic criticized by "condo bad" as the 2AR can pick and choose with no cost. It seems worse in this case given the NEG does not have a 3NR to refute the 2AR in this scenario. This is a firm view, but it seems much easier to me for the 2AC to answer the fourth mediocre CP in the 1NC (like uncooperative federalism lol) than for the 2NR to answer the 5-minute condo bad 2AR that stemmed from a 45-second 1AR.

Raunak Dua L C Anderson High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 7, 2024 at 3:33 AM EDT

Wake Forest University 2025

Debated In College and HS

Yes Email Chain: lcandersoncx@gmail.com -- please format the subject As “Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School [team code] vs Neg School [team code]. Example: “Berkeley -- Dubs -- AFF Archbishop Mitty DR vs NEG Interlake GQ”

Conflicts: Barstow, LC Anderson, Oakridge, Archbishop Mitty

* Updated for Shirley*

Although I largely debated more critically in college, I have coached and have a background across a swath of styles of debates.

At the end of the rebuttals -- I start by looking at what the teams have flagged as the most important pieces of offense. 2NRs and 2ARs rarely do enough judge instruction. The best type of RFD is where I don't have to do too much work and I can parrot back to you what the rebuttals said.

I want to see and will reward with increased speaks the following: argument innovation, specificity, quality ev, jokes/good vibes, good cx, examples, and judge instruction.

Call Tab is a silly argument in framework blocks

Note: Please send out all interp texts and perm texts in the email chain

Insert or Read: All portions of evidence that has already been introduced into the debate get to be inserted. This is a way to provide an incentive for in depth evidence comparison while also creating a strategic incentive to read good quality cards. Any portions of evidence that hasn’t already been introduced into debate should be read.

K Affs:Pretty agnostic here. My one pet peeve are affirmatives that define solvency mechanisms solely around not doing something ie. vote affirmative because we have refused the rez. The easiest way to lose reading a K aff in front of me is just saying buzzwords in the overview without unpacking what the aff does -- I am not scared to say I vote neg on presumption because I don’t know what the aff does.

I think that in debates vs FW both the counterinterp or pure impact turn strategy are viable. I think counterinterp debating is vastly undervalued and if done right can severely mitigate their internal links while providing uniqueness for aff offense on framework. Usually ev defining what the core controversy ought to be provides these strategies with more traction. My hesitancy with impact turn strategies is that it gives the full weight to their limits + predictability horror story. In my mind these strategies make the most sense when you have a good ballot proximity argument and against heavy debate doesn't shape subjectivity + fairness is axiomatically good debates. In debates where I end up voting neg in impact turn debates is when the 2AR does not package how the ballot resolves the impact turn.

Love good K V K debates!

FW vs K affs:Despite my reputation, I have found myself increasingly voting for framework while judging. I think that teams that deploy framework the must successfully are ones that engage the most with the affirmative teams offense explicitly rather than filling in blanks from generic blocks. I think its less valuable now to say is fairness an impact yes or no than how fairness is packaged. It is an impact that requires impact comparison with the affirmatives impact that they have gone for. When teams win on fairness in front of me it is usually coupled with a big push about why its the only thing my ballot can resolve and mitigatory defense to the affirmative's solvency claim for the scope of its impact. For clash debates the question of ballot solvency matters significantly less to me than about questions of models of debate. In these debates, internal link debating matters more about the specifics of their counter interp why is it unlimiting and unpredictable and why does a preclusion of that clash turn the ability for their model to access the benefits. I think on a climate topic, there is additional room for clash to be externalized to an impact about climate ethics and how organizers should navigate the climate debates they inevitably get into.

Topicality: I think a lot of teams do not put enough practice into debating T, making it one of the most strategic arguments for neg teams. I probably lean towards competing interps -- reasonability is a defensive argument for filtering how I evaluate interps. 2NR’s and 2AR’s shouldn’t go for every argument on the T page but collapse to one impact and do thorough weighing. I am a huge sucker for a precision 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans: Love em -- go for em. Cheaty Counterplans are cheaty only if you lose the theory debate. Having a solvency advocate or core of topic cards will go a long way to helping you win that debate. No strong predispositions on counterplan theory -- its up to the debaters.

Disads: Yes -- Do them. Teams don’t do enough of link turns case analysis.

Kritiks: My decisions tend to start from the framework debate and this guides how I evaluate the other parts of the flow. This determines the threshold needed for link UQ, whether the aff gets to be weighed, etc.. Always extend an alt -- it doesn't need to be always like "movements solve" or "fiated" but needs to frame both my ballot and how I should frame the debate.K teams should do more link turns case analysis. If not make sure you make persuasive framing arguments about why the case doesn’t outweigh. Aff teams benefit from spending less time on framework (unless they are one-tricking the fiat k) and more time engaging with the links + thesis of the K.

Sean Duff Washburn Rural High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:30 AM CDT

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

Rob Egan Newton 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 3, 2024 at 9:48 AM CDT

Update January 10, 2025

Questions? email robegan3@gmail.com

GENERAL THOUGHTS

I am the current debate, forensics and speech instructor at Newton High School. I formerly coached and taught debate, forensics and speech at Wichita Collegiate, where I also competed when I was a student there. I completed undergraduate work in public policy, am doing graduate work in social justice and have contributed with time and policy writing to numerous public servants at various levels.

In any debate or speech event, I prefer a moderate speaking pace. I would rather be able to understand every word you are able to tell me than have you fit in so many words that I can't understand what you're meaning to communicate.

Please introduce yourself at the beginning of rounds. Remember that you're representing your school, and do not do anything you would not want your grandparent to see on the evening news.

Be respectful. You're going to tackle some controversial issues. There's a way to do so with tact. Breathe. Have fun!

POLICY (CX) DEBATE

I am a policymaker judge. My penchant for policy comes from my background- real world experience with presidential candidates, governors, US Representatives, US Senators, state legislators and city councilors and mayors. I know what real policy impacts are. If you're going to use an obscure policy mechanism, dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s before you use it in front of me.

Cite your sources when you have them. This helps me differentiate between cut cards and pure analyticals, though the latter cannot be discounted.

Speaking style can be what persuades me when evidence presentation is even. Make note of your delivery if you want me to remember a particular point. I want to see negative offense.. show me Ks, CPs and T, especially in higher level debates. If you're going to use those things, though, make them good-- and watch your audience and your opponents before you decide to employ certain K topics. Think!

PUBLIC FORUM (PF) DEBATE

Folks, there has to be clash. Your round structure is different from CX, and your research burden is likewise different. Adapt!

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS (LD) DEBATE

If you don't follow basic structures of LD with values and criterions, I do not know how to adjudicate you. Make clear why I should prefer your interpretation of the resolution to your opponents.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

Use facts, please. Be inquisitive. Be prepared to hold others accountable, and be able to hold your own when people ask questions of you. The literal point of this event is for ideas to be debatable, folks. That means there has to be a positive and a negative side to your argument. If you make an argument that stops debate, you've lost me. This event was designed to be accessible. Your participation in it should consistently maintain that intent.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS- ACTING/INTERP

Follow the rules of your event, first. I know what they are, and you should, too. If the event has a book, I will downgrade you if you do not use it properly. Hold it with one hand at the spine and maintain control. Otherwise, you have no gestures and you give me no ability to read your facial expressions. That means you deliver an incomplete performance, which will really make us all sad.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS- SPEECH AND DRAWS

I do not so much care about what your actual claim is as I do about the way in which you organize your speech to support and defend your claim. Persuade me!

Tim Ellis Washburn Rural High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 2, 2024 at 7:38 AM CDT

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net ,

I am the head debate coach at Washburn Rural High School. I dedicate a large portion of my free time to coaching and teaching debate. I will work very hard during debates to keep an accurate flow of what is being said and to provide the best feedback possible to the debaters that are participating. I cannot promise to be perfect, but I will do my best to listen to your arguments and help you grow as a debater, just like I do with the students that I coach at Washburn Rural.

Because I care about debate and enjoy watching people argue and learn, I prefer debates where people respond to the arguments forwarded by their opponents. I prefer that they do so in a respectful manner that makes debate fun. Tournaments are long and stressful, so being able to enjoy a debate round is of paramount importance to me. Not being able to have fun in a debate is not a reason I will ever vote against a team, but you will see your speaker points rise if you seem to be enjoying the activity and make it a more enjoyable place for those you are competing against.

I will do my best to adjudicate whatever argument you decide to read in the debate. However, I would say that I generally prefer that the affirmative defend a topical change from the status quo and that the negative team says that change from the status quo is a bad idea. I am not the best judge on the planet for affs without a plan (see the first part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. I am not the best judge on the planet for process counterplans (see the second part of the previous statement), but I am far from the worst. Much like having fun, the above things are preferences, not requirements for winning a debate.

Topic specific things about intellectual property rights:

The neg is in a tough spot on this year's topic in terms of generics. If you are good at debating topicality, it will likely not be difficult to convince me that a more limited version of the topic could be better. However, limits for the sake of limits is not really a persuasive argument, so a big limits DA alone does not automatically result in a negative victory.
Equally debated, I can be convinced that the mere presence of resolutional words in the plan is insufficient to prove that the affirmative's mandate is topical.
Please debate the affirmative case. I know it can be tempting to just impact turn the aff, but generally the scenario you are turning lacks solvency or an internal link, and perhaps that would be a better use of your time than ripping into heg bad cards off your laptop for 13 minutes.
This topic is dense and difficult to research. Speaks will likely reward teams who engagein specific research, affirmative or negative, for the positions that they present.
I am not going to stop you from doing open cross-ex, but I really think it is overutilized and generally uneducational. In most situations, the best outcome is that you look mean or make your partner look incompetent. If your strategy revolves around not letting your partner speak in cross-ex, do not expect to receive high speaker points from me.

Cyrus Esmailzadeh Whitney M. Young Magnet High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 7:14 AM CDT

altsneedplantexts@gmail.com

UC Lab ES & ‘24

Michigan ES & '28

Tech over truth. Anything that resembles a personal preference or default here can be overcome by technical debating.

Moderate topic knowledge.

Defaults: insert re-highlights, yes judge-kick, offense-defense, T outweighs Aff theory.

Apart from the 2AR, you must identify unjustified new arguments as such for me to cross them out.

+0.1 speaker points if you open source all your cards (tell me)

+0.1 speaker points if you make fun of a Michigan or UC lab debater. I’ll consider +0.2 for current/former partners (Mahi, Ishan, or Rishi)

Don't put yellow highlighting on my screen. My eyes might actually start bleeding.

Good for plan text in a vacuum. Neg teams need a counter-interpretation of how to determine the plan’s mandate.

Ks/K-Affs

I’m much better for them than my history of argument selection would suggest. Win the flow and I’ll vote on it.

Make it clear whether it’s a question of competing interpretations or just this round/what my ballot does or why that doesn’t matter.

No preference between fairness and clash or impact turns vs. competing interpretations.

Specific links are great, but going for the "unique cybernetics DA to the plan that turns and zeroes the case" is a tough sell because of causality issues.

DAs

Carded turns case is good. I generally don’t care about turns case or excessive, grandstanding "impact calc" as much as other judges. The likelihood of extinction seems more pressing than the manner/timeframe in which it happens.

CPs/Theory

I don’t have an arbitrary, preconceived bias against “process CPs” or CPs that compete off function alone. I love a good competition debate.

You’re better off going for conditionality in the context of models, not in-round abuse. Strategy and time skew don’t justify new 2AR arguments. However, I don't have a predisposition against conditionality bad if the flow is won, especially absent a strong arbitrariness/reasonability push from the Neg.

I’m sympathetic to theoretical objections against certain advantage CPs, especially ones that fiat negative action (“don’t respond to cyberattacks on satellites”) or are incredibly vague (“deploy CCS”)

Impact turns/framing

Love them. Run wild. Russia war good, dedev, animal wipeout, etc. are all fair game.

“Try or die” seems intuitive.

Not great for Kant and LD tricks that challenge the conventional wisdom surrounding logic/decision-making. I’ll vote on them if you win the flow, of course, but I can only vote for arguments I understand, so err towards explanation rather than spamming the taglines of contrived paradoxes and moral dilemmas.

Aidan Etkin Berkeley Prep 3 rounds

Lindsay Jade Feinstein Greenhill School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 3:49 AM CDT

Lindsay Jade (or LJ, whichever works!)

she/her

Greenhill '21 | UT Austin '26 (2A)

assistant coaching for Greenhill

please put me on the email chain! lindsayjadef@gmail.com

glenbrooks update: this is my first time judging the IPR topic during the regular season (although I did work at DDI). For better or worse, I am probably less likely to have pre-conceived notions of what is (un)topical or does/doesn't compete - please err on the side of explaining!

generic things:

-tldr: read whatever you're best at! I have preferences, but am generally open to hearing whatever you have to say.

-I'd always prefer to evaluate the round in front of me rather than intervene. I will try to evaluate debates based on the flow before reading evidence, unless explicitly told to read a certain card.

-tech > truth

-numbering arguments = better speaks and better decisions!

-dropped arguments are true, but need to be fully extended along with an explanation of the implications you want them to have on my decision

-fully explaining/developing arguments and good line-by-line skills are important to me and will lead to higher speaker points than reading excessive overviews. If your answer to an argument is to cross-apply the overview, I tend to believe that the arguments in the overview should've just been on that part of the line-by-line. Similarly, I am much less likely to vote on "they dropped this line in my 2-minute long overview" than a more contextualized individual line-by line argument

-please be kind and respectful to each other!

-open cx is fine, but please don't excessively talk over each other/interrupt.

Policy affs:

-framing contentions are fine when you contextualize them to your aff and the CP/DA. "Probability first" still requires substantive answers to the DA to prove the probability is actually low.

-my bias is generally to weigh consequences, but I can be persuaded as to which ones matter more and why

-smart analytics and/or internal link defense > generic impact defense card

K affs vs. framework:

-I am probably slightly better for the neg here, although I have some (very very limited) experience reading k affs

-I'm fine with both limits/fairness and clash/idea testing/education style impacts (however, if your 2NR is the fun impact, the RFD probably won't be very fun for you).

-impact calculus and analysis, explaining how your interpretation best resolves that impact (and theirs can't access it), and how it interacts with the other team's impacts, will make it easier for me to evaluate the debate in your favor

-I'm seeing a trend towards impact turning topicality without extending a counter interp. Personally, I find it more intuitive when the aff presents a model of debate that resolves that impact turn to framework, giving me have a clearer understanding of how you solve your own offense (even if it doesn't try to be T/in the direction of the topic at all). If you don't want to go for a counter interp, having an explanation for why you don't need one would be helpful.

Ks:

-Some of my favorite debates to judge! I have experience debating pretty much all the Ks you usually see every year, but you should still do your best not to assume knowledge

-2NC overviews longer than 30 seconds seem excessive to me

-I probably care less about framework than most judges - framework determines which arguments I evaluate and in what order, but does not guarantee you win those arguments or the debate. If you want it to implicate any other part of the debate, you should explain that to me

-My "default" framework is that the aff gets to weigh the plan, but the negative can probably get most links to representations/justifications. Of course, this can be changed if the aff or neg is just so far ahead on framework, but I tend to not consider "role of the ballot" arguments as much. Instead, substantive arguments about why representations/justifications outweigh material action or vice versa are more persuasive to me. I tend to think teams (especially if you aren't reading an extinction impact on the aff) invest too much time in framework that should be used on the link/perm/alt debate in most cases.

-floating PIKs are probably bad, but if you get away with it, good for you

Topicality vs. policy affs

-limits > ground

-I am probably less willing than others to vote on "limits for the sake of limits" just because the topic might be huge. Neg teams' limits arguments are more persuasive when they're explained in the context of those limits being predictable (accompanied by examples). Please impact out your argument and explain how it turns each others' impacts.

-aff teams: good impact analysis (why impacts outweigh and turn theirs), defense to neg impacts, and examples are the way to my ballot

-not a big fan of subsets/whatever the throwaway T argument becomes this year, but really enjoy aff-specific smart T arguments (I know this isn't always possible and will still vote on whatever you win)

-I think reasonability is underrated when explained without relying solely on buzz words. This also applies to CP theory!

CPs and theory:

-love CPs

-aff teams: the permutation and links to the net benefit are your friend. If perm do both is the 2AR strategy, then explanations about how it shields the link starting in the 2AC is best if not necessary (the words "shields the link" alone is not an arg!)

-theory debates are probably some of my least favorite debates to judge, but if it becomes the debate I understand

-nothing except conditionality is probably a voting issue. my voting record has shown me that as a judge I tend to lean negative on conditionality, but I will do my best not to intervene

-if I think you are partially right about a theory argument but can't fully reject the team or argument, I still might be more sympathetic to a permutation that might not have been a winner in a vacuum. I won't automatically do that cross-application for you, though, so you should tell me to!

-my initial bias is that most process CPs are fine (but can be persuaded otherwise). I'd rather see creative permutations/specific theory interps than "process CPs bad"

-PICs out of words that aren't in the plan text are probably illegitimate

-judge kick: will do what you tell me to - if you care a lot, bring it up early (2AC/block). If the CP is conditional and no one says anything else I'll default to allowing judge kick.

-functionally intrinsic perms (that are limited to neg solvency advocates and only the plan and CP text) are my favorite!

DAs:

-yeah yeah!

-impact calc is very helpful, especially with turns case arguments. However, I usually end up placing more emphasis on the internal links to those impacts, whether the DA is unique, etc. (i.e., the likelihood that you're able to access those turns case arguments) - winning a slightly larger impact or turns case does not mean I'm automatically voting on 1% risk of the DA outweighs.

-that being said, tech > truth - I love (reasonably) creative spin on arguments and will reward you for it speaks-wise even if it doesn't work out for you

-politics is okay! Explaining differences between cards/warrants > the 7th card in your UQ wall

Non-negotiables (stolen from holland)

- death good = L

- being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. or making the debate unsafe for anyone involved (to be determined at my discretion) = L and the lowest speaks i can assign.

- no asking for better speaks

- i will flow a 2-hour long debate comprised of eight speeches. "Calling for a double win, intentionally interrupting an opponent’s speech, soliciting outside participation in a speech or cross-x, breaking time limits, playing board games, or devolving the debate into a 2 hour long discussion is a recipe for a quick L for the team that initiates it." -shree

- you have to read re-highlightings, you usually can't insert them unless it's just one word or something

Final thoughts:

-my goal is to be a judge I would feel good about evaluating one of my debates. Feel free to ask questions after the round if any part of my decision doesn't make sense to you.

-if you have any questions, please email me: lindsayjadef@gmail.com

Ross Fitzpatrick Greenhill School 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 5:17 PM EDT

Put me on the email chain (ross.fitz4@gmail.com AND greenhilldocscx@gmail.com)

I debated for four years at Barstow in Kansas City and four years at the University of Kansas

Currently teaching debate full-time at Greenhill + doing some judging for USC when I have time

Top Level:

Do what you do best, I'll try to keep up. That being said, what I really want to see (especially for high schoolers) is teams debating straight up. What I mean by that - I'm getting tired of this meta that seems to forefront winning on tricks over out debating your opponent. I don't like seeing things like hidden A-spec or a 1nc constructed out of 2017 backfiles with one substantive position. Pick what you are best at, be willing to start the debate over that position early in the round, and have at it. I'll vote on whatever that choice is, but I like teams that are truly willing to clash and engage with the best version of their opponent's arguments.

I try my best to get everything down on my flow, and it's what I'll decide the debate on. If you think an argument is especially important to deciding the debate, make sure you slow down and emphasize its importance so it ends up factoring into my decision

Your speaks will reflect how easy you make my job, that means focusing on argument comparison, judge instruction, and framing my ballot for me in the final rebuttals. Impact out conceded arguments and choose a few issues you're winning to frame out your opponent's offense.

Argument Specifics:

FW: I've debated both sides of this argument, although I've spent more time thinking about it on the neg than the aff. I think affs should have some sort of relationship to the topic, but I don't have strong feelings about what that should be. I think fairness and clash are both impacts and impact turnable. Aff teams, I think the best strategy is an impact turn to the negative standards, and an emphasis on how the 1ac interacts with framework. I find that in these debates I often vote for the team that is best at re-characterizing the debates that occur in the other team's model. i.e. does the TVA ever actually get debated like the neg team says it would? what types of affs would the counter-interp include outside of the generic list of popular K authors? I also like to reward innovation in explanation in these rounds, because it's easy for them to feel stale.

T: I am pretty neutral on the question of competing interpretations vs reasonability. Reasonability should be a question of the aff's counter interp and not the aff itself. Impact comparison is just as important in a T debate as any other.

Ks: Links don't have to be to the plan, but you should explain how they implicate the plan and use aff language, evidence, performance to prove them. Alternatives that solve the links are better than ones that don't. I can be convinced the debate should be about something other than the consequences to the aff. I'm also down to vote on extinction outweighs and the aff is a good idea.

CPs: Well developed, specific CPs w solvency advocates are awesome. I've gotten more comfortable evaluating competition debates in the last year or so, but probably not as proficient on all the moving parts as you might want if process is consistently your A strat.

DAs: Thumbs up. Spin can get you out of a lot, even if you're worried about specific evidence. Impact overviews and turns case arguments are an absolute must, especially in later rebuttals. Again, make my job easy. Tell me why your impacts are more important than theirs.

Theory: Proving in round abuse is the best way to get a ballot. Most of the time I lean toward rejecting the argument over the team.

Jay-Z Flores Huntington Park High School

Eric Forslund Pace Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:53 PM EDT

email: eforslund@gmail.com

Copied and Pasted from my judge philosophy wiki page.

Recent Bio:

Director of Debate at Pace Academy

15 years judging and coaching high school debate. First at Damien High School then at Greenhill. Generally only judge a handful of college rounds a year.

Zero rounds on the current college topic in 2020.

Coached at the University of Wyoming 2004-2005.

Assisted Wake, Trinity, and Michigan at various NDTs

2024-2025 Addendum: Stop reading this uncooperative federalism cp. It is junk. If it is in the block you are maxing-out at 27.5 speaker points. The "say yes" arguments are lies, and out of context --- I can't believe this garbage argument has survived this many years --- it needs to die.

I try to incentivize reading strategies that involve talking about the specifics of the affirmative case. Too many high school teams find a terrible agent or process cp and use politics as a crutch. Too many high school teams pull out their old, generic, k's and read them regardless of the aff. As an incentive to get away from this practice I will give any 2N that goes for a case-only strategy an extra point. If this means someone who would have earned a 29 ends up with a 30, then so be it. I would rather encourage a proliferation of higher speaker points, then a proliferation of bad, generic arguments. If you have to ask what a case strategy involves, then you probably aren't going to read one. I'm not talking about reading some case defense and going for a disad, or a counterplan that solves most of the aff. I'm talking about making a majority of the debate a case debate -- and that case debate continuing into the 2NR.

You'll notice "specificity good" throughout my philosophy. I will give higher points to those teams that engage in more specific strategies, then those that go for more generic ones. This doesnt mean that I hate the k -- on the contrary, I wouldn't mind hearing a debate on a k, but it needs to be ABOUT THE AFF. The genero security k doesnt apply to the South Korean Prostitutes aff, the Cap k doesnt apply to the South Korea Off-Shore Balancing aff - and you arent likely to convince me otherwise. But if you have an argument ABOUT the affirmative --especially a specific k that has yet to be read, then you will be rewarded if I am judging you.

I have judged high-level college and high school debates for the last 14 years. That should answer a few questions that you are thinking about asking: yes, speed is fine, no, lack of clarity is not. Yes, reading the k is ok, no, reading a bunch of junk that doesn't apply to the topic, and failing to explain why it does is not.

The single most important piece of information I can give you about me as a judge is that I cut a lot of cards -- you should ALWAYS appeal to my interest in the literature and to protect the integrity of that literature. Specific is ALWAYS better than generic, and smart strategies that are well researched should ALWAYS win out over generic, lazy arguments. Even if you dont win debates where you execute specifics, you will be rewarded.

Although my tendencies in general are much more to the right than the rest of the community, I have voted on the k many times since I started judging, and am generally willing to listen to whatever argument the debaters want to make. Having said that, there are a few caveats:

1. I don't read a lot of critical literature; so using a lot of terms or references that only someone who reads a lot of critical literature would understand isn’t going to get you very far. If I don’t understand your arguments, chances are pretty good you aren’t going to win the debate, no matter how persuasive you sound. This goes for the aff too explain your argument, don’t assume I know what you are talking about.

2. You are much better off reading critical arguments on the negative then on the affirmative. I tend to believe that the affirmative has to defend a position that is at least somewhat predictable, and relates to the topic in a way that makes sense. If they don’t, I am very sympathetic to topicality and framework-type arguments. This doesn’t mean you can’t win a debate with a non-traditional affirmative in front of me, but it does mean that it is going to be much harder, and that you are going to have to take topicality and framework arguments seriously. To me, predictability and fairness are more important than stretching the boundaries of debate, and the topic. If your affirmative defends a predictable interpretation of the topic, you are welcome to read any critical arguments you want to defend that interpretation, with the above stipulations.

3. I would much rather watch a disad/counterplan/case debate than some other alternative.

In general, I love a good politics debate - but - specific counterplans and case arguments are THE BEST strategies. I like to hear new innovative disads, but I have read enough of the literature on this year’s topic that I would be able to follow any deep debate on any of the big generic disads as well.

As far as theory goes, I probably defer negative a bit more in theory debates than affirmative. That probably has to do with the fact that I like very well thought-out negative strategies that utilize PICS and specific disads and case arguments. As such, I would much rather see an affirmative team impact turn the net benefits to a counterplan then to go for theory (although I realize this is not always possible). I really believe that the boundaries of the topic are formed in T debates at the beginning of the year, therefore I am much less willing to vote on a topicality argument against one of the mainstream affirmatives later on in the year than I am at the first few tournaments. I’m not going to outline all of the affs that I think are mainstream, but chances are pretty good if there are more than a few teams across the country reading the affirmative, I’m probably going to err aff in a close T debate.

One last thing, if you really want to get high points in front of me, a deep warming debate is the way to go. I would be willing to wager that I have dug further into the warming literature than just about anybody in the country, and I love to hear warming debates. I realize by this point most teams have very specific strategies to most of the affirmatives on the topic, but if you are wondering what advantage to read, or whether or not to delve into the warming debate on the negative, it would be very rewarding to do so in front of me -- at the very least you will get some feedback that will help you in future debates.

Ok, I lied, one more thing. Ultimately I believe that debate is a game. I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are very few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other. Finally, although I understand the strategic value to impact turning the alternative to kritiks and disads (and would encourage it in most instances), there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to those include: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t. You are just going to piss me off.

Tim Freehan New Trier High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 14, 2024 at 9:59 AM CDT

Yes, email chain. debateoprf@gmail.com

ME:

Debater--The University of Michigan '91-'95

Head Coach--Oak Park and River Forest HS '15-'20

Assistant Coach--New Trier Township High School '20-

POLICY DEBATE:

Top Level

--Old School Policy.

--Like the K on the neg. But I also vote neg on framework a lot.

--Quality of evidence matters. Massive disparities warrant intervention on my part. You can insert rehighlightings. There should not be a time punishment for the team NOT reading weak evidence.

--Not great for theory debates.

--I value research and strategic thinking (both in round and prep) as paramount when evaluating procedural impacts. It defintely informs how I vote.

--Utter disdain for trolly theory args, death good, wipeout and spark. Respect the game, win classy.

Advantage vs Disadvantage

I gravitate towards the team that wins probability. The more coherent and plausible the internal link chain is, the better.

Zero risk is a thing.

I can and will vote against an argument if cards are poor exclusive of counter evidence being read.

Not a big fan of Pre-Fiat DA's: Spending, Must Pass Legislation, Riders, etc. I will err aff on theory unless the neg has some really good evidence as to why not.

I love nuanced defense and case turns. Conversely, I love link and impact turns. Please run lots of them.

Counterplans

Short answer to every question is "Having a solvency advocate solves all neg problems."

Conditionality—

I am largely okay with a fair amount of condo. i.e. 4-5 not a big deal for me. You are taking a big risk if condo is your 2AR. I have voted Aff, but rarely.

Competition—

1. I have grown weary of vague plan writing. I tend think that the Neg need only win that the CP is functionally competitive. The Plan is about advocacy and cannot be a moving target.

2. Perm do the CP? Intrinsic Perms? I am flexible to neg if they have a solvency advocate or the Aff is new. Otherwise, I lean Aff.

(2025 ADDENDUM: I feel like this needs to be clearer because it has become an issue. I like Process CP’s when they are relevant to the topic. I give the Aff leeway re: limited intrinsic perms when they are run against a process CP that has zero topic relevance. This is because I value topic research and will reward the team that accesses an impact that incentivizes research and argument innovation and discourages file recycling. You have been warned.)

Other Stuff—

PIC’s and Agent CP’s are part of our game. I err neg on theory. Ditto 50 State Fiat.

No object fiat, please. Or international fiat on a domestic topic.

Otherwise, international fiat is a gray area for me. The neg needs a good Interp that excludes abusive versions. Its winnable.

Solvency advocates and new affs make me lean neg on theory. If you don't have one, it is acceptable in cases where CP's just ban something detrimental to impact. That just shows good strategic thinking.

I will judge kick automatically unless given a decent reason why not in the 1AR.

K-Affs

If you lean on K Affs, just do yourself a favor and put me low or strike me. I am not unsympathetic to your argument per se, I just vote on framework 60-70% of the time and it rarely has anything to do with your aff.

That said, if you can effectively impact turn framework, beat back a TVA and switch side debate, you can get my ballot.

Topic relevance is important.

If your goal is to make blanket statements about why certain people are good or bad or should be excluded from valuable discussions then I am not your judge. We are all flawed.

I do not like “debate is bad” arguments. I don't think that being a "small school" is a reason why I should vote for you.

Kritiks vs Policy Affs

Truth be told, I vote neg on kritiks vs policy affs A LOT.

I am prone to voting Aff on Perms, so be advised college debaters. I have no take on "philosophical competition" but it does seem like a thing.

I am not up on the Lit AT ALL, so the polysyllabic word stews you so love to concoct are going to make my ears bleed.

I like reading cards after the debate and find myself understanding nuance better when I can. If you don’t then you leave me with only the bad handwriting on my flow to decipher what you said an hour later and that’s not good for anybody.

When I usually vote neg its because the Aff has not done a sufficient job in engaging with core elements of the K, such as ontology, root cause claims, etc..

I am not a great evaluator of framework debates and will usually err for the team that accesses education/research impacts the best.

Topicality

The requirement for offense on the part of the affirmative is something on which I place little value. Put another way, the aff need only prove that they are within the predictable confines of research and present a plan that offers enough ground on which to run generic arguments. The negative must prove that the affirmative skews research burdens to a point in which the topic goes beyond 20-30 possible cases and/or renders the heart of the topic moot.

Plan Text in a Vacuum is a silly defense. In very few instances have I found it defensible. If you choose to defend it, you had better be ready to defend the solvency implications.

Limits and Fairness are not in and of themselves an impact. Take it to the next level.

Why I vote Aff a lot:

--Bad/Incoherent link mechanics on DA’s

--Perm do the CP

--CP Solvency Deficits

--Framework/Scholarship is defensible

--T can be won defensively

Why I vote Neg a lot:

--Condo Bad is silly

--Weakness of aff internal links/solvency

--Offense that turns the case

--Sufficiency Framing

--You actually had a strategy

PUBLIC FORUM SUPPLEMENT:

I judge about 1 PF Round for every 50 Policy Rounds so bear with me here.

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at things from a cost benefit perspective. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Impacts need to be tangible.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote on what is on the flow (yes, I flow) and keep my personal opinions of arguments in check as much as possible. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

While I am not a fan of formal “Kritik” arguments in PF, I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. Racism and Sexism will not be tolerated. You can attack your opponents scholarship.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. Again, I am not a fan of the Kritik, but if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Often the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance and not style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

Christopher Fry Glenbrook North 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 12:30 PM CDT

In accordance with guidance from my employer, please upload docs to the file share on Tabroom instead of emailing them to me.

I debated at KU and Blue Valley Southwest, I am currently coaching at Glenbrook North

FW

I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense. The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Counter interpretations can be useful, but the goal of establishing a new model sometimes exacerbates core neg offense (limits).

I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.

I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation.

CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.

I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.

If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.

Daniel Gallagher Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Lily Gies Niles North High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 21, 2024 at 3:14 PM CDT

Lily - not "judge" :) - she/they

Walter Payton ‘22

Michigan ‘26

Asst. Coach at Niles North

Please include me on the email chain - lily.g.debate@gmail.com AND nilesnorthdocs@gmail.com
Please send word docs, not google docs :)

First and foremost, BE NICE TO EACH OTHER, and do not be arrogant. Debate is (supposed to be) fun!

I love debate. It was one of the best parts of my high school career and is something I actively enjoy doing in college. Debate is for the debaters. I will work as hard as possible while judging and will give the same care and commitment to the debate that I would like if I was debating.

I have done both kinds of argumentation: policy and kritikal. I feel confident evaluating either. However, I am probably less familiar with the HS topic than you are, so please be deliberate in explaining key concepts.

I will not vote on things that happened out of round.

If you read an ethics violation, I will ask if you want me to stop the round and go to Tab. If you do not want me to do that, I will ignore said violation.

That being said, I’m good to vote on pretty much any argument that is likely to be introduced, as long as there are warrants to do so. I would vote on wipeout, afropessimism, Russia war good, libertarianism, structural violence is a d-rule that outweighs extinction, spark, the reverse security K, framework is a micro-aggression that outweighs the impacts to their model, T 3-tier, etc. Harassment in round becomes a Tabroom issue, but I am extremely confident that any argument introduced by debaters trying to win will be okay, and the only limiting factor will be my ability to keep up with the flow.

I don't like judges who pretend to be tech over truth but then vote on the perceived quality of an argument. Whether or not a judge "buys" an argument is irrelevant to whether or not a debater won that argument. I read arguments I don't believe and will try to win on them, I expect you all to do the same. I will reward the strategic deployment and technical execution of bad arguments; I will not punish the better debaters for being scrappy.

I am a philosophy major, so I feel pretty comfortable with a variety of theory lit bases, regardless of how common they are in debate. I think that this can either help or hurt you, that is to say that you should be careful about shoddily explaining philosophical ideas in front of me. If you are wrong, but technically ahead or the other team doesn't point this out, I will always give it to you, but I might be a little grumpy about it and give you a long boring explanation in the RFD.

One of my biggest pet peeves is when debaters immediately take their opponents' arguments in bad faith and give them a weak read. You should ALWAYS give your opponents’ arguments the strongest read so that you are arguing against the most threatening version of their points. Chances are, what they are actually saying is not going to be as threatening as you take it to be, but if you argue against the best possible interpretation, then you set yourself up for success when the actual argument ends up falling short. This is both best academic practice and will help you win debate rounds. If you assume that the other team’s arguments are bad/dumb/stupid without trying to hear them out or listening to their articulation of said arguments, you will often be operating under a different understanding than the judge (me). I will be listening and TRYING to understand both teams, you should too.

In person:

- Make sure you're facing me during CX and speeches.

Online:

- Please turn your cameras ON for CX and during speeches, it'll be better for your speaks! Plus looking at an actual person talk is so much more interesting that staring at a black box for 8 minutes.

- My camera will always be on, if it isn't that usually means there is a problem with my wifi/tech so wait until you can see me before you start your speech.

- When sending speech docs PLEASE do not just share one big 2AC/2NC/1NR doc that has every arg your team prepped and then make me scroll through it while you skip the args that were not read in the round. You should send a doc that only has cards you are going to read that are relevant to the round.

Michael Greenstein Glenbrook North 2 rounds

Ethan Greer Shawnee Mission East High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 2, 2024 at 12:03 PM EDT

I debated at Georgetown University for 4 years (2019-2023) and coached there for a year (2023-2024). I'm currently affiliated with Northwestern University.

Please let me know if you would like me to rate your speeches using the BOOM meter.

egreerdebate@gmail.com

Update for TOC

-Please conflict me if you are a graduating senior who is committed to attending Northwestern.

-I haven't been actively involved in coaching or judging high school debate this season, so I'm not super in tune with things like topic acronyms or argumentative trends.

Overall Thoughts

-I prefer debates involving arguments about the topic. I think that policy debate should reward research and innovation within the topic area rather than incentivizing teams to recycle generics from year to year.

-Effective communication is imperative. Be clear; use numbers, emphasis, and sound bites to differentiate arguments; and focus on telling a cohesive story about why you win the issues that are most important for the debate. Don't be the kind of team that gets annoyed because I didn't think the one-sentence argument made five minutes into the final rebuttal was important for my decision.

-I have a very high threshold for accepting procedural arguments and "independent voting issues." If I can resolve an issue without throwing out a substantive debate (such as by rejecting an argument or card), I will. I will only assign an automatic loss to in-round conduct in instances where I think that a team's behavior meant that a productive or educational debate could not continue.

-I will categorically refuse to vote on arguments about an opponent's behavior outside the debate.

-Ad hominems are prohibited.

-In general, I have an aversion to voting for arguments designed to sidestep clash with the affirmative.

-I don't really care about whether an impact is "existential." Talk about impacts like a real person.

-I give speaker points in a normal distribution with 28.5 at the center.

-I don't check the speech doc while flowing, but I will have it open in case I want to read evidence later.

T (vs. Policy Affs)

-Topicality is a germane criticism. Affirmative teams must take it seriously and answer it like any other argument.

-Community consensus doesn't impact how I view T interps. Popular affs are still subject to the criticism that they are not topical.

-I'm an affirmative researcher, and I like being able to cut new and interesting affirmatives throughout the year. As a result, I care about aff ground and tend to hold the neg to a higher standard for proving the aff's interpretation is bad. The negative can reverse this presumption by winning a larger limits DA to the affirmative's interpretation - I still want the topic to be functional.

-I care a lot about whether an interpretation is a faithful representation of topic literature. Being "right" about the topic matters more to me than to most judges.

-I don't actually think that T is best described as "substance crowd out."

"Plan text in a vacuum" = no.

CPs

-Infinite conditionality is good. Persuading me otherwise is an uphill battle.

-Interps like "the neg gets two conditional advocacies" and "we get what we did" don't make sense. Conditionality is a yes/no question.

-Process CPs should present a reason why doing the plan is bad. It is much harder for the negative to win these arguments in front of me than it is for the affirmative to answer them.

-The states CP is fine. I think that the federal structure of the U.S. government means that the states CP presents a germane opportunity cost to federal government action in a way that international or private actor fiat do not.

DAs

-I won't vote for intrinsicness unless dropped. The politics DA is a dumpster fire right now - read the news and learn how to answer it.

-I don't think anything can be "zero" risk. You're better off talking about risk in relative rather than binary terms.

-I follow politics closely because doing so is my job.

Ks (vs. Policy Affs)

-Few debaters think through the implications of their framework arguments for other portions of the debate. It annoys me when neg teams say "the plan is not the focus of the debate" but then make arguments that presume a plan-centric model of evaluating offense (such as calling a perm "intrinsic" or acting like the affirmative team can't weigh impact turns to links because "the plan doesn't solve them").

-I consider myself neg-leaning on framework interpretations that exclude Ks from debate. I believe that affirmative teams are so obsessed with framework debates that they forget to contest basic premises of negative arguments, which are often poorly reasoned and unsupported by quality evidence.

-I consider myself aff-leaning on framework interpretations that prevent the affirmative from weighing the case or that imply the negative does not have to defend a solvent alternative. Reasons the affirmative is good and the alternative is bad should always be affirmative offense.

-My aversion to voting for arguments that sidestep clash with the affirmative is relevant here. I am not persuaded by strategies that single out small, isolated parts of the 1AC to critique. "We re-highlighted the un-underlined parts of your evidence..." "Your author said something we don't like on Twitter..." are not real arguments.

-"PIKs good/bad" is the same argument as framework. The premise of a PIK is that the negative does not have to disagree with the plan in order to win the debate, which is identical to the premise of negative framework arguments.

-Alt solvency is, also, a framework question. If the neg can win by introducing any disagreement with the 1AC, the material solvency of an alternative approach to the world is not very relevant.

-Fairness is important, though I don't think it (or anything else) can be an "intrinsic" good.

K Affs and T/FW

-I spend approximately zero percent of my time coaching or thinking about framework debates. I find that I rarely understand what's happening in these debates. For some reason, I often judge them anyway.

-Framework debates usually involve teams talking past each other and relying on enthymemes in the place of explanation and warrants, which makes rendering a decision difficult.

-Flaws in the topic are negative ground and therefore not offense against framework. Arguments such as "nuclear policy is imperialist" are potentially relevant Ks of topical affirmatives, but they are not justifications for reading a non-topical aff.

-Arguments that boil down to "I should never have to say something with which I personally disagree" irritate me. College students do not have infallible understandings of the world. Debate intrinsically involves confronting the possibility that you could be wrong about your most closely-held beliefs - this is a feature, not a bug, of the activity.

-I prefer it when aff teams defend a specific model of debate. Speak granularly to the role your interp provides for clash/negation. Talk about core points of disagreement under your model and why this disagreement produces better debates.

Tips for Higher Speaker Points

-Demonstrate that you've read this paradigm without specifically referencing it.

-Read cards where the warrants are highlighted and point out where your opponents have failed to do the same.

-Send docs before ending prep.

-Don't send cards in the body of the email.

-Don't ask flow check questions (including "reasons to reject the team").

-Don't refer to the case pages as "advantage 1" and "advantage 2" when the 1AC provided more descriptive labels, such as "economy advantage."

-Don't read cards written by undergraduates.

-Don't reinsert rehighlighting unless the lines have already been read by the other team.

David Griffith New Trier High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 3:13 PM EDT

David Griffith

Last substantively updated on 2/25/25---added "methodology" section that tries to describe how I judge and decide debates.

Coach at the University of Kentucky and New Trier High School. I judge a lot of debates. I debated nationally for 8 years in high school (Oak Park-River Forest) and college (Kentucky).

Emails for Email Chains:

High School: griffithd2002@gmail.com, ntpolicydebate@gmail.com

College: griffithd2002@gmail.com, debatedocs@googlegroups.com, ukydebate@gmail.com

I. Non-Negotiable:

The neg gets conditionality---never voting on condo. It can be double-dropped for all I care. If you need an escape hatch, I will happily vote on no neg fiat (this is not a joke) or any other theory arguments, just not this one.

II. Judging Methodology:

a. Starting Points.

I try to minimize intervention where possible, but no judge is a blank slate. I can't fairly adjudicate condo debates, so I don't want to judge them. Relatedly, some of my biases matter more than others. This section tries to describe my biases' relationship the the outcome of a given debate. The other sections set those biases out in clearer terms.

I encourage debaters to ask as may questions as they want about the decision or anything else.

I try to write out my RFD in full and submit it on Tabroom because I have trouble organizing my thoughts otherwise. I spend the majority of decision time typing notes on how I resolved each important question before cohering those notes into a complete RFD.

I flow every speech on my laptop. The only time my flow will not take up my entire screen is when I paste the plan text and any counterplan texts from the speech doc into my Excel sheet as they are read. I prefer to line arguments up on my flow rather than going straight down, but this doesn't always work.

I am not a fan of "any risk" logic when taken to its logical endpoint. This means I often evaluate links to arguments more stringently than other judges and am more willing than many to zero arguments if there isn't one. I am particularly more willing than most to abandon offense/defense in debates that do not center on predicting the consequences of the plan. If I'm tasked with deciding whether reading a certain argument was violent, for example, I am more likely to simply conclude "yes" or "no" than to start with the impacts to either of those answers being true. The same is true to a lesser extent for permutations.

My default presumption is that the aff must meet each stock issue, and the neg only debates the desirability of the plan. This makes me better than average for inherency, solvency, and other case-based neg strategies, and worse than average for philosophically competitive Ks, any arguments about fiat, and most K affs.

Plan desirability is not assumed but must be demonstrated, because the aff has the burden of proof. This belief can make me seem a bit "truthier" than some in that I will not assign risk to something without knowing where that risk comes from. This belief is very strongly held because I do not understand the alternative.

b. Deciding the Debate & Judge Intervention.

I start deciding by looking at the issues flagged by the 2NR and 2AR as important. I usually have some feeling about which side is winning during and after every debate, so where I start depends on that feeling. That feeling is informed by whose argument is presented more persuasively, how much the 2NR/2AR jump up and down about a particular issue, dropped arguments, and a variety of other things that can't be explained any better than when a spectator walks out of a debate declaring that it was a crush.

I will never evaluate more than I have to. For example, if the aff convincingly wins a no impact argument at the top of the 2AR, so much so that the case outweighs the DA, evaluating subsequent no link/internal link defense arguments is a waste of time, and I will never get that far. I do not like creating extra work for myself if I don't have to. This means I am a slightly faster judge than average.

If either final rebuttal fails to set out the most important issues at some point, I will trust my intuition, which is guided by time allocation, verbiage, and subjective judgment of what argument I thought was best throughout the debate.

If I believe an argument to be new in the 2AR, I will strike it from my flow. If debaters question the legitimacy of arguments introduced in other rebuttals, I will usually favor striking the argument but not always. What counts as new is up for debate.

Intervention is forced when competing claims cannot be resolved by reading my flow. How I intervene tends to favor teams with the clearest, best presented argument, and that is when the rest of this paradigm becomes relevant. What counts as clear and well-presented is hard to capture in precise terms, but the litmus test I normally use is whether I can explain an argument based solely on the words on my flow without looking at any evidence or adding explanation based on my own assumptions.

I do my best avoid content intervention by making sure that I can explain arguments I'm voting on after the debate is over without reading cards. If arguments are equally well-explained but nevertheless irreconcilable, only then will I begin to read evidence. That being said, you should always make and send a card doc. I read evidence to verify claims being made about it, not to enhance my understanding of the arguments in the debate. Stronger evidence is only important if it is debated well. Weaker evidence hurts you more if your storytelling isn't good.

III. Style and Presentation:

They matter a lot---sounding like you're winning is the first step to actually winning. Being organized ensures I understand your argument in its best form. Therefore, debating according to the suggestions outlined here will maximize your chances of a high quality decision after the debate.

Number arguments, signpost, and slow down---I strongly prefer debaters number arguments. Forcing me to flow straight down is the number one way to make me grumpy. I don't flow the speech doc. If you talk in paragraphs or fly through every argument at the same speed, I will miss arguments and won't feel bad about it. I will vote for pretty much anything so long as I can flow it and explain it after the round.

Label everything---off-case positions, advantages, and even individual arguments if possible. I get grumpy when the 1NC reads a bunch of off and makes everyone have a conversation before the 2AC about what everything is called.

Tell me why you win---robust judge instruction is your only hope of avoiding catastrophic judge intervention. Final rebuttals should clearly explain the implication of winning your most important arguments relative to other arguments in the debate. Doing so will result in a faster, clearer decision and better speaker points. Failing to do so will result in me taking the easy way out if possible.

Explain why technical concessions matter---I don't like it when debaters spam arguments and expect me to understand what they all mean. I have to able to explain to the other team why they needed to answer your argument in order to win. If something is dropped and important enough to jump up and down about, don't leave the explanation why to me. Do it in your speech.

Complain about new arguments---I don't like latebreaking debates. The "R" in 1NR and 1AR stands for "rebuttal." If the block makes deliberate choices informed by 2AC errors/concessions and tells me this, I am highly likely to obey 2NR judge instruction to ignore whatever the 1AR cooked up. Similarly, if asked to, I'm likely to ignore new 1NR T interpretations, CP competition arguments, or anything that the aff should get to CX the neg about. You just have to bring it up.

Don't answer incomplete arguments---the 2AC doesn't have to make solvency deficits if the 1NC doesn't have solvency arguments. Often, I consistently see 2ACs that accurately assess that a 1NC position was incomplete and then spend an inordinate amount of time on that sheet. This will make me second-guess whether the 1NC applied because it tells me that you take the argument seriously. Stop doing that.

IV. K Affs, T-USFG, and K v. K

Pick a lane and stay in it---I find that I most often vote for the team with the best developed arguments, not the one with the most. I do not judge these debates by tallying up dropped arguments. Going for too many impacts or spreading yourself too thin in the 1AR/2NR/2AR is the easiest way to lose me.

Affs should clearly depart from the status quo---in general, I would prefer that affs to have an advocacy statement identifying the specific action it believes is desirable. That action must be different from the status quo and enacted by an agent of change outside of the debate. Asking me to "endorse" something already happening or suggesting that I vote for the aff because it was educational are both likely to lose to a basic presumption 2NR. Relying on tricks to avoid this outcome (call-outs, theory, impact turns to T, etc.) will not get you very far.

Have a role for both sides, not just one---the best way to avoid intervention in framework debates is to paint a broad picture of debates under your interpretation. I generally find arguments about switch-side debate extremely persuasive. I am equally unpersuaded by the neg team that only complains about fairness and the aff team that only talks about how educational their particular aff is. I'm much more concerned with what an entire season looks like because not every debate is going to mirror the one happening in front of me. This makes me a good judge for creative counter-interpretations from the aff paired with functional limits arguments and a bad judge for any aff that says the topic will always be bad.

Explanation matters more here than in any other debate---I need to understand the implications of what you're saying. I vote neg on framework most when the aff says the topic is bad and fails to explain why that should be allowed. I vote aff most often on creative counter-interps and/or critiques of voting on topicality.

Voting issues are not offense/defense---my overwhelming inclination is to evaluate the link to a voting issue (was the aff untopical/is T a microaggression/did the other team do something bad) prior to evaluating the theoretical impact. I am more willing to vote on zero link to those examples than others even if the terminal impact to them feels large.

Perms test the 1AC's advocacy---two implications of this: 1. If the 1AC does not present a clear advocacy statement, the 2AC shouldn't get a permutation since there is no basis for neg competition since the debate centers around the value of the 1AC rather than the desirability of a particular course of action; and 2. If the 1AC does present a clear advocacy statement, frame subtraction, the cap K that competes on historical analysis, and the "state good" CP are exceedingly likely to lose on a permutation since those things do not test the desirability of the advocacy.

V. Ks against Policy Affs

Tricks are annoying---I'm pretty bad for teams that rely on tricks in order to win, especially if those tricks are vague assertions of "serial policy failure" or "ontology" or "root cause" without tailored application to the aff. I'm a great judge for nuanced link debating, competing ethical frameworks, and in particular alternatives oriented towards changing the world in some capacity rather than simply analyzing it. Remember, I must be able to explain why arguments interact in order for me to weigh one in your favor, so if I can't explain why the link turns case, the link does not turn the case.

Tougher sell than most on strong ontology arguments---I struggle a lot with evaluating arguments that say the world must always be a certain way. It is very difficult to convince me that the world cannot get better or worse (especially that last one). This means I have a significantly higher threshold for evaluating ontology arguments than a lot of judges. To me, one ontology argument being true doesn't intuitively mean all others are off the table, and ontology is just a characterization of the world, not an indictment of political action.

"Perm do both" definitionally does not sever anything---by default, the aff can "sever" its representations because its representations being good was not the reason the 1AC said to vote aff. This makes me a hard sell on most neg framework interps.

VI. Counterplans

I will not kick the CP by default---I don't really get why people think conditionality applies to judge kick. Perm in the 2AR flips presumption aff. I'll still judge kick if I'm told to but won't if I'm not.

I don't like the other issues perm---the intrinsic perm is an unfortunate creation by Big 2A designed to avoid having to do research and understand why most process CPs are facially ridiculous. I am a much better judge for "perm do the plan and non-mutually exclusive parts of the CP" and similar perms that do part of the CP and all of the aff. I also think "perm do both" is underutilized against CPs that fiat their outcome, For example, if the courts CP fiats a ruling, the perm also fiats the ruling, so any perm argument that says the case gets tossed makes negative sense. If you insist on going for the other issues perm for some reason, it is important to identify the other side's arguments by name, clearly divide your offense and defense, and slow down when identifying what part of the debate you're on. Do not just read a 2NR block straight down and gesture towards the most common aff answers as if I will understand those as the same as the ones the 1AR made.

I need to understand CP solvency---I do not presume that a CP solves the case in the same way that I do not presume the 1AC reading a plan text automatically means it solves its advantages. This means vague CP texts, especially without cards attached to them, are not likely to persuade me, and the 2AC need not say much if the 1NC doesn't.

Aff leaning on certainty/immediacy/agent CPs---words often have multiple meanings, and the aff's definitions are usually better for debate.

Impacts matter---solvency deficits need connections to them. "Delay" and "certainty" only matter if connected to a particular 1AC internal link. Linking a CP to one of these concepts alone is unlikely to matter to me if the impact isn't clear.

VII. Topicality in Policy Debates

2ARs should always include reasonability---most T interps are stupid. The cards usually suck. T-Subsets should not be an argument. The topic is never as big as people say it is. Literature checks abuse the vast majority of the time. Stop letting the cult of limits consume us all.

Arbitrary limits are not limits---if your cards are significantly better, please go for predictability. If truth is on your side, that's a reason we should've written the resolution better. If you don't have the sauce, you probably shouldn't go for T unless the aff spots you competing interpretations.

Limits outweigh aff innovation, which is why you need to extend reasonability---being aff is so easy. You do not need to be untopical to beat the court clog DA or whatever. Reasonabliity is the only way to beat a neg limits impact in an evenly matched debate with two equally predictable inteprretations.

Plan in a vacuum is mostly unpersuasive---how do you interpret the plan in a vacuum? The 1AC read evidence that informs what the plan means. This is why the aff can go for solvency deficits against CPs and nuanced no link arguments against DAs. To me, it seems untenable to suggest that the evidence the 1AC used to define plan function should be ignored when deciding topicality. Now, if I can use the neg interpretation when interpreting the plan and still conclude the aff's characterization of the plan is feasible, plan in a vacuum makes sense.

VIII. The Status Quo, Disadvantages, and Impact Framing

Sequencing matters more than overall risk---in debates where everyone gets to the same terminal impact, by default, the faster impact wins. If the econ DA is faster than inevitable economic decline, I will vote to live another few days.

Fiat solves every rider and horsetrading DA---in general, rider and horsetrading DAs do not test plan desirability but feasibility. Bar technical concessions, I'm almost automatically aff if the 2AR goes for no link, so much so that the 2AC/1AR probably needn't say anything else.

Better than average for non-utilitarian impact frames---I'm persuaded by critiques of longtermist thinking. Avoiding extinction is one of many potential reasons for doing something, and I think debate would be better if everyone stopped pretending every possible action truly influences the risk of some world-ending catastrophe.

Wipeout/extinction good is fine, with a caveat---I have learned recently that I am very persuaded by even minimal impact defense to AI. I'm much better for animals/anti-natalism/other flavors of extinction good than that one.

Genevieve Hackman Georgetown Day School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 5:00 AM EDT

Director of Debate at Georgetown Day School

Current Affiliation - Northwestern (2024-)

Assistant Coach, University of Kentucky (2020-2024)

Debated at University of Kentucky (2017-2020)

Debated at Milton High School (2013-2016)

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

TLDR

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

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

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

I am always sleepy, generally have a resting expression of frowning, often stare into the distance while typing. It's probably not about you, don't read too much into it.

Online Debate

--If my camera is off during prep time, I have probably walked away. I'll generally try to pop my camera back on when I get back to signal I have returned, and will also usually keep a headphone in to maintain awareness of when you stop prep. Just give me a sec to turn on my camera and get settled before you launch into an order or the speech.

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

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

DA/Case/CP

--my favorite debates!

--smart and effective case debating is the best thing in debate

--topic specific cps or cps clearly grounded in topic lit > competes off of should and resolved and is a version of cp read in 2004

Topicality (vs aff with a plan)

--predictable limits are good, arbitrary interpretations are bad

K (vs aff with a plan)

--links applied specifically to the plan are great, buzz words without explanation are bad

--if your model of debating is 'go for dropped framework da', I am a bad judge for your k

--unlikely to categorically reject links for being non uq, but even less likely to not evaluate consequences of the aff for any reason

--even if statements are important, don't assume you'll win a full risk of any arg because its unlikely you will. tell me how to decide the debate accordingly

Planless Affs

--I think clash is good but needs to be articulated well in order to turn/potentially outweigh the case

--limits + a defense of the topic are important

--specific strats against a planless aff is interesting, will be rewarded with speaker points, I generally think if something is in the 1AC I am likely to believe there is a link to your argument, and am very persuaded by strategies that utilize the cx to pin down specificities of the 1ac advocacy and then predicate the strategy off of that. If the aff is unwilling to speak specifically about the strategy of the advocacy, I generally tend to be more persuaded by framework.

Misc.

--extinction good or death good are nonstarters in front of me, nuclear war good is extremely unlikely to get my ballot and I will strongly dislike the debate but will not categorically refuse to evaluate it

--tend to lean towards conditionality being good, but would be persuaded otherwise in particularly egregious incidents. unlikely to vote on it if new aff

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

--I like when lots of quality evidence is read, and will often read your evidence at the conclusion of the debate (and if evidence is referenced in a cx, will usually try to find what you are referencing while it's being discussed) but good evidence is not substitute for warranted extensions and applications

--be on time, clean up behind yourself, don't steal prep, be efficient in transition times like sending docs, and be prepared to start the 1ac at the start time of the debate

Joyce Harduvel Kenwood Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 20, 2024 at 12:35 PM CDT

Former UC Lab debater and current Kenwood Academy coach (16-present)

jharduvel [at] cps [dot] edu

The most important things that you can do to get my ballot are:

Strategic overviews with judge instruction that explains how to resolve the key issue(s) of the debate
Comparative warrant analysis throughout
Well-impacted arguments that collapse down to the essentials by the end of the debate

I will do everything I can to resolve the debate based off of my flow rather than by following along with your speech doc or reading evidence.

I will vote on whatever arguments that you wish to make. I'm more familiar with critical literature so if you're planning for a tech-y policy debate, be ready to explain your arguments thoroughly and do some storytelling in your overview.

Slow down enough on analytics that they are clearly flowable. I flow what you say not the speech doc so you need to be intelligible. I believe that there is a threshold you need to meet for me to vote for any given argument. Blippy extensions are going to give me significant pause and even if something is conceded, I need more than "They dropped condo and it's a voting issue for fairness and education!" to vote on it.

Topicality and theory: These debates should include clash, comparative analysis, and impacts just like any other part of the debate. I don't understand how one would evaluate a plan text in a vacuum.

Kritiks: I prefer when debaters are specific on the link and alternative debates, and when they go for arguments like the K turns case or is a DA to case instead of vague impacts. I tend to err that the aff gets to weigh their impacts under most frameworks even if they also have a burden to (for example) justify their methodology to access them.

Counterplans: I am sympathetic to aff theory arguments against PICs, consult CPs, and process CPs. On the permutation debate, I tend to lean neg and assume risk of a link to the net benefit (unless I am told otherwise, of course).

K v. K: Try to keep it as organized as possible and don't skip a strategic overview that explains the interaction of arguments. Links should be specific and contextual to aff. I like these debates the most when warrants are fleshed out, nuanced, and (I'll say it again!) specific with minimal cards.

Clash debates: You don't have to be topical or defend government action but you probably need a link to the topic. Whether you are aff or neg, give me a clear role of the ballot and explanation of your model and its advantages. I evaluate tech over truth but I do believe that debate has significant disparities and that conversations that seek to confront and address that are important.

Speaker Points: I reward judge instruction, line-by-line, comparative impact calculus, clash, creative argumentation, explanation of warrants, and smart analytics. I prefer fewer cards, fewer blocks, and more debating off your flow. I will deduct speaker points for oppressive language or arguments, rudeness, being purposefully evasive or deceitful, excessive interruptions of your partner, and ethical violations. Clipping cards or refusing to provide the other team with access to your cards are serious violations, and I will deduct speaker points accordingly whether the other team points these issues out or not.

Joshua Harrington Niles North High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 26, 2024 at 3:07 PM EDT

Paideia 2019

Michigan 2023

Currently Pursuing a Ph.D. in Philosophy at Emory University

Email: harrington.joshua33@gmail.com

TLDR:

Policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. If you believe both of these, you should pref me in the 1-25 percentile. If you believe only one of these, you should consider how much you disagree with the other then put me somewhere in the 25-50 percentile. If you disagree with both of these, consider preffing someone else. Any and all thoughts in this paradigm are malleable and determined by the debating done in a given round. My ideal tournament is one in which any judge from any program can fairly adjudicate any argument without any prior ideological commitments.

I fully believe that the role of the judge is to consider the arguments presented and do their best to render a decision that best reflects the round presented to them. Throughout my debate career I have seen judges allow personal bias and apathy render meaningless the hours of time and energy that debaters give to this activity that we all have limited time in. Therefore, I will do my best to flow all arguments made, listen to CX’s, render a decision, and give comments that I think will aid you in future debates. With that being said, this paradigm reflects my current thoughts on policy debate and how I render my decisions.

If at any point you read this paradigm and think I am referencing a specific ideological position in an attempt to cement a singular vision of debate, I am not. I find equal flaws and absurd arguments across the ideological spectrum and equally dislike most of the arguments, practices, and trends rewarded in this activity. I have felt this sentiment for a few years now. Despite this reality, the one truth I consistently return to is that I love debate. I love this activity and will do my best as a judge to make this activity a welcoming place to all argumentative styles and positions. If you have any questions or concerns, I encourage you to reach out via email or even come up to me at a tournament and introduce yourself. Far too many of us are strangers and fail to reach out, so know I am more than open to dialogue.

Background:

I am currently pursuing my Ph.D. in philosophy at Emory University and plan to continue coaching alongside. I debated for 8 total years and during that time, I was lucky enough to debate across a range of argumentative styles and strategies. I found value in all argumentative forms but have also developed my own argumentative preferences in doing so. I strongly prefer strategies that open oneself to deliberation and defend controversial positions. I believe the issue of clash and what kinds of education we produce are important ones to explore, as I continue to judge. I believe the difference between a good argument and a bad argument is often about packaging and impact calculus and often vote against teams that poorly articulate concepts and the implications of the arguments presented. Similarly, I often vote against arguments not because they are wrong, but because they have not been packaged in a manner that is responsive and/or implicated enough for me to vote on. Once again, any and all arguments are open for me, but if I cannot articulate the impact of an argument and its implications on the other arguments presented, I am very unlikely to vote on it.

Online Debate:

I encourage you to have face cams on, at least during speeches and CX but understand if you are not comfortable with that or just choose not to. I'm a pretty good flow overall, but if there is a tech issue or the speech becomes unclear, I'll do my best to let that be known.

Case/impact:

I will likely read your 1AC and be annoyed if you claim to do things and solve impacts not supported by your current 1AC construction. Many people claim the 2AR lies, but I believe the lies start as early as 1AC CX. This is not to say that new articulations, warrants, and impacts cannot be accessed throughout the process of debating, but I am annoyed by AFF inconsistency. I do not care what 1AC is read or what 2AR is given, just do your best to maintain consistency.

In terms of engagement with case, your negative strategy should implicate the case page in some way. When I say “implicate”, I mean that in the loosest of definitions possible. This can stem from going for terminal defense all the way to fully mooting the 1AC via framework. Remember, no matter what, at the end of the round, a negative ballot will likely have to answer the question, “what should I do with the 1AC?”

DA’s:

Read any and all of them as you please so long as it is substantiated by evidence. These debates often come down to impact calc and card quality. In case vs DA debates, I find myself often voting aff on try or die. Your impact calculus should anticipate that you are defending the status quo and do your best to overcome that.

CP’s:

I am fine with any counterplan so long as it has a solvency advocate, or as long as I can intuitively understand how the counterplan would function. I am working to become a better judge at in-depth counterplan competition debates, but for now err towards over explaining rather than under explaining. Judge kick seems to be good, however if I am judge kicking a counterplan, I am likely to vote on case outweighs unless sufficient case mitigation.

Theory:

I very much do not want to judge condo debates. I default to three being good, four being up for debate, and five or more being bad. The common rebuttal to this format is “number of condo doesn’t matter/it is about the practice/no clear difference between four and five”. I recognize these arguments even though I believe they are said in bad faith. This is an instance where technical execution can overcome ideology for me. However, in most theory debates (including condo), the aff needs to prove in-round abuse in order to persuade me. With theory arguments besides condo, I am likely to just reject the argument and not the team.

I care very little about negative contradictions at a theoretical level. Performative contradictions are not reasons you get to sever your reps, but they can be reasons that I ought to be skeptical of certain arguments.

Kritiks:

Any and all kritiks are viable options when I am in the back. I believe links should either be in the context of doing the plan, the assumptions around particular impacts, or the failures of a particular understanding the 1AC relies on. I find most one card kritiks incredibly unconvincing. I like kritiks that are not just kritiks of fiat and will give you a speaker points boost for developing your kritik beyond “fiat is bad”. I read and enjoy kritiks that defend a theory of power and apply that theory to the link debate; those were the kritiks that I read as a debater.

Answering Kritiks:

For answering the kritik, I am very good for many of the classical policy argumentative pushes that people use against common kritiks. That includes but is not limited to arguments such as: humanism good, psychoanalysis wrong, state inevitable/good/will crackdown, scenario analysis good etc. When a floating PIK/utopian alt is read, I am likely to be convinced by the permutation and a fairness push on framework. Otherwise, I would highly recommend going for a clash impact over fairness against most kritiks.

Defending your 1AC and implicating the kritik is the most effective and likely path to the ballot. I believe the FW (fairness) + extinction outweighs is a more than viable 2AR to give. That said, 75% of the time debaters do not articulate these arguments in a manner that is responsive to the negative’s kritik. I believe it is bad to only have extinction outweighs and fairness-centric framework in your arsenal because there are instances where clash is more responsive and debating the warrants of the kritik will increase your chances of the ballot. In addition, you should be willing to push NEG team on what they are saying. Pressing on the truth of a theory, the relevance of a link, and the viability of the alternative are all more than viable strategies and far more enjoyable to judge than the “two ships passing in the night” trend of Policy vs K debates we currently have.

K AFF’s:

K AFF’s are likely to be most successful in front of me when they take a stance on the resolution and a defend a theory of power that can be applied to the NEG’s offense. What a theory of power constitutes can be very broad, but I am likely to make you defend the implications and solvency of your 1AC. What it means to solve something likely depends upon your 1AC choice, but I must know what you are trying to do to know whether it is good, worthwhile, or even possible.

My three preferred 2NRs vs K AFFs were the Cap K, Topicality, and Afropessimism. I write this to demonstrate, I believe every AFF is answerable, and sometimes the best answer is Topicality.

Similar to the case section, I am most likely to vote NEG when NEG teams make arguments that meaningfully implicate the case page. I think presumption is a necessary tool that is often poorly deployed. I believe it can supplement most strategies and can be won in 1AC CX by a creative 2N who asks the right questions.

I enjoy topicality debates, both going for it and answering it. Fairness and clash are both impacts that should be explained more than you currently plan on. Most of these debates come down to who best articulates the role of the ballot and its ability to solve both sides’ offense. If you are AFF, I am likely to want an answer to the question, “what is the role for the negative”. Through smart defensive arguments, a counter interp, and/or a large defense of an impact turn, I can be easily convinced to never vote on topicality. On the opposite side, you should use fairness/clash to implicate case impacts and beat logical inconsistencies in most 2AC’s to framework. Different K AFF’s have different strategic strengths and weaknesses; different K AFF’s also produce different discussions and forms of clash (maybe). Recognizing the most strategic deployment of the 1AC in addition to your most strategic articulation of fairness, clash, tva, ssd, etc. will increase your chances of getting my ballot.

For K v K debates, I am increasingly conflicted on my beliefs of whether the AFF gets a perm and whether that perm requires a net benefit. I believe it is possible for 2N’s to craft competitive alternatives that disagree with core parts of the affirmative. At the same time, I recognize the potential fluidity of many K AFF’s and am thus sympathetic to different visions of competition. This analysis must be done and resolved otherwise I will abide by traditional rules of competition and consider whether the alt is mutually exclusive with the AFF. I very much dislike floating PIKs, but depending on the PIK and relevant offense, I can be convinced that PIKs in the 1NC can be good.

Procedurals/Ethics violations/RVI’s:

The only procedural I am likely to vote on is topicality. The vast majority of non-topicality procedurals that I have been exposed to are incredibly arbitrary and lose to a 2AR on “we meet”. If you find an 1AC you feel as though you cannot debate with a substantive strategy, I encourage you to find a topicality violation based in the resolution or find a way to out cheat your opponent.

Similarly, when issues of evidence become potential grounds for the rejection of the team, I am highly likely to strike the card and/or the argument rather than the team. Similar to the condo section, I do not particularly want to judge these debates and very rarely am certain enough that the practice should end the debate and/or be grounds for voting a team down.

Lastly, I am a very poor judge for strategies dependent upon out of round interactions. I believe the competitive aspects of debate makes the conversations incredibly unproductive and conversations outside of round are necessary (when possible) to resolve such disputes.

Misc:

My ideal debater combines the persuasion and ethos of Giorgio Rabbini and Natalie Robinson, the technical skill of Rafael Pierry and Elan Wilson the work ethic of DML, Kris Wallen, Don Pierce, Hana Bisevac, and Pranay Ippagunta, the judging abilities of Corey Fisher, Vida Chiri, Devane Murphy, Shree Awsare, and Taylor Brough and the attitudes of Nate Glancy, Jimin Park, Ariel Gabay, and Ben McGraw. If you are able to display any of these qualities to the level that these debaters have, you have set yourself up to thrive in this activity.

Kevin Hirn Westwood 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed August 28, 2024 at 3:41 PM EDT

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan (2015-)

Debate Coach, Westwood HS (2024-)

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23), University of Chicago Lab Schools (2023-24).

Last updated: August, 2024

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college energy topic and the HS intellectual property rights topic. For intellectual property rights, I wrote the topicality file and delivered the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp.

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive, and I still believe mine to be insufficiently comprehensive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them). I attempt to counter this practice with detailed disclosure of the various predispositions, biases, and judgment canons that may be outcome-determinative for how I decide your debate. Maybe you don't want to know all of those, but nobody's making you read this paradigm. Having the option to know as many of those as possible for any given judge seems preferable to having only the options of surprise and speculation.

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions, both in general and in specific contexts likely to emerge in debates. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure few allegedly "dropped" arguments can accurately be described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable, especially for judges whose philosophies aren't as long as mine! But more importantly, drawing that line does profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by how persuaded judges were by competing presentations of analysis and evidence. With reasonability-style arguments, aff teams can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, and instead that they should win if their plan meets an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research parity/quality debate. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Answering "plan text in a vacuum" requires presenting an alternative standard by which to interpret the meaning and scope of the words in the plan. Such seems so self-evident that it seems banal to include it in a paradigm, but I have seen many debates this year in which teams did not grasp this fact. If the neg doesn't establish some method for determining what the plan means, voting against "the plan text in a vacuum defines the words in the plan" is indistinguishable from voting for "the eighty-third unhighlighted word in the fifth 1ac preempt defines the words in the plan." I do think setting some limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, especially in debates where large swaths of the 1ac would be completely irrelevent if the aff's plan were to meet the neg's interp. For example: if an aff with a court advantage and a USFG agent says their plan meets "enact = Congress only", the neg could say "interpret the words USFG in the plan to include the Courts when context dictates it---even if 'USFG' doesn't always mean "Courts," you should assume it does for debates in which one or more contentions/advantages are both impertinent and insoluable absent a plan that advocates judicial action." But you will likely need to be both explicit and reasonable about the standard you use if you are to successfully counter charges of infinite regress/arbitrariness.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is extremely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or by investing time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory/competition debating is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation. It's relatively easy for CPs to be written in a way that meets this design constraint, but that makes it all the easier to dispose of the CPs that don't.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

Admittedly, these don't exclude a ton of counterplans, but they're extremely powerful when they apply. There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a workable debate relative to alternatives.

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. Generally, I prefer competition debates to theoretical ones, although I think both are basically normative questions (i.e. the whole point of either is to design an ideal, minimally arbitrary model to produce the debates we most desire). I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing. There are obvious and reasonable disadvantages to textual competition, and there is something inelegant about combining two models together, but I don't think there's a clear and preferable alterantive template when it comes to affs going for competition/theory against new or random process CPs.

And to be clear about my views: "functional-only" is an extremely defensible model, although I think the arguments to prefer it over functional/textual hinge on the implication of the word being defined. If you say that "should is immediate" or "resolved is certain," you've introduced a model of competition that makes "delay a couple weeks" or "consult anyone re: plan" competitive. If your CP competes in a way that introduces fewer CPs (e.g. "job guarantees are admininstered by the states", or "NFUs mean no-first-use under any circumstance/possibility"), I think the neg's odds of winning are fairly likely.

Offense-defense is extremely intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense, in this context, can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. Perhaps you can advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But absent any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but generally that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. the neg drops it), a significant skill discrepancy between teams, or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you. I generally coach my teams to 2NC CP out of straight turned DAs, read 5+ conditional advocacies in the 1NC, etc.

I don't default to the status quo ("judge kick") if there's zero judge instruction to that effect, but I default to the least interventionist approach possible. If the neg says the CP is conditional, never qualifies that "2nr checks: we'll only go for one world," and aff accedes, I will default to judge kick. One side dropping "yes/no judge kick" at some point in the debate obviously wins the issue for their opponent.

I've led a strong group of debaters in a summer institute lab every year for over a decade, and I think some of the lectures or discussions I've led on various theoretical subjects (in which I often express very strong or exaggerated defenses of one or more of the above arguments, for educational purposes), have influenced some to interpret my views on some aspect of competition as extremely strongly-held. In truth, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is probably always the best option, I would generally also enjoy seeing a well-executed substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic). But please don't sacrifice your likelihood of winning the debate.

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "debate doesn't shape subjectivity" takes out clash/education offense, for example, is a reasonable and even threatening one.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad."

Fairness is an impact, though like any impact its magnitude and meaning is subject to debate. Like any abstract value, it can be difficult explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven via observation or testing. In other words, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to persuade me that I should care about fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity, such as expecting that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothing.

But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. Nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know... debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

So, I am a good judge for the fairness approach. It's not without its risk: a small risk of a large-magnitude impact to the ballot (e.g. solving an instance of racism in this round) could easily outweigh. But strong defense to the ballot can make it difficult for affs to overcome.

Still, it's nice to hear a defense of debate if you choose to go that route as well. I do like FWs that emphasize the benefits of the particular fairness norms established by a topicality interpretation ("models" debates). These can be enjoyable to watch, and some debaters are very good at this approach. In the aggregate, however, this route tends to be more difficult than the 'fairness' strategy.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than others, and they're related to why I value the debate activity. First, "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would). Second, "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Further, despite sympathies for and familiarity with much poststructural thought, I'm nevertheless quite easily persuaded to use utilitarian cost-benefit analysis to make difficult decisions, and I have usually found alternative methods of making decisions lacking and counter-intuitive by comparison.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Procedural Norms

Evidence ethics, card clipping, and other cheating accusations supercede the debate at hand and ask for judge intervention to protect debaters from egregious violations of shared norms. Those challenges are win/loss, yes/no referendums that end the debate. If you levy an accusation, the round will be determined based on whether or not I find in your favor. If I can't establish a violation of sufficient magnitude was more likely than not, I will immediately vote against the accusing team. If left to my own discretion, I would tend not to find the following acts egregious enough to merit a loss on cheating grounds: mis-typing the date for a card, omitting a sentence that doesn't drastically undermine the card accidentally. The following acts clearly meet the bar for cheating: clipping/cross-reading multiple cards, fabricating evidence. Everything in between is hard to predict out of context. I would err on the side of caution, and not ending the round.

'Ad hominem' attacks, ethical appeals to out-of-round behavior, and the like: I differ from some judges in that, being committed to minimal intervention, I will technically assess these. I find it almost trivially obvious that introducing these creates a perverse incentive to stockpile bad-faith accusations and turns debate into a toxic sludgefest, and would caution that these are likely not a particularly strategic approach in front of me.

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said. Bad takes were thrown into the memory hole.

Topicality for Fiscal Redistribution:

I'm probably more open to subsets than most judges if the weight of predictable evidence supports it. The neg is maybe slightly favored in a perfect debate, but I think there is better aff evidence to be read. I generally think the topic is extremely overlimited. Both the JG and BI are poorly supported by the literature, and there are not a panoply of viable SS affs.

Social Security and programs created by the Social Security Act are not same thing. The best evidence I've seen clearly excludes welfare and health programs, although expanding SS enables affs to morph the program into almost anything topically (good luck with a "SS-key" warrant vs the PIC, though). SSI is debateable, though admittedly not an extreme limits explosion.

Topicality arguments excluding plans with court actors are weaker than each of the above arguments. Still tenable.

Topicality arguments excluding cutting programs to fund plans are reasonable edge cases. I can see the evidence or balance of debating going either way on this question.

Evenly debated, "T-Must Include Taxes" is unwinnable for the negative. Perhaps you will convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I did quite a bit of research on this subject before camps even started,so if you think you have a credible case then you're likely in need of new evidence. I really dislike being dogmatic on something like this. I began the summer trying todevelop a case for why affs must tax, but I ran into a basic logical problem and have not seen evidence that establishes the bare minimum of a topicality interpretation. Consider the definition of "net worth." Let's assume that all the definitions of net worth state it means "(financial assets like savings, real estate, and investments) - (debts and liabilities)." "T-FR must include tax" is the logical equivalent of "well, because net worth means assets AND liabilities, cashing a giant check doesn't increase your net worth because you don't ALSO decrease your debts owed elsewhere." For this to be a topicality argument, you'd need to find a card that says "Individual policy interventions aren't fiscal redistribution if they merely adjust spending without tax policy." Such a card likely doesn't exist, because it's self-evidently nonsense.

Of course, I'll certainly evaluate arguments on this subject as fairly as possible, and if you technically out-execute the opposing team, I'll vote against them remorselessly. But you should know my opinion regardless.

Topicality on NATO emerging tech: Security cooperation almost certainly involves the DOD. Even if new forms of security cooperation could theoretically exclude the DOD, there's not a lot of definitional support and minimal normative justification for that interpretation. Most of the important definition debates resolve substantive issues about what DA and impact turn links are granted and what counterplans are competitive rather than creating useful T definitions. Creative use of 'substantially = in the main' or 'increase = pre-existing' could elevate completely unworkable definitions into ones that are viable at the fringes.

Topicality on Legal Personhood: Conferring rights and/or duties doesn't presumptively confer legal personhood. Don't get me wrong: with evidence and normative definition debating, it very well may, but it doesn't seem like something to be taken for granted. There is a case for "US = federal only" but it's very weak. Overall this is a very weak topic for T args.

Topicality on water: There aren't very many good limiting devices on this topic. Obviously the states CP is an excellent functional limit; "protection requires regulation" is useful as well, at least insofar as it establishes competition for counterplans that avoid regulations (e.g. incentives). Beyond that, the neg is in a rough spot.

I am more open to "US water resources include oceans" than most judges; see the compiled evidence set I released in the Michigan camp file MPAs Aff 2 (should be available via openevidence). After you read that and the sum total of all neg cards released/read thus far, the reasoning for why I believe this should be self-evident. Ironically, I don't think there are very many good oceans affs (this isn't a development topic, it's a protection topic). This further hinders the neg from persuasively going for the this T argument, but if you want to really exploit this belief, you'll find writing a strategic aff is tougher than you may imagine.

Topicality on antitrust: Was adding 'core' to this topic a mistake? I can see either side of this playing out at Northwestern: while affs that haven't thought about the variants of the 'core' or 'antitrust' pics are setting themselves up for failure, I think the aff has such an expansive range of options that they should be fine. There aren't a ton of generic T threats on this topic. There are some iterations of subsets that seem viable, if not truly threatening, and there there is a meaningful debate on whether or not the aff can fiat court action. The latter is an important question that both evidence and normative desirability will play a role in determining. Beyond that, I don't think there's much of a limit on this topic.

ESR debates on the executive powers topic: I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics: States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make some new rule apply throughout the entire area, e.g. all police are prohibitied from enforcing XYZ criminal law." Admittedly, there are better and worse variations for all of these violations. For example, Title 18 is a decent way to set up "T - criminal justice excludes civil / decrim" types of interpretations, despite the fact it's surprisingly easy for affs to win they meet it. And of course, aff teams often screw these up answering bad and mediocre T args in ways that make them completely viable. But none of these would be my preferred strategy, unless of course you're deploying new cards or improved arguments at the TOC. If that's the case, nicely done! If you think your evidence is objectively better than the aff cards, and that you can win the plan clearly violates a cogent interpretation, topicality is always a reasonable option in front of me.

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

Trump-era politics DAs: Most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

Calvin Hwang Mamaroneck High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 27, 2024 at 9:44 PM EDT

Just call me Calvin.

Of course I want to be on the email chain –

chwangdebate@gmail.com

mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

ipostround@googlegroups.com

If you send me an email and I do not respond, send me another one. I either forgot or it got lost in the sea of emails that I receive.

HS Debate: Walter Payton (2019-2023)

College Debate: University of Michigan (2023-present)

Debate Coach: Walter Payton (2023-present), Mamaroneck (2024-present).

IP Specific Thoughts:

Moderate-good topic knowledge. I have cut a lot of cards on this topic and have done a good amount of research, so I know a decent amount about this topic. It seems like this topic is generally worse for the negative, with no unifying negative ground. I think that patents bad is false on a truth level, but is strong in debate because "ban patents" is probably competitive and the AFF needs to do a lot of work to overcome it. Monopolies are not as bad for innovation as a lot of people think.

Top Level:

My judging record provides more realistic information than what is typed in my paradigm. Judging Record

I flow on computer, but I will never flow off the doc. Unless it is the 1AC or the 1NC, I will not even have the doc open. If I can't understand you then you have failed to persuade me.

I am obstinately tech over truth. I will judge the round with the absolute minimum amount of intervention that is needed. Everything in my paradigm is how I view debate generally; in round, it is easily overcome by uttering a singular word on the flow. I do not sympathize with versions of technical adjudication that maintains caveats for ad homs, death good, wipeout, kritiks, or process CPs, nor will I immediately disregard something because it is “stupid” or “offensive".

Have done both policy and K strategies, and both as a 2A and 2N. Ran soft-left, big stick, and kritikal affs, as well as both 10 and 1-off 1NCs. While I coach both policy and K teams, most of my thoughts and cards I cut are rooted in the policy side.

I don't care if you take cross as prep. I don't flow cross.

I do not care if you post-round me, nor do I believe post-rounding is "bad" or "rude"; I firmly believe that debaters have an intrinsic right to justify why they have won the round. Debaters invests a lot of time into winning, and I think it disingenuous to deny them the opportunity to explain why they think that the time that they invested should have resulted in a win. If you think that part of my decision is wrong, feel free to express so; I actively welcome it and will not hold it against you in any way.

AFFs

Do whatever you want.

There's probably more strategic utility to reading a soft-left aff. I'm not part of many soft-left debates anymore, in either coaching or debating.

In my experience, 2ACs on the case page are making arguments that lack warrants, and that negative teams are letting them get away with it. Almost every 2AC case flow sounds like "1NC is wrong, doesn't assume x," even when the 1NC card does in fact assume x.

K-AFFs

Framework debates are some of my favorite debates to watch and judge. I will vote for the team that is winning the flow; if you read a planless aff and believe that you can out-tech your opponent, you should pref me. If you are unable to, but instead rely on vague assertions with minimal application to the arguments in the round (usually done in the first 2 minutes at the top of the speech), I am probably not the best judge for you.

In front of me it makes more sense to go for impact turns to the negative model of debate rather than a counter-interpretation.

Fairness is almost certainly the best impact to go for in front of me, but I can be persuaded that it is an internal link with proper debating.

Teams do not go for presumption in the 2NR (at least part of it) even if it is the objectively correct 2NR according to the flow. I am more than willing to pull the trigger on presumption should the 2NR be winning on it technically, and varying inconsistencies between affirmative speeches makes me all the more willing to pull the trigger on presumption.

I have a little experience with KvK debates. You should err on the side of overexplanation.

My understanding of post-modern/post-social theory is lacking, so you should err on the side of over-explaining.

Kritiks

Similarly to above, I am good if you are able to out-tech your opponent, and comparatively worse if you fail to do so.

Fine for the fiat K, floating PIK, whatever strategy you are deploying.

I will decide FW dependent in favor of one team; I will never default to an arbitrary middle ground if it is not either teams interp. I am best for kritiks that defend a model of debate that moots the 1AC; it is structurally difficult to win "we meet." I like creative framework interpretations that attempt to deviate from "weigh the 1AC as an object of research."

Topicality

Fine for the neg. I do not share in the sensibilities for creating an arbitrarily high threshold for the negative to win. I go both ways on plan text in a vacuum, but I think that the negative needs to present an alternative interpretation other than the aff's model being bad.

I have no preference for one standard over another. I sympathize with precision outweighing limits, but I am fine for one outweighing the other.

Reasonability is winnable but requires significant investment to overcome the debatability push. Going for the aff being "reasonably topical" is probably not a winning strategy when perfectly debated.

I am almost certainly more open to evaluating a T - subsets than most judges are. That does not mean that I lean neg, but rather that I do not hold T - subsets to a different, more arbitrary standard of evaluation that precludes it from being the 2NR. This is all just to say that if you are winning it, you should go for it.

Theory

Similarly to topicality, there are people that assert they are tech over truth but instead maintain caveats and preconceptions on theory that signal that it is unwinnable. I am receptive to good theory debates. That being said, it is probably true that most theory arguments are better used as competition rather than reasons to reject the team.

It would be arbitrary for me to instantly reject hidden ASPEC. If the affirmative team drops it, it is their burden to prove why they get new answers. If I miss it, I won't vote for it. This goes similar with AFF theory violations.

Perfectly debated, I think arbitrariness is a difficult standard for most affirmative interpretations to defeat, but it still conquerable with proper debating.

Very open to a good conditionality debate, and am more than willing to vote either way for it. I think that conditionality is good, but I have spent a lot of time considering and going for condo bad. While I think particularly egregious CPs like 2NC CPs out of a straight turn are probably on the more illegitimate side, the stronger violation is probably not conditionality but 2NC CPs are bad. People automatically assume that new AFFs justify infinite condo. While I understand the justification, I don't think it to be as true or strong as most believe.

If it's a crush, it doesn't have to be all 5 minutes of the 2NR/2AR. I'd probably prefer if it wasn't.

Counterplans

Better for process and competition debates than most, but admittedly am not super caught on nuances like "textual topicality". I’d advise slowing down a little and explaining your warrants to concepts like that.

“Textual” alone is hard to debate and I am significantly better for “text and function” or “function only.” In a vacuum I think that function only is probably the best, but am easily persuaded otherwise.

I enjoy new process CPs. That is not to say I dislike "generic" or "reused" process CPs, or that I will vote them down because they are "generic/reused", but that new process CPs are simply more fun.

Disads

Zero risk is almost certainly real, and I have not heard a convincing reason for why it is not. That being said, I think that it is hard to reach.

There is not much else that can, or should be said. There is a strange repulsion to politics and “generic” DAs which I really don’t get. A disad is just a negative implication to the plan, there realistically shouldn’t be this much hemming and hawing to what that means. Read the disads you think will win.

Impact Turn

I am incredibly fond of these debates. While some impact turns are quite stupid, they allow for the opportunity to research and deploy arguments that defy conventional wisdom, and are thus fun to evaluate.

I have no strong preconceptions on either side of any impact turn. Obviously there are some sides that are truthfully correct, but I won't carve out a caveat for or against your favorite impact turn like wipeout, spark, russia war good, warming good, etc.

Of all the impact turns, the one that I have done the most research for is heg good/bad. Whether that is a good or bad thing for you is up for debate, but it is the lit I have the most experience with.

Online Debate

While I believe that online debates are a nuisance, I think that they make it significantly easier for teams (especially smaller ones) to attend tournaments. I don't care if you have your cameras on or off, it provides minimal value. My camera will probably be on for the entire debate, including if I am not currently at my computer.

It would be wise to noticeably slow down. If you are spreading at full speed I will pick up less of your arguments. This is especially true if you are not clear in-person.

Speaks

Theoretically the mean speaks should be 28.5, and I try will give speaks around there. The chance that (unless something went terribly astray) you get a 27 or a 30 is basically 0 (the only time I have given a 30 is not because of the quality of the debate itself but rather a mandate from tab that I give a team that clipped normal speaks). I have and will give substantially different speaker points between partners if it is fitting, and I think low point wins are more common than documented.

I will not give increased speaks for things like "make me laugh" or "mention x debater,” which I think is dumb. I also think that taking away speaker points for doing things like calling me judge is really dumb. If you are a funny debater that probably already affected the speaks I am giving you positively, so adding more just artificially inflates speaks.

Misc. Thoughts

I don't even know what an LD trick is.

I have a basic understanding of Kant. It comes from The Good Place and a week of Philosophy 101. I have voted on it, and I expect that I will continue to vote on it, but explain it more than you probably think that you should.

While I think that author indicts are fine, the way that most people are using them is unpersuasive. Generally, I will raise the question of the impact that the indict has on the evidence that you are presenting. Arguments like "x person has financial incentives to misrepresent facts" carry a certain impact to why I should prefer your evidence instead, and obviously I think that attached to epistemological indicts are fine, but indicts that are just "x person supports x country/organization or said something mean on twitter which means you strike the card" are nonsense and probably carries little to no weight to the rest of the card.

Pranay Ippagunta Berkeley Prep 3 rounds

Lauren Ivey Alpharetta HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 26, 2024 at 3:52 PM EDT

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

I am currently serving a three-year term on the topic committee.

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

I try my best to be a tabula rasa judge and simply evaluate the round in front of me with as little intervention as possible.

I do not flow off the doc, but I do spot check for clipping and as I've gotten older I am increasingly willing to just say if I can't understand what you are saying it's not getting flowed.I think I am decent at flowing so if I miss something because you were unclear it seems reasonable your opponents would miss it too.

I am increasingly frustrated by teams just dropping random buzzwords and asserting these are arguments. The word "semiotics" or "fungibility" and then moving on is not an argument. Asserting something is a "sequencing DA" and moving on without an explanation of the argument is not an argument. I am not going to vote for you unless I can explain the argument back to you, so you need to make sure claims (or words) have warrants and explanations.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth. I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of voting for people based on allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz Alpharetta HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 9:14 AM EDT

Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz, Sophomore @ UWG. Debated at Chattahoochee and once at Wenatchee. Qualified to the TOC twice, NDT once before cutting sophomore year debating short. I now coach at Alpharetta for policy.

My email is esh5.atl.debate@gmail.com

Debate is a game. It also is an environment, a social space, a research activity. Debate is a lot of things and how you choose to interpret that game and the implications that brings is up to you to decide.

That said - in that social space, there are imminent political risks associated with being alive for many of us. If you are afraid of being outed, if there is an issue that you are facing, if you do not want to interact with an abuser or someone who will seriously put you at risk, feel free to come to me and we will work out the best possible solution.

However, because debate is a game, I am willing to evaluate a wide range of arguments. Death good, impact turns, religious arguments, conspiracy theories, etc. as long as they do not result in racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc., which will result in a loss and serious email to coaches. The opponent team has the burden to call these arguments out for it to impact my decision.

Tech and truth are buzzwords so devolved from meaning anymore. I will evaluate the debate through the flow, the persuasive ability of teams, etc.

No one actually cares about people’s takes on policy arguments anymore. Whoever is reading this doesn’t either. Here’s all relevant thoughts: people’s cards suck nowadays and are warrantless. If this is you, either fix them or hope really really hard no one looks at me and hits a thumbs down. I’m not the best informed on counterplan competition, though I do get like 70% of it. I’ve seen KAFFs more topical than some of these policy affs lately.

Kritiks - Kaff counter interps are silly 99% of the time. I’d rather you just say framework is bad. K links should be contextualized to the aff in the block even if the 1NC card is generic. I will vote on whatever K, K style counterplan, K style T. Identity arguments interest me more than pomo.

Tricks - I think you are bad for debate as an activity. “Tricks bad” in the 2NR/2AR is probably infinitely more believable than anything you will say. LD is located in a different building.

Phil - I think LD is located in a different building. I’m more flexible on this than tricks.

Viveth Karthikeyan Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 6:05 PM GMT

Debated at Emory from '13-'17

Coached at Harvard University from '18-'23

Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

I do want to be on the email chains: kviveth[at]gmail.com & debatedocs

General Decision Making -

I am a fairly technical judge, but I have a higher bar for what constitutes an argument.

I will try to protect the final speeches from new arguments when possible. I make a pretty explicit effort especially to protect the 2NR from new arguments in the 2AR.

I try to judge debates through the arguments developed by the debaters as closely as possible. However, I do have certain thoughts about arguments so I will try to list them below.

Counterplans-

I have no theoretical predispositions against any particular style of CP. If the CP is demonstrated to be competitive, I am likely to think it's theoretically legitimate. Affs would be better off spending more time on competition questions rather than theory ones.

I don't love recycled Process CPs from past topics, but I really enjoy seeing a new, well-researched and well-thought-out process CPs specific to the topic.

I will generally kick CPs for the neg if the CP is conditional until told not to by the aff.

Critiques -

I think the neg critique is usually one of the best objections to many Aff cases.

I think the best critiques are ones that utilize framework and K prior arguments to neutralize the Aff's offense. Without a strong push on this category of argument, the Neg is in a much tougher position against a well crafted permutation/alt solvency arguments.

Theory-

Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.

Conditionality - Neg teams are usually really bad at defending conditionality and the aff should capitalize.

Framework / Topicality v. Critical affs.

I am not ideologically opposed to voting for critical / non-topical Affs. However, all things being equal, the arguments for requiring the Aff to be topical are better - that debate is a competitive game, that we should preserve a fair competition for both sides, and that the resolution is a non-arbitrary way to ensure that. Non-topical AFFs win framework debates in front of me by impact turning or denying the truth of the previous sentence.

Aaron Kim Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 12:31 PM EDT

ajkdebate@gmail.com

UCLab '22

Emory '26

TLDR

I’m usually tired when judging, so the less time wasted, the higher the speaks.

Include line by line and judge instruction.

I like easy, clean debates.

I enter decisions relatively quickly. This isn't a referendum on the debate.

I will not vote for arguments I do not understand.

I am willing (begrudgingly) to vote on arguments about microaggressions, but will never vote on "X microaggression outweighs Y microaggresion." I am fine with link defense but will not vote on impact calculus. I will assume the impact is the same for both X and Y and will drop speaks for anyone that does impact calculus. You can say microaggressions outweighother arguments like fairness but should never compare which microaggressions mattermore infront of me (or in general).

Paradigms are biased self-reports but I've debated with and you should check the paradigms of Don Pierce, Lucas Lobo, Jared Shirts, and Mahi Shah.

I've included a longer paradigm below.

Topic thoughts

Little to know topic knowledge. If your strategy is legally complicated or something to IP (even things like the sui generis CP), spend extra time and slow down explaining the legal context that matters to make a decision.

It seems incredibly aff biased. Thus, I understand the reliance on process CP's, UQ CP's, and other similar CP's that are questionably competitive. That being said, I will increase speaks for teams that have case specific strategies or 2NR's that do not include a CP that is not questionably competitive.

K Affs

I've read K affs my entire junior year but have also gone for framework against K affs.

Aff: Affs should choose between defending in round impacts versus spill up arguments. In addition, ballot solvency features prominently in majority of my decisions. That being said, the neg must win both that the ballot doesn't consequentially solve something and that consesquentialism is good in order to zero aff offense. Against fairness, I am generally better for in round impacts, but can be convinced that I should evaluate models of debate. Against clash, I am equally good for both a K of their model that turns clash as well as in round impacts that frame out clash as an ideal that cannot be solved by the ballot.

If the 2NR is a K, most teams run to the perm. I have a bit of a higher threshold for voting aff on the perm given the fact that there isn't a stable advocacy and it seems as though the 1AC and 2AC are irrelevant to the debate against a K because the 1AR and 2AR are completely new explanations of both the aff and the perm. In addition, the aff must have offense as to why the alt alone is insufficient, not just a reason why the links don't matter that much.

Neg: Ballot solvency is equally as important here. If you are going for clash versus an in round impact aff, then you must win that even if the ballot doesn't result in a model of debate, it is valuable to evaluate models. Conversely, if you are going for fairness versus an aff that defends a counter interp, it is helpful to win you should only evaluate consequential impacts to the ballot. I am best for a 2NR that emphasizes a fairness impact as an independent impact and utilizes clash to internal link turn aff offense.

K's against K affs are fine. I prefer framework debates because it's far easier to establish a link and a locus of offense. Thus, going for K's must have hyper specific link explanation and must pin the aff down to defending particular things as early as possible in the debate. In addition, links/K turns case arguments with external offense (similar to clash turns aff offense + fairness as external) is the most convincing explanation of going for the K that minimizes any net benefit to the perm.

K's on the Neg

Aff: Generally best for framework + util 2AR's. Majority of my thoughts on going for framework on the neg apply to framework on the aff, especially against fiat K's. Aff teams that lose usually lose because they either make technical concessions on framework, do not explain ballot solvency, or drop tricks including but not limited to arguments like link turns case, alt solves case, X is unsustainable, etc. I am also amenable to impact turns to fiat K's/affs that have offense premised off of scholarship as something to weigh against the link. Affs that are against alternatives that do something materially should include perm double bind and have offense as to why the alt alone doesn't solve. Should also include both framework arguments about competition as well as theory arguments about the alt. 2AC's should answer every link argument both at the level of fiat and scholarship. Saying it's a link to the squo might be sufficient if you win you should evaluate fiated implementation, but is the equivalent of dropping the link if the link is about scholarship not implementation.

Neg: Fine for both fiat K's and substance K's. Higher speaks for teams that technically execute K's that are not just framework K's due to higher difficulty. Generally bad for alts that fiat a lot, which makes links turn case with try or die alt far more persuasive than an alt that solves everything. However, smart competition arguments established by framework along with a robust theoretical defense of the alt makes the alt solves everything strategy viable. Fiat K's that moot the plan but go for links specific to the aff have a lower threshold for a link versus K's that moot the aff and only go for fiat is bad.

Fine for everything. No particular thoughts. Generally better for PDCP than the intrinsic perm but understand that depending on how the CP is written, intrinsic perm may be necessary. Depending on the CP, delay perms that are explained as CP's may compete off of certainty but not immediacy is also very compelling. Willing to vote on conditionality bad, but not a conditionality hater. I default to no judge kick unless explicitly told.

No particular thoughts. Make sure you make and answer DA turns case arguments. Probability of the link/DA filters the relevance of turns case.

No topic knowledge, willing to vote on most T arguments. Relatively better for aff ground rather than predictability. PTIV is not unwinnable but is an uphill battle.

Case

Honestly don't really care whether you go to case or not to win. Strategies that are case specific generally get higher speaks. Willing to vote on most impact turns. If your preferred 2NR is death good, I assume there has been some kind of trigger warning with the other team.

Misc

Tech over truth. Caveats include: ethics violations, -isms, and I will not vote on arguments that I cannot explain from warrants in the final rebuttals.

Impact calculus tips the scales in close debates, but is also executed poorly. Generic probability, magitude, timeframe impact calculus is insufficient when both teams are vaguely gesturing at an extinction impact that has no brink. Timeframe is helpful in close debates. I also find try or die and turns case arguments very compelling. That means you should always include a bit of impact defense/impact non-unique arguments in final speeches. Other logical presses like timeframe first, turns case/DA, and only evaluating opportunity costs/what impacts are resolved are convincing if explained well.

Card quality is important but only in very close debates. Majority of debates I will not read cards.

I flow on my laptop and try to type out/transcribe as much as possible. That means go slower, emphasize, and number analytics, otherwise I will miss warrants and will not evaluate it in later speeches.

I've found myself unengaged in most CX's. That means if something important is happening, make it interesting.

Everything is relative risk unless the other team has conceded it or if their arguments have literally zero comprehensible warrant.

+0.1 speaker point for every minute of prep not used, with a cap of 29.9. This only applies if you win the round, not if you're getting killed and you just want higher speaks.

Christopher Kozak Newark Science 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:01 PM EDT

For the email chain: kozakism@gmail.com

I am the former founding Director of Debate at Rutgers University-Newark and current Speech and Debate Coordinator for the Newark Board of Education.

I do not have any formal affiliation with any school in the City of Newark. I represent the entire district and have been doing nothing but competing, teaching, coaching, and building debate for the last 22 years. I have judged thousands of debates at almost every level of competition.

I am in the process of rewriting my judge philosophy to reflect my current attitudes about debate better and be more helpful to competitors trying to adapt. The one I have had on tabroom is over ten years old, and written in the context of college policy debate. I apologize to all the competitors in the many rounds I have judged recently for not being more transparent on Tabroom.

Do what you do best, and I will do my best to evaluate arguments as you tell me.

I will keep a slightly edited version of my old philosophy while I work on my new one, as it still expresses my basic feelings about debate.

If you have questions about my judge philosophy or me before a tournament, please email me at ckozak@nps.k12.nj.us.

You can also ask me any questions prior to the debate about any preferences you might be concerned about. Good luck!

Old
.................................................................
My judging philosophy/preference is simple. Make arguments. That includes a claim, a warrant, and why your claim matters in a world of competing claims. I don't have an explicit judging "paradigm," and to say that I am a tabla rasa is naive. I am going to split the difference and just explain to you what kinds of arguments I am familiar with.

I debated the K for most of college. I value nuanced Ks that are well-explained and applied to a specific context. I like original thinking in debate and will try to adapt to any performance style you wish to present in the round. Just be aware to all teams when debating framework on these issues that I do not consider appeals to "objective rules" persuasive in the context of determining debate norms. Debate is a rare activity in which students can define the conditions of their education. I take this aspect of debate very seriously. This does not mean I am hostile to "policy debate good" arguments; it just means that I am holding both teams to a high standard of explanation when evaluating framework arguments.

I was mostly a traditional policy debater in high school, so I am very familiar with the other side of the fence. I love an excellent straight-up policy round. Give me all your weird counterplans and ridiculous disad scenarios. I am a current events junkie and find that form of debate extremely valuable. I enjoy speed; but I have a hard time flowing quick blips analysis (who doesn't?). If you just make sure you pause for a breath or something between arguments, I will get everything you need me to get on my flow.

It may sound like I have a lot of "biases," but I do honestly try to evaluate arguments exactly as debaters tell me to. These preferences mostly come into play only when debaters are not doing their jobs.

Avoid having to adapt to me at all, and just tell me what you would like my preferences to be, and we will be good.

I welcome you to ask any specific questions you may have about my philosophy before the debate, considering I don't have much of an idea about what to put in these things, as I found most judge philosophies deceptive as a competitor.

Surya Krishnapillai Bellarmine College Preparatory 4 rounds

Kevin Kuswa Berkeley Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:44 AM EDT

Quick 2022 update--CX is important, use it fully. Examples make a big difference, but you have to compare your examples to theirs and show why yours are better. Quality of evidence matters--debate the strengths of your evidence vs. theirs. Finally, all the comments in a majority of paradigms about tech vs. truth are somewhat absurd. Tech can determine truth and vice-versa: they are not opposed or mutually exclusive and they can be each others' best tools. Want to emphasize your tech? Great--defend it. Want to emphasize your truths? Great--but compare them. Most of all, get into it! We are here for a bit of time together, let's make the most of it.

Updated 2020...just a small note: have fun and make the most of it! Being enthusiastic goes a long way.

Updated 2019. Coaching at Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Nothing massive has changed except I give slightly higher points across the board to match inflation. Keep in mind, I am still pleased to hear qualification debates and deep examples win rounds. I know you all work hard so I will too. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. Email: kevindkuswa at gmail dot com.

Updated 2017. Currently coaching for Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Been judging a lot on the China topic, enjoying it. Could emphasize just about everything in the comments below, but wanted to especially highlight my thirst for good evidence qualification debates...

_____________________________ (previous paradigm)

Summary: Quality over quantity, be specific, use examples, debate about evidence.

I think debate is an incredibly special and valuable activity despite being deeply flawed and even dangerous in some ways. If you are interested in more conversations about debate or a certain decision (you could also use this to add me to an email chain for the round if there is one), contact me at kevindkuswa at gmail dot com. It is a privilege to be judging you—I know it takes a lot of time, effort, and commitment to participate in debate. At a minimum you are here and devoting your weekend to the activity—you add in travel time, research, practice and all the other aspects of preparation and you really are expressing some dedication.

So, the first issue is filling out your preference sheets. I’m usually more preferred by the kritikal or non-traditional crowd, but I would encourage other teams to think about giving me a try. I work hard to be as fair as possible in every debate, I strive to vote on well-explained arguments as articulated in the round, and my ballots have been quite balanced in close rounds on indicative ideological issues. I’m not affiliated with a particular debate team right now and may be able to judge at the NDT, so give me a try early on and then go from there.

The second issue is at the tournament—you have me as a judge and are looking for some suggestions that might help in the round. In addition to a list of things I’m about to give you, it’s good that you are taking the time to read this statement. We are about to spend over an hour talking to and with each other—you might as well try to get some insight from a document that has been written for this purpose.

1. Have some energy, care about the debate. This goes without saying for most, but enthusiasm is contagious and we’ve all put in some work to get to the debate. Most of you will probably speak as fast as you possibly can and spend a majority of your time reading things from a computer screen (which is fine—that can be done efficiently and even beautifully), but it is also possible to make equally or more compelling arguments in other ways in a five or ten minute speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQVq5mugw_Y).

2. Examples win debates. Well-developed examples are necessary to make the abstract concrete, they show an understanding of the issues in the round, and they tend to control our understandings of how particular changes will play out. Good examples take many forms and might include all sorts of elements (paraphrasing, citing, narrating, quantifying, conditioning, countering, embedding, extending, etc.), but the best examples are easily applicable, supported by references and other experiences, and used to frame specific portions of the debate. I’m not sure this will be very helpful because it’s so broad, but at the very least you should be able to answer the question, “What are your examples?” For example, refer to Carville’s commencement speech to Tulane graduates in 2008…he offers the example of Abe Lincoln to make the point that “failure is the oxygen of success” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMiSKPpyvMk.

3. Argument comparison wins debate. Get in there and compare evidence—debate the non-highlighted portion of cards (or the cryptic nature of their highlighting). Debate the warrants and compare them in terms of application, rationale, depth, etc. The trinity of impact, plausibility, and verge analysis doesn’t hurt, especially if those variables are weighed against one another. It’s nice to hear good explanations that follow phrases like “Even if…,” “On balance…,” or “In the context of…” I know that evidence comparison is being done at an extremely high level, but I also fear that one of the effects of paperless debate might be a tilt toward competing speech documents that feature less direct evidence comparison. Prove me wrong.

4. Debates about the relative validity of sources win rounds. Where is the evidence on both sides coming from and why are those sources better or worse? Qualification debates can make a big difference, especially because these arguments are surprisingly rare. It’s also shocking that more evidence is not used to indict other sources and effectively remove an entire card (or even argument) from consideration. The more good qualification arguments you can make, the better. Until this kind of argument is more common, I am thirsty enough for source comparisons (in many ways, this is what debate is about—evidence comparison), that I’ll add a few decimal points when it happens. I do not know exactly where my points are relative to other judges, but I would say I am along a spectrum where 27.4 is pretty good but not far from average, 27.7 is good and really contributing to the debate, 28 is very good and above average, 28.5 is outstanding and belongs in elims, and 29.1 or above is excellent for that division—could contend for one of the best speeches at the tournament.

5. All debates can still be won in 2AR. For all the speakers, that’s a corollary of the “Be gritty” mantra. Persevere, take risks and defend your choices

(https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit). The ballot is not based on record at previous tournaments, gpa, school ranking, or number of coaches.

6. Do not be afraid to go for a little more than usual in the 2NR—it might even help you avoid being repetitive. It is certainly possible to be too greedy, leaving a bloated strategy that can’t stand up to a good 2AR, but I usually think this speech leaves too much on the table.

7. Beginning in the 1AR, brand new arguments should only be in reference to new arguments in the previous speech. Admittedly this is a fuzzy line and it is up to the teams to point out brand new arguments as well as the implications. The reason I’ve decided to include a point on this is because in some cases a 2AR has been so new that I have had to serve as the filter. That is rare and involves more than just a new example or a new paraphrasing (and more than a new response to a new argument in the 2NR).

8. Very good arguments can be made without evidence being introduced in card form, but I do like good cards that are as specific and warranted as possible. Use the evidence you do introduce and do as much direct quoting of key words and phrases to enhance your evidence comparison and the validity of your argument overall.

9. CX matters. This probably deserves its own philosophy, but it is worth repeating that CX is a very important time for exposing flaws in arguments, for setting yourself up for the rebuttals, for going over strengths and weaknesses in arguments, and for generating direct clash. I do not have numbers for this or a clear definition of what it means to “win CX,” but I get the sense that the team that “wins” the four questioning periods often wins the debate.

10. I lean toward “reciprocity” arguments over “punish them because…” arguments. This is a very loose observation and there are many exceptions, but my sympathies connect more to arguments about how certain theoretical moves made by your opponent open up more avenues for you (remember to spell out what those avenues look like and how they benefit you). If there are places to make arguments about how you have been disadvantaged or harmed by your opponent’s positions (and there certainly are), those discussions are most compelling when contextualized, linked to larger issues in the debate, and fully justified.

Overall, enjoy yourself—remember to learn things when you can and that competition is usually better as a means than as an ends.

And, finally, the third big issue is post-round. Usually I will not call for many cards—it will help your cause to point out which cards are most significant in the rebuttals (and explain why). I will try to provide a few suggestions for future rounds if there is enough time. Feel free to ask questions as well. In terms of a long-term request, I have two favors to ask. First, give back to the activity when you can. Judging high school debates and helping local programs is the way the community sustains itself and grows—every little bit helps. Whether you realize it or not, you are a very qualified judge for all the debate events at high school tournaments. Second, consider going into teaching. If you enjoy debate at all, then bringing some of the skills of advocacy, the passion of thinking hard about issues, or the ability to apply strategy to argumentation, might make teaching a great calling for you and for your future students (https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_emdin_teach_teachers_how_to_create_magic note: debaters are definitely part of academia, but represent a group than can engage in Emdin’s terms). There are lots of good paths to pursue, but teaching is one where debaters excel and often find fulfilling. Best of luck along the ways.

Kevin Lai Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Lorilei Lassen Niles North High School 4 rounds

storm lasseter Niles North High School 4 rounds

Jack Lassiter Berkeley Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 6:35 PM CDT

Berkeley Prep Assistant Coach - 2017 - Present

10+ years experience in national circuit policy @ Damien HS, Baylor University and other institutions

Email: Jack.Lassiter4@gmail.com

I default to offense-defense: you can persuade me to evaluate otherwise.

I am flowing the speech, not the document.

I am making my decision based on the flow.

Truth throughout tech.

Framework

I have an appreciation for framework debates, especially when the internal link work is thorough and applied to pivotal questions on the flow that you resolve through comparative arguments. On framework, I personally gravitate towards arguments concerning the strategic, critical, or pedagogical utility of the activity - I am readily persuaded to vote for an interpretation of the activity's purpose, role, or import in almost any direction [any position I encounter that I find untenable and/or unwinnable will be promptly included in the updates below]

The Kritik

I have almost no rigid expectations with regard to the K. I spent a great deal of my time competing reading Security, Queer Theory, and Psychoanalysis arguments. The bodies of literature that I am most familiar with in terms of critical thought are rhetorical theory (emphasizing materialism) and semiotics. I have studied and debated the work of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze, to that extent I would say I have an operative understanding and relative familiarity with a number of concepts that both thinkers are concerned with.

Topicality:

I think that by virtue of evaluating a topicality flow I almost have to view interpretations in terms of competition. I can't really explain reasonability to myself in any persuasive way, if that changes there will surely be an update about it - this is also not to say nobody could convince me to vote for reasonability, only that I will not default in that direction without prompt.

Counterplans:

Theory debates can be great - I reward strategic decisions that embed an explanation of the argument's contingent and applied importance to the activity when going for a theory argument on a counterplan.

I believe that permutations often prompt crucial methodological and theoretical reflection in debate - structurally competitive arguments are usually generative of the most sound strategic and methodological prescriptions.

Updates:

Judging for Berkeley Prep - Meadows 2020

I have judged enough framework debates at this point in the topic to feel prompted to clarify my approach to judging framework v. K aff rounds. I believe that there are strong warrants and supporting arguments justifying procedural fairness but that these arguments still need to be explicitly drawn out in debates and applied as internal link or impact claims attached to an interpretation or defense of debate as a model, activity, or whatever else you want to articulate debate as. In the plainest terms, I'm saying that internal link chains need to be fully explained, weighed, and resolved to decisively win a framework debate. The flipside of this disposition applies to kritikal affs as well. It needs to be clear how your K Aff interacts with models and methods for structuring debate. It is generally insufficient to just say "the aff impacts are a reason to vote for us on framework" - the internal links of the aff need to be situated and applied to the debate space to justify Role of the Ballot or Role of the Judge arguments if you believe that your theory or critique should implicate how I evaluate or weigh arguments on the framework flow or any other portion of the debate.

As with my evaluation of all other arguments, on framework a dropped claim is insufficient to warrant my ballot on its own. Conceded arguments need to be weighed by you, the debater. Tell me what the implications of a dropped argument are, how it filters or conditions other aspects of the flow, and make it a reason for decision.

Judging for Damien Debate - Berkeley (CA) 2016

In judging I am necessarily making comparisons. Making this process easier by developing or controlling the structure of comparisons and distinctions on my flow is the best advice I could give to anyone trying to make me vote for an argument.

I don't feel like it is really possible to fully prevent myself from intervening in a decision if neither team is resolving questions about how I should be evaluating or weighing arguments. I believe this can be decisively important in the following contexts: The impact level of framework debates, The impact level of any debate really, The method debate in a K v K round, The link debate... The list goes on. But, identifying particular points of clash and then seeing how they are resolved is almost always my approach to determining how I will vote, so doing that work explicitly in the round will almost always benefit you.

If you have any questions about my experience, argumentative preferences, or RFD's feel free to ask me at any time in person or via email.

Thomas Latta Northstar Academy High School - Newark 2 rounds

Kieran Lawless Glenbrook South High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 16, 2024 at 10:31 AM CDT

Debated at Georgetown University 2020-2024 (NDT Quarterfinalist 2023, Octafinalist 2024, First Round 2023, 2024)

Debated at Walter Payton College Prep 2016-2020

Add to the email chain:

klawlessdebate@gmail.com ;

debatedocs@googlegroups.com ; ***ONLY IF COLLEGE DEBATE

Top level:

I still do a little bit of college and high school debate coaching, but this is pretty minimal. I have very little topic knowledge and no pre-conceived ideas of how the topic should look.

I want to note that for everything outside the "Non-negotiables" section is up for debate. Given debaters can never resolve every issue in the debate, the following describes how I evaluate rounds when left to my own devices. Any predispositions are easily overcome by judge instruction.

Non-Negotiables:

Speech times, speech orders, everyone only speaking for one constructive/rebuttal.

I will not vote on any accusations about what happened outside of the round (that includes disclosure theory).

An argument has a claim and warrant. "Climate change is existential" is not an argument, it is an assertion. "Climate change is existential - higher temperatures destroy food security, cause mass displacement, or conflict" is. Basically, for something to be dropped, I should be able to explain why something is true to the other team in the RFD. Please don't make me intervene to say you didn't make complete arguments.

Asking for 30s caps speaks at 25.

Ethics violations stop the round. I err against voting on these, so if you're going to say this make sure the violation is really bad and actually modified the nature of the debate.

Re-highlighted evidence MUST be read. However if both teams decide to just insert things, I will grumpily evaluate it.

Card docs cannot include analytics, unless they are perm/CP texts.

It is always easier to be aff than neg (assuming equal skill of participants and no crazy neg abuses like object fiat).

I've noticed a bad trend where judges let debaters get away with murder on clarity because they send analytics. I flow on paper and my laptop will remain closed until the debate ends, so debate like a human not a robot.

Cards written by debaters either about debate or while they were debaters are no better than you making the argument yourself. If pointed out by the opposing team, I will scratch them.

Evaluating Debates

Assuming no one has made any arguments about how I should evaluate my debates, my default is that I am evaluating whether the actor of the resolution should take the action of the resolution based on whether the consequences of the act are net good or bad. Affs can absolutely be justified through different ethical frames (deontology, rule utilitarianism, etc), but I default to consequentialism. Please add on extra explanation if you are explaining something complex like Kant because I do not understand your LD buzzwords.

Under this frame, I evaluate the magnitude*probability of the positions in the round. My default is that future lives matter somewhat, but a lot less than people now. Timeframe acts a tie breaker if magnitudes/probabilities are similar. The onus is on soft-left affs to propose a different way of evaluating impacts, and I am receptive to those, I just don't default to it.

Case

Please explain acronyms. Fine for whatever. Would prefer if you erred against impacts like "X thing solves numerous existential laundry lists" as I think the other team can just flag there's no warrant any of the things listed are problems.

Soft left affs are fine. Center debating on logical flaws with negative off-case positions and please answer the whole "extinction is infinite" argument. Getting rid of that makes it pretty easy to win the soft left aff outweighs a bad DA.

Plans should mean things. I am very gettable on vagueness of a plan means it gets circumvented (you only get to durably fiat mandates).

I'm pretty good for the aff against extra-T if you specified a mechanism/process which the plan happened. Obviously the neg can PIC out of that, but I think it's legit for the aff to do.

More on the limits side, as a 2A I felt like on any topic there were always enough affs/scenarios to find (yes even on the nukes topic).

I know little about any given topic, so examples of what the debates under your model look like, what ground and core generics exist for the neg and how that has built in link uniqueness is huge.

Perfectly debated, reasonability is pretty good, but can easily be persuaded by competing interpretations. Don't explain reasonability as "never vote on T" that's not what it is.

Some judges have a disdain for T as opposed to other types of policy arguments, I do not.

I think plan-text in a vacuum is borderline unwinnable if even semi-correctly answered. Aff teams should know exactly what the mandates of their plan are, and I expect them to answer questions about them in cx.

Counterplans

Pretty aff leaning on questions of competition. Textual competition is nonsense, text only gets meaning by the function of the counterplan. Theory can be a reason to reject the argument but is almost never a reason to reject a team (except for condo and even there I think there is a good neg argument for just "stick us with all the CPs").

I think properly debated, the "other issues" perm is unbeatable. I do not understand why the aff is not allowed to permute functions of the CP, even if it as generic as "the United States should." The proper neg response to this is to cut and read DAs to the normal means implementation of the perm. I find theoretical arguments against these perms to be as justified as the arg that the neg should "always get the assurance DA because it is hard being neg." While I do sympathize with 2Ns, I do not think that uncompetitive counterplans are the solution. However, if the "other issues" perm specifies a new function I am very gettable on rejecting the perm for being intrinsic. I am not interested in playing mad-libs, so as long as the perm keeps the core functions of the counterplan, I do not care if it adds words.

Counterplans must actually do policies not ideas. Text: "The United States should fund climate protections" is meaningless and aff teams should point that out (neg teams should do so as well when plan texts are that vague).

Better than most for states/international fiat bad.

Very neg leaning on infinite condo. Neg ground/logic are good in front of me. Idea testing is not. A certain number of condo C/Is don't make much sense, except for maybe one condo. However, 2NC counterplans justify 1AR add ons.

I'm bad for 1NC CPs without solvency advocates. "CP: The 50 states should do the plan," is not a complete argument. The 1AR basically gets all new answers if you extend it. If you explain, even analytically, why the CP competes/solves the 1AR gets much less leeway for new args.

If I remember I will judge kick. But please remind me because I might forget.

Critiques

I will only vote for negative arguments that negate the desirability of the resolution.

K Affs

I will only vote for affirmative arguments that affirm the desirability of the resolution.

DAs

More open to well debated intrinsicness than most judges. Politics/Riders are fine, the aff should have to defend their process.

This year it seems like politics will be important. I work in the Senate, so politics is my whole life now. That gives me a much higher bar in evaluating politics scenarios than most judges have. If you're not naming the Senate/House members that PC matters for, or at least like what faction (I.E. moderate republicans like Collins and Murkowski) I am going to be so susceptible to aff no link args.

That being said, well debated politics DAs are probably my favorite type of thing to evaluate, and on this climate topic the link stories actually make sense.

Speaks

Top 1-10 speaker at the tournament: 29.4-30

Top 11-20 speaker: 29.4-29.0

Clearing but no speaker award: 29.0-28.7

Not clearing, but positive or even record: 28.7-28.5

Below positive record: 28.5-27.5

Other

I care about evidence quality a lot. If I feel like many issues have become unresolved, I often times use team's evidence as a way to help guide my decision. I only resort to this if the 2NR/2AR did not give me enough to render a competent decision for them. This is especially true when the debate is light on warrants/evidence comparisons.

I'm good for impact turns. I think those are some of the most fun debates I've been a part of. That includes Spark/Wipeout. I do prefer to see innovation with these turns, rather than rehashing old stuff.

I really don't mind being asked questions about my decisions. Everyone works hard and deserve a thoroughly defended decision. Feel free to follow up after as well.

I am so bad for cheap shots like sneaking ASPEC or new affs bad somewhere in the doc.

I believe scrolling ahead in a doc is cheating. Teams breaking new strats are welcome to send it out in parts, break it on paper, or remove the tags from the navigation pane to ensure your opponents don't scroll ahead.

John Lawson Wylie E. Groves HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 5:34 PM EDT

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged public forum rounds, it is only more recently that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

Jake Lee Mamaroneck High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 4:07 PM EDT

Jake Lee (He/Him)

Math Teacher and Director of Debate at Mamaroneck High School

For Email Chain: jakemlee@umich.edu

Also add: mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

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

General:

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

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

Respect your opponents

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

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

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

I flow on paper. I hate flowing on my computer. I do not look at the doc. If I have to flow on my computer, I will never look at a doc. I try to flow down the line and create line-by-line. Your job is to CLEARLY communicate your arguments, that is the whole point of debate. If you cannot do that, I am not flowing anything or just evaluate it as a totally incomplete argument.

I tend to decide rounds quickly. Do not take it as a bad thing if I vote you down quickly. It is mainly because I am actively thinking about the debate and think about what teams need to accomplish in order to win a debate. Average decision time for me has been 6 minutes. Most I have taken this year has been 35 mins.

I really do not understand why plan text in a vacuum makes sense.

Competition debates are also difficult for me to wrap my head around. If I am judging one of these debates, I will try my best to grasp with the arguments. But I would appreciate judge instruction a lot. I understand these debates are cool, but it seems so pointless to think about.

Why is K debate becoming so watered down to the fiat K/microaggressions. I'm honestly just genuinely shocked with some decision making with people that go for this version of the K when the actual links of the K are just decimating the AFF. You can win framework without the Fiat K. It is how K debate has been successful in the past. Framework block botting your way to K victories is becoming really sad and stale.

IPR Specific:

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

Stolen from Forslund: Stop reading the Uncooperative Federalism CP

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

I will say, being NEG on this topic is hard. I think it is worse than the NATO topic two years ago.

Why is Kant popular??

The Do Nots in Debate:

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

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

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

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

If you hide ASPEC or other theory arguments = cowardly

If you ask for a 30 in rounds, I'm gonna give you a 26

Nick Lepp Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 5:26 AM EDT

I am currently an assistant debate coach with both Montgomery Bell Academy and Michigan State University. This is my 16th year involved with policy debate. I finished my PhD at the University of Georgia (go dawgs) in October 2024. My dissertation is a Derridean/rhetorical reading of the word queer.

I use he/him pronouns.

Last updated: 3/31/2025

Please put me on the email chain & make me an ev doc at the end of the debate. NJL1994@gmail.com.

Set up and send out the 1AC 10 minutes before the debate begins. Please avoid downtime during debates. If you do both of these things without me needing to say anything (send out the 1AC 10 minutes early + avoid downtime) you'll get higher speaker points.

If I'm judging you online, please slow down a bit and emphasize clarity more than normal.

Top level things:

I think about debate in terms of risk (does the risk of the advantage being true outweigh the risk of the disad being true?). I am willing to vote on presumption, particularly when people say really ridiculous stuff or people's cards are highlighted to say nothing.

I like specificity, nuance, and for you to sound smart. If you sound like you've done research and you know what's going on, I'm likely to give you great points. Being specific, having nuances, and explaining your distinctions is the easiest way to get my ballot.

Judge direction is a lost art. If you win the argument that you're advancing, why should it matter? What does this mean for the debate? What does it mean for your arguments or the other team's arguments? This is the number one easiest way to win my (and really anyone's) ballot in a debate. Direct your judges to think a certain way, because if you don't, your judges are likely to go rogue and decide things that make sense to them but not to you. So impact your arguments and tell me what to do with them. I think it's way more valuable to do that than include one more tiny argument and almost certainly the easiest way to get me to overcome any predispositions.

Decorum is very important to me. If your strategy is to belittle, upset, talk down to, yell at, escalate, curse at, or otherwise be rude or mean to your opponents, then you can expect me to give you terrible speaker points. I also reserve the right to end the debate early if I find the behavior particularly atrocious or potentially threatening to anyone in the room. I am very uninterested in the “I know what you did last summer” strategy or any personal attacks. You certainly don't have to be best friends with your opponents, but I do expect a sense of cordiality when engaging your opponents and their arguments.

"The existence of speech time limits, the assumption that you will not interrupt an opponent's speech intentionally, and the fact that I (and not you) will be signing a ballot that decides a winner and loser is non-negotiable." (taken verbatim from Shree Awsare).

I am incredibly uncomfortable adjudicating things that did not occur in the debate I am watching. Please do not ask me to judge based on something that didn’t happen in the round. I am likely to ignore you.

High school debaters in particular: I have consistently noticed over the past few years of judging that I vote for the team whose arguments I understand. If I cannot connect the dots, I'm not going to vote for you. This goes equally for kritikal and policy debaters. Most of my decisions in high school debates come down to this.

How I decide debates:

First: who solves what?-- does the aff solve its impacts, and (assuming it's in the 2NR) does the negative's competitive advocacy solve its own impacts and/or the aff? In framework debates, this means the first questions I resolve are "does the aff solve itself?" and "does the TVA solve the aff sufficiently?"

Second: Who’s impact is bigger? This is the most important question in the debate. Do impact calculus.

Third: Whatever you have told me matters. Because I have started with solvency & impact calculus questions, everything else is always filtered along those lines (including framework/role of the ballot/role of the judge).

Other misc things:

1. A dropped argument is a true argument but it needs to be a complete argument to begin with or I will likely allow people new answers. For example, this epidemic with high schoolers reading aspec on the bottom of T flows to hide it: if it’s so quick I didn’t catch it in the 1NC, the 1AR gets all the new args they want. Additionally, an argument is not just a claim and a warrant, but a claim, warrant, and reasoning. In other words, your warrant needs to be connected to your claim in order for it to be an argument.

2. I am very flowcentric. Do not ask me to not flow, because I won't listen. Please do line-by-line. If you don't, I'll be frustrated and less likely to buy new extrapolations of arguments. Your speaker points will definitely drop if you don't do line-by-line. I do not like overviews ("overviews are evil"-- one of my labbies; "flowing is good for your health" -- another one of my labbies).

3. Show me that you care. Show me that you know things, that you've done research on this topic, that you want to win, and that debate matters to you. I love this activity and if you also love it I want to know that.

4. Judge kicking makes sense to me but I frequently forget about it, so if you want me to judge kick something you should tell me so in the block/2NR.

5. Cards and highlighting: Teams should get to insert rehighlightings of the other team's cards, but obviously should have to read cards if they're new/haven't been introduced into the debate yet. Two offshoots of this-- 1. You should insert rehighlightings of other team's cards if they suck 2. You should read cards that don't suck.

I do not follow along with speech docs during debates.

Please highlight your ev so it reads as complete sentences. This does not mean that I need you to highlight complete sentences, but if you are brick highlighting, I want to be able to read highlighted portions of your ev as complete sentences—it flows better to me. IE don't skip the letter "a" or the words "in" or "the." Just a random pet peeve.

If you do not have a complete citation or at least a full paragraph from your evidence I will not evaluate what you've said as evidence. Cherrypicked quotes with no context are not evidence.

I tend to not read a lot of cards after the debate unless things are highly technical or I think the debaters aren’t explaining things well. That being said, I’ll likely read at least some cards. Please put together a card doc for me.

6. Debaters parroting their partners: I usually just flow what the partner said. That, obviously, only exists within reason (you don’t get to give a third speech in a debate, but you can interrupt your partner to say something and I will flow it).

7. New 2AR args are bad for debate. I consciously hold the line against them as much as I can. I as a 2N feel as if I got a few decisions where a judge voted aff on an arg that didn't exist until the 2AR and it's the most frustrating. You can expect me to try to trace lines between args in earlier & later speeches. However, if I think the argument they're making is the true argument or a logical extrapolation of something said in the 1AR, I'm more likely to buy it. 2As-- this means if you're gonna do some 2A magic and cheat, you should trick me into thinking that you're not cheating.

Some specifics:

Disads: I’m better for the smart DAs than the silly ones, but I understand the value of bad DAs and will vote for them. I will likely reward you with higher speaker points if I think I understand your story really well and/or you have some cool/unique spin on it. I am fine with logical take outs to DAs that don’t require cards (especially if there’s some logic missing internally in the DA). Don’t just read new cards in the block or 1AR, explain your args (although also read new cards obviously).

Theory, CPs, and K Alternatives: I put these pieces together because my thoughts on these three args blend together.

Competition is determined off the plantext, not off cross-x, nor off the resolution. PICs & PIKs are only competitive if they PIC/PIK out of something in the plantext. I do not believe that you get to PIC/PIK out of a justification or non-plantext based word. The only way I will ever be convinced otherwise is if the aff allows you to do so.

Condo: It’s good. “They should get one less CP” is an arbitrary interp and makes no sense. The phrase "dispo solves" at the end of your bad 2AC condo block is not an argument and I will not be writing it down on my flow. I will vote on this if it's dropped, but I'm pretty persuaded by neg flex and education-style args.

"Performative Contradictions" is a term of art that has been bastardized to no end by debate. You're either saying the neg has double turned themselves or you're saying conditionality is bad; in my mind, perf con is not even worthy of being written on my flow.

Particular Theory: I’m better for this than most judges (and MUCH more persuaded by it than condo). States theory, international fiat, consult/condition, vague alts, utopian alts, etc—I have gone for all of these and actively coach my debaters to do the same. My predisposition is to reject the arg not the team, but I can be persuaded to reject the team on non-condo theory args (you should introduce the arg as reject the team in the 2AC, not CX, if you want this to be an option).

Theory can be a reason you get to make a cheating perm.

Counterplans/alternatives that use aff evidence as solvency advocates are awesome.

If the CP/alt links less I think it makes sense that I prefer it, but make that arg yourself because I won’t make it for you.

Case: I love love love case debate. You should make logical extrapolations that take out the internal link chains and make me question how the advantage makes sense. The block should read more cards but feel free to make logical case take outs without cards. I don't think you should have to go for impact defense to beat advantages-- uniqueness and internal link take outs are almost always the easier place to attack advantages. I tend to prefer a well-developed take out to the death by a thousand cuts strategy.

Affs-- 2NR that don't do well-developed case debate are generally overwhelmed by your "try or die"/"case outweighs"/"1% chance of solvency" args.

Topicality: I'm getting better for this as a strategy lately than I used to be. I do still generally think that it's about the plantext, but can be persuaded that I should think of the plantext in the context of the 1AC. Topicality is only ever a voter, not a reverse voter. I’m not great for silly/arbitrary T interps (I am very persuaded by the arg that these interps are arbitrary). Literature should drive these debates.

Kritiks: I like Ks that care about people and things. I'm optimistic to a fault. I certainly believe that things are still terrible for billions of beings, but it's hard to convince me that everything in the world is so absolutely irredeemable.

Your long overview is actively bad for debate and you will not change my mind.

Make your K interact with the affirmative. I want your links to be about the result of the aff as opposed to just the reading of the aff. Fiat bad links are bad (high schoolers, why are we so obsessed with the fiat K? Didn't we resolve this question 25 years ago? Can't we research and talk about the topic even just a little bit?). Your "state is always bad" links are slightly better, but also terrible. Don't just explain your theory of how power works, explain how the action of the aff is bad according to your theory of power.

I think that I am worse for structuralist style kritiks than I used to be for two reasons: 1) I feel more so that I want you to be responding to the action of the aff than I used to 2) I generally study poststructuralism and queer theory. I read a lot of Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler.

Grad school has taught me that theory is way more complex than I used to think it was. I will get annoyed if I know that you’re deploying the theory wrong. I'm not good for things like "death good," "meaning doesn't mean anything," or "language is meaningless" because I don't think those are questions even worth asking.

I have read some literature about antiblackness academically and have read a bit more from a debate standpoint. I would not call myself an expert by any means in this literature, but I do understand some of it better than I used to. I am still unwilling to fill in those blanks for you if you are lacking them (ex-- just saying the words "yes antiblackness ontological, natal alienation proves" is not an argument in my mind).

99.99% of the time I will entirely ignore your framework/role of the ballot args when you're going for the K against a topical aff. There's a high chance that I will just stare at you and not flow during your incredibly long and generic 2NC/2NR framework block on your K. I am serious, I may not even waste the ink in my pen flowing this. I do not know how to decide debates unless I'm weighing the merits of the aff against the merits of the K. For example, if the aff is an object of study, then to evaluate that object of study I have to weigh the aff's consequences. You are better off just saying "yes the aff can weigh the plan, we'll just beat it" in front of me. This also means that the role of the ballot/judge is only ever to vote for whoever did the better debating in every round I judge. The flip side of this, however, is that I almost never find a 2AR that is entirely or almost entirely framework persuasive.

“Perms are a negative argument” and “method v method debate means no perms” are both not arguments. Despite judging for however long I have, I still do not know what a "method v method debate" is or why it's different than every other debate. I will not write these words on my flow.

I also generally do not find the "voting for us gives us more wins/sends us to elims" as a solvency mech persuasive or that "X thing done in the debate is policing/surveillance/violence" (other than actual/physical policing/surveillance/violence) to be persuasive.

Ultimately, I evaluate K debates just like I evaluate policy debates. Technical line by line is key. Explain your args well. Put the debate together. Don't ignore the other side.

2NRs on the K that include case debate (with some level of internal link/impact defense; not just your security K cards on case) are substantially more persuasive to me.

Framework against non-topical affs: you should also read my section on Ks (right above this one) as well.

Framework is a strategy and it makes a lot of sense as a strategy. Just like every other strategy, you should try to tailor it to be as specific to the aff as you possibly can. For example, how does this particular aff make it impossible for you to debate? What does it mean for how debate looks writ-large? What's the valuable topic education we could have had from a topical discussion of this aff in particular? Same basic idea goes for when you’re answering generic aff args—the generic “state always bad” arg is pretty easily beaten by nuanced neg responses in front of me. The more specific you are, the more likely I am to vote for you on framework and the more likely I am to give you good speaks.

Stop reading huge overviews. They’re bad for debate. Your points will suffer. Do line by line. Be a good debater and stop being lazy. The amount of times I have written something like "do line by line" in this paradigm should really tell you something about how I think about debate.

I do not find truth testing/"ignore the aff's args because they're not T" very persuasive. I think it's circular & requires judge intervention.

I do, however, think that fairness/limits/ground is an impact and that it is the most important standard in a T debate.

T and/or framework is not genocide, nor is it ever rape, nor is it a microaggression, nor is it real literal violence against you or anyone else.

I’m a sucker for a good topical version. Teams seem to want to just laundry list potential TVAs and then say "idk, maybe these things let them discuss their theory". I believe that strategy is very easily beaten by a K team having some nuanced response. It makes way more sense to me if the TVA is set up almost like a CP-- it should solve a majority or all of the aff. If you set it up like that and then add the sufficiency framing/"flaws are neg ground" style args I'm WAY more likely to buy what you have to say (this goes along with the whole "I like nuance and specificity and you to sound like you're debating the merits of the aff" motif that I've had throughout my paradigm-- it applies to all debaters).

I oftentimes wonder how non-topical affs solve themselves. The negative should exploit this because I do feel comfortable voting neg on presumption. However, I won’t ever intervene to vote on presumption. That’s an argument that the debaters need to make.

Non-topical affs should have nuance & do line by line as well. Answer the neg’s args, frame the debate, and tell me why your aff in particular could not have been topical. You HAVE to have a defense of your model and not just say that framework is bad or else I will probably vote neg on presumption. The same basic idea applies here as it does everywhere else: the more generic you are, the more likely I am to vote against you.

Garbage/Hidden Stuff/Tricks: Nope. New affs are good, hiding aspec makes you a coward, death is bad, wipeout and/or spark in all of its various forms are indefensible, free will exists and I don't care if it doesn't. Make better arguments.

Cross-ex: I am becoming increasingly bored and frustrated with watching how this tends to go down. Unless I am judging a novice debate, questions like "did you read X card" or "where did you mark Y card" are counting as parts of cross-x. I tend to start the timer for cross-ex pretty quickly after speeches end (obviously take a sec to get water if you need to) so pay attention to that.

I pay attention & listen to CX but I do not flow it. Have a presence in CX & make an impact. I am listening.

Speaker points-- I do my best to moderate these based on the tournament I'm at and what division I'm in. That being said, I won’t lie—I am not a point fairy.

I will grant extra speaker points to people who number their arguments and correctly/aptly follow the numbering that has been established in the debate.

Paraphrasing from Shree Awsare-- I will not give you a 30.

29.8-- Top speaker
29.2-29.5-- You really impressed me and I expect you to be deep in the tournament
29-- I think you deserve to clear
28.3-- Not terrible but not super impressive
27.5-- Yikes
I will award the lowest possible points for people who violate the basic human dignities that people should be afforded while debating (e.g., non-black people don't say the N word).

I've also been known to give 20s to people who don't make arguments. I will not be giving you a 30; nobody gives a perfect speech.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the debate begins, or send me an email. I also do seriously invite conversation about the debate after it occurs-- post-rounds are oftentimes the most valuable instantiation of feedback, the best way to get better at debate, and important for improving intellectually. I know that post-rounds sometimes get heated, and I think we all get defensive sometimes when we're being pressed on things we've said (or think we've said) so I will likely consciously try to take deep breaths and relax if I feel myself getting heated during these times. This also means that I may take a second to respond to your questions because I am thinking. I also might take awkward pauses between words-- that's not because I don't think your question is important, I'm just trying to choose my words carefully so I can correctly convey my thoughts. I only post this here because I don't want anyone to feel like they're being attacked or anything for asking questions, and I apologize in advance if anything I say sounds like that.

Ethics Challenge Addendum:

I would strongly discourage ethics challenges in all but the most extreme instances. I don't want to adjudicate them, you don't want to be the team who makes the challenge, etc. If you notice something is wrong, please contact coaches and/or debaters and try to fix the problem rather than making it a challenge in round.

An ethics challenge is not a no-risk option for me. That is, when an ethics challenge is issued, the debate ends. I will clarify that the team issuing the challenge has issued one and then end the debate and adjudicate the challenge. I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward then and there. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances.

An ethics challenge may be issued along one of three lines: either you have accused the other team of clipping cards, of misciting evidence, or of misrepresenting evidence. Nothing else will be considered an ethics challenge for me.

Clipping cards is defined as claiming to have read more or less of the evidence than one actually has. Please note that I do not follow along with evidence as the debate is occurring. Missing a single word/a few words is not enough. I will decide what constitutes enough of the card to be considered clipping.

Misciting evidence is understood as providing the incorrect author and/or date as well as missing the first author, source of publication, and date (at least the year). Please note that putting something like "the New York Times" instead of "Nate Silver" is acceptable for an authorship. Source of publication can be broad (article title, URL, book title). If the article is easily accessible, then it is acceptable, and I am likely to not vote on this ethics challenge if I don't determine this to have radically altered the debate. Again, I will determine what constitutes an incomplete or miscited citation if this becomes a relevant question.

I do not consider missing credentials to be unethical but I do consider those pieces of evidence to be incredibly weak.

Misrepresenting evidence is understood as inserting evidence which is missing lines or paragraphs within the parts of the initial article/book being read. So, for example, if you want to read the first and third paragraph from an article, you must leave the second paragraph in the evidence you read in the debate. This means that, for me, ellipses to indicate that parts of the card are missing or stating something like “pages 4-5 omitted” is unethical. Cards need to be full paragraphs.

Providing a single quote from a book or an article is not a card. As such, I will not consider it as you having introduced evidence and it is not unethical for me. However, not providing full paragraph pieces of evidence means your argument is substantially weaker for me (because, again, then you have not read evidence).

I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances. Please note that I will take this seriously; an ethics challenge is not something to be debated out in a round.

The speaker points I will give are as follows: 28.6 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I vote for, 28.5 for the 1^st speaker of the team I vote for, 28.4 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I do not vote for, 28.3 for the 1^st speaker of the team I do not vote for. My assumption in the event of an ethics violation is that you made an honest mistake and that you were not intentionally cheating. I do not understand ethics challenges to be the equivalent of academic dishonesty or worthy of any punishment besides my ballot being cast in that particular debate. I do not hold these challenges against you in future rounds nor do I believe that you should be in trouble with your debate coaches or schools.

Please note that what I have written here is designed for varsity debate only; that is, when judging novice and JV debates, I will be more lenient and talk through what's going on with the students and, depending on the situation, allow the debate to continue.

These are thoughts that are still evolving for me as I talk with more people. Please bear with me as I continue to think this out. (Also note that this caveat goes along well with the first statement in this section: I would prefer you not introduce an ethics violation unless it is a serious issue in that particular debate).

Please also note that these rules do not apply to my standards for threatening violence against another debater (physical or otherwise) or hurling slurs at your opponent. I will immediately end the round and give the lowest speaker points that Tab will allow me to in that situation.

Dan Lingel Jesuit College Prep 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 4, 2024 at 3:06 AM CDT

Dan Lingel Jesuit College Prep—Dallas

danlingel@gmail.com for email chain purposes (the new tabroom file share is actually the easiest and fastest--let's use it)

dlingel@jesuitcp.org for school contact

30 years of high school coaching/6 years of college coaching
I will either judge or help in the tabroom at over 20+ tournaments

"Be smart. Be strategic. Tell your story. And above all have fun and you shall be rewarded."--the conclusion of my 1990 NDT Judging Philosophy

****Top Level--read here first*****
I still really love to judge (its makes me a better coach) and I enjoy judging quick clear confident comparative passionate advocates that use qualified and structured argument and evidence to prove their strategic victory paths. I expect you to respect the game and the people that are playing it in every moment we are interacting.

I believe that framing a strategic victory path(s) and especially labeling arguments and paper flowing are crucial to success in debate and maybe life so I will start your speaker points absurdly high (just look at some of my early season points) and work my way up (look at the data) if you acknowledge and represent these elements: frame a strategic victory path, label your arguments (even use numbers and structure) and can demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate and that you used your flow to give your speeches and in particular demonstrate that you used your flow to actually clash with the other teams arguments directly.

Top 5 things that influence my decision making process:

1. Debate is first and foremost a persuasive and comparative activity that asks both teams to advocate something. Defend an advocacy/method and defend it with evidence and compare your advocacy/method to the advocacy of the other team. I understand that there are many ways to advocate and support your advocacy so be sure that you can defend your choices. I do prefer that the topic is an access point for your advocacy.

2. The negative should always have the option of defending the status quo (in other words, I assume the existence of some conditionality) unless argued otherwise.

3. The net benefits to a counterplan must be a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy (plan, both the plan and counterplan together, and/or the perm) not just be an internal net benefit/advantage to the counterplan.

4. I enjoy a good link narrative since it is a critical component of all arguments in the arsenal—everything starts with the link. I think the negative should mention the specifics of the affirmative plan in their link narratives. A good link narrative is a combination of evidence, analytical arguments, and narrative.

5. Be sure to assess the uniqueness of offensive arguments using the arguments in the debate and the status quo. This is an area that is often left for judge intervention and I will.

Topicality--I am not the biggest fan of topicality debates unless the interpretation is grounded by clear evidence and provides a version of the topic that will produce the best debates—I am still hopeful to find some this year. Generally speaking, I can be persuaded by potential for abuse arguments on topicality as they relate to other standards because I think in round abuse can be manufactured by a strategic negative team.

Kritiks and Framework--I believe that the links to the plan/advantages/representations, the impact narratives, the interaction between the alternative and the affirmative harm, and/or the role of the ballot should be discussed more in most kritik debates. The more case and topic specific your kritik the more I enjoy the debate. Framework should be about competing models of debate and/or provide a sequencing/decision calculus for the ballot process. Too much time is spent on framework in many debates without clear utility or relation to how I should use it to judge the debate.

Theory--being someone who has seen the evolution of all modern theory positions I enjoy a good nuanced and round specific theory debate especially given the proliferation of inconsistent advocacies. Theory should be used more to stop the proliferation of negative positions that do not engage or challenge the core questions of either the affirmative or the topic. For example, general PICs bad is usually an uphill battle but multiple conditional PICs without a solvency advocate could set up a theory victory path. The impact to theory is rarely debated beyond trite phrases and catch words and the implications for both sides of the game are rarely played out so often my default is to reject the argument not the team on theory issues when it could have been a vote against the team victory path.

Speaker points--If you are not preferring me on this issue you are using old data and old perceptions. It is easy to get me to give very high points. Here is the method to my madness on this so do not be deterred just adapt. I award speaker points based on the following: strategic and argumentative decision-making, the challenge presented by the context of the debate, technical proficiency, persuasive personal and argumentative style, your use of the cross examination periods, and the overall enjoyment level of your speeches and the debate. If you devalue the nature of the game or its players or choose not to engage in either asking or answering questions, your speaker points will be impacted. If you turn me into a mere information processor and encourage or force me to scroll vs flow then your points will be impacted. If you choose artificially created efficiency claims instead of making complete and persuasive arguments that relate to an actual victory path then your points will be impacted.

Logistical Notes--if you have not tried it yet I suggest using the file share/speech doc drop that is part of tabroom, if not than an email chain. I feel that each team should have accurate and equal access to the evidence that is read in the debate. I have noticed several things that worry me in debates. People have stopped flowing and paying attention to the flow and line-by-line which is really impacting my decision making; people are exchanging more evidence than is actually being read without concern for the other team, people are under highlighting their evidence and "making cards" out of large amounts of text, and the amount of prep time taken exchanging the information is becoming excessive. I reserve the right to request a copy of all things exchanged as verification. If three cards or less are being read in the speech then it is more than ok that the exchange in evidence occur after the speech.

Finale--I believe in the value of debate as the greatest pedagogical tool on the planet. Reaching the highest levels of debate requires mastery of arguments from many disciplines including communication, argumentation, politics, philosophy, economics, and sociology to name a just a few. The organizational, research, persuasion and critical thinking skills are sought by every would-be admission counselor and employer. Throw in the competitive part and you have one wicked game. I have spent over thirty years playing it at every level and from every angle and I try to make myself a better player everyday and through every interaction I have. I think that you can learn from everyone in the activity how to play the debate game better. The world needs debate and advocates/policymakers more now than at any other point in history. I believe that the debates that we have now can and will influence real people and institutions now and in the future—empirically it has happened. I believe that this passion influences how I coach and judge debates.

Nethmin Liyanage Damien-St. Lucy's 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 9:14 AM PDT

tldr - do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; topic-specific research is good; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

about me:

she/her

i coach policy debate at damien-st. lucy's

i'm not a full-time debate coach (i'm a full time data scientist), but i'm at a tournament almost every weekend. this means most of my interaction with debate is at tournaments and/or when i'm contributing to team research. more importantly, this means i care a lot about the debate community. i come to so many tournaments because i want to make debate better and i care about students -- i have almost zero tolerance for teams who are mean, actively try to make the activity worse, etc. so, be nice!

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments. I am good for teams that do topic research and not the best for teams whose final rebuttals sound like they could be given on any topic/against any strategy.

Topic Knowledge: I don't teach at camp but I do keep up with the topic. I'm involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research. My topic knowledge for events that aren't policy debate is zero, but I'll rarely be judging these events anyway.

email chains:

damiendebate47@gmail.com

nethmindebate@gmail.com

please add both

non-negotiables:

1 - speech times - constructive are 8 minutes, rebuttals are 5, each partner must give one constructive and one rebuttal, cx cannot be transferred to prep.

2 - evidence ethics is not a case neg - will not vote on it unless you can prove a reasonable/good-faith attempt to contact the other team prior to the round.

3 - clipping requires proof by the accusing team or me noticing it. i'll vote on it with no recording if i notice it.

4 - i will not evaluate out-of-round events. this means no arguments about pref sheets, personal beef, etc. i will evaluate disclosure arguments.

flowing from the speech doc?

i will not flow from the speech doc.

i will only open speech docs in the middle of a debate for the following purposes:

1 - checking for clipping (i'll do this intermittently throughout the debate)

2 - to look at something that was emailed out and flagged as necessary for my understanding of the debate (rehighlighted evidence, disclosure screenshot, chart that's part of a card, perm text with certain words struck out, etc)

i will download speech docs at the end of the debate to read all relevant evidence prior to submitting my ballot

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:) you must show me your flows before i enter the ballot!!

Some general notes:

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve theory arguments about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. Going fast is fine, being unclear is not. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate is still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

Disclose or lose. Previously read positions must be on opencaselist. New positions do not need to be disclosed. "I do not have to disclose" is a losing argument in front of me 100% of the time.

Evidence -- it matters and I'll read it. Judge instruction is still a thing here. Don't just say "read this card" and not tell me why. Ev comparison is good. Cutting good cards is good. Failing to do one or both of those things leaves me to interpret your bad cards in whatever way I want -- that's likely to not be good. The state of evidence quality these days is an actual crime scene. If you read ev that is better than the national-circuit average, I will be so happy and your points will reflect that.

Technical debating matters.I have opinions about what arguments in debate are better/worse. I think things like the fiat k and process counterplans probably produce less in-depth and educational debates than positions that require large amounts of topic research. I've still voted for these positions when the team reading these arguments executes a technical win. This means that you should not be too stressed about my predispositions -- just win the debate and you'll be fine!

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

2ac add-ons must be coherent in the speech they are presented. You don't get to turn a random card on a random sheet into an add-on in the 2ar.

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have some kind of relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

I think framework is true but I will do my best to evaluate your arguments fairly.It is easier to win against framework when affirmative teams explain the warrants for their arguments and don't presuppose that I immediately agree with the warrants behind their impact turns to framework.

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am better for the neg. However, either team/side can win my ballot by doing better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness. I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponent's strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

Theory arguments other than conditionality are likely not a reason to reject the team. It will be difficult to change my mind on this.

Theory arguments must have warrants in the speech in which they are presented. Most 2ac theory arguments I've seen don't meet this standard.

Conditionality is an uphill battle in front of me. If the 2ac contained warrants + the block dropped the argument entirely, I would vote aff on conditionality, but in any other scenario, the aff team should likely not go for conditionality.

Please weigh! Many theory debates feel irresolvable without intervention because each team only extends their offense but does not interact with the other team's offense.

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are very helpful.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

"Plans bad" is pretty close to a nonstarter in front of me (this is more of a thing in LD I think).

Kritiks (neg):

I am best for K teams that engage with the affirmative, do line-by,line, and read links that prove that the aff is a bad idea. Good k debating is good case debating!

I am absolutely terrible for K teams that don't debate the case. Block soup = bad.

I vote for K teams often when they are technical and make smart big-picture arguments and demonstrate topic knowledge. I vote against K teams when they do ... not that!

In general, clash-avoidant K strategies are bad, K strategies that involve case debating are good.

Disads:

Nothing revolutionary to say here. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare betterin close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about counterplan theory other than that condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

Competition debates have largely become debates where teams read a ton of evidence and explain none of it. Please explain your competition evidence and I will be fine! I'll read cards after the debate, but would prefer that you instruct me on what to do with those cards.

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra points for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus points for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-"tricks"

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

-new affs bad

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Lucas Lobo Calvert Hall College High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 11, 2024 at 8:38 AM EDT

I debate at Emory and I used to debate at Calvert Hall.

Yes, email chain:lcsrlobo@gmail.com.

Must Read:
1. I have very little knowledge about the IP topic. Please do not assume I know any acronyms, legalese, or community concensus on a given argument.
2. I've been a 2A as many years as I've been a 2N and I've thought about the K as much as policy arguments. The following is a general set of ways I view debate that can easily be modified depending on quality of arguments, debating, and evidence.
3. Tech > truth on most everything that isn’t objectively false or clearly problematic.
4. I really don’t want to vote for dropped, arbitrary theory arguments.
5. If you introduce an ethics violation you must stake the debate on it.

A few things I've noticed about how I evaluate debates:
1. I really enjoy when my decision is easy (I think almost all judges do). Consolidating in the 2NR/2AR, clear judge instruction, "even if" statements, and efficient time allocation will all help you.
2. My threshold for what constitutes a warrant has gotten far higher over time. Cards highlighted to say nothing, shallow explanation, and shadow extensions of your arguments without answering the LBL will probably cause me to allow new arguments. If an argument is introduced but does not have an impact/implication, I will almost always allow new answers.

T: persuaded by reasonability when impact/internal link differentials are tiny, less receptive when big. “Good is good enough” alone never made much sense unless paired with a robust arbitrariness/predictability push. Include caselists, do impact comparison, and answer defensive arguments contextual to your interp.

CPs: No judge kick unless told to. Links less is usually unpersuasive, sufficiency framing usually is. Condo is probably fine.

DAs: Relative risk precedes and determines turns case. Cards aren’t necessary if logical defense beats a DA, but I’d prefer ev if you have it. Love the politics DA!

Ks on the Neg: I find myself voting for the team that best compartmentalizes the moving parts of the debate. Having alt solves, impact outweighs, or links turn case claims are very helpful. I am unpersuaded to one-sentence 'role of the judge' and 'role of the ballot' arguments other than deciding who did the better debating and submitting a decision to tabroom, respectively. These arguments are often better explained as pieces of framework offense.

Ks on the Aff: Debate is a game (and mainly a game), but I won't take for granted that I should only view it as such. Anything can be an impact (aff or neg) depending on impact explanation, comparison, turns case, and solves case. Extremely persuaded by SSD and TVA when contextualized to AFF offense. If equally debated, I'm better for the impact turn approach vs. counter-interp. A 2NR that spells out a clear limits/ground case against the counter-interp will probably lead me to believe it does not solve NEG offense.

Alyssa Lucas-Bolin Sonoma Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 8:25 AM CDT

Top shelf:

Pronouns are she/her

Just call me Alyssa or ALB - do not call me judge and dear debate Lord do not call me ma'am.

TOC 25 UPDATE:Literally all I care about is that you flow and do line by line. If you are actually debating I will be good for you. If you are just going to read blocks without engaging your opponents please have mercy and do not put me on your pref sheet.

RE: Truf's flowing off the doc post - times I look at the doc:

-I typically will read the plan text and CP texts during the round in the sense that if I mis flow those we are all kinda cooked. I spot check for clipping on cards every once in a while. If there is an ornate perm text I will check that during the debate. If a specific piece of evidence is called into question during CX or during a speech I may check that piece of ev during CX or during prep. Besides that I will not under any circumstances flow off the doc. If you are unclear and I therefore do not understand your argument I could not expect your opponents to and therefore I will not vote for you.

Email chains: SonomaCardsCardsCards@gmail.com AND alyssa.lucas-bolin@sonomaacademy.org AND ipostround@googlegroups.com I strongly prefer email chains over speech drop etc.

I deleted most of my paradigm

...Because I have run into way way way too many situations where people wildly misinterpret my paradigm and it leads to a rather miserable situation (mostly for myself.)

Debate well and we'll figure it out.

I'd prefer you talk about the topic and that your affirmative be in the direction of the topic. I could not possibly care less if that is via policy debate or K debate. False divide yada yada. Both policy teams and K teams are guilty of not actually talking about the topic and I am judging ALL of you.

Speed is fine but I need clear distinction between arguments and I need you to build up your speed for the first 10 seconds.

Tag team is fine but I'd prefer that the designated partner handle most of the cross ex - only intervene if it is absolutely necessary. I am an educator and would prefer to see each student develop their skill set.

Stop stealing prep.

Please make as many T Swift references as possible.

Have solvency advocates - plz plz plz don't read a cardless CP :(

Heavy stuff:

*No touching. Handshakes after the debate = fine but that is it.

*I am not the right judge for call outs of specific debate community members

*I am a mandatory reporter. Keep that in mind if you are reading any type of personal narrative etc in a debate. A mandatory reporter just means that if you tell me something about experiencing violence etc that I have to tell the authorities.

*I care about you and your debate but I am not your debate mommy. I am going to give you direct feedback after the debate. I won't be cruel but I'm also not a sugar coater. It takes some people off guard because they may be expecting me to coddle them. It's just not my personality - I deeply care about your debate career and want you to do your best. I also am just very passionate about arguments. If you're feeling like I'm being a little intense just Shake It Off (Lauren Ivey.)

*Clipping = zero points and a hot L. Clarity to the point of non-comprehension that causes a clipping challenge constitutes clipping.

*I am more than fine with you post rounding as long as you keep it respectful. I would genuinely prefer you understand my decision than walk out frustrated because that doesn't help you win the next time. Bring it on (within reason). I'm back in the ring baby.

Let's have a throwdown!!! If you're reading this before a round I am excited to see what you have to offer.

Ian Mackey-Piccolo Westwood 7 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 3, 2024 at 5:20 PM EDT

debate.ianmackeypiccolo@gmail.com

I debated for 2 years at Fox Chapel before cutting cards and judging on nato and econ for a number of schools, chiefly Westwood. I don't really research or judge anymore.

Nothing that will realistically get read in debate will morally offend me, including all ks and all impact turns. I'm not emotionally invested in seeing anything specific get read or not read. If you win with an argument that I think is very dumb I won't begrudgingly vote for you, I will just vote for you.

I am tech over truth for not only substantive questions but also paradigmatic decision procedure questions. I will defer to flowed judge instruction for resolving what constitutes a complete/new/dropped argument, what risk a prediction acquires when dropped, and what constitutes good evidence.

For clash debates: I consider fairness to be an intrinsic impact if debate is good or benign ("doesn't shape subjectivity"). If debate is bad, then fairness is bad to the extent it causes debate.

For counterplans: I appreciate textual / functional debates and I can follow along for the more obscure competition tricks. I spent a lot of time debating / coaching about counterplan perms.

For immediacy, sequencing is not a function. It's just an emergent property of doing one thing and then doing another. "Simultaneity" is not a function of doing two things at the same time. "Adding the element of sequencing" is incoherent. "Severing immediacy" is realistically your only option. I understand it's strategic to say nonsense in theory debates, and I will vote for dropped nonsense in any debate, but based on discussions I've had some people really think "adding the element of sequencing" is intrinsic, which I consider wrong in a very black-and-white way. I wouldn't want anyone to confidently go for this argument and lose because I started in a different place.

For debate theory: If there's a big debatability impact I can accept contriving a norm to fix it. If the debatability impact isn't so big, I think it's better to use norms that can be logically figured out just by knowing that the aff has to affirm a topical plan and the neg has to negate the plan.

For judge kick: The aff has to say otherwise before the 2AR.

For speaker points: I'm most impressed by debaters who can debate off their flow and explain warrants in their own words. If not relying on pretyped speeches would make you debate worse, I'll take the blocks. Spare me the grey highlighted snippets of cards you already read.

Lastly, I don't want to judge you if you have a problem with your email chains being forwarded to other competitors or a problem with people spectating your elims. If this applies you should strike me.

John Marshall Greenhill School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 15, 2024 at 11:36 AM EDT

Johnisthe4@gmail.com

I debated at Lawrence Free State from 2018 to 2022 and the University of Kansas from 2022 to 2025. I love policy debate and have a profound appreciation for the preparation that goes into the activity. Debaters work hard, so I will work hard for them. Below is a general outline of my decision-making process:

1. My decision starts and ideally ends with what the debaters said as determined by the flow. These decisions are non-interventionist. I will not arbitrarily disregard calling old arguments new, going for eye-roll-worthy theory arguments, making uncontested new arguments prior to the 2AR, and so on. This includes cross-examination: while I flow it and treat it as binding, debaters must use and apply CX answers in their speeches for them to matter in my decision-making. If an argument is dropped, I accept it at face value. This is tempered by a few exceptions:

A. Explanation matters. My understanding of an argument as communicated is the basis for its consideration. Meeting the threshold of ‘understanding’ requires each claim have some accompanying explanation. The words ‘no US-China war,’ even if dropped, mean nothing for my decision-making no matter how easy it may be to fill-in the blanks. Also—the more esoteric an argument is, the more explanation it will require. I try to be as debater-friendly as I can in this exception: I will work hard with the explanation given to overcome my own knowledge gaps. But at the end of decision time I will disregard portions of the flow which were not effectively communicated; err on the side of over-explanation.

B. Clarity and pace matter. I will read the text of evidence as much as I can during speeches to check for clipping but I do not follow tags or analytics digitally. If I cannot flow an argument, I cannot understand it and thus will not evaluate it even if it was actually present in the debate. I do not verbally clear speakers; err on the side of extreme clarity.

C. I will not vote on events that occurred outside of the debate. I err on the side of continuing productive debate should ethics issues raise, such as scratching the card.

D. One debater, one constructive, one rebuttal. I will not flow the other debater if they interject or read parts of another debater’s speech and stop flowing a second or two after the end of a speech.

2. If my flow alone is insufficient to reach a decision either way, I will intervene to the minimum extent necessary. At a minimum, this involves extrapolating warrants and arguments from evidence. I evaluate cards in invisibility mode; err on the side of over-highlighting. At a maximum, here are my predispositions which can influence decisions:

A. I default to judge kick and competing interpretations.

B. I am a proud member of the cult of limits. I find extremely limited, controversial topics far preferable to even moderately-sized topics that allow the AFF to evade controversy and departure from the status quo or monopolize moral truisms.

C. I am more likely to agree with the AFF the less a CP is assumed in topic literature.

D. Perf cons zero NEG kritik frameworks. Fiat is an inevitable, predictable, and productive form of imagination.

E. Pragmatism, rationality, consequentialism, and prevention of unnecessary death and suffering are good.

Samuel Maurer Head-Royce High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 2:45 PM CDT

Samuel Maurer
Part time coach @ Head-Royce

Yes I want to be on the speech doc. samuel.maurer@gmail.com

TOC 2024 update

I haven't judged a debate in a year so you're going to have to fill me in on topic nuance if you want me to vote on it. Since I also haven't been flowing for awhile, focusing on transmission of the important stuff is probably a very valuable use of your time.

ALSO...I clarify below that CXing and getting CXed are speeches to me. If you waive your CX to prep, the floor for speaker points falls well below a 27, just as if you had 'opted-out' of a rebuttal. Not being able to come-up with any useful attempts at CX questions screams "I don't understand strategy" to me so I don't have reservations about wrecking points. You've been warned.

old stuff

A note on speech docs: I read them during the debate to enhance my knowledge of your arguments. I do not read them to fill-in the blank for a speech that is incomprehensible. I judge the debate speeches, I don't referee emails. So assuming that the written existence of an argument in the document is a sufficient means of introducing it into the debate is dangerous in front of me. If that key comparison was buried in the middle of a wall of text you read like a bored robot, I'm not going to evaluate it. Conversely, if you are deliberately unpacking evidence that I can re-read to verify your interpretations and arguments, your doc can help add depth to your argument. I read the doc as a speech supplement, not a substitute.

I’ll talk about some more specific proclivities that may be useful for your strike-sheet since, if you are reading this, you’re probably filling it out.

Speaker points/CX: I believe that debaters give 4 “speeches” in a debate: C, R, CX, and Being CXed. My speaker points are based on all 4. If you don’t answer/ask a CX question, your speaker points will suffer dramatically. If you’re an jerk or don’t answer simple questions or are simply obstructionist, speaker points suffer. Don’t neglect CX. I will diligently flow cross-examination but if you take prep to ask questions, I consider it to not be part of the debate. Don't be offended if I leave while you go into overtime.

Know when its better to slow down

-- if I’ve never judged you before, give me time at the beginning of a constructive to get used to your voice.

-- complex/tricky CP texts – please slow down during these. I’m not going to look at the speech doc and CX won’t always clear it up. Clearly emphasize the differences (supreme court, different language pic, etc.)

-- Judge instruction helps me -- big picture moments in rebuttals -- "if we win this, we win the debate", etc. Crucial moments of impacts/evidence comparison.

Evidence: Quality over Quantity – I know this is almost a cliché in judging philosophies but I don’t just mean lots of bad cards are worse than 1 good card. That is obvious. I also mean that you should consider focusing on fewer cards in front of me than you might otherwise.

-- Indexing – judging debates where last rebuttals (more often 2NR’s) mention every name of every card and say how it interacts with an argument concept (“McCoy means we turn the link”, “Smith is the impact to that”) is very frustrating for me. I thrive on the big picture. I don’t view your evidence as that or even an argument unto itself – I view your evidence as a tool. You have to explain how it works and why.

-- highlighting – I find myself increasingly choosing to ignore or assign very little weight to evidence because scant highlighting leaves a lot to the imagination. In front of me, it might be wise to select a few important cards in the debate that you would read a longer version of (crucial internal link card for elections, link to the PIC’s net benefits, alt cards, etc.).

-- I read evidence after debates to confirm its function in your speeches, not so that it can “make an argument” to me in some disembodied fashion 15 minutes after the round ends.

I prefer narrower, deeper debates: Not going to lie, when debates get horizontally big and stay that way through rebuttals, I’m less comfortable making a decision. I think this has to do with how I read evidence (above) in that often times debates that stay horizontally big require the judge to do a lot of inference into conclusions made in cards they read as opposed to speeches they evaluate. I’m okay with debates on several sheets of paper but just make sure you are identifying what you think are the strategic bottlenecks of the debate and how you are winning them. “they can’t win X if we win Y because the following impact comparison wasn’t answered…”

Links/UQ: I think debaters too often think of link direction in purely binary terms. In addition to winning links, debaters need to explicitly create mechanisms for evaluating link direction. don’t just put “this thing key” cards in my hands and expect me to ref an ev fight. Tell me why this internal controls the other or vice versa.

Framework: I’ve voted for either side of this debate plenty of times. If it’s a choice between an engaging strategy against a critical aff and T, the former is a preferable strategy in front of me. I will vote on impact turns to topicality even if the negative doesn’t go for it (provided, of course, the affirmative makes a valid argument for why I should). I find myself often frustrated in debates that lack concrete nouns and instead choose arguments/strategies where abstractions are posited in relationship to one another, concretizing through examples helps a lot. I think 'fairness' is an internal link that, when well-developed with method for debate that is academically engaging and balanced, can have a large impact on my decision. By itself, a fair game is just stable, could be good or bad. I think negs running framework are best when talking about dynamics of the debate, not just complaining about how much/many affs there are. I'm not one who believes in the "procedural fairness or education" dilemma, good framework execution involves both I think. TVA's and SSD's are defense/counterplan type arguments that I think both sides are wise to not just address but frame in my decision.

Theory: Seems dead. Seemingly fewer and fewer affirmatives even make a meaningful press on theoretical objections to the CP. I still appreciate theory on the aff and not just as an “independent voter” but rather a good way to strategically dictate the landscape of the debate. This by no means implies that I’m a hack for any affirmative theory argument. But it does mean aff’s that hear a 3 cp’s in the 1NC and don’t make more than a 10 second conditionality block and don’t mention that there were 3 counterplans are giving up on some production. I think it goes without saying that very blippy theory debates are terrible. Slowing down and being more thematic and explanatory is almost always a better approach the theory execution in front of me. In the end, I'm pretty old school and think theory needs to make a comeback (mostly so aff's can not give their cases away to disposable 15-plank hydras every debate) but it seems perfunctory in execution anymore.
Finally, please make sure to mark evidence as you read it.

Raleigh Maxwell Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 7:20 AM CDT

Raleigh Maxwell

MBA Debate '24

Emory Debate '28

Editor at Policy Debate Central

He/him

Email Chain

raleighdebate@gmail.com

debatemba@gmail.com

IPostRound@googlegroups.com

Flowing Disclosure

I flow on computer straight down. I generally transcribe as much as I can, unless speed or clarity prevent me. I read along and do not flow the 1AC. My primary source of information is your voice. I flow with the doc up, although I rarely scroll through it. I don't flow CP or perm texts but usually read along in the doc when they are being read.

Paradigm

First and foremost, I'm a 2A at heart. Every fiber in my body exudes the predispotions of a 2A. I do, however, attempt to judge debates in the most technical manner possible. I'll vote on dropped theory arguments (if they are clearly flagged as a voting issue), spark, wipeout, the death K, and even CPs that require the "butterfly effect" card to establish competition. As a fair warning, don't expect good speaks if these arguments are your primary strategy.

Topicality: Good for limits offense on the IP topic if you can find a workable definition. Decent topic knowledge about T interps.

Counterplans: Good for almost anything. I don't like generic process garbage, so I'll be aff-leaning on competition. There are plenty of generic CPs on the IP topic. Condo's probably good.

Disads: I love a good DA and case 2NR, but I do realize those might be untenable on this topic.

Kritiks: I am not your best judge for kritiks but will vote for the team who presents a better story to me. Ballot solvency is important for models debates.

Kritikal Affirmatives: Fairness is an impact but a very small one. Big fan of the Ballot PIK. I was a 2A in high school and rarely extended T-USFG, so err on the side of over-explaining things on both the aff and neg.

Case: Teams do not know how to write affirmatives coherently. Exploit it. Especially on the IP topic.

Speaker Points

+.1 for thorough and organized wiki disclosure. Let me know after the round that you open source, or I will not award the bonus.

+.1 for debating entirely off of your paper flow in the 2NR or 2AR. Ineligible for people who flow on their computer and for 1Ns/1As.

Ways to get higher speaker points:

1. Organization: stay organized on the flow and on speech docs.

2. Clarity: self-explanatory.

3. Efficiency: clear, quick arguments will be rewarded.

4. Research: it is incredibly easy to tell who has cut the cards in a debate round.

Pet Peeves

AFF (acronym) < Aff (shortened word)

Seepee < counterplan

Judge < Raleigh

Rehighlighting

The norm of "inserting rehighlightings" has proliferated across the high school debate community, so it is worth explaining my thoughts on the practice. I do believe you are allowed to insert rehighlights for text that has already been introduced in the round, either highlighted or unighlighted, underlined or un-underlined. You do, however, have to read text that is from other portions of an article and not merely "insert" it. To me, this standard represents the only reasonable way to evaluate inserted rehighlightings. That being said, I'll vote on an illegitimate inserted rehighlight if it's not contested by the other team on theory grounds.

Card Doc

I usually won't want/need a card doc, but sometimes I will ask for one. Part of the reason I dislike card docs more than other judges is due to the my frustration with teams inserting things other than "cards" in a card doc. It is called a card doc for a reason. If I see an analytic, an extension (even the grey highlighting extensions), or a block header that says "conceded," I will close your card doc and not use it to make my decision. All you need in a card doc is the cards you read and sometimes cards the other team read that you conceded. If there is a significant abuse of the card doc, I will dock your speaks. I would prefer not to do that and will only reserve it for extreme cases.

Ethics

Entirely agree with Truf's guidelines to ethics issues in debate rounds.

Other Notes

If you would like the round to be recorded and posted on YouTube (either unlisted or listed on Policy Debate Central), please let me know.

Also, if you want Emory Debate stickers, let me know.

LD

I've never judged LD. Do with that what you will. I struggle to understand how the format is not incredibly neg-biased, so I will not be lenient on new arguments in the NR. Bad for phil/tricks/etc.

Cayden Mayer St. Paul Central HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 10:20 AM CDT

St. Paul Central '23, Coach at St. Paul Central

Macalester '27

They/Them

For email chains: stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com

For questions/comments/concerns (i.e. anything not during a tournament): cayd3nhock3y12@gmail.com

Pre Round

--- Yes Card Doc

--- Do Judge Instruction

--- Just read something you feel best running. I'd rather you read something you know how to run that something Im "partial" to badly. This isnt an "auto vote on kaffs", its just a note that I have and will vote on whatever. My job is to judge the debate in front of me, not force you to comply to my whims.

---If your args have TW/CW, let me know before the round starts please, not before the speech. I also just generally am not a good judge for death/sexism/racism/etc. good.

---Go about 10% slower in rebuttals on blocks than you think you should

Prefs

Kritiks---Good for Ks, prefer a higher degree explanation of your theory of power and why your ontology claims matter. Framework args that bracket out K debate entirely in front of me is probably not the smartest but ill vote on it. More specific your link the better. PoMo Ks would benefit from a thesis level overview.

Counterplans---Creative debate=good debate. Top level of the 2rs explanation of the mechanism of the CP will go a long way. Theoretical objections to counterplans exist and I don't have predetermined thoughts about them. Condo can be good or bad, depends on the tech.

Framework---Its prior to the rest of the debate and it will never be a "wash" for me, you need to slow down on this for me personally. Judge instruction for what it means if you win framework is important and I don't want to do that work for you. If its really messy, ill see if there are paths to a ballot that would occur for one side under both frameworks but thats it.

Topicality---Just make sure the 2nr explains the voters for me thats all. i default to a question of models but will evaluate however.

Ryan McFarland Blue Valley Southwest High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 1, 2024 at 4:33 AM CDT

Ryan McFarland
Debated at KCKCC and Wichita State

Two years of coaching at Wichita State, 3 years at Hutchinson High School in Kansas, two years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel, now at Blue Valley Southwest.

email chain: remcfarland043@gmail.com , bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

Stop reading; debate. Reading blocks is not debating. You will not get higher than a 28.3 from me if you cant look away from your computer and make an argument.

I've seen deeper debates in slow rounds than I've seen in "fast" rounds the last couple years. "Deep" does not mean quantity of arguments, but quality and explanation of arguments.

Talk about the affirmative. I've judged so many debates the last couple years where the affirmative is not considered after the 1AC. Impact defense doesn’t count. I don't remember the last time my decision included anything about impact defense that wasn't dropped.

2024-2025 things ----

I haven't done as much topic reading at this point in the year as I have in the past. I think the topic is incredibly boring and neg args are pretty bad. I think the K links are much more persuasive this year than previously. I'm not sure how I feel about being very anti-process/ridiculous advantage counterplans in a world where the best DA is court clog, but I could see myself being much more sympathetic to negative teams in this regard. That said, I still think affirmative teams should get good at theory against these arguments.

I've left my paradigm from last year below. That should still filter how you pref me, but I will likely find the K much more strategic and persuasive, which is probably the most significant change.

Old ----

I am not a fan of process counterplans. I’m not auto-vote against them, but I think they’ve produced a lazy style of debating. I don’t understand why we keep coming up with more convoluted ways to make non-competitive counterplans competitive instead of just admitting they aren’t competitive and moving on with our lives.

I'm not good for the K. I spent most of my time debating going for these arguments, have coached multiple teams to go for them, so I think I understand them well. I've been trying to decide if it's about the quality of the debating, or just the argument, but I think I just find these arguments less and less persuasive. Maybe its just the links made on this topic, but it's hard for me to believe that giving people money, or a job, doesn't materially make peoples lives better which outweighs whatever the impact to the link you're going for. I don't think I'm an auto-vote aff, but I haven't voted for a K on this topic yet.

If you decide to go for the K, I care about link contextualization much more than most judges. The more you talk about the aff, the better your chances of winning. I dislike the move to never extend an alternative, but I understand the strategic choice to go for framework + link you lose type strategies.

An affirmative winning capitalism, hegemony, revisionism true/good, etc. is a defense of the affirmatives research and negative teams will have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

I think K affirmatives, most times, don't make complete arguments. They often sacrifice solvency for framework preempts. I understand the decision, but I would probably feel better about voting for an affirmative that doesn't defend the topic if it did something.

Zero risk is real. Read things other than impact defense. Cross-ex is important for creating your strategy and should be utilized in speeches. Don’t be scared to go for theory. Conditionality is good. Argument legitimacy is not a reason to reject the team, but should be a strategic tool for affirmatives. I will not vote on something that happened outside of a debate, or an argument that requires me to make a judgement about a high school kid's character.

Don't clip. Clarity issues that make it impossible to follow in the doc is considered clipping.

Tracy McFarland Jesuit College Prep 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 18, 2024 at 11:37 AM CDT

Updated Jan 11, 2025

Tracy McFarland

Jesuit College Prep - for a long while; back in the day undergrad debate - Baylor U

Please use jcpdebate@gmail.com for speech docs. I do want to be in the email chain.
However, I don't check that email a lot while not at tournaments - so if you need to reach me not at a tournament, feel free to email me at tmcfarland@jesuitcp.org

New update for post-Inauguration world:

Trump's presidency has radically altered how the government works. You should account for this in your debates - whether its K or policy - both with smart arguments and with evidence. Yes, fiat is a thing - it's probably even be durable - but that doesn't mean that you get to fiat over problems with your DA or advantage internal links -- that means that even if you win a link, the Squo may have ruined the rest of the argument.

Other stuff that I didn't change

Clash - it's good - which means you need to flow and not script your speeches. using blocks = good - placing them where they belong on the LBL = good. LBL with some clear references to where you're at = good. Line by line isn't answer the previous speech in order - it's about grounding the debate in the 2ac on off case, 1nc on case.

Dates and "real world" matter - andI am persuaded by teams that call out other teams based on their evidence quality, author quals, lack of highlighting (meaning they read little of the evidence).

Process CPs and other neg trickeration - I get it. I do, however, think that the aff can make compelling arguments about why the process doesn't result in the aff and/or that the prioritization of the process is a bad thing. A discussion of what normal means is by the aff and neg would also help both sides to explain how the CP is competitive.

DAs - it's possible to win zero risk that the DA is an opportunity cost to the aff. Specific to agenda and elections - the aff can make compelling no link and non-unique arguments. The direction of the link doesn't influence uniqueness on these DAs. And, yes, even in a world of a CP Affs could win zero risk of agenda politics or elections. The aff should make arguments - even without evidence - that the link needs to be specific, the internal link needs to be about specific voting blocks in sufficient swing states to shift the electoral college.

Ks - specific links are good. You should have a sense on the aff and the neg what FW is going to get you in a debate -- too often that FW debate really just ends up two ships passing in the night.

K affs - should be tied to the topic in some way. If they aren't, then neg args with topical versions or ways to access the education the K aff offers through the resolution are usually persuasive to me. The neg can win that the TVA solves sufficient access to the lit. If the aff has a K of the topic, that's great offense that negs need to have an answer. I don't think that debate is just a game. Its a competitive activity that does shape our political subjectivity. And, despite all that, I often vote aff on these debates - so negs should make sure that they are engaging why their model creates better skills than the affs.

T - if you have a good violation and reasons why an aff should be excluded, by all means read it. If you are just reading it as a "time suck" then, meh, read more substance. And, an argument that ends in -spec is usually an uphill battle unless it's clever [this cleverness standard does preclude generally a- and o-]

Impact turns - topic specific one = good; generic ones - more meh

New affs are good - and don't need to be disclosed before a debate if it's truly the very first time that someone at your school has read the argument. But new affs may justify theoretically sketchy args by the neg - you can integrate that into the theory debate, you don't need a new affs bad 1nc arg to do that.

Be nice to each other - it's possible to be competitive without being overly sassy.

Modality matters - when you are debating in person, remember that people can hear you talk to your partner and you should have a line of sight with the judge. If you are online, make sure that your camera is on when possible to create some engagement with the judge.

Valerie McIntosh New Trier High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu August 22, 2024 at 7:25 AM EDT

Debate Coach - University of Michigan

Debate Coach - New Trier High School

Michigan State University '13

Brookfield Central High School '09

I would like to be on the email chain - my email address is valeriemcintosh1@gmail.com. For high school debates, please add ntpolicydebate@gmail.com to the chain. For college debates, please add debatedocs@umich.edu to the chain (or if you're already adding the debate docs google group, that works too).

A few top level things:

If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is. This also includes forwarding the argument that death is good because suffering exists. I will not vote on it.
If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
I'm a very expressive judge. Look up at me every once in a while, you will probably be able to tell how I feel about your arguments.
I don't think that arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates are at all relevant to my decision and I will not evaluate them. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.

Pet peeves

The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start
Asking if I am ready or saying you'll start if there are no objections, etc. in in-person debates - we're all in the same room, you can tell if we're ready!
Email-sending related failures
Dead time
Stealing prep
Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team
Asserting things are dropped when they aren't
Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards
Disappearing after the round

Online debate: My camera will always be on during the debate unless I have stepped away from my computer during prep or while deciding so you should always assume that if my camera is off, I am not there. I added this note because I've had people start speeches without me there.

Ethics: If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points.
*NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me.

Organization: I would strongly prefer that if you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn that it go on its own page - its super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders. Ditto to reading advantage CPs on case - put it on its own sheet, please!

Cross-x: Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions. If you don't start the timer before you start asking those questions, I will take whatever time I estimate you took to ask questions before the timer was started out of your prep. If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Translated evidence: I am extremely skeptical of evidence translated by a debater or coach with a vested interest in that evidence being used in a debate. Lots of words or phrases have multiple meanings or potential translations and debaters/coaches have an incentive to choose the ones that make the most debate-friendly argument even if that's a stretch of what is in the original text. It is also completely impossible to verify if words or text was left out, if it is a strawperson, if it is cut out of context, etc. I won't immediately reject it on my own but I would say that I am very amenable to arguments that I should.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate: I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting. This can also be accomplished by reading those lines in cross-x and then referencing them in a speech or just making analytics about their card(s) in your speech and then providing a rehighlighting to explain it.

Topicality: I enjoy judging topicality debates when they are in-depth and nuanced. Limits are an an important question but not the only important question - your limit should be tied to a particular piece of neg ground or a particular type of aff that would be excluded. I often find myself to be more aff leaning than neg leaning in T debates because I am often persuaded by the argument that negative interpretations are arbitrary or not based in predictable literature.

5 second ASPEC shells/the like that are not a complete argument are mostly nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans: I would say that I generally lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps, but obviously am more than willing to vote for them if they are debated better by the negative.

I think that CPs should have to be policy actions. I think this is most fair and reciprocal with what the affirmative does. I think that fiating indefinite personal decisions or actions/non-actions by policymakers that are not enshrined in policy is an unfair abuse of fiat that I do not think the negative should get access to. The CP that has the US declare it will not go to war with China would be theoretically legitimate but the CP to have the president personally decide not to go to war with China would not be. Similarly CPs that fiat a concept or endgoal rather than a policy would also fall under this.

It is the burden of the neg to prove the CP solves rather than the burden of the aff to prove it doesn't. Unless the neg makes an attempt to explain how/why the CP solves (by reading ev, by referencing 1AC ev, by explaining how the CP solves analytically), my assumption is that it doesn’t and it isn’t the aff’s burden to prove it doesn’t. The burden for the neg isn’t that high but I think neg teams are getting away with egregious lack of CP explanation and judges too often put the burden on the aff to prove the CP doesn’t solve rather than the neg to prove it does.

Disads: Uniqueness is a thing that matters for every level of the DA. I am not very sympathetic to politics theory arguments (except in the case of things like rider disads, which I might ban from debate if I got the choice to ban one argument and think are certainly illegitimate misinterpretations of fiat) and am unlikely to ever vote on them unless they're dropped and even then would be hard pressed. I'm incredibly knowledgeable about politics and enjoy it a lot when debated well but really dislike seeing it debated poorly.

Theory: Conditionality is often good. It can be not. Conditionality is the ONLY argument I think is a reason to reject the team, every other argument I think is a reason to reject the argument alone. Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Kritiks: I've gotten simultaneously more versed in critical literature and much worse for the kritik as a judge over the last few years. Take from that what you will.

Your K should ideally be a reason why the aff is bad, not just why the status quo is bad. If not, you're better off with it primarily being a framework argument.

Yes the aff gets a perm, no it doesn't need a net benefit.

Affs without a plan: I generally go into debates believing that the aff should defend a hypothetical policy enacted by the United States federal government. I think debate is a research game and I struggle with the idea that the ballot can do anything to remedy the impacts that many of these affs describe.

I certainly don't consider myself immovable on that question and my decision will be governed by what happens in any given debate; that being said, I don't like when judges pretend to be fully open to any argument in order to hide their true thoughts and feelings about them and so I would prefer to be honest that these are my predispositions about debate, which, while not determinate of how I judge debates, certainly informs and affects it.

I would describe myself as a good judge for T-USFG against affs that do not read a plan. I find impacts about fairness and clash to be very persuasive. I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I am not very persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.

I generally am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.

I don't think debate is roleplaying.

I am uncomfortable making decisions in debates where people have posited that their survival hinges on my ballot.

Devon McSager Kenwood Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 2:11 PM CDT

Email Chain: The Round must use the in tabroom, or similar, to share files as this is safer for you & me :)
speechdrop.net is easy to use. Use this if the tabroom share isn't setup.

Debate Experience
I've never debated. If you want detailed analysis of your speeches and in round decisions I am not your judge.

"Coaching" Experience

Philips Academy- Chicago, IL 2010-2012
*I was a second adult.

Kenwood Academy- Chicago, IL 2014-present
*My main focus is coaching and supporting the novices (and driving the bus). If you're planning to run a strategy far outside something that a generic novice packet would include and a novice would be able to understand I likely won't either... Just because my team runs K Affs doesn't mean I understand what they are doing.

I def. lean truth over tech...

**If you are going to try to argue that Racism or any of the isms doesn't exist or isn't that bad then I'm probably not going to vote for you. I try to go in neutral but I can't completely divorce the round from what I believe to be true about the systems of the world and our society (which include racism, sexism, etc..)**

I want to hear clash and a good demonstration of understanding from the AFF and NEG (if you're reading a card you should understand and be able to explain it - especially in R speeches. basically "why is this argument or evidence important". I find I give slightly more leniency to the negative in terms of understanding especially for novice debaters, but, Affs you chose the case so you should know and understand your own cards and plan.

Good signposting is so important to me and really helps me to flow arguments and not waste time trying to figure out which flow you've moved on to.

I'm always looking for good impact calc and a good solid explanation of why your team wins over the other. "they dropped x-y&z" often isn't good enough for me- why were those arguments essential for them to win and without them they have now in your interpretation lost the round.

I'm okay with spreading as long as I can understand what you're saying. don't just assume because you sent out the cards that you can blur all of your words together. If I can't confidently flow it then I wont and it wont be part of my decision. For novice debaters it is often helpful to slow down for the tags. sign posting and a clear roadmap are also essential to a well organized debate. (it might not be normal but I love when debaters give the name of their offs in the 1NC- just helps me stay organized).

please run your own timer

You don't have to ask to take prep, it is your prep, use it! just make sure you don't steal prep.

Racism, bigotry, homo/transphobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, or hatred towards a group is never acceptable and I will give the win to the other team almost automatically.

Be respectful and assume best intent from your opponents.

Eric Melin Coppell High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 21, 2024 at 12:21 PM CDT

Email chains are good. Include me ericmelin76@gmail.com & coppelldebatedocs@gmail.com

Debate Coach @ Coppell (9th Grade Center and Coppell High School)

Greenhill 2022

Top Level

I will work hard to be the best judge possible for your debate. I will flow your speeches and cross-ex and base my decisions as much as possible on your words. I love debate and know how much work you put into it and the least I can do is be the best judge I can be for you. Tech over truth. I’m doubling down here this year because so few judges do this in practice. I would rather vote for high quality execution of untruthful argument that is won than interject myself into the debate.

Some thoughts you may care about when doing your pref sheet in no particular order:

1. I don't have any massive preferences in terms of argument content. Please forward a well-developed ballot story. Compare methods and offense. I don't care what you do as long as you do what you do best. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Judge instructions are good. I prefer lbl to long overviews.

2. Evidence quality matters a great deal to me. I enjoy debates where cross-ex is spent digging in on your opponents claims and referencing their ev. Re-highlighted evidence should be read.

3. T - I rarely see 2nr’s that go for T unless a massive mistake has been made by the aff.

4. KAff/TFW - Appeals to Fairness and clash are both persuasive. I find it extremely difficult to overcome the notion that an unlimited prep burden for the neg is undesirable. To me that means the aff should probably be related to the topic in some way. That said, I often vote aff in these debates. The neg either isn't prepared to deal with case cross-applications and impact analysis of the team they are debating, don't do sufficient work establishing the impact to limits , and sufficiently leverage TVA's and Switch Side arguments to mitigate aff offense. Aff teams often lose when they are too defensive, insufficiently develop their counter model of debate, or make mistakes on the technical portions of this debate.

5. K - Like most judges, case-specific links pulled from ev, tags/rhetoric, established in cx, etc. are what I'm looking for. I find that too much of the debate often devolves into reading framing blocks which means argunents aren't ansered in a satisfactory way by both teams. This means that framing is rarely decisive. Moreover, I am not usually persuaded by arguments that say that aff offense just poof goes away unless the neg is substantially ahead on framing. The sooner you realize that framework may not be decisive, begin to engage what often become comparisons of apples and oranges (in round scholarship vs the results of hypothetical policy scenarios), and give me a way to wade through that muck, the better. Please do us a favor and stay organized - clearly label different portions of the debate on the k. Signpost! Please stick to the line-by-line. Short overviews are ok but long are not.

6. CP - Case-specific is best here again. There's almost nothing better than specific cp with high quality evidence. 2ac permutation explanations are your friend. Later in the debate, I tend to think your explanations are just flat out new and not spin. Just invest a bit more time to unpack your initial permutations and I will hold them to answering the nuance.

7. DA - Not a lot to say here. Good evidence matters. Creative spin is welcome. Zero risk is possible and extremely small risk of an extinction scenario can matter a great deal or not much at all depending on the evidence and analysis accompanying these arguments.

8. Theory - Defaults: Condo -> drop team. Everything else = drop argument.

Brad Meloche Wylie E. Groves HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 10:23 AM EDT

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

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

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

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain)

The short version -

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

Stolen bits of wisdom

...from DML: If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

...from Christopher Callahan, PhD: I find the desire for explicit/written-out "perm texts" bewildering. If your counterplan's strategy involves nitpicking the words in a permutation rather than substantively distinguishing the actions of the plan and the counterplan, I'll be a bad judge for it.

Specifics

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

Related thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random

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

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

Dustin Meyers-Levy Glenbrook North 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 9:24 AM CDT

Misc procedural things:

1. He/him/his; "DML">"Dustin">>>"judge">>>>>>>>>>"Mr. Meyers-Levy"

2. Debated at Edina HS in Minnesota from 2008-2012, at the University of Michigan from 2012-2017, and currently coach at Glenbrook North and Michigan

3. Evidence sharing procedures:

High school: Speechdrop or the Tabroom/NDCA fileshare are preferred due to the requirements of my employer.
College: Email preferred; please add dustml[at]umich[dot]edu and debatedocs[at]umich[dot]edu (note that this is not the same as the community debatedocs listerv).

4. Nothing here set in stone debate is up to the debaters go for what you want to blah blah blah an argument is a claim and a warrant don't clip cards

5. Speaks usually range from 28.5-29.5. Below 28.5 and there are some notable deficiencies, above 29.5 you're one of the best debaters I've seen all year. I don't really try to compare different debaters across different rounds to give points; I assign them based on a round-by-round basis. I wish I could give ties more often and will do so if the tournament allows. If you ask me for a 30 you'll probably get a 27.

6. If you're breaking something new, you'll send it out before your speech, not after the speech ends or as it's read or whatever. If you don't want to comply with that, your points are capped at 27. If you're so worried that giving the neg team 8/9 extra minutes to look at your new aff will tip the odds against you, it's probably not good enough to win anyway.

7.Each person gives one constructive and one rebuttal. The first person who speaks is the only person I flow (I can make an exception for performances in 1ACs/1NCs). I don’t flow prompting until and unless the assigned speaker says the words that their partner is prompting. Absolutely no audience participation. No touching your opponents or their property without consent. If you need some part of this clarified, I’m probably not the judge for you.

8. I am a mandatory reporter and an employee of both a public university and a public high school. I am not interested in judging debates that may make either of those facts relevant.

9. If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

10. Online debates: If my camera's off, I'm not listening. Get active confirmation before you start speaking, don't ask "is anyone not ready" or say "stop me if you're not ready," especially if you aren't actually listening to/looking at the other participants before you check. If you start speaking and I'm not ready or there, expect abysmal speaker points.

11. I am trying to be more militant about timing, because decision times are getting shorter and shorter and people are getting worse and worse about it. I expect a degree of promptness and put-togetherness from you, and if you can't maintain that, it will likely cut into your speaker points. Conversely, if you are timing yourself (and your opponents) and are respectful of my time, I will bump your points. Here are a few things that I am going to try to enforce more diligently than I have in the past:

a. Prep ends when the speech doc has been emailed or uploaded to speechdrop/the fileshare.

b. A "marked document" only involves cards that were marked, not cards that were skipped. If you aren't sure whether or not the other team read a card, or an entire off-case argument, you can use your cross-x or prep time to ask about that. Unless you intend to ask cross-x questions about cards that were marked, you may not ask for a marked document before cross-x starts, and you may not delay the start of prep until the document is sent. I am willing to make exceptions for this when a speech is egregious in a way that seems like it might be trying to confuse the other team (e.g. dozens of marked cards, many more cards in the document than were read, etc), but you should ask me if that's okay.

c. I would prefer no bathroom breaks before your speech unless it's an emergency. Please don't make me ask you if it's an emergency.

d. There is no reason that you should be typing or whispering to your partner while prep is not running or a speech is not happening. If you do, I'll ask one time if you need prep; if you do it again, I'll start docking prep time for you.

e. Please time yourself and your opponents and write your prep time down. I don't keep a timer on me and I like to stretch my legs/get water or coffee during prep. If I have to guess how much time you have left, I will round down precipitously.

Top-level:

"I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity."

1. When making my decisions, I seek to answer four questions:

a. At what scale should I evaluate impacts, or how do I determine which impact outweighs the others?

b. What is necessary to address those impacts?

c. At what point have those impacts been sufficiently addressed?

d. How certain am I about either side’s answers to the previous three questions?

I don’t expect debaters to answer these questions explicitly or in order, but I do find myself voting for debaters who use that phrasing and these concepts (necessity, sufficiency, certainty, etc) as part of their judge instruction a disproportionate amount. I try to start every RFD with a sentence-ish-long summary of my decision (e.g. "I voted affirmative because I am certain that their impacts are likely without the plan and unlikely with it, which outweighs an uncertain risk of the impacts to the DA even if I am certain about the link"); you may benefit from setting up a sentence or two along those lines for me.

2. Intervention on my part is inevitable, but I’d like to minimize it if possible and equalize it if not. The way I try to do so is by making an effort to quote or paraphrase the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR in my RFD as much as possible. This means I find myself often voting for teams who a) minimize the amount of debate jargon they use, b) explicitly instruct me what I need in order to be certain that an argument is true, and c) don’t repeat themselves or reread parts of earlier speeches. (The notable exception to c) is quoting your evidence—I appreciate teams who tell me what to look for in their cards, as I’d rather not read evidence if I don’t have to.) I would rather default to new 2AR contextualization of arguments than reject new 2AR explanation and figure out how to evaluate/compare arguments on my own, especially if the 2AR contextualization lines up with how I understand the debate otherwise.

3. I flow on my computer and I flow mostly straight down. I appreciate debaters who debate in a way that makes that easy to do (clean line-by-line, numbering/subpointing, etc). I’ll make as much room as you want me to for an overview, but I won’t flow it on a separate sheet unless you say pretty please. If it’s not obvious to me at that point why it’s on a separate sheet, you’ll probably lose points. I usually flow 1ACs and 1NC off-case positions less attentively than the rest of the debate because I am reading the evidence and monitoring for clipping. Post-1AC and 1NC, I'll occasionally look at speech docs as cards are being read to check for clipping and understand context, but I'll never transcribe things from the doc. I have a pretty good flow for the most part, but sometimes I am not the fastest typer, so you will significantly benefit from slowing down a little in front of me. I prefer voting on arguments that I am certain about, and it is much easier to be certain about an argument when I know that I have written down everything that you’ve said.

4. At the margins, I would describe myself "truth over tech," in the sense that I must always vote for who did the better debating, and I tend to think that a team who drops "grass is green, voting issue" can still have done the better debating despite that concession (and, indeed, may have done the better debatingbecause they did not waste time answering that). Obviously, this is not to say that technical concessions do not matter--they're probably the most important part of my decisionmaking process! However, not all technical concessions matter, and the reasons that some technical concessions matter might not be apparent to me. A dropped argument is true, but non-dropped arguments can also be true, and I need you to contextualize how to evaluate and compare those truths. Some things that this implies:

a. I will not vote for something if I cannot answer the question "how do I know?" or "why is this true?" with an argument made somewhere else on the flow, or explain why it is a reason that one side or the other has done the better debating, even if it is technically conceded by the other team.

b. Arguments that do not pass the "how do I know?" test can be defeated with a verbal acknowledgement that the argument exists, plus a thumbs-down or a witty retort.

c. If one side has won a contested argument with a warrant, but conceded an argument without a warrant, and the former intuitively takes out the latter, I think it's more interventionist to say the conceded warrantless argument supersedes the contested warranted argument than the inverse.

d. If something is dropped in two (or more) speeches in a row, then all the above is largely out the window and the argument is considered true. The only exception is if a) the argument is not verifiably false based on my flow/recollection of the round (e.g. the neg team says "the 1AC didn't read a plan, vote neg on presumption" when the 1AC did read a plan), and b) the team who made the argument says that they should win despite it being unwarranted, and/or establishes a new warrant (which opens up the door for new answers, of course).

5. Presumption always initially goes negative because the affirmative always has the burden of proof. If the affirmative has met their burden of proof against the status quo, and the negative has not met their burden of rejoinder, I vote affirmative. I am more willing than many judges to vote on presumption, but it must have a warrant for why the case is zero and/or not meaningfully different from the status quo.

6. I appreciate well-thought-out perms with a brief summary of their function/net beneficiality in the 2AC. I get frustrated by teams who shotgun the same four perms on every page, especially when those perms are essentially the same argument (e.g. “perm do both” and “perm do the plan and non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt”) or when the perm is obviously nonsensical (e.g. “perm do the counterplan” against an advantage counterplan that doesn’t try to fiat the aff or against a uniqueness counterplan that bans the plan).

7. I prefer to judge engagement over avoidance. I would rather you beat your opponent at their best than trick them into dropping something. If your plan for victory involves hiding ASPEC in a T shell, or deleting your conditionality block from the 2AC in hopes that they miss it, or using a bunch of buzzwords that you think the other team won't understand but I will, I will be hard-pressed to conclude that you did the “better debating.”

8. I generally assume good faith on the part of debaters and I'm very reticent to ignore the rest of the debate/arguments being made (especially when not explicitly and extensively instructed to) in order to punish a team for what's often an honest mistake. I am much more willing to vote on these arguments as links/examples of links. Obviously, there are exceptions to this for egregious and/or intentionally problematic behavior, but if your strategy revolves around asking me to vote against a team based on unhighlighted/un-underlined parts of cards, out-of-round "receipts," or "gotcha" moments in cross-x, you may want to change your strategy for me.

K affs:

1. Debate is indisputably a game to some degree or another, and it can be other things besides that. It indisputably influences debaters' thought processes and subjectivities to some extent; it is also indisputably not the only influence on those things. I like when teams split the difference and account for debate’s inevitably competitive features rather than asserting it is only one thing or another.

2. I think I am better for K affs than I have been in the past. I am not worse for framework, but I am worse for the amount of work that people seem to do when preparing to go for framework. I am getting really bored by neg teams who recycle blocks without updating them in the context of the round and don’t make an effort to talk about the aff. I think the neg needs to say more than just “the aff’s method is better with a well-prepared opponent” or “non-competitive venues solve the aff’s offense” to meaningfully mitigate the aff's offense. If you are going for framework in front of me, you may want to replace those kinds of quotes in your blocks with specific explanations that reference what the aff says in speeches and cards.

3. I prefer clash impacts to fairness impacts, though I think fairness matters and will be hard-pressed to consciously choose to carry out the procedure of adjudication in an unfair manner. I differ from many other judges in that I actually prefer when the neg goes for framework as a straight turn to the aff without an external impact that "outweighs" (though they can help as tiebreakers). I give really high points to teams who use the aff's language, reference evidence/literature, etc to demonstrate why topical debates resolve the aff's offense better. I vote negative often when aff teams lack explanation for why someone should say "no" to the aff. I find that fairness strategies suffer when the aff pushes on the ballot’s ability to “solve” them; I would rather use my ballot to encourage the aff to argue differently rather than to punish them retroactively. I think fairness-centric framework strategies are vulnerable to aff teams impact turning the neg’s interpretation (conversely, I think counter-interpretation strategies are weak against fairness impacts).

4. I don't think I've ever voted on "if the 1AC couldn't be tested you should presume everything they've said is false"/"don't weigh the aff because we couldn't answer it," and I don't think I ever will.

5. I think non-framework strategies live and die at the level of competition and solvency. When aff teams invest time in unpacking permutations and solvency deficits, and the neg doesn’t advance a theory of competition beyond “no perms in a method debate” (whatever that means), I usually vote aff. When the aff undercovers the perm and/or the alt, I have a high threshold for new explanation and usually think that the 2NR should be the non-framework strategy.

6. Feels like people are just going through the motions when it comes to "yes/no models," "yes/no subjectivity shift," etc. Those parts of the debate are pretty boring to listen to and almost never get implicated out in a way that decides the round.

7. I do not care whether or not fiat has a resolutional basis.

Ks on the neg/being aff vs the K:

I am getting really bored by "stat check" affs that respond to every K by brute-forcing a heg or econ impact and reading the same "extinction outweighs, util, consequentialism, nuke war hurts marginalized people too" blocks/cards every debate. That's not to say that these affs are non-viable in front of me, but it is to say that I've often seen teams reading these big-stick affs in ways that seem designed to avoid engaging the substance of the K. If this is your strategy, you should talk about the alternative more, and have a defense of fiat that is not just theoretical.

I care most about link uniqueness and alt solvency. When I vote aff, it's because a) the aff gets access to their impacts, b) those impacts outweigh/turn the K, c) the K links are largely non-unique, and/or d) the neg doesn't have a well-developed alt push. Neg teams that push back on these issues--by a) having well-developed and unique links and impacts with substantive impact calculus in the block and 2NR, including unique turns case args (not just that the plan doesn't solve, but that it actually makes the aff's own impacts more likely), b) having a vision for what the world of the alt looks like that's defensible and ostensibly solves their impacts even if the aff wins a risk of theirs (case defense that's congruent with the K helps), and/or c) has a heavy push on framework that tells me what the alt does/doesn't need to solve--have a higher chance of getting my ballot. Some more specific notes:

1. Upfront, I'm not a huge fan of "post-/non-/more-than/humanism"-style Ks. I find myself more persuaded by most defenses/critical rehabilitations of humanism than I do by critiques of humanism that attempt to reject the category altogether. You can try your best to change my mind, but it may be an uphill battle; this applies far more to high theory/postmodern Ks of humanism (which, full disclosure, I would really rather not hear) than it does to structuralist/identity-based Ks of humanism, though I find myself more persuaded by "new humanist" style arguments a la Fanon, Wynter, etc than full-on rejections of humanism.

2. I think that others should not suffer, that biological death is bad, and that meaning-making and contingent agreement on contextual truths are possible, inevitable, and desirable. If your K disagrees with any of these fundamental premises, I am a bad judge for it.

3. I don't get Ks of linear time. I get Ks of whitewashing, progress narratives, etc. I get the argument that historical events influence the present, and that events in the present can reshape our understanding of the past. I get that some causes have complex effects that aren't immediately recognizable to us and may not be recognizable on any human scale. I just don't get how any of those things are mutually exclusive with, and indeed how they don't also rely on, some understanding of linear time/causality. I think this is because I have a very particular understanding of what "linear time" means/refers to, which is to say that it's hard for me to disassociate that phrase with the basic concept of cause/effect and the progression of time in a measurable, linear fashion. This isn't as firm of a belief as #2; I can certainly imagine one of these args clicking with me eventually. This is just to say that the burden of explanation is much higher and you would likely be better served going for more plan-specific link arguments or maybe just using different terminology/including a brief explanation as to why you're not disagreeing with the basic premise that causes have effects, even if those effects aren't immediately apparent. If you are disagreeing with that premise, you should probably strike me, as it will require far longer than two hours for me to comprehend your argument, let alone agree with it.

4. "Philosophical competition" is not a winning interpretation in front of me. I don't know what it means and no one has ever explained it to me in a coherent and non-arbitrary way.

5. There's a difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism. I'm open to critiques of the former; I have an extremely high burden for critiques of the latter. I'm not sure I can think of a K of consequentialism that I've judged that didn't seem to link to itself to some degree or another.

6. I am a bad judge for Kant. I just don't get it. I have voted for it, but I have also voted against it more than once because I simply did not understand many of the arguments being made.

7. Would really rather not vote for "you-link-you-lose," "mooting the 1AC=good" approaches to K debating. If your strategy is to swamp the 1AR with backfile check fiat Ks that have little to do with the 1NC, I will suspect that you have a weak will-to-power and I'll be very sympathetic towards the aff.

8. I don't think that the neg wins just by winning a theory of power. The K may have described the world accurately, but my presumption is that that doesn't mean that the aff is an actively bad idea. It is incumbent upon the neg to win that the aff is not an exception to the general rule, and/or a normative claim that the aff should not be done/an alternative (or the status quo) should be preferred.

Policy debates:

1. 95% of my work in college is K-focused, and the other 5% is mostly spot updates. I have done very little policy-focused research so far this season.

For high school, I led a lab this summer, but didn't retain a ton of topic info and have done largely K-focused work since the camp ended. I probably know less than you do about economics.

2. “Link controls uniqueness”/“uniqueness controls the link” arguments will get you far with me. I often find myself wishing that one side or the other had made that argument, because my RFDs often include some variant of it regardless.

3. Apparently T against policy affs is no longer in style. Fortunately, I have a terrible sense of style. In general, I think I'm better for the neg for T than (I guess) a lot of judges; reading through some judge philosophies I find a lot of people who say they don't like judging T or don't think T debates are good, and I strongly disagree with that claim. I'm a 2N at heart, so when it comes down to brass tacks I really don't care about many T impacts/standards except for neg ground (though I can obviously be persuaded otherwise). I care far more about the debates that an interpretation facilitates than I do about the interpretation's source in the abstract--do explanation as to why source quality/predictability influences the quality of debates under the relevant interpretation.

4. I think judge kick makes intuitive sense, but I won't do it unless I'm told to. That said, I also think I have a lower threshold for what constitutes the neg "telling me to" than most. There are some phrases that signify to me that I can default to the status quo by my own choosing; these include, but aren't necessarily limited to, "the status quo is always a logical policy option" and/or "counter-interp: the neg gets X conditional options and the status quo."

5. I enjoy counterplans that compete on resolutional terms quite a bit; I'd rather judge those than counterplans that compete on "should," "substantial," etc.

6. If you think that the affirmative should specify which branch of the United States federal government the plan goes through, you should make that argument as its own separate offcase position. Hiding ASPEC as part of a different T violation is -.1, hiding it on a non-T offcase or case flow is -.3.

7. I would rather judge substance over theory in basically every situation. That said, here are some aff theory arguments that I could be persuaded on pretty easily given a substantive time investment:

--Counterplans should have a solvency advocate ideally matching the specificity of the aff's, but at least with a normative claim about what should happen.

--Multi-actor fiat bad--you can fiat different parts of the USFG do things, and international fiat is defensible, but fiating the federal government and the states, or the US and other countries, is a no-no. (Fiating all fifty states is debatably acceptable, but fiating some permutation of states seems iffy to me.)

--No negative fiat, but not the meme--counterplans should take a positive action, and shouldn't fiat a negative action. It's the distinction between "the USFG should not start a war against Russia" and "the USFG should ban initiation of war against Russia."

--Test case fiat? Having osmosed a rudimentary bit of constitutional law via friends and family in law school, it seems like debate's conception of how the Supreme Court works is... suspect. Not really sure what the implications of that are for the aff or the neg, but I'm pretty sure that most court CPs/mechanisms would get actual lawyers disbarred.

--I think extreme conditionality is nearly indefensible, but I am also finding that I kind of hate judging conditionality debates, especially when I think that the aff has a substantive path to victory.

Joshua Michael Notre Dame High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 12:10 PM EDT

Debated for UWG ’15 – ’17; Coaching: Notre Dame – ’19 – Present; Baylor – ’17 – ’19

email: joshuamichael59@gmail.com

Online Annoyance

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when one card was marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take CX time for it.

Policy

I prefer K v K rounds, but I generally wind up in FW rounds.

K aff’s – 1) Generally have a high threshold for 1ar/2ar consistency. 2) Stop trying to solve stuff you could reasonably never affect. Often, teams want the entirety of X structure’s violence weighed yet resolve only a minimal portion of that violence. 3) v K’s, you are rarely always already a criticism of that same thing. Your articulation of the perm/link defense needs to demonstrate true interaction between literature bases. 4) Stop running from stuff. If you didn’t read the line/word in question, okay. But indicts of the author should be answered with more than “not our Baudrillard.”

K’s – 1) rarely win without substantial case debate. 2) ROJ arguments are generally underutilized. 3) I’m generally persuaded by aff answers that demonstrate certain people shouldn’t read certain lit bases, if warranted by that literature. 4) I have a higher threshold for generic “debate is bad, vote neg.” If debate is bad, how do you change those aspects of debate? 5) 2nr needs to make consistent choices re: FW + Link/Alt combinations. Find myself voting aff frequently, because the 2nr goes for two different strats/too much.

Special Note for Settler Colonialism: I simultaneously love these rounds and experience a lot of frustration when judging this argument. Often, debaters haven’t actually read the full text from which they are cutting cards and lack most of the historical knowledge to responsibly go for this argument. List of annoyances: there are 6 settler moves to innocence – you should know the differences/specifics rather than just reading pages 1-3 of Decol not a Metaphor; la paperson’s A Third University is Possible does not say “State reform good”; Reading “give back land” as an alt and then not defending against the impact turn is just lazy. Additionally, claiming “we don’t have to specify how this happens,” is only a viable answer for Indigenous debaters (the literature makes this fairly clear); Making a land acknowledgement in the first 5 seconds of the speech and then never mentioning it again is essentially worthless; Ethic of Incommensurability is not an alt, it’s an ideological frame for future alternative work (fight me JKS).

General: 1) Fairness is either an impact or an internal link 2) the TVA doesn’t have to solve the entirety of the aff. 3) Your Interp + our aff is just bad.

Aff v FW: 1) can win with just impact turns, though the threshold is higher than when winning a CI with viable NB’s. 2) More persuaded by defenses of education/advocacy skills/movement building. 3) Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere.

Reading FW: 1) Respect teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movement building. 2) “If we can’t test the aff, presume it’s false” – no 3) Have to answer case at some point (more than the 10 seconds after the timer has already gone off) 4) You almost never have time to fully develop the sabotage tva (UGA RS deserves more respect than that). 5) Impact turns to the CI are generally underutilized. You’ll almost always win the internal link to limits, so spending all your time here is a waste. 6) Should defend the TVA in 1nc cx if asked. You don’t have a right to hide it until the block.

Theory - 1) I generally lean neg on questions of Conditionality/Random CP theory. 2) No one ever explains why dispo solves their interp. 3) Won’t judge kick unless instructed to.

T – 1) I’m not your best judge. 2) Seems like no matter how much debating is done over CI v Reasonability, I still have to evaluate most of the offense based on CI’s.

DA/CP – 1) Prefer smart indicts of evidence as opposed to walls of cards (especially on ptx/agenda da's). Neg teams get away with murder re: "dropped ev" that says very little/creatively highlighted. 2) I'm probably more lenient with aff responses (solvency deficits/aff solves impact/intrinsic perm) to Process Cp's/Internal NB's that don't have solvency ev/any relation to aff.

Case - I miss in depth case debates. Re-highlightings don't have to be read. The worse your re-highlighting the lower the threshold for aff to ignore it.

All of my thoughts on policy apply, except for theory. More than 2 condo (or CP’s with different plank combinations) is probably abusive, but I can be convinced otherwise on a technical level.

Not voting on an RVI. I don’t care if it’s dropped.

Most LD theory is terrible Ex: Have to spec a ROB or I don’t know what I can read in the 1nc --- dumb argument.

Phil or Tricks (sp?) debating – I’m not your judge.

Ryan Nierman Wylie E. Groves HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 5:45 AM EDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other general comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martin Osborn Sonoma Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 1:40 PM EDT

drmosbornesq@gmail.com

My judging paradigm has evolved a great deal over time. These days, I have very few set opinions about args. If the plan is trying to be topical, T comes first. I don't think debaters do enough impact calc. I don't see a lot of debaters really delving into the opp's evidence anymore which is unfortunate since a lot of ev is trash. I used to think I had a flawless flow and a mind that captured every single twist and detail but now I can't follow everything, truth be told. Debate is a little too fast and I think people assume there is more shared thinking than really exists, so too much is being taken for granted. I will use the speech doc if I am hearing the arguments and my pen is just slow but if I cannot really hear things, I will not resort to flowing off the doc; you're just not gonna get flowed. I'm still pretty good tho? I dunno. Sometimes I feel like a great fit, sometimes I feel a little out of place. I don't research as much as I once did and I'm a long way from being a rolodex of ev and args like once upon a time blah blah old. All of that said, I try to prioritize debaters' decisions more than ever and try harder than ever to base my decision on what debaters are trying to make happen in the round, and how well they do it, as opposed to how I logically add up what occurred. If you're losing the debate at hand, I am not going to say "how it really works" to bail you out. The development of arguments inside the round should shape the contours of victory, and my brain will do its best to be sensitive to that and vote accordingly. But of course these are still my judgment calls, just of a different sort. No judge can totally eliminate their process of sorting things out or their lived personal experience but basically I try to judge rounds as the debaters tell me to judge them, and with the tools they make available to me. I think debate is about debaters, so I do try to limit and be aware of any intervention on my part. But sometimes my experience with traditional policy debate matters and favors a team. Sometimes my lived experience as a brown native person affects my encounter of an argument. These things happen and they are happening with all of your judges whether they admit it or you know it or not. I competed using "traditional policy arguments" (which, frankly, I am unsure still exist #old) but by now I have voted for and coached stupidly-traditional, traditional, mildly-traditional, non-traditional, and anti-traditional arguments in high-stakes rounds for a ton of programs in high school, college, internationally, in different eras, dimensions, all kinds of shi*. If you think your reputation matters in how I see the round, save us both the embarrassment and don't pref me. I do not even know "the list" any more. I vote against you if I think you lost, so I might end your career in a debate you feel you're supposed to win because that's how the game goes, that's part of why the game is great. Were you good in high school? Okay. If you or your coaches are used to attacking the critic in the post-round, you're gonna play yourself because if I am on, I will crush your whole squad, and even if I am off, I won't care that you're mad you'll just burn out yelling over there while I pack up. You're supposed to make me vote for you - fail your task at your own risk. Save the trash talk for the van ride home, or for the squad room, or for your therapist, or for all the other debaters who think they win every round they're in. And also it's no big deal. Debate's a game but we are humans so we should treat each other with respect. Self-control and awareness of complex and diverse perspectives are hallmarks of critical thinking and deep intellectual power; if you cannot make peace with differences of perspective, differences in experience, and even the results in a subjective activity, you are still growing as a debater, imho. Try to be chill. Nothing personal but you may not be as good as you think - none of us are, and none of us were. Help me vote for you, I might not be as good as you think lol. We all get lucky a lot. So please be kind and be grateful. Take it or leave it. Good luck to all debaters, seriously -- it's a hell of a thing <3

Kwudjwa Osei Baltimore City College 4 rounds

Chris Paredes Damien-St. Lucy's 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 9:00 AM PDT

Speed-Run Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school's teammail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien '05, Amherst College '09, Emory Law '13L. This will be my eighth year coaching in debate, and my third year doing it full time. I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) were shaped before today's Michigan-style meta.

IP Topic Knowledge: I studied IP law while at Emory and was the recipient of an IP law scholarship, so I should be a pretty good judge for evaluating topic specific arguments. True analytics that rely on topic knowledge are likely to be super persuasive to me and easy to win. I am very unsympathetic to neg gripes about this topic. I believe case specific research should be the default model of debate so 1) lack of generic neg ground is not a problem, 2) I think there's plenty of neg ground but most teams have not done the pre-requisite research to find it.

Debate Philosophy: Debate is a game. That game can take many forms depending on how the players engage with it. I believe the ideal form of the game is one in which the debaters gain resolutional knowledge by arguing the desirability of proposed hypothetical government action by the aff. The best debaters are ones who develop good topic knowledge and do the research necessary to defend their case or make nuanced objections to the opponent's aff case. Debates about the meta of the game, both the topic (T) and what community norms should be regarding certain tactics (theory), are also a valuable endeavor. I am much more open than a normal judge to decide the round on these issues, and I think that too few teams are brave enough to engage in that discussion vs. making the arguments as a time sink.

Judging Philosophy: The prime directive in every game is to win. Consequently, I will interpret all your choices in debate as tactical decisions attempting to secure maximal chance of victory and will not hold them against you. All of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents and I will vote for almost any argument so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. You can minimize intervention against you by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions. The best 2NRs and 2ARs are pitches that present a fully formed ballot that I can metaphorically sign off on. I am extremely averse to deciding the round on any non-argument norms (how debaters should behave in round), and Iwill not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the game (whether that was at camp or a previous round).

I run a planless aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am very firmly neg on framework, but tech over truth means that I usually end up voting aff close to half the time. Insofar as debate is a game, I draw a distinction between rules and standards. The rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, the standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate compared to your opponent's. What counts as better is determined in round through debate, but is usually a question of debate that is more fair or more pedagogically valuable. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated these questions better. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K's alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack out" on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) start as non-factors until the aff contextualizes them as solvency mechanisms in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however once start reading the critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off with one "painted" card than several under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, beats bad/under-highlighted cards.

Accommodations: External to any debate about my role that happens on framework, I treat my function in the room as judge first and facilitator of education second. Therefore, any accommodation that has potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary. Failure to adhere to proper accommodation request procedure heavily impacts whether I give any credence to in-round voters attached to failure to accommodate or other exclusion based arguments.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive internal link debating. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the superior internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to the more important terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive to reasonability as a filter (when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable) versus reasonability as a weighing mechanism ("Good is good enough.")

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that topicality should be a viable generic negative strategy. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think that it is the proper/only mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually, or extra topical ground proves limits explosion). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments of the flow. The TVA is terminal defense on education; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or is a better type of education itself). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but explain why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, I am fine with clash as an internal link, but I am very receptive to just internal link turning the aff model and arguing that plan-based debate creates more positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why counterplans are competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew);

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness while the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition;

- Aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity;

- the neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies);

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding;

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity);

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors);

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth);

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg;

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments;

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round;

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric (you can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo);

- ASPEC is checked by cross (the neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC; if the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse including potential ground loss).

Kritiks

TL;DR: If you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the specific aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid clash and rely on links of omission and criticisms about the state/fiat, then I am a bad judge for you. If you ended up with me in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs and/or strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance to the aff (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt).A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for disregarding the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I would much rather, and am more likely to, give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than weeding through the epistemology and pedagogy debate to determine that your theory of power comes first.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan. Generics start as very vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and have a much higher threshold on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

Neg ground should be a product of research, not spray and pray checks on the 2AC. I amextremely unfriendly to process counterplans with internal net benefits that are entirely intrinsic to the process; I have a very low bar for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases. A team that understands these differences and can impact them usually wins my ballot.At the same time, an intentionally vague plan text should not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). If the aff is vague, then the neg can and should define normal means then defend the competitiveness of the CP vs. normal means. The aff can win an entire solvency take out if there is a structural defect created by deviating from normal means (which is the case with most process CPs).

I do not judge kick by default absent instruction to do so. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I believe that a lot of issues with debate today is the quest to avoid the hard work of research with universally applicable generics (kritiks, K-affs, and process CPs with internal net benefits). The thing that all of these things share is a lack of uniqueness, therefore I am pre-disposed to value uniqueness whereas most teams undervalue it because uniqueness cannot be turned. This means I generally value defense more than most and I will assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. While I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense, having a good counterplan is the way for the neg has to leverage itself out of flawed disads.

Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average and not everyone being actually average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Strategy & Clash Points: Debaters have increasingly adopted a variety of bad habits. To counter this, I reward good practices -- those that demonstrate research and preparation with a willingness to engage in clash -- with bonus speaks. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Politics on a Courts CP is a disad; "CP gets circumvented" is not a disad). Negative teams with case specific strategies (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks. I will punish teams whose behavior minimizes clash and shows a disdain for research and preparation (hiding ASPEC, misplacing arguments on other flows, etc.) with lower speaks. This is especially true if I am forced to vote on a neg position that I cannot understand when the only neg justification is that pure technical concession means it solves.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Jimin Park Taipei American School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 15, 2024 at 8:33 AM CDT

IR Master's Candidate @ Georgetown

University of Kansas '23, Washburn Rural '19

Coaching Taipei American School and Harvard

jpark.debate@gmail.com

Also add:

for college: harvard.debate@gmail

for high school: taipeiamericanpolicy@gmail.com

________________________________________________________________________________________

TLDR:

I enjoy case-specific, fully developed strategies that are well-explained and backed with high-quality evidence/persuasion.

I am a bad judge for teams that rely on the brute force of conditionality, proliferate incomplete arguments, and use strategies that moot the AFF and K AFFs.

I know functionally zero about the high school and college topics.

General Judging:

1. Respect your opponents.

2. Be efficient. The email chain should be sent out early. Don't steal prep. CX ends after 3 minutes. Prepare a card document ASAP.

3. Flow.

4. Clarity. I should hear every single word you say.

5. One debater, one constructive, one rebuttal. I will not flow the other debater if they interject or read parts of another person's speech.

6. Net benefits should be verbally specified in the 1NC.

7. Will not vote on ad homs.

8. Teams should disclose and open source their evidence.

9. Will try to avoid filling in gaps if debaters don't explain it

Flowing Practices:

I flow on my computer straight-down, include CX, and have docs open the whole debate (usually) — I don't flow based on the doc, but check for clipping/like following along. I wouldn't consider myself the best "flow," but I type relatively quickly, so this has not been a problem in my judging career (yet).

My Biases:

1. Vertical proliferation > horizontal proliferation

2. Specificity > vagueness

3. I prefer debates to be topic-specific. AFFs and NEG strategies should be germane to IPR/clean energy policy — this means 2NRs on wipeout, spark, or generic process counterplans are less strategic in front of me.

4. Dispo > condo

5. Plans don't exist in a 'vacuum.'

6. Counterplans should compete via text AND function.

7. Willing to vote for theoretical objections considered 'arbitrary' if the outlined practice is unreasonable.

8. AFFs should be topical.

9. Links should be to the plan.

10. AFF-specific Ks > generic Ks

Jiyoon Park Taipei American School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 5:35 AM EDT

jiyooon.park@gmail.com

Washburn Rural ‘22

Michigan ’26

Coach for TAS, OCSA, and Washburn Rural

Judging

I will decide debates purely on my flow and the words I hear you speak. Prioritizing dropped arguments will be the best and quickest way for me to vote for you, and I will be more likely to decide on small technical errors, especially if you point them out or make them relevant.

If my flow is not sufficient to decide an argument I will look at evidence, whether it is because:

1. The flow is too close, i.e., no dropped arguments, lack of impact calculus, the debate is two ships passing by, etc.

2. The line-by-line is a dispute over evidence, whether quality or applicability.

If you predict debates coming down to this, provide a metric for how I should evaluate and elevate certain types of evidence and name specific authors or cards for my decision. This metric can include recency, expertise, causality, citations, etc. If a metric is never set, I will favor better-highlighted evidence, complete warrants, and conclusiveness.

I will try my hardest to flow, judge, and make the best decision possible, but I am imperfect. My biggest flaws that you can quickly adapt to are:

1. Typing. I attempt to flow cross-ex and transcribe every speech, but the combination of debaters blitzing through blocks at 300 WPM, typos, and debaters talking over each other means I miss 5-10% of text per debate. I do not think I have ever missed an argument in its entirety, but it would behoove you to be clear and flowable. Even when I miss things, I will remember the context and the surrounding words, but that is not as reliable as the words on my flow.

*A lot of debates I've judged, especially clash and competition debates, have vital moments and/or round deciding moments in cross-ex where specific phraseologies are used or concessions are made. Making cross-ex's matter and making cross-ex flowable (not talking over each other, shouting, etc.) is best.

2. Knowledge Gaps. I try to stay in tune with wikis, argumentative trends, the news, and core topic themes, but there is a lot I do not know about. Things I have learned about in my time judging without much prior knowledge or personal debate experience include interest rates, Erdogan’s political trouble, the racism paradox, the many ways humans could survive nuclear war, laches, textual topicality, and the barebones of random philosophies. While most debates do not require an in-depth knowledge of individual issues, the best debates and debaters do, and I will try to match that. If it turns out that I am a moron, over-explaining different arguments could benefit you, i.e., speeding through moral philosophy and hypotheticals at max speed is a way to win, but probably not the way to win.

Both can be easily overcome with clear, precise, technical debating and having a more explanatory narrative than the other team. While I appreciate and reward technically proficient debaters, making my decision come down to the second half of subpoint D of subpoint 11 at 300 WPM is not ideal.

Here is my decision-making process proper if this helps you structure final rebuttals:

1. I will almost always start deciding debates where the debaters tell me to start, i.e., in framework debates, most debaters say to start on fairness as an impact or ballot solvency, or if the 2NR is a DA and impact defense, I will start assessing the risk of impacts first. This also means picking and choosing arguments is better than shot-gunning arguments.

2. If neither rebuttal tells me where to start deciding, I will start where I think is the most logical point of contestation. Given the lack of (1), this is where I start most of my decisions.

3. I will highlight cells on my flow for what is dropped and/or relevant to deciding first-order issues and so forth until every cell with words in my cell is highlighted (if this includes reading cards, I will put relevant card authors/warrants next to those cells). This process also includes striking new cells that could not be traced back to the 2AR.

4. I try to decide based on the exact words said by debaters to avoid intervening.

Observations

The above should obviate everything below because none of my ideologies, thoughts about the debate, or biases will affect my decision, but here are my impressions that could matter to you:

1. Ideology. The critique has been less than 5% of my 2NRs since I joined the activity, but about half of the debates I judge are clash debates. Critical teams that impact turn framework have had the most success in front of me, especially because most 2ACs do not counter-define the resolution. Framework 2NRs with a robust defense of fairness combined with lots of no link + the AFF links more to their offense has had the most success. Both sides are better suited to specify and apply their blocks to the debate or 1AC at hand. Critiques on the NEG usually succeed when they moot the plan; every other version seems more fallible.

2. Side bias. I have been a 2N my whole career and think being NEG is hard on most topics. My default is infinite conditionality, but I have been persuaded otherwise in a handful of debates. 2Ns should make their condo blocks topic-specific and go for flexibility or arbitrariness. 2As should ensure their 1ARs say enough words so the 2AR is not new and needs a robust defense of dispositionality. My default is to judge kick. Most 2ACs and 1ARs commit egregious amounts of under-coverage on the case, and 2Ns should quickly point this out. I will quickly strike ‘new’ parts of the 2AR to protect the 2NR. Lastly, I find myself voting NEG frequently on turns case where I think most AFFs do not have a great answer to.

3. Argument quality. All arguments are fair game. Degradation in quality should be quickly dispatched with high-quality evidence or low-hanging responses. I do not feel distaste for impact turns like spark or ‘generic’ CPs like process. I think the AFF is favored in both debates, but the NEG normally has tricks that help them. Your speaks most likely will not suffer from deploying strategies like above. However, if your A-strat is hiding ASPEC in the middle of the 2NC, you may get the ballot, but your speaks will definitely suffer. Lastly, I think most debate impacts and internal links are non-intrinsic or rely on a reality distortion, so I am more amenable than most to smart analytical advantage CPs.

Thais Perez The Quarry Lane School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 8:04 AM EDT

Thais Perez, Wake ‘26

Add to chain: tcperezdeb8@gmail.com, debate@student.quarrylane.org

I care about debate, and hope that my RFDs reflect that. All of us are taking time to do this activity for different reasons, but regardless, I will try to respect the time and energy you are putting into debate by being attentive and rendering the best decision I can.

Things that matter to me, that should matter to you:

- Flowing. I do it, and I do it on paper. This means that if you are going at lightning-quick speed and sound incredibly unclear while doing so I probably won’t write down, or much less understand, anything you are saying. I sometimes get hand cramps/tremors, so if you see me lift my hand up for a second, you probably want to slow down. My flow is everything to me when I judge debates, and I try my very best to articulate decisions based on a precise interpretation of my flow. Slow and clear debaters will be rewarded with more speaker points than fast and clear debaters.

- CX. I flow it, and it can make-or-break your speaker points. Using your entire CX for clarification questions about cards your opponents did not read is a waste of time and you should instead use prep time for that. Don’t treat prep time like cross-ex, I won’t pay attention to it.

- Offense/Defense. Intuitively, I don’t really understand how else to judge debates. Any other paradigm seems to require intervention which I try to minimize, however, I can be persuaded to think otherwise depending on how ‘reasonability’ and ‘competing interpretations’ are technically debated.

- Evidence. It only matters if you make it matter. I don’t like reading evidence unless I’m specifically told to, although I tend to read re-highlightings just because I find them interesting when they’re done well.

Plan AFFs:

- In K debates, I will look at the framework debate first. I will resolve the framework debate one way or the other. AFF teams should not underestimate the power of a well-explained alt solves the case argument.

- Impact calculus is significant to me, but the impact debate is not in a vacuum, and I make sure to weigh each part of the debate equally. Relative risk is the only way to evaluate DA debates and avoids arbitrarily intervening just because we have an aversion to death.

- Competition debates can be fun, and I enjoy these debates more when teams place a heavy emphasis on evidence quality. In my mind, these are just topicality debates with the distinction being that competition is a NEG burden.

- Sufficiency framing means that I should evaluate the counterplan’s scope of solvency in relation to AFF impacts, and not the AFF in its entirety. Avoid misinterpreting that.

Non-Plan AFFs:

- Ballot solvency is central. I find most negative presumption arguments to be unpersuasive, mostly because they are never contextualized to the AFF. Tailoring your arguments to be relevant to the AFF you’re debating is the best way to make this part of the debate winnable for the NEG.

- If going for a clash impact, try to explain why iterative testing is inherent to your model and not the AFF’s. I find teams struggling to explain this impact as external which makes the debate get jumbled by the 2NR.

- In a K v K debate having offensive reasons why the permutation does not shield the link is your best bet.

Other misc. things:

- Plan/AFF vagueness is so obnoxious. Don't avoid explaining the mechanism or function of the AFF, normal means, or what your method results in/does for the debate space. If the other team doesn't know what your AFF does, neither will I which means I am likely to limit the scope of solvency to cross-examination and to what solvency evidence says.

- I default to judge-kicking if the NEG says that the status quo is always a logical option.

- Conditionality is a reason to reject the team, but most other ‘voting-issues’ are arbitrary. Having examples of what made the debate more difficult in the specific debate you are in will help you immensely.

Christina Phillips Notre Dame High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:01 AM PDT

Experience

Current Affiliation = Notre Dame HS (Sherman Oaks, CA)
Debates Judged on this topic: about 40 Rounds (UMich Debate Institute)
Prior Experience: Debated policy in HS at Notre Dame HS in Sherman Oaks, CA (1992-1995); Debated NDT/CEDA in college at USC (1995-1999); Assistant debate coach at Cal State Northridge 2003-2005; Assistant debate coach at Glenbrook South HS Spring of 2005; Director of Debate at Glenbrook North HS 2005-2009; Director of Debate at Notre Dame HS Fall of 2009-Present.

General Note

My defaults go into effect when left to my own devices. I will go against most of these defaults if a team technically persuades me to do so in any given debate.

Paperless Rules

If you start taking excessive time to flash your document, I will start instituting that "Prep time ends when the speaker's flash drive is removed from her/his computer."

Major Notes

Topic familiarity

I am familiar with the topic (4 weeks of teaching at Michigan at Classic and involved in argument coaching at Notre Dame).

Delivery

Delivery rate should be governed by your clarity; WARRANTS in the evidence should be clear, not just the tagline.
Clarity is significantly assisted by organization - I flow as technically as possible and try to follow the 1NC structure on-case and 2AC structure off-case through the 1AR. 2NR and the 2AR should have some leeway to restructure the debate in important places to highlight their offense. However, line-by-line should be followed where re-structuring is not necessary.

Ideal 2AR Structure

Offense placed at the top (tell me how I should be framing the debate in the context of what you are winning), then move through the debate in a logical order.

2NR's Make Choices

Good 2NR strategies may be one of the following: (1) Functionally and/or textually competitive counterplan with an internal or external net benefit, (2) K with a good turns case/root cause arguments that are specific to each advantage, (3) Disadvantage with turns case arguments and any necessary case defense, (4) Topicality (make sure to cover any theory arguments that are offense for aff). My least favorite debates to resolve are large impact turn debates, not because I hate impact turns, but because I think that students lose sight of how to resolve and weigh the multiple impact scenarios that get interjected into the debate. Resolving these debates starts with a big picture impact comparison.

Evidence Quality/References

Reference evidence by warrant first and then add "That's [Author]." Warrant and author references are especially important on cards that you want me to read at the end of the debate. Also, evidence should reflect the arguments that you are making in the debate. I understand that resolving a debate requires spin, but that spin should be based in the facts presented in your evidence.

I have been getting copies of speech documents for many debates lately so I can read cards during prep time, etc. However, note that I will pay attention to what is said in the debate as much as possible - I would much rather resolve the debate on what the debaters say, not based on my assessment of the evidence.

Offense-Defense

Safer to go for offense, and then make an "even if" statement explaining offense as a 100% defensive takeout. I will vote on well-resolved defense against CP, DA's and case. This is especially true against process CP's (e.g., going for a well-resolved permutation doesn't require you to prove a net benefit to the permutation since these CP's are very difficult to get a solvency deficit to) and DA's with contrived internal link scenarios. Winning 100% defense does require clear evidence comparison to resolve.

Topicality

I like a well-developed topicality debate. This should include cards to resolve important distinctions. Topical version of the aff and reasonable case lists are persuasive. Reasonability is persuasive when the affirmative has a TRUE "we meet" argument; it seems unnecessary to require the affirmative to have a counter-interpretation when they clearly meet the negative interpretation. Also, discussing standards with impacts as DA's to the counter-interpretation is very useful - definition is the uniqueness, violation is the link, standard is an internal link and education or fairness is the impact.

Counterplans

Word PIC's, process, consult, and condition CP's are all ok. I have voted on theory against these CP's in the past because the teams that argued they were illegit were more technically saavy and made good education arguments about the nature of these CP's. The argument that they destroy topic-specific education is persuasive if you can prove why that is true. Separately, the starting point for answers to the permutation are the distinction(s) between the CP and plan. The starting point for answers to a solvency deficit are the similarities between the warrants of the aff advantage internal links and the CP solvency cards. Counterplans do not have to be both functionally and textually competitive, but it is better if you can make an argument as to why it is both.

Disadvantages

All parts of the DA are important, meaning neither uniqueness nor links are more important than each other (unless otherwise effectively argued). I will vote on conceded or very well-resolved defense against a DA.

Kritiks

Good K debate should have applied links to the affirmative's or negative's language, assumptions, or methodology. This should include specific references to an opponent's cards. The 2NC/1NR should make sure to address all affirmative impacts through defense and/or turns. I think that making 1-2 carded externally impacted K's in the 2NC/1NR is the business of a good 2NC/1NR on the K. Make sure to capitalize on any of these external impacts in the 2NR if they are dropped in the 1AR. A team can go for the case turn arguments absent the alternative. Affirmative protection against a team going for case turns absent the alternative is to make inevitability (non-unique) claims.

Aff Framework

Framework is applied in many ways now and the aff should think through why they are reading parts of their framework before reading it in the 2AC, i.e., is it an independent theoretical voting issue to reject the Alternative or the team based on fairness or education? or is it a defensive indite of focusing on language, representations, methodology, etc.?. Framework impacts should be framed explicitly in the 1AR and 2AR. I am partial to believing that representations and language inform the outcome of policymaking unless given well-warranted cards to respond to those claims (this assumes that negative is reading good cards to say rep's or language inform policymaking).

Neg Framework

Neg framework is particularly persuasive against an affirmative that has an advocacy statement they don't stick to or an aff that doesn't follow the resolution at all. It is difficult for 2N's to have a coherent strategy against these affirmatives and so I am sympathetic to a framework argument that includes a topicality argument and warranted reasons to reject the team for fairness or education. If a K aff has a topical plan, then I think that framework only makes sense as a defensive indite their methodology; however, I think that putting these cards on-case is more effective than putting them on a framework page. Framework is a somewhat necessary tool given the proliferation of affirmatives that are tangentially related to the topic or not topical at all. I can be persuaded that non-topical affs should not get permutations - a couple primary reasons: (1) reciprocity - if aff doesn't have to be topical, then CP's/K's shouldn't need to be competitive and (2) Lack of predictability makes competition impossible and neg needs to be able to test the methodology of the aff.

Theory

I prefer substance, but I do understand the need for theory given I am open to voting on Word PIC's, consult, and condition CP's. If going for theory make sure to impact arguments in an organized manner. There are only two voting issues/impacts: fairness and education. All other arguments are merely internal links to these impacts - please explain how and why you control the best internal links to either of these impacts. If necessary, also explain why fairness outweighs education or vice-versa. If there are a host of defensive arguments that neutralize the fairness or education lost, please highlight these as side constraints on the the violation, then move to your offense.

Classic Battle Defaults

These are attempts to resolve places where I felt like I had to make random decisions in the past and had wished I put something in my judge philosophy to give debaters a fair warning. So here is my fair warning on my defaults and what it takes to overcome those defaults:
(1) Theory v. Topcality - Topcality comes before theory unless the 1AR makes arguments explaining why theory is first and the 2NR doesn't adequately respond and then the 2AR extends and elaborates on why theory is first sufficiently enough to win those arguments.
(2) Do I evaluate the aff v. the squo when the 2NR went for a CP? - No unless EXPLICITLY framed as a possibility in the 2NR. If the 2NR decides to extend the CP as an advocacy (in other words, they are not just extending some part of the CP as a case takeout, etc.), then I evaluate the aff versus the CP. What does this mean? If the aff wins a permutation, then the CP is rejected and the negative loses. I will not use the perm debate as a gateway argument to evaluating the aff vs. the DA. If the 2NR is going for two separate advocacies, then the two separate framings should be EXPLICIT, e.g., possible 2NR framing, "If we win the CP, then you weigh the risk of the net benefit versus the risk of the solvency deficit and, if they win the permutation, you should then just reject the CP and weigh the risk of the DA separately versus the affirmative" (this scenario assumes that the negative declared the CP conditional).
(3) Are Floating PIK's legitimate? No unless the 1AR drops it. If the 1AR drops it, then it is open season on the affirmative. The 2NC/1NR must make the floating PIC explicit with one of the following phrases to give the 1AR a fair chance: "Alternative does not reject the plan," "Plan action doesn't necessitate . Also, 2NC/1NR must distinguish their floating PIK from the permutation; otherwise, affirmatives you should use any floating PIK analysis as a outright concession that the "permutation do both" or "permutation plan plus non-mutually exclusive parts" is TRUE.
(4) Will I vote on theory cheap shots? Yes, but I feel guilty voting for them. HOWEVER, I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A REVERSE VOTING ISSUE EVEN IF IT WAS DROPPED.

Who is a Good Debater

Anna Dimitrijevic, Alex Pappas, Pablo Gannon, Stephanie Spies, Kathy Bowen, Edmund Zagorin, Matt Fisher, Dan Shalmon, Scott Phillips, Tristan Morales, Michael Klinger, Greta Stahl, George Kouros. There are many others - but this is a good list.

Respect

Your Opponents, Your Teammates, Your Coaches, Your Activity.

Extra Notes CP/Perm/Alt Texts

The texts of permutations, counterplans, and alternatives should be clear. I always go back and check the texts of these items if there is a question of a solvency deficit or competition. However, I do feel it is the burden of the opposing team to bring up such an argument for me to vote on it - i.e., unless it is a completely random round, the opposing team needs to make the argument that the text of the CP means there is a significant solvency deficit with the case, or the affirmative is overstating/misconstruing the solvency of a permutation because the text only dictates X, not Y, etc. I will decide that the aff does not get permutations in a debate where the affirmative is not topical.

Technical Focus

I try to follow the flow the best I can - I do double check if 2AR is making arguments that are tied to the 1AR arguments. I think that 2AR's get significant leeway to weigh and frame their impacts once the 2NR has chosen what to go for; however, this does not mean totally new arguments to case arguments, etc. that were presented before the 2NR.

Resolve Arguments

Frame claim in comparison to other team's response, extend important warrants, cite author for evidence, impact argument to ballot - all of these parts are necessary to resolve an argument fully. Since debate is a game of time management, this means going for fewer arguments with more thorough analysis is better than extending myriad of arguments with little analysis.

Disrespect Bad

Complete disrespect toward anyone who is nice; no one ever has enough “credibility” in this community to justify such actions. If there is a disrespectful dynamic in a debate, I ALWAYS applaud (give higher speaker points to) the first person to step down and realize they are being a jerk. Such growth and self-awareness should rewarded.

Fear to Engage Bad

Win or lose, you are ultimately competing to have the best debate possible. Act like it and do not be afraid to engage in the tough debates. You obviously should make strategic choices, but do not runaway from in-depth arguments because you think another team will be better than you on that argument. Work harder and beat them on the argument on which she/he is supposedly an expert. Taking chances to win debates good.

Fun Stuff

And, as Lord Dark Helmet says, “evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb.”

Banecat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ywjpbThDpE

Donald Pierce Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 3:32 PM CDT

Please put me on the email chain: donpierce2025@gmail.com and debatemba@gmail.com.

MBA 21’, Emory 25’

Don’t let that fool you. I primarily run and think about K arguments.

I’m a 2A who has read K affs without plans, K affs with plans, and policy affs that have nothing to do with the K.

I’m also a 1N who has read, extended, and thought through every type of position, from T-Framework and Queer Negativity to the NGA CP and Federalism DA, to impact turns.

Do what you want, don’t overcorrect for me in content. If you are worried, overcorrect in form. If anything, everyone should be overcorrecting in explaining to me why you win the ballot, cause I think far too often, debaters treat ‘judge instruction’ as ‘impact calculus,’ when it is more about explaining to me why and how you get to the ballot.

I will write my ballot starting with the argument either team is winning I should start with. When neither team has done that, I will start with framing/impact calc and/or framework, where you should be comparing/debating out both which sides framing is better and what that means for my ballot. This sets a threshold for what I should look for on the other pages and minimizes intervention. I can be convinced to build offense from the bottom up, meaning I consider each level of offense as a yes/no question and then consider who access more offense at the end of that chain and then do framing/framework/impact calc, but that is not my default.

Theory. I will be fine if you want to go for theory but please slow down. Outside of conditionality, I generally don’t think theory arguments are reasons to reject the team, and it would be difficult to persuade me to vote on it.

Ks. Do not use excessive jargon or just assume that I understand the underlying theory. The framework debate is often not impacted out. What does winning X argument mean for things outside of the framework section of the debate?

K affs. The focus of these debates need to be on clashing and comparing the two sides. Avoiding excessive jargon and using many examples will be the most useful. I generally think procedural fairness is an impact, but I can be persuaded away from it, like most things.

CPs. If you say judge kick and say I could in the 2nr, you should do that impact calc/framing for both a ballot with the cp + da and da + case defense. Generally speaking, I think the literature determines which counterplans are legitimate and which aren’t, but I can be persuaded against that.

DAs. DA plus case is an underrated strategy vs bad affs. You don’t need cards to pick apart a bad case. You just need to show me why their cards are bad.

T. A good T debate is really fun to listen to. A bad one is very annoying. It requires a lot of judge instruction in order to not intervene, so create a narrative for me.

Stephen Pipkin Glenbrook North 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 6:23 AM EDT

Glenbrook North- he/him

I don't know what has happened to wiki disclosure but current practices are unacceptable. Rather than hard and fast rules, I've decided to just incorporate wiki disclosure into speaker points. The baseline is round reports for all your rounds, including what was in the 1NC, the block, and the 2NR, with full text of your 1ACs and cites for all your off-case. Going beyond that will boost your points. Not meeting that baseline will hurt your points.

Use the tournament's doc share if it's set-up, speechdrop if it's not.

I won't vote for death good.

If you're taking prep before the other teams speech, it needs to be before they send out the doc. For example, if the aff team wants prep between the 2NC and 1NR, it needs to happen before the 1NR doc gets sent out, so I'd recommend saying you're going to do it before cross-x.

1. Flow and explicitly respond to what the other team says in order. I care a lot about debate being a speaking activity and I would rather not judge you if you disagree. I won't open the speech doc during the debate. I won't look at all the cards after the round, only ones that are needed to resolve something being debated out that are explicitly extended throughout the debate. If I don't have your argument written down on my flow, then you don't get credit for it. As an example, if you read a block of perms, I need to be able to distinguish between the perms in the 2AC to give you credit for them. If you are extending a perm in the 2AR I didn't have written down in the 2AC, I won't vote on it, even if the neg doesn't say this was a new argument. The burden is on you to make sure I am able to flow and understand everything you are saying throughout the debate. If you don't flow (and there are a lot of you out there) you should strike me.

2. Things you can do to improve the likelihood of me understanding you:

a. slow down

b. structure your args using numbers and subpoints

c. explicitly signpost what you are answering and extending

d. alternate analytics and cards

e. use microtags for analytics

f. give me time to flip between flows

g. use emphasis and inflection

3. I think the aff has to be topical.

4. I'm not great at judging the kritik. I'm better at judging kritiks that have links about the outcome of the plan but have an alternative that's a fiated alternative that's incompatible with the world of the plan.

5. You can insert one perm text per CP into the debate. Those need to be sent out prior to the 2A getting to those perms. The idea that you can "make" a perm but then actually write it later is absurd. You can insert sections of cards that have been read for reference. You can't insert re-highlightings. I'm not reading parts of cards that were not read in the debate.

6. I flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.

7.Plans: If you say the plan fiats something in CX, you don't get to say PTIV means something else on T. So for example, if you say "remove judicial exceptions" means the courts, you don't get to say you're not the courts on T. If you say normal means is probably the courts but you're not fiating that, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are Congress for a DA or CP.

8. If your highlighting is incoherent, I'm not going to read unhighlighted parts of the card to figure out what it means.

Ayush Potdar Berkeley Prep 3 rounds

ec powers Rowland Hall 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 7:51 AM MDT

Joint Winner of the Harvard College Tournament Costume Contest 2023

Debated

Jeff City 16-20

UWyo 20-24

Coaching

Niles West 23-

KU 24-

Email chain: ec [dot] powers [dot] debate [at] gmail [dot] com

College only: rockchalkdebate [at] gmail [dot] com

TOC update: if you are committed to the University of Kansas please conflict me.

I cannot read blue highlighting. Green/Yellow is most ideal and most other colors are fine. If you are struggling to figure out how to change your highlighting, Verbatim has a standardize highlighting feature.

I flow on my computer. I flow was was said and I look at docs after the round or during prep.

Firmly committed to tech over truth. The exception being arguments that say the suffering of a group of people or animals is good.

Complete arguments contain three things: a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Debate accordingly.

Debates should be where the AFF proposes a change to the status quo and the NEG says that change is bad. In general, I enjoy debates where teams forward and construct a coherent story and use that story to implicate other portions of the debate. I attempt to avoid judge intervention at all costs, I usually look for the easiest path to the ballot when deciding. I think that 3rd and 4th level explanation of arguments and why they matter is particularly important rather than just asserting something as true or dropped.

Judge instruction is really important to me, teams that are able to guide me to a ballot often end up winning more often than not. In addition, I think teams like to rely on their evidence far too much, while debate is a research activity I find that the art of argument has been lost. I think that making smart arguments from evidence already read is often better than unnecessary card spamming.

Unnecessary time-wasting irks me. The 1AC should be sent before the round starts. Asking questions abt what was read/wasn’t read is either cross or prep time. I will watch the time like a hawk, if you plan on conversing with your partner about debate-related things then you should plan on running a prep timer.

Judges that are unwilling to vote on condo bad are academically bankrupt and lying to you when they say they are “tech over truth."

I will not judge kick a CP unless it has been an argument made earlier in the debate than the 2NR.

Hidden theory arguments, e.g. Aspec on a T page, is one of the worst trends I have seen in debate. I will allow new 1AR answers and you do not even need to answer it that well. Any team hiding theory arguments will have a speaker point implosion.

Clipping/evidence ethics challenges need to be called out and backed up with evidence. The debate will stop and the team that has lost the challenge will receive an L. In general, I think you should email and/or contact people if you find that their evidence has an ethics violation. If you have done that and the necessary changes have not been changed, I will vote on it. However, teams calling out the reading of an author/article that would be problematic and make it an in-round voting isssue (e.g. Pinker/Bostrum) is totally fair game and up for debate.

I prefer to be called E.C. rather than judge or any other version. (it’s my initials if that helps with pronunciation).

I will clap when the round ends, debate is a very draining activity and I am impressed with anything you do even if it is round 4 at a local or the finals of a major.

Dimarvin Puerto Niles North High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 1, 2024 at 7:29 PM EDT

Dimarvin (Dah-MAR-Vin) > Judge

Email Chain: puerd20@wfu.edu , wfudbt@gmail.com

TA: Wake Forest, Assistant Coach: Niles North

Nobel '16, Lane Tech '20, Wake Forest '24, Wake Forest M.A '26, Patterns of Movement '∞∞

Forever indebted to Black and Native Debate

The Goats; Amber Kelsie, Daryl Burch, Ignacio Evans, Taylor Brough, Kenny Delph, Ari Collazo, Aysia Grey, those unnamed...and Nate Nys (honorary white man).

TLDR;

Since high school, I have been a "K debater". I focus on arguments such as Afropessimism, Black Performance, Black Baudrillard, and other forms of black studies. I think debate should be a space for critical thinking skills and the production of strategies/performances. This mostly implies K v policy debates or KvK debates. You should win that your model of debate over the other team.

FRAMING IS KEY (judge framing, impact framing, link story, etc.)!!! You should prioritize the offensive you want to go for and make sure you are implicating the other side's arguments. For example, framework and the impact debate, disproving ontology and saying progress is possible, or proving why antiblackness is the paradigm that determines everything and proves why the aff reproduces cruel optimism and how it makes your impact.

K aff vs K:

Prove to me why your model is better, whether that means framework (either), the perm (aff), or the link story and alt (Neg), etc.

FW vs K Affs:

Honestly, this can go either side. It depends on what happens in the debate. But I think the question both sides need to engage with, is how your model of debate produces the best form of education/critical thinking skills, or what (un)limitations there should be to make the best engagements in debate.

Policy:

I didn't do policy land, but I have judged them. Take that whatever way you want for prefs.

Speaker points:

I prefer clarity over speed. Ethos moments are fire too.

Theory:

I haven't been in the back for a lot of these debates.

LD:

Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact. "Vote Neg after the 1nc because it's reciprocal, we both have one speech" is not a complete argument.
Not a good judge for Phil and/or Trix - Don't pref me
I am new to LD; however, I have extensive experience in the highest levels of high school and collegiate debate.

Even though I was debate partners with Sebastian Cho and close with Raunak Dua, I do not believe in the same argumentations that they do, but hopefully, I'll be a new judge for you. Thank you!

Misc:

Even if I have a certain style of debating, if the flow differential is mad different, then GG.

Don't be anti-black, say racism good, etc.

If you make an anime reference like One Piece, DBZ, JoJo's, Blue Lock, JJK, My Hero, Attack on Titan, HXH, Tokyo Ghoul, 7DS, etc; (Mainstream) expect a speaker point boost (.1-.3). Don't overuse them unless they fire.

Just have fun.

Giorgio Rabbini Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Riley Reichel Head-Royce High School 4 rounds

Graham Revare Washburn Rural High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 11:27 AM CDT

gwrevaredebate@gmail.com

Put me on the chain.

He/them.

KU debate.

My job is to adjudicate the debate with minimal intervention. Optimal debate involves organization, impact calc, judge instruction, line-by-line, and evidence comparison. Few things that I've listed below are immutable, and my attitude towards most positions can be reversed by persuasive debating. Do your thing.

Sparknotes:

---Please label offcase in the 1NC. If you do not do this I will immediately know you haven't looked at my paradigm.

---Send me a card doc. I care about evidence quality and will assign much more weight to cards highlighted to form sentences.

---I am a clarity hawk and will verbally clear you if your words turn into mush. Unclear delivery is functional clipping, and it is unclear to me why judges tolerate it.

---Generally, neg-ish on theory.

---I don't think inserting rehighlightings is legitimate, but I'll evaluate them if no one says anything about it.

---I flow CX. "What cards did you read?" is a CX question. "Where did you mark this card?" is not.

---Don't cut undergrads or high schoolers. I'll evaluate these cards as analytics.

---Lenient with new arguments if and only if my understanding of them changes. This means it is to your advantage to explain your arguments early.

---Hearing my name in speeches makes me feel like I'm being hit with a flashbang.

---I will not vote on things that happened outside of the debate.

---Do not re-read constructive blocks in rebuttals. This does not count as an extension. This is an important part of my judging philosophy: I will assign very little weight to portions of your speech spent reciting things you’ve already read verbatim.

---Speaker points are earned, not demanded.

---Try-or-die is: extinction inevitable in squo OR plan makes extinction inevitable. It’s an extremely useful framing device and should be invoked when it favors you.

---Answer warrants.

---Don't be a bigot, obviously.

Longer version:

Here are my general leanings:

1---Tech over truth. Impartiality is a virtue. My role is to adjudicate the debate with minimal intervention. I am flow-centric and will vote for arguments I think are bad.

2---DAs: The more they clash with the affirmative, the better. I am more partial to a single well-developed impact than a laundry list of internal links. The latter doesn’t really count as an impact until it’s made complete with a terminal.

You don't NEED to read a uniqueness card in the 1NC, but the 2A can simply observe that your DA has no uniqueness claim and card dump in the 1AR after you read the cards needed to form a complete argument.

3---Kritiks.

I am good for technical K debaters, especially ones who innovate.

My fondness for evidence quality applies equally to these debates. If you’re asserting your link turns the case, or that the aff’s assumptions culminate in “serial policy failure,” your cards should say that.

You are most likely to be successful if you develop 2-4 diverse links.

Please do not use rhetoric in your tags or blocks that isn't in your literature base.

I am least experienced with method debates. My only requirement is that you negate the desirability of something in the 1AC---I am extremely skeptical of negative strategies that generate offense off of omission.

4---Topicality

---A little more aff-leaning than most. T is not like any other argument because it crowds out substance.

---I probably value ground over limits. Bounded topics are only good if they give the neg something to say (it is very possible to have a tightly limited topic that impoverishes the neg of meaningful offense). Strong generics also help functionally narrow the scope of viable affirmatives.

---Reasonability is often misconstrued as "vote aff if the judge personally determines our plan is reasonable" (to be clear, I do this on purpose when I'm neg). Reasonability is: "vote aff if our interp allows a year of sustainable debates" (Soper 24).

It requires you have a C/I that you meet.

5---Counterplans:

Comparative solvency advocates are the gold standard.

Your process counterplan should compete off at least one thing that isn't certainty, immediacy, or "normal means."

I am highly inclined to judge competition by mandate. Spill-up or spillover arguments do not render a CP non-competitive.

PICing out of something in the plantext is good.

Agnostic on functional/textual competition.

6---Case: Please invest some time here. No aff solves and nothing ever happens.

Soft-left affs: Framing debates are frequently superficial. Good framing debates (oxymoron) involve comparison of your model of ethics---the advantages and disadvantages to each.

7---Planless or kritikal affirmatives:

I'll vote for you. Your best angle against topicality involves a C/I, a defense of a clearly-articulated model of debate, and one to three central points of well-impacted offense.

K affs that defend impact-turnable positions/topic DAs are more persuasive on T. Is this arbitrary? Maybe.

Topicality is not a "reverse-voting issue,” ever.

8---Framework: I’m good for you. My thoughts on this are strongly shaped by my conviction that debate is a technical game whose competitive nature overdetermines its pedagogical outcomes.

Partial to fairness.

9---CX: I flow it on a separate sheet. Debaters should pay more attention to CX - it is a vital strategic asset. Weaponize CX to lower the threshold for CP solvency, stick the aff to debating impact turns, etc.

10---I will reward speaker points for evidence and warrant comparison, ethos, not lying, and being funny.

11---Clipping, claiming to have read cards you didn't, etc---will guarantee a loss. I'm not a stickler about certain things; accidentally skipping a word or two happens sometimes. That is distinct from bypassing entire lines or passages.

Have fun. Judging is a privilege.

Irshad Reza Husain University High School Academy 1 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 10:20 AM EDT

Qualifications

I cleared at the NDT (2023), ADA (2024), & CEDA (2025) in college as the 17th seed. I also got 1st seed at the 1st Earthseed tournament (2025) and 29th seed at the NDT (2025) too. I have previously cleared at Northwestern, Wayne, Wake, Georgetown, & Texas at various points during my college career. Anyways, I'd say I was an above average Debater and I can flow very well I promise I'm a fast typer. I was double 2's when I broke at the 77th NDT as part of Wayne State HR on Legal Personhood (AI, Animals, Nature). I Debated Nuclear Weapons as Wayne State MR, & I Debated Climate Change as Binghamton KR. I coached a high school team that won the Detroit UDL 3 years back to back and broke at NAUDL in 2023 the same weekend I was at the NDT. The team also earned a ToC bid and got 1st seed at the ToC Digital Series 3 in 2025. I am familiar with every single norm and argument in the community. I am majoring in both computer engineering and sociology so I'm eclectic.

Tech>Truth

Disclaimer: I have no personal biases against anyone in the community no matter what issues outside of the round may exist. You can feel how you want. I am not going to vote on anything except who won. For me personally, I am too committed to the technical nature of Debate to think otherwise. You can think whatever you want about me, but just know that I am strongly ideological and I am ideological above everything and my core ideological take about Debate is that I should vote for who wins the Debate because anything else is just bad practice. If you make an argument about using the ballot in a certain way that's fine, I'm just saying that you have to win that I should do that. I will vote only on the arguments presented in round with no predisposition. I mean this to say that I promise that nothing else within community interactions will feed into or alter my ballot (I guess unless it's brought up and I am required to evaluate it), but otherwise there will be nothing else subconsciously influencing my decision. I promise that I will adjudicate the Debate solely based on what is in the 2AR & 2NR.

How I Write My Ballot

My RFD will comprehensively cover each and every single argument you extend into the 2NR and 2AR in the context of the other team's arguments. I will not insert my own biases, but instead solely speak to how the other team was able to couch your offense. I will say that you should err slightly on the side of more explanation rather than less, because an unwarranted argument is not a strategic decision to sit on. That's all the relevant stuff you need to read. I will otherwise evaluate the Debate as it happens. You can see my judging record, I have judged about five high school policy Debate tournaments on the intellectual property rights topic including late elims for several great teams.

Theory & Topicality

I dislike trying to evaluate practices about behaviors out of round. However, I think there are layers. First, disclosure is clearly different because it is relevant to the particular round at hand. This doesn't mean you can't break a new aff - I'm pretty okay with that, but if the other team wants to go for new affs bad, they have the right to do so. I am just trying to say that I am not going to revoke anyone's right to run any argument OR to do what they so choose as long as they can defend it. You want to break a new aff in front of me? That's fine. You want to read new affs bad because the other team broke a new aff in front of me? That's fine. I'm going to end up evaluating it based on how it comes down in the particular moment. Just know that I would be willing to vote either way. The same goes for conditionality. For new affs bad and conditionality, I've been on every possible side and I've both won and lost in every iteration (I've won going for condo against Georgetown, I've lost going for condo against Minnesota, I've won when Houston went for condo in the 2AR, I've lost when Kansas went for condo in the 2AR). For other forms of theory and topicality, I'm familiar with typical policy knowledge around even highly technical process counterplans, believe it or not I grew up in the middle of Michigan so there was actually a time in my life when the ONLY thing I knew about Debate came from people from Michigan State who were on Will Repko's side of Debate moreso than anyone I'm currently affiliated with. I also beat Michigan State GM at the NDT in 2023 and ADA in 2024 when I got 17th seed at each with Wayne State. The first time I beat them when I was going for topicality against them, the second time I beat them on a performance-based voter when they went for topicality.

Familiarity: High

I feel I can understand and comprehend every argument that people run because there's not much that gets past me inside or outside of Debate. I think my knowledge level in many venues of life is pretty high, I have studied a lot and lived a lot and been through a lot and done a lot in my life. All that is to say that I think I can comprehend what is stated within Debate rounds. I have gone for several different arguments over the course of my career.

Framework Debates

T-USFG - Unbiased. Fairness and/or clash is fine. There's more structural problems that may arise when going for solely skills and/or education impacts, but if it's strategic then go for what the 2NR calls for. I think the latter two impacts require winning that state engagement is uniquely key, but is better in the scenario if you want to directly refute the aff's theory of power.

The aff responses that I personally don't like:

1: Guilt assuasion good, or judge framing specific to me as a person from what you know about me.

If your response is that I should feel guilty and lean into that, unfortunately I already have decided I will not. I have heard very few teams say this, but I just wanted to say that there are better answers. Some teams are functionally saying this with their arguments, I would just try to explain the answer in a more nuanced way. Or your impact could outweigh. Overall, I'm not really a fan when you try to invoke me, my career, my teammates, or anything like that. You can use examples, but don't implicate me in it. I think it doesn't go down with the judge as well as you might think when you try to talk about their personal experience in Debate, or out of round interactions.

2: Counter-model without answers or framing to neg DA's.

Lots of teams want to stake their 2AR on the counter-model solving Debatability. That's fine, but you have to do a bit more engagement with some of the arguments about limits, predictability, clash, what the model looks like, how it's sustainable and tenable for Debate. If you're going for the impact turn alone, just identify how the ballot provides uniqueness and what you prioritize. A role of the neg is always a good idea in both options.

The neg responses that I personally don't like:

1: We could not truth test the aff, therefore you should automatically vote neg on presumption.

If this is an argument to insulate topicality before case because of how it precedes substance, that would be preferable. Articulation as an instant negative ballot is unpersuasive. I will not pull the trigger unless actually conceded by the 2AR and heavily implicated in the 2NR.

2: Fairness turns fatigue, especially the card that conducted a small set of studies on students in Poland.

I personally think that arguments about clash interacting with the case because of refinement and breeding better advocates are far better. Fairness is fine, the utility of fairness as a framework impact does not come from its ability to generate burnout and exhaustion through the limits DA, but instead about how the limits DA inhibits the functionality of Debate as an activity. If the aff argument literally just boils down to "making us Debate makes us exhausted" then perhaps, but it's still not a round winner for me personally. I think that fairness is better to bracket out case entirely, or if you have a solid presumption push.

Tactics framework based on parameters or exportable methods is strategic against for some affs, and is increasingly gaining in popularity. I am alright with that. However, don't run tactics framework and plan-focus framework both in the same 1NC, that doesn't make sense to me and I will be liberal with aff responses. I would prefer not to judge a debate where the aff team stakes a perf con violation based on tactics framework double turning another critical position in the 1NC unless it is another framework argument. If they win tactics framework, that would seemingly bracket out many concerns about the negative's form of engagement. If you already beat back tactics framework, then I fail to see why you need perf con.

Disadvantages

I have judged many disadvantages. Most recently, I have voted for a politics disadvantage around the debt ceiling. I am familiar with many different horsetrading, rider, elections & other forms of politics disadvantages in Debate on a multitude of various topics. I also am familiar with economy disadvantages, and I would say that I enjoy evaluating debates around either of those types of disadvantages. I could vote either way on the question of intrinsic-ness and fiat obviating the link.

I think case-specific DA's are great, i.e. a pharmaceutical disadvantage to an affirmative that overrules the previous Myriad ruling (it seems that it probably links, not to say that I would be biased either way in that round if I was judging; I would love to see that Debate play out). I think that if you have a case-specific DA and you have me in the back, I would certainly prioritize that unless time coverage on the flow makes it preferable to go for a specific argument. But in your pre-round prep, you should definitely make that one of your top options.

I am familiar with agricultural impacts, grid impacts, democracy impacts, resource war impacts,proliferation impacts (Japan Korea Turkey Vietnam & Philippines particularly, I'm not hip to information about Australia prolif to be honest), US-China War, impacts US-Russia War impacts, EU & NATO impacts, disease impacts especially about ABR, and anything and everything relate to climate change. Those ten impact categories constitute

I should be able to explain back to both teams the turns case arguments as well as the responses against turns case after the 1AR, respectively. Ideally, I would like to know what both sides have said on that question before the final two rebuttals. These will often determine the debate if I resolve them in one's side favor strongly. Do not blow them off, and clearly flag them in the block.

I would prefer you to distinguish links that are based on the mandates of the plan versus the effects of the plan, although for many DA's, it should be quite obvious based on the content of the 1NC Shell. I tend to default to the idea that uniqueness frames the links, although I think I could be convinced otherwise and that one is not a strong position.

Counterplans

Textual competition alone is difficult, but you can go for any argument if you believe you can win it. Counterplans that compete from the words "should" or the immediacy of the plan can be called into question. Again, as aforementioned, I'm unbiased on theory debates and will technically evaluate it. If you would rather have a debate concerning the theoretical legitimacy of your process counterplan in order to bypass engaging with the case extensively, then I understand. I will do my due diligence and ensure I evaluate the debate accordingly. All I will say is that either side can win in this scenario, and neither side should blow off any argument here.

The more that competition is derived solely from immediacy, the word "should", or articles like "the", then the likelihood that the aff should stake the round on theory also goes up. However, I am just the judge here to technically evaluate the round, and you can certainly go for solvency deficit arguments or the perm if you would rather do that. I think perm do the counterplan as a permissible reading of the aff makes sense if you can beat back their particular answers to that perm as opposed to the perm do both.

Advantage counterplans combined with net benefits based on the affirmative solvency mechanisms seem pretty theoretically legitimate to me, unless you are planning on raising an issue with the entirety of negative fiat. Kicking planks is something that increases the viability of conditionality for the aff, but is not something that warrants an automatic loss. I would personally prefer it if you did not kick planks though for my own clarity. Consult & Condition Counterplans = Contextual. The quality of solvency evidence could persuade me they are viable based on the aff.

I personally am unbiased about judge kick, I think that everyone on both sides makes a huge deal about it. If the 2NR is going for a counterplan and they do not win the counterplan is better than the status quo or the affirmative, I am unlikely to vote negative regardless of what else happens. However, if the aff is losing on offense specific to the aff independent from the counterplan, then I don't think they're in a great spot either and it should not be a surprise if the neg manages to squeak out a win from the 2AR failing to respond. My caveat is that you have to clearly flag your position earlier in the Debate.

I will default to evaluating counterplans through sufficiency framing, defense-offense framing, and through traditional cost-benefit analysis. I also will give weight to quality evidence, but I will not use that to intervene at the end of the Debate. This means that if one team wins the Debate, great evidence will not change the outcome of the decision. However, using and applying that evidence, especially if it is comparative and qualified, will certainly increase the chance of you winning the Debate.

Performances, Critiques and Case Turns

All of these are very easy for me to evaluate, and I have very little generic advice here. You do not need an alternative, but you must clearly flag what you want me to vote on in the 2NR if you are going for this. I am just as willing to depart from traditional norms as I am to uphold them. I would say these clash debates or case-specific debates are what I am most comfortable with.Links can come in lots of different forms. You should centralize whichever link the 1AR has done the least amount of work on, unless your strongest link has lots of engagement and you still want to go for it because you personally think their answer is bad. In short, ink time is helpful to think about as a deciding factor for what to prioritize, but isn't the end-all-be-all.

I am familiar with lots of impact turns, from dedev to spark to heg, and I have done lots of work over my own career to go for these arguments. I am also familiar with the answers to them, which is why I would say I am unbiased in these debates. Any creative, unusual impact turn you have put lots of research into is something I would love to see play out. However, if you are aff, I wouldn't worry if you have me in the back. Just spend appropriate time here and if you don't have evidence for an odd scenario, then you can always save yourself by asking about it in cross-ex or using smart analytics here.

On the question of framework, I will only choose the path of a middle ground if it is explicitly advocated by one of the two teams in the final rebuttals, and they win that it is far preferable to an exclusive interpretation. If I determine that I will weigh the aff, the neg will likely be behind. It is not impossible to win in this scenario, but many critiques that aren't premised on revolutionary material action will either have structural problems related to uniqueness or the perm double bind.

Nicholas Rosenbaum Walter Payton College Prep 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2024 at 9:40 AM CDT

Nicholas Rosenbaum (nrose1@stanford.edu)

me: I debated flex on the national circuit while attending Lane Tech in Chicago, graduating in 2020. I then matriculated at Stanford University, where I studied humanities, wrote a heretical honors thesis on Nietzsche, taught philosophy to thoughtful Silicon Valley people, and now am to work in that same valley.

tldr: be smart, debate-strategic, and clear-speaking (for I will never flow off the speech doc). I don't have any biases (argument or otherwise) that should be of concern to you, and will vote for literally anything. Lastly, I assure you, both sides of clash debates should want me in the back.

---

-- The platonic ideal of a judge is a valueless, disinterested critic of argument of maximal intellectual ability and openness. Teams who agree that all debaters ought to be entitled to this type of judge and judging (or as close as is humanly possible) should pref me. Good and smart/intellectual debaters of all stripes of style and substance should pref me. I have no reason to believe my personal convictions about debate, the world, etc. should hold any significance to the round I am judging. I will vote for literally anything.

--I want to be judging you. I really enjoy judging debates and do so diligently and with critical attention. With that said, bad debates are just not where I want to be— pref accordingly.

-- I believe I am very good at rendering fair, correct decisions and often get annoyed listening to seemingly idiosyncratic RFDs, products of laziness and/or subjectivity. Hard working debaters have their toil, deserving of reward, negated by whims they could not have possibly expected or tailored to. I know debaters deserve so much better, and I do everything in my power to provide that. The predictable paths I take to my decisions are visually discernible from my flow.

Clash debates:

My voting record proves that I am 100% agnostic in these debates. I am as apathetic voting on 'extinction outweighs' as I am 'extinction doesn't matter in the face of the revolution'.

Just as I can't unduly hack for classical liberalism, I also won't do for you the work against it that many these days are taking for granted. Instead, everything from first principles, acknowledging certain args are easier (requiring less work) to win, like maybe human liberty good?

I am well-versed in the k as a practice in debate, and I know quite a lot of lit quite well. I most frequently went for settler colonialism and, among debate applications, probably know the most about afropessimism, but I always enjoyed a high theory injection for what it let me do. I now study a lot of German thinkers & political philosphy at university, do scholarly work spec. on Nietzsche, etc.

Insert typical ‘my background does not mean I will hack for the k; on the contrary, I know when..’. Once again, this is good for those who want to go HAM on smart stuff (for you needn’t worry about leaving me behind) but bad for ill-concieved strategies, those hoping to gaslight judges into equating multisyllabic tropes with profundity, etc. I do actually appreciate informedly-used jargon (using one word to express an assemblage of ideas) and abstraction generally. The throughline, again: good debate is good before me, and vice versa.

My senior year at a very small program, I (2N) primarily went for kritikal arguments & t/fw on the negative and wrote kooky fringe policy affs.

---

-- how to win: win an argument (or set of arguments) and win why you winning said argument(s) means that you have won the round!

-- I conceptualize debate as a deliberation-based intellectual competition where my ballot signifies an endorsement of one team's argument as true in the sense that it is proven preeminent over the opposing team's primary argument in the larger context of said round.

-- critical intellectualism and smart decision-making above all else! A 2ar that makes risky, bold decisions to hedge their bets versus an obviously lethal, winning 2nr is my favorite thing to watch. Even if it's not enough to win, ruthless strategy is the best internal link to higher speaker points.

-- flow and base your speeches around it.

-- I'm a good flow and am very comfortable with fast debate, but remember, fast =/= clear; I will only say clear twice per speech. I do not follow along in the speech doc.

-- even-if statements>>>

Policy

K vs Policy Affs:

Yes! Probably my favorite type of debate. The neg shouldn't be lazy with their links, and the aff should be smarter debating fiat arguments. I prioritize explanation and specificity above all else.

Please clash on the level of framework. This hugely important section often becomes ships passing in the night with the neg reading some epistemology DA and the aff talking about procedural things, neither side making inroads to other team's arguments. In many of these debates, whoever wins this section of the flow wins the debate, so invest!

I have read in debate (and actively research and read for pleasure) various flavors of settler colonialism and anti-Blackness, imperialism, capitalism, semiocapitalism, IR theories, Asian and Jewish identity, militarism, queerness, Berlant/affect theory, Baudrillard, Virilio, Kroker, Nietzsche, flavors of debate pomo, and many others. I read and think about critical theory a lot, so I likely have a working literacy in whatever body of literature you want to read.

You do not need an alternative if you are winning framework OR if your links are material DA's to the aff's implementation where the squo would be preferable OR if your theory of power overdetermines the aff's potential to be desirable OR if you can think of another reason you don't need an alt. With that said, I do like when alts are coherent to the strategy of the k or heavily influence framework.

"Critiques are not counterplans, nor are they plan focused. "Links must be to the plan" "Perm double bind" and "private actor fiat is a voting issue" are not persuasive unless dropped OR if the negative reads a K that ends up being explained as the world peace CP or movements CP." - shree

"Judges who say they won’t vote on death good are anti-K liberals who don’t know what the argument says." - eugene toth

Framework vs K Affs:

TLDR: I am agnostic in evaluating these debates, and I vote SOLELY off the flow. I am great for either side in these debates, see TLDR.

I have been on both sides of this debate. Purely theoretically— that is, in an equally matched round, not any real round— I lean negative, as I probably find the perfect framework + case/presumption strategy more convincing than general answers. Nonetheless, absolutely here for aff teams that disrupt the assumed terms of the debate to such an extent that probably true negative arguments lose their compelling power. Doing less than that can still result in an aff ballot, considering many neg teams will not be close to my above-described ideal. So the aff can and will win many of these debates, but disproving the neg's claims beyond asserting that the case is good is absolutely essential.

Assuming a smart negative, affs probably will need to prove why the process of resolutional debate the negative is demanding them to adhere to is bad or why the aff's model solves the neg's offense.

I think a we-meet stemming from the debaters 'doing'/discussing something related to [resolution topic] rarely passes the smell test. The words resolved, USFG, and [topic word] deserve attention, so (in order of preference) impact turn or we meet/counter-interp, but a strategy based just on being thematically germane to the resolution is probably quite vulnerable.

I can find TVAs that capture aff literature and read it on the neg arguments very convincing.

I am very open to 'debate bad' claims. I don't agree, but who cares? Even better for the aff are 'policy-centered discussions of this resolution are bad' claims.

Related to the above point, I am most persuaded by k aff answers to framework that take an extreme and unapologetic stance. Playing the middle ground is risky, because let's be honest, you almost definitely underlimit the topic etc., so just tell me why that doesn't matter.

Fairness can be an impact if articulated as one. Yes, it is an internal link to the positive benefits of debate, but I buy it if framed as as a prerequisite to anything good coming out of the activity.

I think it's fundamental for the negative to have a role in the debate. I think this need becomes especially magnified in debates where the aff proposes a method of self-care. I believe that the aff's strategy is probably good, but if it would be inappropriate for the negative to negate the value of the method and similarly violent for them to exclude the aff from debate, I don't see how a debate can occur, and I'll be very sympathetic to negative arguments about the inhibition of clash/fairness/any good byproduct of a debate happening.

Tell me whether I should be voting for a model of debate or just acting as a referee on this round. This frame of reference is something I utilized in every fw, t, and theory debate, and I think it is super valuable for judge instruction and helps clean up messy debates.

K vs K Affs:

Can be very interesting, and I'd love to hear it if you understand and can execute your argument. I am not interested in poorly executed k strats chosen because you think I'd prefer it or because they will confuse your opponents. This applies everywhere, but strategies premised upon confusing/annoying opponents are bad for debate, and I would rather not hear them; obviously, there are a few exceptions in the lit (we’ll always have the dada aff, keryk <3).

If either team wants this to be a "method debate," clearly delineate what that means, how I decide, etc. I view debates comparing method solvency alone as often missing the central component of winning links and other forms of offense, so tell me how to navigate the decision.

Word PIKs and other shenanigans - totally justified and a smart strategy. Truly no rules in these debates; the affirmative set the anarchic precedent, so I'll buy anything from anyone (again, just means no prejudices on my end; it's all always about what y'all debate out).

DA:

I think most politics DAs are garbage from the lens of political science, but debate =/= reality, and I really enjoy listening to an expertly debated politics DA. Read lots of cards and incorporate smart analytics/logic.

Receptive to aff ptx theory

Links exist on a spectrum; the "chance of a link" has to be qualified and then incorporated into the risk assessment component of impact calculus.

Expert turns case analysis is invaluable.

CP:

So as to incentivize contextual judge instruction, I’m not going to put fourth a rule on whether or not I’ll default to judge kick. Tell me what to do or face my discretionary decision.

I think lots of counterplans that steal much of the aff (interpret that as you wish) are bad for debate and unfair and the aff should hammer them. However, my personal opinion doesn't inform my voting; the aff still needs has to win theory or, even better, competion. As a judge, I kinda enjoy these debates cuz techy and words, but at the level of the activity, I beg for the aff to level the playing field with sense.

CPs should ideally have solvency advocates in the 1nc, but whatever. I do think CPs lacking solvency advocates magnifies the strategy skew of conditionality.

Sufficiency framing is ridiculous. Not that it's wrong, but it's just like eh, why even say this? Solvency deficits will always need to be weighed vs a risk of the net-benefit. I'll end up having to do this, so you're better off telling me how I ought to do it and net-out.

Topicality:

Yes please IF the debates will be techy, organized, and clash-filled; both or either team reading blocks through the rebuttals without refuting the other teams arguments in depth is very boring and not something I want to watch.

*I don't know community norms on the topic, so argue from first principles. Also slow/break down acronyms and other esoteric vernacular if you want me to render the most accurate possible decision.

Theory:

As a 2n, I resent 2A's that explode theory arguments shadow-extended in the 1ar because they've lost everything else. Theory blips are probably bad for the community. With that said, I understand doing what you have to do to win, so I will vote for whatever, but I'd ideally prefer coherent strategies.

I have literally no predispositions on whether condo is good or bad. I tend to think the problem is the abusiveness of counterplans, not the number thereof (cuz let's be real, that's what aff teams are actually objecting to, albeit under a different name), but I enjoy a good condo debate from both sides.

I will vote on any theory argument if executed properly. I don't like how many judges will in practice only vote on condo, even if the usually throw-away arg was dropped or seriously won; this practice is sneaky and bad, and I promise not to replicate it. I literally will vote for anything. If you’re actually up for the task (ask yourself), please do convince me why 50 state fiat in a CP kicked in the 2nc is a reason to vote aff. Doing so requires great skill and risk (making it much of the final rebuttal), but if done well, speaker points will rain because I think good theory debate is cool. You have to be so thoughtful and clashing to do it, though.

In-Round Conduct:

I will not adjudicate on things that happened outside of the round. There is no way for me to make an accurate determination in these cases. My ballot does not endorse any debater's character.

Do not steal prep, even a little! It is so prolific. It is rude to me, your opponents, and will result in tanked speaks.

Do not clip cards.

Clarity

My experience is in policy debate, so I am not familiar with trad or local LD, but I've judged a handful of nat circ LD rounds, including outrounds. My senior year, my partner and I were flex (mostly policy affs and k's on the neg). The policy community considers/prefs me as a flex individual. I am well-versed in all argument types, but I most enjoy clash (policy aff v k or k aff v t/fw) debates. I also enjoy and am very comfortable judging straight policy/LARP debates.

preferences:

larp

theory

[big jump]

phil

tricks

trad

any other (lay) stuff i wouldn't know about

I am very competent at judging fast, techy debates; debaters that embody this or otherwise want to be judged by someone with extensive experience in policy debate across the ideological spectrum should pref me. I am most qualified to judge TOC style and tier LD debates (ie those closest to circuit policy). These are also the LD debates I most enjoy being in.

Tricks: I will vote on them, and I have no preconceived ‘this is too stupid to vote on’ threshold, but I still would prefer not to be in these debates. Impacting beyond “they dropped this” is absolutely essential, and I won’t vote on any trick I don’t have flowed. As I said above, I was/am a very fast debater and want to judge fast debates, but if I miss #7 of 30 one-line analytic voting issues, sorry.

Phil: I study quite a bit of continental philosophy at uni lol

See the rest of my paradigm for my more developed thoughts. Both the TLDR and argument-specific policy sections apply to LD.

Veronica Rubin Interlake HS 4 rounds

Serena Rupp Pace Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 12:51 AM CDT

Emory 26, Lawrence Free State 22

serenajosephinerupp@gmail.com

I am extremely tech > truth, which frames the rest of my thoughts about debate. Every time I judge this paradigm gets shorter because my predispositions are weak and irrelevant to the vast majority of debates.

Only non-negotiables:

1. No death good.

2. I won't vote on things that happen outside of the round. I'm 20 years old and so unqualified to mediate high schoolers' interpersonal conflicts.

Absolutely love T debates when debaters do impact comparison. Competing interpretations > reasonability.

Truthfully, I think that predictable limits are the gold standard. Limits for the sake of limits are bad. The most legally precise definition isn't necessarily the best one for debate. That being said, just debate.

Ks:

I am comfortable judging Ks like cap, set col, antiblackness, security, etc. I know basically nothing about postmodernism/poststructuralism/high theory.

My predisposition is that teams should get to weigh their aff and that framework interps that entirely exclude Ks are unpersuasive.

K affs:

In a close T debate, I’m a bit better for the neg. This is an issue with experience more so than bias. I’ve basically always been on that side of the debate, so I can subconsciously fill in more gaps when both teams lack judge instruction. With that said, I am so flow-oriented that this rarely matters. I’m just going to vote for the team that wins more of their impact and explains why it outweighs. Fairness is an impact so long as you can explain it as one. I don’t have a strong preference between clash and fairness. If you’re neg, I’m on par better for T than the K because that’s where my experience lies.

DAs:

Obviously great. Smart turns case explanation = good speaks.

CPs:

Functional and textual competition is the gold standard. Default to judge kick.

Theory:

Conditionality is the only reason to reject the team. I'm a 2N and personally believe that condo is good, but quality of debating matters most. The aff needs to clearly explain an impact prior to the 2AR, or else I’m very sympathetic to the neg. Please do line by line.

Ben Schultz Johns Creek High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 11:16 AM EDT

Debated 4 years Marquette University HS (2001-2004)

Assistant Coach – Marquette University HS (2005-2010)

Head Coach – Marquette University HS (2011-2012)

Assistant Coach – Johns Creek HS (2012-2014)

Head Coach – Johns Creek HS (2014-Current)

Yes, put me on the chain: bencharlesschultz@gmail.com

No, I don’t want a card doc.

Top Top Shelf:

I cannot foresee any situation arising ever in life where I vote affirmative on "Perm: They do them, we do us"

Top Shelf:

Its been a long time since I updated this – this weekend I was talking to a friend of mine and he mentioned that I have "made it clear I wasn’t interested in voting for the K”. Since I actually love voting for the K, I figured that I had been doing a pretty bad job of getting my truth out there. I’m not sure anyone reads these religiously, or that any paradigm could ever combat word of mouth (good or bad), but when I read through what I had it was clear I needed an update (more so than for the criticism misconception than for the fact that my old paradigm said I thought conditionality was bad – yeesh, not sure what I was thinking when I wrote THAT….)

Four top top shelf things that can effect the entire debate for you, with the most important at the top:

11) Before I’m a debate judge, I’m a teacher and a mandatory reporter. I say this because for years I’ve been more preferred as a critical judge, and I’ve gotten a lot of clash rounds, many of which include personal narratives, some of which contain personal narratives of abuse. If such a narrative is read, I’ll stop the round and bring in the tournament director and they will figure out the way forward.

22) I won’t decide the debate on anything that has happened outside of the round, no matter the quality of evidence entered into the debate space about those events. The round starts when the 1AC begins.

33) If you are going to the bathroom before your speech in the earlier speeches (constructives through 1nr, generally) just make sure the doc is sent before you go. Later speeches where there's no doc if you have prep time I can run that, or I'll take off .4 speaks and allow you to go (probably a weird thing, I know, but I just think its stealing prep even though you don't get to take flows or anything, just that ability to settle yourself and think on the positions is huge)

44) No you definitely cannot use extra cross-ex time as prep, that’s not a thing.

55) Finally, some fun. I’m a firm believer in flowing and I don’t see enough people doing it. Since I do think it makes you a better debater, I want to incentivize it. So if you do flow the round, feel free to show me your flows at the end of the debate, and I’ll award up to an extra .3 points for good flows. I reserve the right not to give any points (and if I get shown too many garbage flows maybe I’ll start taking away points for bad ones just so people don’t show me horrible flows, though I’m assuming that won’t happen much), but if you’ve got the round flowed and want to earn extra points, please do! By the way you can’t just show one good flow on, lets say, the argument you were going to take in the 2nc/2nr – I need to see the round mostly taken down to give extra points

Top Shelf:

This is stuff that I think you probably want to know if you’re seeing me in the back

· I am liable probably more than most judges to yell “clear” during speeches – I won’t do it SUPER early in speeches because I think it takes a little while for debaters to settle into their natural speed, and a lot of times I think adrenaline makes people try and go faster and be a little less clear at the start of their speeches than they are later. So I wait a bit, but I will yell it. If it doesn’t get better I’ll yell one more time, then whatever happens is on you in terms of arguments I don’t get and speaker points you don’t get. I’m not going to stop flowing (or at least, I never have before), but I also am not yelling clear frivolously – if I can’t understand you I can’t flow you.

· I don’t flow with the doc open. Generally, I don’t open the doc until later in the round – 2nc prep is pretty generally when I start reading, and I try to only read cards that either are already at the center of the debate, or cards that I can tell based on what happens through the 2ac and the block will become the choke points of the round. The truth of the debate for me is on the flow, and what is said by the debaters, not what is said in their evidence and then not emphasized in the speeches, and I don’t want to let one team reading significantly better evidence than the other on questions that don’t arise in the debate influence the way I see the round in any way, and opening the doc open is more likely than not to predispose me towards one team than another, in addition to, if I’m reading as you go, I’m less likely to dock you points for being comically unclear than if the only way I can get down what I get down is to hear you say it.

Argumentative Stuff

Listen at the end of the day, I will vote for anything. But these are arguments that I have a built in preference against. Please do not change up your entire strategy for me. But if the crux of your strategy is either of these things know that 1 – I probably shouldn’t be at the top of your pref card, and 2 – you can absolutely win, but a tie is more likely to go to the other side. I try and keep an open mind as much as possible (heck I’ve voted for death good multiple times! Though that is an arg that may have more relevance as you approach 15 full years as a public school DoD….) but these args don’t do it for me. I’ll try and give a short explanation of why.

1. I’m not a good judge for theory, most specifically cheap shots, but also stuff seen as more “serious” like conditionality. Its been a long long time since anyone has gone for theory in front of me – the nature of the rounds that I get means there’s not usually a ton of negative positions – which is good because I’m not very sympathetic to it. I generally think that the negative offense, both from the standpoint of fairness and education, is pretty weak in all but the most egregious rounds when it comes to basic stuff like conditionality. Other counterplan theory like no solvency advocate, no international fiat, etc I’m pretty sympathetic to reject the argument not the team. In general, if you’re looking at something like conditionality where the link is linear and each instance increases the possibility of fairness/education impacts, for me you’ve got to be probably very near to, or even within, double digits for me to think the possible harm is insurmountable in round. This has come up before so I want to be really clear here – if its dropped, GO FOR IT, whether alone or (preferably) as an extension in a final rebuttal followed by substance. I for sure will vote for it in a varsity round (in novice rounds, depending on the rest of the round, I may or may not vote on it). Again – this is a bias against an argument that will probably effect the decision in very close rounds.

2. Psychoanalysis based critical literature – I like the criticism, as I mentioned above, just because I think the cards are more fun to read and more likely to make me think about things in a new way than a piece of counterplan solvency or a politics internal link card or whatever. But I have an aversion to psychoanalysis based stuff. The tech vs truth paragraph sums up my feelings on arguments that seem really stupid. Generally when I see critical literature I think there’s at least some truth to it, especially link evidence. But

3. Cheap Shots – same as above – just in general not true, and at variance with what its fun to see in a debate round. There’s nothing better than good smart back and forth with good evidence on both sides. Cheap shots (I’m thinking of truly random stuff like Ontology Spec, Timecube – stuff like that) obviously are none of those things.

4. Finally this one isn’t a hard and fast thing I’m necessarily bad for, but something I’ve noticed over the years that I think teams should know that will effect their argumentative choices in round – I tend to find I’m less good than a lot of judges for fairness as a standalone impact to T-USFG. I feel like even though its never changed that critical teams will contend that they impact turn fairness, or will at least discuss why the specific type of education they provide (or their critique of the type of education debate in the past has provided), it has become more in vogue for judges to kind of set aside that and put sort of a silo around the fairness impact of the topicality debate and look at that in a vacuum. I’ve just never been good at doing that, or understanding why that happens – I’m a pretty good judge still for framework, I think, but youre less likely to win if you go for a fairness impact only on topicality and expect that to carry the day

Specific Round Types:

K Affs vs Framework

Clash rounds are the rounds I’ve gotten by far the most in the last 5-8 years or so, and generally I like them a lot and they consistently keep me interested. For a long time during the first generation of critical affirmatives that critique debate/the resolution I was a pretty reliable vote for the affirmative. Since the negative side of the no plan debate has caught up, I’ve been much more evenly split, and in general I like hearing a good framework press on a critical aff and adjudicating those rounds. I think I like clash rounds because they have what I would consider the perfect balance between amount of evidence (and specificity of evidence) and amount of analysis of said evidence. I think a good clash round is preferable than almost any round because there’s usually good clash on the evidentiary issues and there’s still a decent amount of ev read, but from the block on its usually pure debate with minimal card dumpage. Aside from the preference discussed above for topicality based framework presses to engage the fairness claims of the affirmative more, I do think that I’m more apt than others to vote negative on presumption, or barring that, to conclude that the affirmative just gets no risk of its advantages (shoutout Juliette Salah!). One other warning for affirmatives – one of the advantages that the K affords is that the evidence is usually sufficiently general that cards which are explained one way (or meant to be used one way) earlier in the round can become exactly what the negative doesn’t need/cant have them be in the 2ar. I think in general judges, especially younger judges, are a little biased against holding the line against arguments that are clearly new or cards that are explained in a clearly different way than they were originally explained. Now that I’m old, I have no such hang ups, and so more than a lot of other judges I’ve seen I’m willing to say “this argument that is in the 2ar attached to (X) evidence is not what was in the 1ar, and so it is disallowed”. (As an aside, I think the WORST thing that has happened to, and can happen to, no plan teams is an overreliance on 1ar blocks. I would encourage any teams that have long 1ar blocks to toss them in the trash – if you need to keep some explanations of card warrants close, please do, but ditch the prewritten blocks, commit yourself to the flow, and listen to the flow of the round, and the actual words of the block. The teams that have the most issue with shifting argumentation between the 1ar and the 2ar are the teams that are so obsessed with winning the prep time battle in the final 2 rebuttals that they become over dependent on blocks and aren’t remotely responsive to the nuance of a 13 minute block that is these days more and more frequently 13 minutes of framework in some way shape or form)

K vs K

Seems like its more likely these days to see clash rounds for me, and next up would be policy rounds. I’d actually like to see more K v K rounds (though considering that every K team needs to face framework enough that they know exactly how to debate it, and its probably more likely/easier to win a clash round than a K v K round on the negative, it may be more strategic to just go for framework on the neg if you don’t defend the USFG on the aff), and I’d especially love to see more well-argued race v high theory rounds. Obviously contextualization of very general evidence that likely isn’t going to be totally on point is the name of the game in these rounds, as well as starting storytelling early for both sides – I’d venture to say the team that can start telling the simple, coherent story (using evidence that can generally be a tad prolix so the degree of difficulty for this is high) early will be the team that generally will get the ballot. The same advice about heavy block use, especially being blocked out into the 1ar, given above counts here as well.

Policy v policy Rounds

I love them. A good specific policy round is a thing of beauty. Even a non-specific counterplan/DA round with a good strong block is always great. As the season goes on its comparatively less likely, just based on the rounds I usually get, that I’ll know about specific terminology, especially deeply nuanced counterplan terminology. I honestly believe good debaters, no matter their argumentative preference or what side of the (mostly spurious) right/left divide in debate you’re on, are good CASE debaters. If you are negative and you really want to back up the speaker point Brinks truck, a 5+ minute case press is probably the easiest way to make that happen.

Individual argument preferences

I’ll give two numbers here – THE LEFT ONE about how good I think I am for an argument based on how often I actually have to adjudicate it, and THE RIGHT ONE will be how much I personally enjoy an argument. Again – I’ll vote for anything you say. But more information about a judge is good, and you may as well know exactly what I enjoy hearing before you decide where to rank me. 1 being the highest, 10 being the lowest.

T (classic) --------------------------------------- 5/4

T (USFG/Framework) ------------------------ 1/1

DA ------------------------------------------------ 3/2

CP ------------------------------------------------- 4/2

Criticism ----------------------------------------- 1/2

Policy Aff --------------------------------------- 2/2

K Aff ---------------------------------------------- 1/3

Theory ------------------------------------------- 8/9

Cheap Shots ------------------------------------ 10/10

Post Round:

I feel like I’ve gotten more requests lately to listen to redos people send me. I’m happy to do that and give commentary if folks want – considering I saw the original speech and know the context behind it, it only makes sense that I would know best whether the redo fixes the deficiencies of the original. Shoot me an email and I’m happy to help out!

Any other questions – just ask!

Jet Semrick Taipei American School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 18, 2024 at 9:57 AM CDT

Email: jet.semrick@gmail.com , taipeiamericanpolicy@gmail.com

Coach @ Taipei American School | Debated @ University of Kansas 2019-2023 and Shawnee Mission East 2015-2019

______________________________________________

Summary:

--AFFs should be topical and solve a unique problem.

--I am good for any negative position that argues the plan is undesirable. Bad for arguments that intentionally avoid the case.

--Argument quality matters. I am more likely to be persuaded by complete, sound, and logical arguments. However, technical debating can change this predisposition.

--Preference for fewer, but more developed positions over many underdeveloped ones.

--Be reasonable with down time, sending out emails, and please don't send out or ask for a marked doc if it's not needed.

--Ethos, clarity, and strategic decisions will be rewarded with speaker points.

--I try to transcribe the debate and cross-ex on my computer. I generally don't follow along with speech docs. At the end of the debate, I read cards if needed to resolve important disputes in the debate.

--I do high school topic research. Outside of debate I am a graduate student studying machine learning at Cornell. My undergraduate was in computer science and economics at the University of Kansas.

______________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Plans

Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive defense of a non topical AFF.

Ground is the most compelling standard because a 'limits explosion' can be mitigated by existence of predictable and high quality negative ground.

Counterplans

Evidence that compares the CP to the plan is the gold standard.

Process CPs are awful for debate. If evidence quality is good and comparative to the plan, I am game, otherwise my biases heavily favor the affirmative on theory and competition questions.

I will judge kick counterplans unless instructed otherwise.

I think conditionality is bad, but my voting record favors the negative. One or two conditional advocacies seems reasonable, anything more quickly reduces the quality of the debate.

Ideally, the negative specifies net benefits and establishes competition in the 1NC.

Disadvantages

Link debating and evidence is often the important part of a DA.

Case

Solvency deficits and alt causes are more compelling than impact defense.

Case debating is better than counterplan debating.

If you decide to read a framing page, make it meaningful. Generic framing arguments are boring and generally still devolve to magnitude x probability. I don't need a framing page to vote affirmative for a low magnitude high probability impact vs. low probability DA.

______________________________________________

Critique:

Topicality vs. K AFFs

You should strike me if you don't read a plan. I will vote negative if minimum expectations are met when going for framework.

I think fairness is the best impact, but am also persuaded by arguments about iteration, research, and clash. Without a predictable affirmative constraint, I don't think debate could exist.

Critiques vs. Policy AFFs

I enjoy well researched and specific critical arguments. The negative should win link turns case arguments, solvency deficits, or impact turns.

Framework arguments should have implications. The 2NR and 2AR should give instruction for what to do if you win or lose your interpretation. I default to weighing the impacts the plan can solve against the impacts of links the alternative can solve.

I will vote negative for a linear DA.

The alternative should solve a material problem and am not persuaded by alternatives that 'reject' the plan.

Performative contradictions matter. I am persuaded that the negative does not get to sever reps if other arguments are explicit contradictions. Examples of this are reading the cap K and economy DA.

______________________________________________

Ethics Violations:

I would prefer for debates to be completed and am not interested in judging the moral character of debaters or events that took place outside of the round. I value my role as an educator and will intervene or answer questions mid debate if that leads to an agreeable resolution that allows the debate to continue.

I would prefer to strike evidence rather than end the debate. Questions about qualifications, context, and argument representation should be argued in speeches to undermine the credibility of a position.

If there is a formal ethics challenge by a team, the debate ends. If the challenge is successful, the team who made the challenge wins and receives average speaks. If not, they lose and receive low speaks. I will defer to tab, my experience, and advice of others.

If the issue could have been resolved before the debate and is unintentional, I will likely reject the challenge. If I catch clipping, I will give a warning during the speech under the assumption that debaters are competing in good faith. If there is an egregious pattern or the warning is ignored, I will vote for the other team at the end of the debate.

Ezra Serrins Liberal Arts and Science Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun August 11, 2024 at 6:27 AM CDT

LASA 2017 / MSU 2021

ezraserrins @ gmail.com for email chain.

Notes on getting old---

Please for the love of all that is good in this world: flow.

If you're not attempting to flow in a line-by-line format where you put the answers to an argument next to where the argument was made and then maintaining that structure throughout the entire debate, then we're doing a speech activity in the same room as each other and I'm effectively judging a completely different debate than the one you're having.

I recognize I've become one of those people who is grumpy and old and complains. But I also see few scenarios where anyone is happy with the outcome of a debate where I'm consistently peeved at you for making my flow a mess and then you're peeved at me for not catching your sekrit JSPEC argument because I was trying to find the right paper when you answered condo on the wrong CP and then the 1NR talked about uniqueness on the DA first even though it was 2AC #4.

More general debate thoughts:

I will do my very best to judge your debate. I will flow. I will read cards during and after the debate. I will make up for lack of knowledge by being excessively thorough.

The team that has thought through more rounds of argument-and-response on the central issue of the debate and executes on it correctly is usually the team that wins my ballot. Teams should try to shift the central question of the debate to terms that favor them. Advanced thinking about strategy - e.g. how to shift the question of the debate - and arguments - e.g. how and why you win that question - is what I reward with speaker points.

The aff gets to fiat the plan. CPs compete on the plan, not the resolution, or "position" of the 1AC. Vagueness in the plan carries strategic costs for the aff in terms of DA links and circumvention arguments. Specification avoids those DA links/circumvention args, but means CPs compete.

How the debate progresses from start to finish matters more to me than other people. My impression of the credibility of an argument forms in early speeches and has significant impacts on who I evaluate winning a given argument. Relative to another judge, reallocating prep to give a stronger 1NC to 1NR will likely have a return on investment.

Relatedly, some arguments do not pass a basic test of credibility when they're first uttered. If an argument is complete, then it requires a response, but the expectation I have for the depth, quality, and even timeliness of that response is shaped by its perceived credibility. While you can go for whatever manner of dog water nonsense you desire and I will evaluate it, your better path to the ballot likely uses a higher quality argument.

If the Neg going for T wins the following argument and explains how they apply to the aff, I think it's highly likely I'd vote for them: Neg interp is key to limited and predictable topics, those topics produce greater depth of argument refinement and clash, argument refinement and clash a) produce valuable skills and b) turn the case. Aff probably needs a piece of strong defense to at least 1-2 of those claims in the 2AR in addition to some risk of external offense. "fairness" is often "for whom?" and doesn't have an impact anyways.

Framework on the K is about determining the scope of what offense the Aff can weigh and what things the Neg can get offense against. In general, I err towards the Aff being able to weigh the Aff's impacts and the Neg's scope of links being more limited.

CPs:

I'm good for the Neg on theory questions. Conditionality is good. I will always judge kick including parts of the CP. Specific-type-of-CP theory objections are not persuasive to me and are better applied as standards for your theory of competition.

I'm generally good for the Aff on competition. CPs must be functionally competitive and probably textually competitive. Any other model is a "no".

Well written advantage CPs often solve the Aff. Affs must prove why the CP isn't sufficient. This means I'm better for "X Key" Advantages than "X is sort of key to all our advantages".

The resolution defines affirmative ground. Topicality arguments that speak to a predictable and precise definition of the topic, and teams that win their definition is a more literature and language supported, predictable definition of the topic will have success with me judging. These arguments carry a burden of proof only that one definition is better than the other definition.

Topicality arguments that speak to the debatability of the resolution — the "limits" or "ground" under each interpretation — carry an exceedingly high burden of proof if these topicality arguments are not also the most predictable and precise definition. Abandoning the authentic meaning of the assigned topic in order to create a "better" topic is a very tough sell.

DAs/Case:

I am bad for impact turns. I often have difficulty with a) the totalizing nature of the neg's uniqueness arg; b) the Alt working/solving Neg impacts.

I have a high standard for Neg link and Aff internal link/uniqueness evidence.

I would rather see later speeches strategically consolidate to 1-2 arguments than keep alive many threads.

Final note: there's a distinction between taking the debate and the arguments seriously (a good thing) and taking yourself too seriously (a bad thing).

Ezra

Mike Shackelford Rowland Hall 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:48 AM MDT

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Avi Shah New Trier High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 5:07 PM CDT

Avi Shah — New Trier '24 — Michigan '28 — He/Him — 2A

Chain:

avishahdebate@gmail.com

ipostround@googlegroups.com

ntpolicydebate@gmail.com

Please title the email chain something relevant — "Tournament Name, Round #, Aff Team versus Neg Team"

Evaluating Debates

Please don't say or do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Tech over truth in every instance. I will stop rounds when directed to by debaters.

I will protect the NEG from new 2AR arguments at my own discretion. Otherwise, it's up to you to point out new arguments.

I won't read evidence unless you tell me to.

I will judgekick even if you don't tell me to.

I flow on computer, straight down, with no intention of lining up arguments. I don't usually flow the 1AC. I flow the entire 1NC. I almost always have the doc up during speeches and do my best to follow along in the doc during your speech so if I don't get something on my flow but I know you said it, I have a record that I can put on my flow after the speech is over (to the best of my memory).

I flow one constructive and rebuttal for each debater. Exception for 1ACs and 1NCs that include performance elements. "Prompting" your partner isn't flowed unless your partner repeats your words.

Planless Affirmatives/Framework

I am good for "quick tricks" on either side — microaggressions, fairness paradox, truth testing, ballot proximity, etc. Identify these tricks and extend/answer them when necessary.

Final rebuttals (or ideally, the block) should explain to me whether the debate should be about the ballot creating a model of debate or rather just about fairness/violence in this specific debate.

Prefer fairness over clash since I since that it's a better impact, but also think that K Affs are built to beat fairness so adapting to the AFF rather than me is probably in your best interest.

Topicality

Plan in a vacuum is persuasive to me. Not sure how the NEG beats arbitrariness offense for any other mechanism to determine what the plan does. Unsure if the word has to be in the plan for the AFF to meet plan in a vacuum.

I think about reasonability as additional education offense for the AFF.

In a vacuum, I would err towards predictability over debatability. There are infinitely more debatable topics than the one we have, but it's not the one we have.

Kritiks

I have no ideological dispositions against kritiks. The ones that seem most strategic to me try to moot the plan using an alternative framework to evaluate the 1AC. If you don't try to do that, I will likely be good for aff permutations.

Aff teams would be well served going for theory against alternatives that clearly fiat a lot more than the plan does. "Utopian" fiat seems a little arbitrary to me, but more nuanced and specific interpretations like international actor/private actor fiat will likely be persuasive.

I will not arbitrarily craft a middle-ground interpretation of framework that incorporates both team's offense (i.e. weighing the AFF against the links if AFF says no Ks and NEG says you link you lose). I will almost always start my evaluation of K debates with framework since it determines win conditions for each side. An exception exists where I think one team would win under either framework.

I am familiar with/have gone a lot of kritiks (cap, security, antiblackness, settler colonialism, etc), but anything based on postmodernist literature will likely require more explanation if the nuance of the literature base is relevant to the decision.

Kritiks of consequentialism are very confusing to me. To me, everything both teams say is reliant on determining the consequences of something else, whether that is the consequenes of the plan or the consequences of using certain scholarship to justify your action. Not to say you shouldn't go for them in front of me, but rather that overexplaining instead of assuming I know the nuanced of your specific kritik of consequentialism is probably the right move.

Speaker Points

Speaker points will reflect the division I'm judging in, my perception of how nationally competitive the tournament is, and, above all, the performance of the debaters in the room. Speaker points are growing to be entirely more arbitrary — so I'll try to define some parameters that, at least in front of me, will earn you high speaker points (or at the very least, will prevent you from losing speaker points).

Answer arguments in the order they were presented. This doesn't preclude you from reading long overviews or generalizing the debate in broad, sweeping themes, but rather just means I would prefer to judge debates in which those overviews were contextualized to the other teams arguments (in the order they were presented). For example, kritik overviews should change based on whether the aff is built to go for framework and extinction outweighs versus the permutation and link turn.

Identify win conditions and relevant portions of the debate. Often, final rebuttals completely misdiagnose what the important questions of the debate are. Correctly identifying these portions and explaining their implications to me will substantially increase your chances of winning and your speaker points.

There are certainly other factors that influence how I give speaker points. Clarity, speed, technical execution, effective cross-examinations, persuasive speaking, quality of research, and, unfortunately, the performance of the team before this tournament and whether I know them personally or not, are among the factors that I probably consider in my mind whether I like to or not. I will try to be as objective as possible in assigning speaker points — including minimizing the prior knowledge and bias I have to or against any particular partnership.

Please number your arguments. It makes my flow 10 times less messy and makes it very obvious to me when one conscious thought has concluded and where the next has begun. Strict adherence to line-by-line and numbering will earn you extremely high points.

Based on how I have historically assigned speaker points, it seems as if speaker points > 29 means I think you are going to break, and speaker points > 29.3 means I think you are going to win at least one elimination round.

-0.1 for every 2 minutes late the round starts. There’s a start time for a reason.

Counterplans

Fine for process, agent, advantage, topic counterplans, etc.

DAs

"Try or die" is triggered when extinction is guaranteed if I vote for one side — which will almost certainly guarantee a ballot for the other team. This presumption towards try or die can be flipped by debating as to why timeframe or probability should come before magnitude, but this way of evaluating impacts seems so intuitive to me in debates where both teams agree that extinction is the most important impact to avoid that it'll be hard to do so. If try or die is not a claim made by either team, but the conditions for try or die have been triggered (e.g. 2NR only extends solvency takeouts to warming and 2AR extends warming), I am pretty sure that I would consider it to be try or die to avert warming. This is because, to me, try or die isn't an "impact framing" or "impact calculus" argument but rather just an argument that is logically triggered when a certain set of arguments are present in the debate. I am pretty sure this is not interventionist, but am open to changing this view.

Mahi Shah Liberal Arts and Science Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 22, 2024 at 8:31 PM EDT

Mahi Shah - (she/her) - mahishahdebate@gmail.com

Uclab ES and Uclab '24

UPenn '28

top level:

tech > truth - I will evaluate every argument that is made in the round, regardless of how much I like or dislike it. I loved going for process cps + concon + the cybernetics K, and it bothered me when I couldn't go for them in big rounds because of judges personal biases.TLDR: go for what you're good at (warming good, spark, etc.)

I probably care about card quality less than most judges - it's important, but you have to do the work in pointing out your opponent's cards are bad.

im fine with inserting rehighlightings.

will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

T (policy):

was never my bread and butter, but i like T debates.

internal link work matters a lot---what does your interp include and exclude and why is that good for limits (neg) or predictability/aff ground (aff)

competing interps > reasonability

not the best for PTIV, just because I haven't thought about it enough.

K-affs vs Framework:

i had the most fun in these debates. yes i was always the one going for T, but I've thought a lot about both sides.

for the neg: fairness and clash are both impacts- i went for fairness because i thought it was easier to articulate, but im fine with either.

if going for fairness: contextualize no subject formation args---don't just say "family, friends, school, etc"--- i think doubling down/we all read contradictory arguments are better args to prove no s/f.

SSD > TVA

for the aff: impact turns to fw >>> counterinterps---most of the time you're going to be losing the limits debate.

familiar with the most common K's: cap, set col, afropess, cybernetics, death, security- but obviously didn't go for all of these, so would appreciate more explanation.

not familiar with high theory at all, so if you're going for it, explain your links thoroughly

fine with framework K's or K's that rely on link turns case + the alt.

CPs:

i like them: process cps, advantage cps, agent cps, etc

probably better for process cps than most.

solvency deficits should have an impact

fine for the both the intrinsic perm and PDCP

condo is probably good, but i can be convinced otherwise.

lean neg on all other theory, unless dropped/badly answered.

Disads:

i like them; don't have a ton of thoughts.

make sure your links to the aff are good.

for fun:

+0.1 speaks for open sourcing after the round and telling me

+0.1 speaks for making me laugh

Umar Shaikh Berkeley Prep 3 rounds

Ishan Sharma Archbishop Mitty 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 5, 2024 at 10:02 AM CDT

Westwood ‘24 (Barely)
Michigan ‘28 (Also Barely)
Yes email chain: roy100406@gmail.com AND ipostround@googlegroups.com (Add both).
Coaching Break Debate in LD and PF.

Evaluating Debates
I’m impenitently tech > truth/rep/ethos/etc. That means no holds barred when it comes to what you can say in front of me. If you think you can defend the ad-hom, the fiat K, death good, or FSPEC against your opponent at a technical level, go for it.
There are of course implicit costs with taking extremist positions. You run the risk of someone in the room calling for the round to be ended. In which case, my hand is forced and I must intervene. The only three cases in which I intervene are:
1. I’m informed that someone isn’t comfortable with the round going on. That can occur for multiple reasons and is up to the debater’s discretion. You can end the round if your opponent calls you a slur or you can end the round if your opponent calls one of your arguments ‘stupid.’ One of those will go significantly better than the other when you talk to tabroom.
2. One or more debaters is unable to communicate to me that they would like the round to end. This can be because someone fainted, died, or has a linguistic barrier among other possibilities. In any case, we have significantly larger issues at hand if this option is invoked.
3. I’m forced by tabroom or any law that obligates me as a United States resident and Indian immigrant.

Claims do not need warrants to be complete arguments. Alleging they do is regressive since every warrant is a claim that would need a sub warrant. However if a claim isn’t well supported by a warrant, that lowers the bar for the opponent team to refute the claim.

I can be easily convinced that new arguments are bad, but that would require identifying the specific argument to be new. The exception is the 2AR, where new arguments will be procedurally struck due to a lack of a negative speech to respond.

The rest of this paradigm are just my general persuasions and can be overcome by superior technical debating.

Planless Affs
The best way to beat topicality is to out-tech the negative team. Appealing to ethos or morals after dropping four-fifths of the 2NC isn’t gonna get the job done.
Better for impact turn strategies than counter-interp strategies. The more you try to solve the neg’s offense, the harder you link to your own (in most cases).
Better for fairness than clash or skills.
If both sides agree to the debate being about ‘models,’ then there should be a discussion of what a ‘model’ is. Do I envision a world in where I fiat every team read a topical aff? Do I fiat every judge auto-votes neg on T? Do I assume that this ballot has a ‘spill-out’ effect? I’m not sure.

Kritiks on the Neg
More persuaded by extremist framework interpretations, so plan-focus and no-plan. Middle ground interpretations like ‘philosophical competition’ achieve nothing significant in solving the aff’s offense but access a dramatically smaller and worse set of neg offense.
Affirmative teams should experiment with conceding to the neg’s framework interp, and winning within their paradigm. The feeling is extremely rewarding and you usually have the tools to get it done.
The fiat K is probably the second best argument in debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition alone is the model that I’m most persuaded by. However, I do find merit in textual and functional. Textual alone or ‘textual or functional’ are both very difficult to defend.
Very unpersuaded by random and arbitrary theory arguments that allege the neg’s specific counterplan makes debate impossible for the aff. Most of these concerns are better expressed through competition debating.
Default yes judge kick if the status is conditional or the status is never discussed (since my default is conditional). I am faulty and might forget, so it best serves you to remind me. If the neg clarifies the status as unconditional, the default is no judge kick. If the neg clarifies the status as dispo, it gets murky. My intuition says that the condition for 'kicking' the CP matters; so if the condition is 'perms or theory,' I would judge kick if the aff beats the CP either with a perm or theory but not judge kick if the aff wins any other args like impact turn to the internal net benefit or 'links to the net benefit' etc.
Default for presumption is that it flips neg, no matter if the neg is going for the status quo or an advocacy (even if the 2NR is an unconditional CP). This is because I believe the burden of proof pre-cedes the burden of rejoinder, i.e., the neg cannot lose for attempting to rejoin an unproven statement.
Never got why people say ‘sufficiency framing.’ My understanding is the argument attempts to convey that deficits need impacts…. which is implicit within the offense/defense paradigm.
Infinite condo is more persuasive than # condo or dispo/uncondo. 2NC CPs good is also persuasive.
Non-USFG fiat bad is persuasive if you make the right arguments.
The process CP is probably the best argument in debate.

Disadvantages
Zero risk is possible, but difficult to achieve.
Arguments that you would usually never go for like ‘intrinsicness test’ are better in front of me than most.
I won’t be too in tune with the topic, so my knowledge of the literature base is limited. That hamstrings my ability to deliver the best decision that I can in light of decision time pressure. So it best serves you to take the debate in a theory/topicality/CP competition direction since I feel more confident judging those. I also enjoy a good competition/T debate more than I enjoy a good DA/Case debate.

Topicality
Plan text in a vacuum is the most persuasive competition/topicality model.
Better for predictability outweighs debatability than vice versa, especially earlier in the season.
Reasonability is very persuasive if developed well. It’s still analogous to competing interpretations, where the difference between the interpretations must outweigh the implicit substance crowd out DA in going for T.

Misc
Debate is a game where the two sides are trying their hardest to win. I will award speaks in accordance with how easy you made it for yourself to win and for me to vote for you. That means technical execution and strategic decisions trump all else when I’m deciding your speaker points. This might lead to some unintuitive implications. For example, if you’re clear, then I will dock your speaks for flashing analytics.
However, I am human, and thus naturally persuaded by debaters who sound good and have a good reputation. I will try my hardest to not let my biases consume my decisions in any substantial way.

Post-rounding is totally fine, and encouraged. It helps debaters understand why I voted the way I did and clarify any doubts. If you disagree with my decision, I would prefer you litigate it with me in the post-round instead of keeping quiet.

Ishan Sharma West High School SLC 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 14, 2024 at 2:28 AM MDT

Updated for TOC: I made a grave mistake by signing up for this tournament as I have 2 finals the day the tournament ends, so please, please, please don't pref me so I can study. But if you really must pref me (I promise you I am not that good of a judge), here are my thoughts:

TL;DR Do whatever makes you comfortable (this includes reading any arg allowed by the tournament, tag-team cx, flex prep, and spreading)

Experience: I did 7 years of policy (2 in middle school, 4 in HS @ SLC West, 1 in college hybrid @ UTD)

I'm currently attending the University of Utah.

For those who care, I qualified to the TOC both my junior and senior year.

Add me to the email chain - westslcps[at]gmail[dot]com - also please use this email for doc requests, questions about a round or about debate in general (I really enjoy talking about debate so you will never be bothering me by sending me an email).

The email chain title should include the name of the tournament, round #, Aff Team Code and Neg team code (i.e. TOC R1 SLC West PS v Appleseed YZ) and the file names should be more descriptive than just '2AC'.

General

Warrants > Tech > Truth

If you lack clarity, turn it down slightly otherwise I may miss important arguments. Flowing/info processing time is real, if you are trying to speak at top speed with little vocal inflection, I may miss a whole lot. I don't flow off the doc but I will have it open to check for clipping (reduced speaks unless the other team calls you out in which case I'll do whatever tab says). I will say clear once and then stop flowing and make it obvious.

I genuinely hate bad disclosure practices.

Everything in my paradigm is a 'default'. If a team wins something that I shouldn't default to (debate isn't a game, competing interps < reasonability, etc.), then for that debate, I will accept the claim while coming up with my rfd.

I don’t care what style of debate you prefer. Instead, I’m interested in your ability to defend and advance the advocacies and arguments you find important and/or strategic. That being said I do find myself most comfortable in Policy V K and K v T rounds. I'm pretty comfortable with K v K debates. I've been in Policy v Policy rounds, but every single one I've judged this season has been atrocious in quality (lack of explanation or analysis).Some additional thoughts.

If your overview is long enough that I need another page to flow it, I heard oratory is running thin for competitors. Being a K-debater, I know it is tempting to read these overviews, but often, parts of these overviews can be read on line-by-line.
Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence interrogation in speeches and cross-examination. I don't like reading cards after the debate, so please put the important spin and quotations of the card "on the flow."
If there is an “easy” way to vote that is executed and explained well, I’m very likely to take it. This means that the 2NR and the 2AR should write my ballot for me and usually I will quote you in my RFD.
I’d prefer to judge the text of the round in front of me rather than what debaters/teams have done outside of that round.
I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation (but cross-applying stuff is chill).
Well-explained meta-framing arguments usually control my ballot but aren’t a substitute for substantive impact comparison.
Less is more. The earlier in a debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more of a chance I have to really latch onto what is going on and make a decent decision.
Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. Most debates are won or lost on a few primary debatable questions. If you are the first to identify and answer those questions thoroughly, you will likely be ahead in my mind.
Minimizing downtime is important. Go to the bathroom and email the 1AC before the round start time.

Argument specifics:

AFFs: I have the most experience in Baudrillard K-affs but I have also read a k-aff with a plan text we defended an entire season, I read a 'hard right' aff on CJR and wrote a couple of 'soft left' affs. I read an Anti-blackness aff last season. What I'm saying is do you what you do best, and I'll be more than happy to adapt. If your aff is 'soft left', you need to ensure you are always ahead on the impact calc debate (put framing on a separate page in the 1AC).

DAs: Offense > Defense. Idk if I will never buy zero risk, but offense can overcome a 1% risk if that makes sense. I love specific link debates and turns case arguments. Impact calc is crucial.

CPs: I'm pretty neg biased on theory. That being said, tech over truth insofar as warrants are there. An argument is a claim AND a warrant (plus the author, an author is not an argument). If you say judge-kick, I probably will. If judge-kick is new in the 2NR, the 2AR doesn't have to do too much work to win it's bad. Please try and prove in round abuse.

Topicality: I don't think that all T debates are boring. Usually, I will go for competing interps before reasonability. Topicality is just hard on every topic, but it is always good to have a very solid interp card. Fairness is an impact, just a terrible one. I think it is better to use it as an internal link to education or something but you do you.

Kritiks: Yes I have read Kritiks. I have read Kritiks from all over the spectrum- such as Abolition and Orientalism but also Baudrillard and Psychoanalysis. That being said I need you to explain your Kritik as you would to any other judge. I'm not going to do what work for you. I will also know if you don't know what you aren't talking about, read what you know best. I think debate is a game with multiple educational benefits.

Speaker points. I try to change the way I evaluate speaks based on the tournament, you might get a 30 for the same debate at a small tournament but only a 28 at a TOC qualifying tournament.

This is obviously a long paradigm, but if I missed something feel free to email me with questions. I would recommend looking at the paradigms of debaters like Seiji Aoki, Saathvik Pai, Isaiah Ortiz, Hanna Rice, and Madeline Galian in case I am not able to clear something up in time (jokes about any of them that make me laugh will get you +0.1 speaks).

Again I'm not going to sabatoge you I understand you've worked hard to be here at this tournament so I'll do my best to fairly adjucate the round like I'm not going to be studying during the round so if you have to pref me I understand, but there are literally over a hundred judges better than me here so it would be really nice if you could strike me :)

Hina Shehzad Berkeley Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 13, 2024 at 2:56 AM CDT

Free Palestine

Niles West '23

Michigan State '27

Coaching at Berkeley Prep

Email Chain: hinashehzaddebate@gmail.com

Specific Args

Kritik:

Framework determines whether links need to be unique. Dropping AFF impacts on case put you in a hard position if you are not winning that they shouldn't be able to weigh case. Teams should not allow the neg to act like/say they fiat 'movements' or 'mindsets' otherwise the debate becomes an uphill battle for the aff. If your overly offensive with no defense it makes evaluating the debate hard. Negative kicking the alt and going for links as DAs can be strategic but understanding uniqueness and framework in these debate is key. A lot of the times the ontology, link, extinction bad debate all are also reasons why the affs education is bankrupt---its strategic to integrate these examples into framework for me. KvK rounds for the most goes which ever side has more perm + no link work, specific links are super important in these rounds. Can we do line by line? I don't get heavy theory of power debates absent specific link explanations to the aff and line by line. This is my hot take — I think perms should have some sort of net benefit to it. I don’t think it’s needed everytime if there is a lack of link debating, but often times a net ben to the perm helps me better evaluate the perm vs the alternative.

Framework:

I find myself in the back of clash debates 85% of the time.

Make it clear whether its about models of debate, just round or both etc. It's hard for me to not elevate negative offense if the aff is not providing a clear role for the negative, why is debate key and unqiue? I believe that "debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad. I find TVA's to be wayyyy more persuasive than SSD but no matter what at least one of them should be extended because you definitely need to be able to access at least some of their offense. Judge instruction is SO important in the 2AR in these debates, it'll always seem like somehow the aff is behind on some part of the line by line in FW debates but this doesn't mean you have to lose? I am so sympathetic to instruction on how I should evaluate the debate and why on the tech level things don't matter. I do think debate can create subject formation, but you still obviously need to win it.

Topicality:

I am not very familiar with topicality on the IP topic, thus things like TVA, list of good AFFs under your interpretation, list of bad AFFs under their interpretation, definition comparison, explanation of neg ground under your interpretation AND the other teams are helpful.

Disadvantage:

DA + Case D is underrated, if you feel like the impact of your DA is huge post block go for the squo. Just make sure you preempt 2ar impact comparison by doing turns case analysis early. Clear link stories are helpful, I will read evidence if there is disagreement on what things say.

Counterplans:

I just don't think I am that good for competition debates, process counterplans aren’t my fav. If you go for the perm over explain for me. Big fan of advantage cp's. Yes judge kick if unless I am advised not to. Do you need a solvency advocate? Probably. Will I vote for you if you justify not having one? Maybe...

Miscellaneous

I don't clear people its weird to interrupt flows of speeches imo but this means if ur unclear and i cant flow you its just not my fault. If you prefer being cleared please let me know before the round starts so I know everyone is on the same page.

Tech > Truth

Clipping is a weird issue to resolve, its weird to record someone without their permission? But if I catch you clipping I wont record but you will probably lose.

For other forms (pf, ld) I will evaluate rounds like I would a policy one. I am not familiar at all with either topic and am not great for weird theory things, trix etc.

I don't think I would be the person I was without the people around me who supported me and helped me through these years of debate. That being said it would be selfish to not want to give back. Debate is expensive, time consuming, has biases so if you ever need help, support etc. Don't hesitate to reach out.

Feel free to post round if you don't agree with my decision. I am happy to discuss it!

I will give you higher speaks if you make a funny joke about Zaria Jarman

Rishi Shetty Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 7, 2024 at 2:08 PM EDT

BVSW '24

Michigan '28

rishidb8@gmail.com

ipostround@googlegroups.com

Coaching Blue Valley Southwest and Montgomery Bell Academy

TL;DR

I don't care what you read. I will only evaluate arguments presented and will refrain from inserting bias.

My specific topic knowledge doesn't go far beyond "what does IP stand for" or "what is the PTO".

I'm fine to adjudicate anything, but I'm much less likely to provide a coherent decision for anything I don't understand (Kant, LD Slop, anything else that requires a philosophy class. If you're unsure, err toward safety).

I prefer debaters emphasize clarity over speed. This isn't to say that I can't handle faster debates, but rather if speed trades off with my ability to understand the words you're saying, you'll likely be mad that a vital argument didn't appear in my RFD.

I'm never going to stop a round unless I'm explicitly told, tabroom/law makes me, or someone is literally unable to tell me to stop it.

Specific Thoughts

Framework debates are my favorite to adjudicate. I prefer a fairness approach when I debate, but I've gone for both fairness and clash and am equally good to adjudicate both. I spent a large amount of my high school career reading k arguments, so I appreciate innovation when I see it.

In my opinion, making the debate about ballot proximity is more strategic for both sides in comparison to a models debate, but again you do you.

Plan text in a vacuum seems intuitive to me.

Unless further instructed, I will default to the 1NC text for a Topicality interp.

In close competition debates, impact calculus is key. A lot of the time, aff ground and neg flex are sort of asserted to outweigh the other, but that makes for more frustrating decisions rooted in personal bias. Instead, debaters should treat these debates and any other theory debate as you would a DA + Case debate. You need defense and turns case to effectively outweigh. Think of reasons why your interp solves the others offense sufficiently, why a worsening of your impact would cause theirs, etc.

Establishing uniqueness for your impacts can help break the tie in a close standards debate.

Topic knowledge isn't amazing, but I've cut some files that have made my understanding marginally better.

Try-or-die means that voting one way or the other 100% guarantees extinction. Any refutation to that inevitability or existential magnitude of an impact is sufficient to mitigate try-or-die, but solvency deficits are not.

If you're going for a link turn as offense in the 2AR, you need to answer uniqueness. Otherwise, I'm just thinking about the link turn as link defense and not a straight turn.

Turns case is helpful, but doesn't mitigate try or die absent subsequent impact uq or defense.

Warrants are fake; I won't reject a claim/argument because I think that it lacks grounding, but the more frivolous the grounding is, the less in depth of a response likely needed,

If the 2NR extends a conditional position, I'll default to judge kick if the counterplan links to the net benefit/if the aff wins a theory argument, but please remind me in the 2NC/2NR because its possible I forget.

Inserting re-highlightings is fine but I'm 100% open to contestations of the validity of those insertions.

I'm fine for callouts/ad homs if you think you can out tech your opponent. As previously mentioned, I won't stop the round unless I'm asked to.

If you're going for an ev ethics violation, you can either stop the debate or keep it going and technically defend it and I'll evaluate it as I would any other argument. If you stop the debate, I'll send it to tab.

I'm probably not watching the doc so if you catch your opponent clipping you have to stop the round and show me a recording. If you don't stop the round, I'm not doing anything.

Conner Shih New Trier High School 2 rounds

Ike Song Northview High School 3 rounds

Dhruva Sood Head-Royce High School 2 rounds

Jared Spiers The Quarry Lane School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 3:55 PM CDT

Debated: University of Kansas, '21-'25.

jspiersdebate@gmail.com

Tech over truth. I flow straight down on excel and attempt to transcribe your speeches. I strike new arguments after the 1NR when identified and not justified.

William Faulkner, in a 1956 Paris Review interview, on writing. This is close to how I feel about debate:

"The writer’s only responsibility is to his art. He will be completely ruthless if he is a good one. He has a dream. It anguishes him so much he must get rid of it. He has no peace until then. Everything goes by the board: honor, pride, decency, security, happiness, all, to get the book written. If a writer has to rob his mother, he will not hesitate; the Ode on a Grecian Urn is worth any number of old ladies."

"Let the writer take up surgery or bricklaying if he is interested in technique. There is no mechanical way to get the writing done, no short cut. The young writer would be a fool to follow a theory. Teach yourself by your own mistakes; people learn only by error. The good artist believes that nobody is good enough to give him advice. He has supreme vanity. No matter how much he admires the old writer, he wants to beat him."

Here are my predispositions. They will change based on technical debating, but this is what I think best arguments favor.

Plans: The aff gets to say what their plan text means. Vagueness can be punished by counterplan competition, solvency args, and links, but is not effectively punished by topicality.

K, generally: "role of the judge" and "role of the ballot" seem like unintuitive ways to say that your impact outweighs. Say that your impact outweighs instead.

K on aff: Either framework counter-interp that redefines resolutional words or impact turn: the middle of those loses to arbitrariness internal link/you link to your own DAs. Presumption is a bad argument because who cares whether it "spills up."

K on neg: NEG on middle ground K interps and Ks that turn the case. More frequently vote NEG onframework K tricks, more ideologically AFF on "this model of debate is horrible." I would like people to say things like "neoclassical economics are bad, incentive theory is wrong" but that never happens.

KvK: links should generally implicate solvency or broader political engagement (i.e. be reasons the method is bad). Alts need to solve: theacademy K gets smoked by "you're here too." No plan no perm is nonsense. Any link that can be described as "they didn't do enough" is bad.

Process: NEG on functional only. In the middle on "is the other issues/"plan and process of CP" perm intrinsic?" AFF on perm do counterplan.

Impact turns: yes on wipeout/spark, but unless you are debating the smallest aff on the topic or new they are disastrously lazy and deserve disastrously lazy speaker points. Obviously yes on everything else too.

Politics: almost never makes sense, and especially doesn't in Trump era.

Rollback/circumvention/anything else: yes obviously durable fiat. But perception is important too and could mess with internal links.

David Sposito Mamaroneck High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 5, 2024 at 8:24 AM PDT

I am fine with spreading, but I would prefer if teams slowed down a little bit. My hearing (especially in my right ear) has been declining since I began DJing EDM festivals, which is now my primary source of income. To reconcile this I would prefer if debaters would stand directly over my shoulder and give their speeches into my ear (I can hold the laptop above my head while speaking if it helps although I might drop it).

My email is: sposito@umich.edu

Counterplan theory

I do not like resolutional theory, I feel like that's topicality ground. Non-resolutional theory is alright though.

I am not a huge fan of clipping, but a little on the margin is OK because it means that we can include more evidence in the debate, and research is ultimately the sole reason we're all here. That said, I won't be policing it closely because I don't look at the doc or listen to the speeches during the debate (I prefer to contemplate arguments in the abstract based on the order and generate what I think both teams should be saying, if I were still competing).

Couldn't've said it better myself: "Judge kick is an abomination and forces 2ARs to debate multiple worlds based on their interpretation of how the judge will understand the 2NR and then intervene in the debate. It produces a dearth of depth, and makes all of the '70s- '80s hand-wringing about Condo come true. My compromise with judge kick is this: If the 2NR advocates for judge kick the 2A at the start of 2AR prep is allowed to call for a flip. I will then flip a coin. If it comes up heads the advocacy is kicked, if it comes up tails it isn't. I will announce the result of the flip and then 2AR prep will commence. If the 2A does this I will not vote on any theoretical issues regarding judge kick. If the 2A does not call for a flip I will listen and evaluate theory arguments about judge kick as is appropriate."

International fiat is OK with me but I am more iffy on states.

Arguments I won't vote for

I am not a huge fan of the "death good" argument, but given that I believe that policy debaters reading "big stick" impacts regularly celebrate and cause the ongoing extinction of BIPOC, queer, and disabled folk, and l allow those teams to speak before voting against them, I am willing to fully consider the "death good" argument and may vote for it if I deem that you won. However, you cannot say that warming, disease (especially COVID), or capitalism are good.

I don't really feel comfortable adjudicating ad hominem attacks or character assassinations between minors, although this changes if the ad hominem is really good, which they usually are.

That said, I will not evaluate things that happen outside the round, so no thumpers.

DAs

I believe in zero but not 100 percent risk.

I have come along way on "link controlling the direction of uniqueness" and I admit that I was wrong before and it probably does. That said, uniqueness also controls the direction of the link. I kind of imagine the link and the uniqueness following each other around in a circle, like a dog chasing its tail. In my head, it is a black lab, about medium size for a dog. It can have a collar or not, that part is not important. But it is a normal size black lab chasing its tail, running in circles, maybe barking in excitement the way dogs do. I imagine this every time l think about links and uniqueness. It is an extremely vivid mental image.

I am OK with the politics DA so long as the uniqueness is up-to-date.

You can fiat in offense, but the aff is allowed to fiat it out as well.

"Aff" and "Neg"

I would prefer we not use these truncations, because I often confuse them and end up voting for the wrong team. (It's not a huge deal because Tab usually allows me to reverse the decision, but it can be inconvenient.) Better are "negative" (the one that gets the block and conditionality) and "affirmative" or "affirmatory" (the one that speaks first and last and is stuck with the plan).

I am not especially well-read in critical literature, so I am pretty good for it. However, I would strongly prefer teams not read planless affirmatives. Those affirmatives, however well-intentioned, are a painful reminder of the countless K debaters who've been slain for playing music or just existing at tournaments, and I would prefer not to have to think about that when I am tired judging on the a weekend morning. However, this does not mean that I support framework.

Besides that, I am highly systematic in my evaluation of K debates and will follow the line-by-line like a hawk, including sometimes taking notes. I will not vote simply on "vibes" or "affect," but will also take into account how the speakers in the round make me feel, as well as other thoughts that occur to me while listening to them. That means that I will definitely not opt for a "middle ground" framework interpretation unless I think it would solve aff fairness while still allowing the neg to read a K. (The only other circumstance in which I would choose that framework unilaterally is if either team mentions it in one of their speeches or cross ex.)

I will not be tricked by the "perm double bind" argument or "link uniqueness."

Topicality

I am confident that I have a very clear idea of what plan text in a vacuum is, and I am opposed to it.

I am fine with hiding ASPEC so long as you don't do it so well that you forget or can't find it after the debate.

Misc. issues

I am often persuaded by debaters who proclaim they are aliens, enlightened disciples of God, or otherwise represent forces larger and more important than myself. Please do not lie and say this if it is not actually the case!

Tenths of speaker points seem extremely hard to non-arbitrarily decide. In consequence, I will assign whole numbers of speaker points (so my typical range is between 22 and 29).

A more misleading paradigm may be foundhere.

Marshall Steele St. Paul Central HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 2, 2024 at 10:51 AM CDT

Head Coach for St. Paul Central(MN) from 2021(water topic)->present

Pronouns are they/she

I would like to be on the email chain @ stpaulcentralcxdebate@gmail.com

Email for questions/contact @ marshall.d.steele@gmail.com

For 24-25 --- Serving as Program Development Fellow at the MNUDL so judging a little less than past years on local circuit

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

Used to have a much longer paradigm but I'd rather just give some short thoughts on debate and have y'all debate whatever you want. I appreciate good judge instructions and am neutral on most arguments. My fav debates are usually KvK but I'm down for whatever and I always like creative args/stuff I can tell you put a lot of time into making. Will vote on just about anything that isn't you being overtly hostile to your opponents.If you just wanna know my K aff thoughts I will happily vote on em and find those debates very interesting. As a default I wont check speech docs until the end of the round so clarity is your friend on blocks. I am mostly a clash judge but will still consider/would like to see good 2R top level conceptualization of the round. I value technical drops and all that fun clash debate stuff, it's just to say that actual persuasive argumentation and analysis are probably very important.

slow down for dense analytic blocks especially / fw / theory. If you want me to flow every warrant you should probably not be going at the pace and intonation of the body of a card.

Don't have strong preferences about how you refer to me but "Judge" or "marshall" are always good defaults

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

Random Notes

Plan flaws are awesome and under-utilized

Don't insult your opponents

Prep stealing is not epic

how is farm bill still a DA - this was "Unique" when I started debating(I don't actually care if you read farm bill)

A CP without cards for solvency advocates probably doesn't require cards for each solvency indict, doing so is taking the time skew bait

CX is binding

prob ask if you wanna read a spec arg

Johnnie Stupek Pace Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:20 AM EDT

Head Debate Coach - University of Georgia

jstupek8@gmail.com

Top Level

- Clarity and flowability are the strongest qualities that drive my speaker points. I encourage debaters to adopt speaking practices that enhance their flowability such as: structured line-by-line, slowing down when communicating plan or counterplan texts, emphasizing particularly important lines in the body of evidence, and descriptively labeling off-case positions in the 1NC.

- Arguments do not always need cards to be impactful. I care about logical analytic arguments, particularly those that are set up well in cross-examination.

- Plan and counterplan text vagueness is an under-exploited issue. As such, I'm likely more amenable to specification arguments than your average judge.

- While no judge is a true blank slate, I have and am willing to vote on basically anything.

Disads

- I begin resolving these debates by comparing the relative risk of the internal link chains of the disadvantage and the advantage(s) the 2AR went for. All things being equal, I frequently resolve these debates without turning to questions of impact comparison or impact interaction. The advice I often find myself giving after debates is that second rebuttalists should spend less time on traditional impact calculus or turns case arguments and more time making sure you win your advantage or disadvantage. Of course, all things are not always equal and second rebuttalists should point out when there's a tangible timeframe or magnitude distinction between impacts.

- Brink + link uniqueness is not an adequate substitute for traditional uniqueness and link claims.

- Always been a fan of agenda politics, probably always will be.

- For affirmatives reading framing arguments, your time is almost always better spent making substantive answers to the disadvantage rather than meta arguments about the complex nature of disadvantages.

Counterplans

- Please stop starting your counterplan 2ACs with consecutive permutation arguments delivered at top speed. This is the single most difficult thing to flow properly in my experience. The easiest fix here is to read cards in between each different permutation and slowing down when communicating perm texts.

- I have no inherent aversion to process counterplans. I think that at times these debates can be really interesting, especially when contextualized to the topic.

- I still believe in an abstract academic sense, that the benefits of conditionality outweigh its costs. This issue, however, is so rarely evenly debated that more affirmative teams should consider going for conditionality bad.

- My default view is that counterplan theory arguments that are not conditionality bad are reasons to reject the argument rather than reasons to reject the team. This presumption can be overcome, but the bar is high.

- My default view is that I will judge kick the counterplan and compare the aff vs. the status quo. I can and have been persuaded not to do so when the affirmative team advances that argument.

Topicality vs. Policy Affirmatives

- Including resolutional language in your plan text does not in and of itself persuade me the aff is topical.

- Caselists are incredibly useful for articulating just how under or over limiting a particular interpretation is.

- For affirmative teams, I would rather hear impacts about the benefits of a broader topic for affirmative innovation and flexibility than appeals to education about the affirmative's content. I am unlikely to be persuaded that I should reject a negative topicality interpretation because the affirmative would have a difficult time constructing solvency deficits to a particular counterplan under said interpretation. That argument seems to be a theoretical objection the counterplan rather than a topicality standard.

- Teams articulating a "precision" standard should take care to clearly explain what their threshold for a "precise" interpretation is, why their interpretation meets that threshold, and why the opposing team's interpretation does not.

Kritiks On The Neg

- I care about the alt quite a bit. Teams that have persuaded me to vote for kritiks have often done so on the basis of strong alt debating.

- The way "framework" arguments are currently deployed is somewhat puzzling to me. Most aff/neg framework standards seem to get more at the question of "how much" weight I should give to a particular impact than to whether I should consider a particular impact in the first place. I've never been persuaded that framework means I don't consider the merits of the 1AC. I've equally never been persuaded that framework means the alt has to be policy.

- Kritiks that derive their offense from the affirmative not doing enough or being too incremental are vulnerable to permutations.

- Alt causes are not link arguments. Link arguments are not "disads."

Planless Affirmatives

- I have been persuaded that the aff doesn't have to read a plan or say USFG should, but I have not encountered a situation where I have been persuaded that the aff doesn't have to be topical. Having some sort of counter-interpretation, even if it's just "resolved means to analyze," is important for how I ground and resolve aff arguments about the neg's interpretation. I want to hear in detail about what the affirmative's model of debate might look like. I would rather hear one or two conceptual impact turns to the negative's model, than eight different "DA's" that are difficult to distinguish between.

- For the negative, I would rather hear arguments about the value of procedural fairness than than some of the more "substantive" framework arguments.

- The vocabulary of "internal link" and "impact" is not particularly useful in a debate about theory. Certainly the negative needs to explain why fairness is a valuable concept, but that explanation does not have to involve the same kind of cause and effect logic chain we encounter in advantages or disadvantages. The "just an internal link" pejorative often applies just as well to arguments forwarded by the affirmative. As a whole, these debates would be so much better if no one used the words "impact," "internal link," or "disad."

Speaker Points

- I hesitate to offer some sort of static scale for speaks because I think that speaker points are relative and I am constantly reflecting on whether my speaker point distribution is in line with the rest of the judging community.

- Debaters who debate technically and make good strategic decisions will receive good points.

- Debaters who debate with style (humor, passionate rebuttals, exceptional clarity) will receive good points.

Closing Thoughts

If you've made it this far, I want to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude for the work you do as debaters and coaches. I know how hard everyone works to prepare for debates and I strive to provide judging and feedback that lives up to that standard.

"As I look back at the contours of my own life, many things about it I would change if I could. But not this. The long hours, the demanding schedules, all that goes into effective debating and effective coaching, the lost weekends. I would do it all again. I would do it all again not for any particular tournament or trophy, not for the specifics of any topic, not even for the intellectual benefits debate bestows upon its participants, critical thinking and the like. I would do it all again for the chance to work with hard-working, dedicated, and committed students like those assembled in this room." - Scott Deatherage

Debnil Sur Lowell High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 3:45 PM PDT

he/him/his

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

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

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

Lay Debate: I care deeply about adaptation and accessibility. I find "medium" debates (splits of lay and circuit judges) incredibly valuable for students' skills. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread. If both teams explicitly tell me they want a lay debate before hand, I will gladly toss out all my knowledge about debate and judge like a parent (think San Jose Indian father). Speaks will range from 28.5 to 30, and like a lay judge, I will choose random numbers in that range based on your aesthetic appeal.

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

I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. In most debates, voting for either team is defensible; I will likely vote for the team that does more comparison and requires less intervention in terms of resolution. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the 1AC and the 1NC. Subsequent evidence is only read when deciding the debate. (When online, I always have docs open.) I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.

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

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

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

I am judging some college debate, mostly to help the return of Stanford's team. No topic knowledge or college judging experience. I'm likely a policy-leaning clash judge in college prefs?

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

I do work in software and have applied for patents on my day-to-day work. This personal experience will make me more skeptical of sweeping innovation or tech impacts. But if you're detailed, granular, and apply technical knowledge well, your speaks will benefit.

Voting Splits: I haven't updated these in a couple of years. I've been too busy with my non-debate life post pandemic. I think the trends exhibited on water are likely still accurate.

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

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

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

Water

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

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

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

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

Lifetime

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

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

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

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

Online Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kritiks:

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

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

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

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

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

Topicality:

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

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

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

Counterplans:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages:

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

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

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

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

Ethics:

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

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

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

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

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

If you could have emailed the other team about your ethics violation, I will only evaluate it if there's proof you contacted the other team. Prepping ethics violations as case negs is far worse than any evidence ethics violation I've seen.

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

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

Miscellaneous:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Susko Calvert Hall College High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:09 AM EDT

If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it: psusko@gmail.com

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

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

Counterplans

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

Disadvantages

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

Criticisms

I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.

Performance

I judge around 2-3 performance debates a year. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.

Flowing

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

Notes

Prep time continues until the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

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

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

Depth > Breadth

Eli T. Louis Brooklyn Technical High School 3 rounds

Tara Tate Glenbrook South High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 2:32 PM UTC

Email: ttate@glenbrook225.org

I am back directing after a fairly long hiatus from debate. If I had to highlight the biggest factor that means for you is I am not up on the topic literature as much as a lot of judges. I am directing a large program, judging a lot, and watching A LOT of GBS practice debates. The Tate now is not cutting cards the way the Tate then used to. I also did not teach at camp this past summer. My flow is pretty decent still and I have realized that a lot of arguments have not changed much from 6-8 years ago.

What does that mean to you?

1- I would consider myself a moderate right judge in regards to policy vs. K debates. Here is the thing - I am very liberal in my beliefs and academia, especially in regards to issues of identity. My Masters' thesis was a black women's criticism of mainstream feminist discourse. I will often understand and believe many K arguments in front of me. The question is whether the arguments presented in front of me provide an opportunity for deliberative dialogue between two opposing teams. Convince me of that in round (and many have), you will find me to be more left-leaning in regards to K arguments than people perceive.

2 - I do think most judges prefer not to flow off the speech doc. You are going to get much higher speaker points if I don't. Be conscientious about reading a bunch of blippy perms in a row...a multi-plank CP....CP theory. For parts of the debate that tend to be more technical (blippy?), slow down a notch.

3 - I love a good Politics debate that has super recent evidence and an interesting spin to a typical politics story. Of course, I know those are hard to get traction on with this topic and the state of being in Washington DC right now.

4 - I have a high standard for both evidence and what makes for a complete argument. I don't know where this fits on tech > truth claims. I believe an opponent has the burden to prove that an argument is incomplete/shallow/unwarranted...after that, it won't take me long to get on board.

5 - Framework debates have become much more sophisticated and detailed since I last actively coached and judged. For any judge, it is hard to get down on the flow all of the arguments in a detailed Framework debate because the analytics come very quickly. For me, specifically, slowing down just a bit while reading your blocks (so I can get pen time) and then really framing key arguments in the last few rebuttals will be immensely helpful for me. I am finding a lot of debaters relying on buzz words on framework - many of these words were not a "thing" a decade ago. GIve some time to this.

6 - I will vote on Process CPs. I do think this topic is hard for the negative - that is a persuasive argument. However, I do think CPs that are germane to the Aff are much preferable so Affs would benefit from spinning that argument in a competition debate.

Terrell Taylor Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:53 AM EDT

Terrell Taylor

add me to doc chains: terrell taylor at gmail dot com. No punctuation, no space, no frills.

Debated at Mary Washington from 2007-2011

Debate is an intellectual activity where two positions are weighed against each other. A part of this is making clear what your position is (plan, cp, alt, advocacy, status quo etc.) and how it measures up against the other team’s position. Arguments consist of a claim (the point you want to make), warrant (a reason to believe it), and an impact (reason why it matters/way it functions within the debate). Evidence is useful when trying to provide warrants, but is ultimately not necessary for me to evaluate an argument. Debates get competitive and heated, but staying polite and friendly and remembering that the name of the game is fun at the end of the day makes for a more enjoyable experience for everyone involved.

Disads/Case and Advantages

These arguments should be stressed in terms of a coherent story of what the world looks like in terms of the status quo, affirmative plan or alternative option. These positions should be attacked from a variety points including the link and internal link chain, impact and uniqueness level. When it comes to link turning, my default thought is that uniqueness determines the direction; if you have an alternative understanding that is particular to a scenario, be sure to explain why it is that the direction of the link should be emphasized or what have you. Impacts should be compared not only in terms of timeframe, probability and magnitude, but in terms of how these issues interact in a world where both impact scenarios take places (the popular "even if.." phrase comes to mind here). Also, keep in mind that I have not kept up with the trends in disads and such within the topic, so explaining specifics, acronyms and otherwise is useful for me. I prefer hearing case specific scenarios as opposed to generic politics and similar positions. This does not mean I will not vote for it or will dock your speaker points, just a preference.

Counterplans and Counterplan Theory

Counterplans should be functionally competitive; textual competition doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me (see later section on theory). I think that perms can be advocated, but am more than willing to hear reasons why they shouldn’t be and why that is a bad way to frame debates. When it comes to agent counterplans, I tend to think that topic specific education should trump generic presidential powers or judicial independence debates. Consult and condition cps just make the logician inside my head painfully confused (not sure why a reason to talk to X country is also a reason why the plan is bad). International fiat is suspect to me, and I tend to think that limiting the discussion to US policy (including its international relevance) is a good thing.

All of this being said, I am open to voting for any of the above arguments. These are merely my general theoretical leanings, and I will certainly flow, listen to, and evaluate arguments from the other side.

Topicality

I haven’t seen many debates on this topic, so if a debate comes down to T, don’t be surprised if you see me googling to find the resolution to check the words. In general I think Topicality is important for two reasons. One is the general reason that most people think it’s good, being that we need to be prepared/have set limits and parameters for debate. The second is that I think each year presents an opportunity to gain in depth education on an issue, even if it's not a policy perspective of that issue. I feel that competing interpretations is generally the default for T, but I am open to defenses of reasonability and in fact, think that there are cases where this is the best means of evaluation. Standards should be impacted in terms of education and fairness, and the debate should come down to the best internal links between the standards and these terminal values. If you are the type to critique T, your critique needs to come down to these terms (education and fairness). RVIs don’t make sense to me. If you want to take the challenge of trying to make one make sense, be my guest, but it’s an uphill battle.

General Theory

As mentioned, I am not wedded to any particular frame or “rulebook” for debate. Part of the beauty of debate to me is that debaters get to be both the players and referee. As such, I enjoy theory and think that such discussions can be fruitful. The flipside to this is that most theory debates devolve into tagline debating, shallow and repetitive arguments, and a race to see who can spit their block the fastest. These debates are 1) hard to flow and 2) not really a test or display of your ability so much as a test of your team’s theory block writer. I reward argumentation that is clear, comprehensible and complete in terms of theory debates, and urge debaters to these opportunities seriously.

I’ve laid out most of my theoretical dispositions in the counterplan section. Conditionality to me is like siracha sauce: a little bit heats up the debate, too much ruins it. I don’t know why three or four counterplans or alternatives along with the status quo is key to negative flex or good debating (one is good, two is ok). Also, if you want to use a status other than conditional or unconditional, (like the imaginary “dispo”) you should be ready to explain what that means. Again, I think that it is okay to advocate permutations as positions in the debate.

In terms of alternate frameworks for the debate (i.e. anything other than policy making) I’m honest when I say I’m not extraordinarily experienced in these areas as I’d like to be. I’ve seen a decent few of these debates and think that they provide some nuance to an otherwise stale activity. That being said (and this is true for all theory positions) you should try and weigh the educational and competitive equity benefits of your position versus the other teams proposed framework the debate. I debated for a squad that saw framework as a strategic and straightforward approach to most alternative forms of debate, so those arguments make sense to me. On the other hand, especially when it comes to arguments concerning structural issues in society/debate, if argued well, and with relevance to the topic in some way, I am willing to listen and evaluate.

Critical arguments (Kritiks/K-affs)

Much of what I just said applies here as well. I had the most success/felt most comfortable debating with these types of arguments as a debater (I did, however, spend most of my career debating with “straight-up” affs and disads that claimed nuclear war advantages). I studied English and Philosophy in undergrad and am pursuing a MA in English with a focus on critical theory, so there’s a decent chance that my interests and background might lean more towards a topic oriented critique than a politics Da.

I will avoid following the trend of listing the genres of critiques and critical literature with which I am familiar with the belief that it shouldn't matter. Running critiques shouldn't be about maintaining a secret club of people who "get it" (which often in debates, is construed to be a club consisting of the critique friendly judge and the team running the argument, often excluding the other team for not being "savy"). In other words, Whether I've read a great deal of the authors in your critique or not, should not give you the green light to skimp on the explanation and analysis of the critique. These debates are often about making the connections between what the authors and literature are saying and the position of the other team, and hence put a great burden on the debater to elucidate those connections. A shared appreciation or research interest between a team and a judge does not absolve you of that burden, in my opinion.

I agree with many recent top tier collegiate debaters (Kevin Kallmyer, Gabe Murillo, etc.) that the difference between policy and critical arguments is overstated. An important piece of reading critical arguments with me in the back of the room is explaining what your arguments mean within the context of the aff/da. If you read a no value to life impact, what about the affs framing makes it so that the people involved see their lives differently; if the critiqued impact is a merely constructed threat, reveal to me the holes in the construction and explain how the construction came to be. Doing that level of analysis (with any argument, critical or policy) is crucial in terms of weighing and relating your arguments to the other teams, and engaging in a form of education that is actually worthwhile. This probably entails removing your hypergeneric topic link and replacing with analysis as to the links that are within the evidence (and therefore, the assumptions, rhetoric, methodology, so and so forth) of your opponents. In terms of vague alts and framework, I have mixed feelings. The utopian fiat involved in most alts is probably abusive, but there is something to be said for making the claim that these arguments are vital to thorough education. On the framework question, gateway issue is probably a poor way to go. I don’t understand why the fact that your K has an impact means that you get to suck up the entire debate on this one issue. Instead, a framing that opens the door to multiple ways of critiquing and evaluating arguments (both on the aff and the neg, or in other words, doesn’t hold the aff as a punching bag) is preferable.

Performance

I didn’t do a whole lot of handling with this genre of argument, but have debated semi-frequently and enjoy the critical aspects of these arguments. I think that there is a difference between the type of critical debater that reads a couple of disads along with a K and case args, and a team that reads a indictment of the topic or reads narratives for nine minutes. If you read a poem, sing, recite a story or anything of that nature, I will be more interested in observing your performance than trying to flow or dictate it on my flow (my reasoning for this is that, unlike a speech organized for the purpose of tracking argument development and responses, I don't think flowing a poem or song really generates an understanding of the performance). More importantly, framing should be a priority; give me a reason why I should look at the debate through a certain lens, and explain why given that framing you have done something either worth affirming your advocacy. I think that these types of debates, especially if related to the topic, can be fruitful and worthwhile. Performance affirmatives should try to find some in road to the topic. If your argument is pervasive and deep enough to talk about, I generally think it probably has a systemic implication for the resolution in some way, even if that doesn’t manifest as a topical plan or even agreeing with the resolution.

For teams going against performance strategies, Framework based arguments are options in front of me. A good way to frame this argument is in terms of what is the best method to produce debates that create the most useful form of education, as opposed to just reading it like a procedural argument. I do think it is important to engage the substantive portion of their arguments as well, (there are always multiple dimensions to arguments of these forms) even if it happens to be a critical objection to their performance or method. Many policy based strategies often want to avoid having to engage with the details involved, and in doing so often fail to rigorously challenge the arguments made in the debate.

Good luck, and have fun. I spent a great deal of my debate career stressing out and losing sleep, instead of experiencing the challenge and fun of the activity; Enjoy your time in the activity above everything else.

Chris Thiele The Quarry Lane School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 6:44 AM PDT

Big picture:
- I don't read/flow off the doc.
- no evidence inserting. I read what you read.
- I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author/date + claim + warrant + data + impact" model) over breadth (the "author + claim + impact" model) any day.
- Ideas communicated per minute > words per minute. I'm old, I don't care to do a time trial of flowing half-warrants and playing "connect the dots" for impacts. 3/4 of debaters have terrible online practices, so this empirically applies even more so for online debates.
- I minimize the amount of evidence I read post-round to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). Don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
- I care a lot about data/method and do view risk as "everyone starts from zero and it goes up from there". This primarily lets me discount even conceded claims, apply a semi-laugh test to ridiculous arguments, and find a predictable tiebreaker when both sides hand me a stack of 40 cards.
- I'm fairly flexible in argument strategy, and either ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some highlights: wipeout, foucault k, the cp, regression framework, reg neg cp, consult china, cap k, deleuze k, china nano race, WTO good, indigenous standpoint epistemology, impact turns galore, biz con da, nearly every politics da flavor imaginable, this list goes on and on.
- I am hard to offend (though not impossible) and reward humor.
- You must physically mark cards.
- I think infinite world condo has gotten out of hand. A good rule of thumb as a proxy (taking from Shunta): 4-6 offcase okay, 7 pushing, if you are reading 8 or more, your win percentage and points go down exponentially. Also, I will never judge kick - make a decision in 2NR.
- 1NC args need to be complete, else I will likely buy new answers on the entire sheet. A DA without U or IL isn't complete. A CP without a card likely isn't complete. A K with just a "theory of power" but no links isn't complete. A T arg without a definition card isn't complete. Cards without any warrants/data highlighted (e.g. PF) are not arguments.
- I personally believe in open disclosure practices, and think we should as a community share one single evidence set of all cards previously read in a single easily accessible/searchable database. I am willing to use my ballot to nudge us closer.
-IP topic stuff - I have a law degree and am a tech geek, so anything that absolutely butchers the law will probably stay at zero even if dropped.

Topicality
-I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
-I'm extremely unlikely to vote for a dropped hidden aspec or similar and extremely likely to tank your points for trying.
-We meet is yes/no question. You don't get to weigh standards and risk of.
-Aff Strategy: counter-interp + offense + weigh + defense or all in on we meet or no case meets = best path to ballot.

Framework against K aff
-in a tie, I vote to exclude. I think "logically" both sides framework arguments are largely empty and circular - the degree of actual fairness loss or education gain is probably statistically insignificant in any particular round. But its a game and you do you.
-I prefer the clash route + TVA. Can vote for fairness only, but harder sell.
-Very tough sell on presumption / zero subject formation args. Degree ballot shapes beliefs/research is between 0 and 1 with neither extreme being true, comparative claims on who shapes more is usually the better debate pivot.
-if have decent k or case strat against k aff, usually much easier path to victory because k affs just seem to know how to answer framework.
-Aff Strategy: Very tough sell for debate bad, personalized ballot pleas, or fairness net-bad. Lots of defense to predict/limits plus aff edu > is a much easier path to win.

Framework against neg K
-I default to (1) yes aff fiat (2) yes links to 1AC speech act (3) yes actual alt / framework isn't an alt (4) no you link you lose.
-Debaters can debate out (1) and (2), can sometimes persuade me to flip on (3), but will pretty much never convince me to flip on (4).

Case Debate
-I enjoy large complex case debates about the topic.
-Depth in explanation and impacting over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant or card comparison will do far more damage to the 1AR than 3 new cards that likely say same warrant as original card.
-the current D tier link/solvency to core IL to greatest hits of all time impact spam 1AC construction makes me sad. The resolution as plan text model also does. Am happy to zero (or near zero) affs in these debates if the neg comes prepared.

Disads
-Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments less so.

Counterplans
-I think literature should guide both plan solvency deficit and CP competition ground.
-For theory debates (safe to suspect): adv cps = uniqueness cps > plan specific PIC > topic area specific PIC > textual word PIK = domestic agent CP > ban plan then do "plan" cp = certainty CPs = delay CPs > foreign agent CP > plan minus penny PICs > private actor/utopian/other blatant cheating CP
-Much better for perm do cp (with severance justified because of THEORY) than perm other issues (with intrinsicness justified because TEXT/FUNCT COMP english games). I don't really believe in text+funct comp (just eliminates "bad" theory debaters, not actually "bad" counterplans, e.g. replace "should" with "ought").
-perms and theory are tests of competition and not a voter.
-debatable perms are - perm do both, do cp/alt, do plan and part of CP/alt. Probably okay for combo perms against multi-conditional plank cps. Only get 1 inserted perm text per perm flowed.
-Aff strategy: good for logical solvency deficits, solvency advocate theory, and high level theory debating. Won't presume CP solves when CP lacks any supporting literature.

Critiques
-I view Ks as a usually linear disad and the alt as a CP.
-Much better for a traditional alt (vote neg -> subject formation -> spills out) than utopian fiated alts, floating piks, movements alts, or framework is my second alt.
-Link turn case (circumvention) and/or impact turns case (root/prox cause) is very important.
-I naturally am a quantitative poststructuralist. Don't think I've ever willingly voted on an ontology argument or a "zero subject formation" argument. Very open to circumvention oriented link and state contingency link turn args.
-Role of ballot is usually just a fancy term for "didn't do impact calculus".
-No perms for method Ks is the first sign you don't really understand what method is.
-Aff strategy: (impact turn a link + o/w other links + alt fails) = (case spills up + case o/w + link defense + alt fails) > (fiat immediate + case o/w + alt too slow) > (perm double bind) > (ks are cheating).
-perms generally check clearly noncompetitive alt jive, but don't normally work against traditional alts if the neg has any link.

Lincoln Douglas
-no trix, phil, friv theory, offcase spam, or T args written by coaches.
-treat it like a policy round that ends in the 1AR and we'll both be happy.

Public Forum
-no paraphrasing, yes email chain, yes share speech doc prior to speech. In TOC varsity, points capped at 27.5 if violate as minimum penalty.
-if paraphrase, it's not evidence and counts as an analytic, and cards usually beat analytics.
-I think the ideal PF debate is a 2 advantage vs 2 disadvantage semi-slow whole rez policy debate, where the 2nd rebuttal collapses onto 1 and the 1st summary collapses onto 1 as well. Line by line, proper, complete argument extensions, weighing, and card comparisons are a must.
-Good for non-frivilous theory and proper policy style K. TOC level debaters usually good at theory but still atrocious executing the K, so probably don't go for a PF style K in front of me.
-prefer some civility and cross not devolve into lord of the flies.

Adhitya Thirumala Unionville 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 9:57 AM EDT

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign '28 ('27?)

If you are going to UIUC next year and want to continue debate, contact me. We will likely have a policy squad with a couple of teams and would appreciate any help that we could get whether its research help or actually debating. There's no "real" program, and we don't have money or coaches or anything.

Fox Chapel '24

Other conflicts/coaching: Gunn KB, Edison BB, Jenks GH, Whitney Young SV/MB, Unionville HK

Email: adhi[dot]thirumala[at]gmail[dot]com

Varsity only, add this as well: realartistsofguantanamobay[at]googlegroups[dot]com

I've decided to do version-control on this page; you can find previous versions at my Github.

Long story short, dishonorable victory is preferable to honest defeat. Because some people have misinterpreted this line in the past, this does NOT mean to do academic dishonesty.

I've been every speaker position, gone for every kind of argument, and debated at every level of the activity from the most lay to the most circuit. This used to be a lot longer. I thought that I needed to express all these random thoughts about the activity, but as I kept going on, I realized that I don't actually care that much. (UPDATE: I do care actually. This document gets bigger after every tournament.) Debate made me happy in high school, and I enjoyed doing it. One of the few things that caused me anguish while I competed was judge intervention, either at the level where they would enforce argument preference, or at the level where they would make poor technical decisions and not take the simplest path to a victory. Part of what made the activity so fun was going for whatever positions I wanted, whether they were "honorable" or not. I will try my hardest to listen to whatever is in front of me because at the end of the day, the debate is about you, the debaters, not me.

I will intervene and end the round only in one of the three following circumstances.
1. A debater asking to end the round.
2. A debater not capable of communicating to me that they would like the debate to continue (e.g. someone unconscious, linguistic barrier, etc.)
3. Tabroom telling me to make a decision in a certain manner.

A couple of thoughts from an older version of this document that I think are still necessary for me to express (and some that are new).
1. Remember to have offense. Posturing and asserting that your opponent has gone for a "bad" argument does nothing to beat back the "badness" of it. This applies a lot in theory, competition, and topicality debates a lot. Having strong vision in these debates is something that will result in high speaker points.
2. Send me emails with proper subjects, WORD documents with proper names and headers. Preferably nothing in the body of an email either. My computer is already cluttered; don't make it worse.
3. I don't want a card document. I think most judge screws come from judges going rogue and reading evidence. I will try my hardest not to do this unless instructed to by debaters. I also think that card documents give debaters an incentive to add cards not extended or rewrite headers to imply arguments not made. I don't want to deal with that.
4. I find myself in a lot of clash debates now. I guess that's the price to pay for someone that's argumentatively agnostic, and I now understand why a lot of the judges I preffed high as a debater found themselves here. After judging a fair amount of these, I've found modern T - USFG debates boring when they're just brute forces of the "microaggression" vs the "fairness paradox". Please innovate on both sides to prevent my soul from wasting away in clash purgatory. Examples include cool carded T arguments that are takeouts to things like "microaggressions evaluation good", "subjectivity shift", or "K v K debates good". The same applies to the affirmatives in these debates. I also think that this strategy will help you a lot more than "go to tab + guilt assuasion" vs "tab is biased against *insert group*". To be fair, this doesn't change the way I'll evaluate such debates, but it can boost my value to life during the monotony that is online debate which is a good thing for all of us.
5. It is better to fill in offense than to create defense out of nothing. What does this mean? Imagine that the 1AR does not extend an internal link to an impact and just makes terminal impact claims, but the 2NR never extends an internal link defense argument. Now imagine that the 2AR once again only extends a terminal impact. What does one do here? Some judges would not vote for the advantage because the 2AR didn't extend an internal link. Inevitably, these judges get post-rounded, get asked the question "where did the 2NR say this", and then fold. Inversely, if judges vote affirmative, then the case for "Why did you vote aff when the 2AR didn't extend an internal link" is simple: "I was not told to do such a thing." It might seem obvious what to do in this specific scenario, but these scenarios show up in much more complicated debates all the time. Debate is more about the burden of rejoinder than the burden of proof.
6. I don't judge kick by default. My justification for this it that it seems to be interventionist to make a decision without either teams asking me to do so, almost akin to filling in defense arbitrarily by kicking a counterplan. I think that judge kick is likely truthfully a good thing, and if the block/2NR says some amount of words, it is hard for the affirmative to articulate an alternative to judge kick without winning condo (and rarely does it invest precious 1AR time into doing so).
7. Time prep yourself. In varsity, I generally trust debaters enough to do such a thing. Honestly, I forget to time it myself a lot of the time.
8. Postround me. Disagreement is the highest form of respect (we're in DEBATE). I am a lowly first-year who is only slightly better than average at flowing. Debate is quite stressful, and talking it out after a round is certainly better than ruminating on a round for much time after. Taking that into account, I understand if you get slightly heated in a postround and won't hold it against you personally at all. You are all high-schoolers. I am an adult. It would be weird for me to hold grudges or get needlessly enraged at you.

Now, to end this page, imagine that I quoted that line about science fiction, trolls, and blank checks.

Ishaan Tipirneni Lexington HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 8:29 AM EDT

"Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory." - Rishi Mukherjee

Ishaan Tipirneni, He/Him/His

Call me "Ishaan" not "judge" please.

Email: Ishaantipirneni504@gmail.com, yes put me on the chain

Education: Lexington '24 | Northwestern '28

Debate Experience: 4 yrs of HS policy debate, 3x TOC Qualifier

Conflicts: Lexington, Hawken

Prefs: First year out. I'm probably a worse judge than I was debater. I am probably not capable of judging a TOC-level KvK debate. I give out speaks based on the relative talent in the pool. Thus, if you debate like one of the better teams in the pool you will get high speaks and vice versa. I have ZERO topic knowledge, so please explain everything. I probably evaluate a debate more like a debater than a seasoned judge, so I won't think as critically about the round compared to other judges. I vote on the path of least resistance.

TOC Update: Keep everything above in mind. I am a subpar judge for this tournament. I have not thought about debate in a year. I have flowed ~10 rounds in the last year. My experience as a debater is out the window. The people that compete/have competed at the college level or have been active participants in the community for a while are significantly better judges than I am. With that said, I can still judge high level debates, but I just won't think as critically as those people.

Top-Level:

Tech > Truth. Your ethos only matters for your speaks. Therefore, technical line-by-line is the basis of my decision.

I will boost speaks for both teams if the debate is efficient. I hate downtime. Nobody wants to spend 2+ hours in a round.

Post-rounding is chill if you genuinely believe you are right. Questions are always welcome.

Give me an easy way to vote for you. Judge instruction is the best way to gain my ballot. We both don't want intervention.

I am not afraid to vote you down because I don't understand your argument or I don't understand you.

I will "clear" you, but if it's multiple times, your speaks will tank.

I can be convinced of nearly anything in the confines of a debate round.

All of my debate opinions have been formed by ex-Lexington debaters who went for egregious arguments. This should answer any "should i read [x] in front of Ishaan" questions.

Specific Comments:

Policy Affs: I love creative policy affs (that dodge generics and are probably not topical). These are what I read virtually my entire career.

CPs: Condo is probably a reason to reject the team. Textual competition is sketchy.

DAs: Make sure to REALLY explain the link because most links are trash. Make sure your 1NC shells are highlighted with some sort of argument being made.

T: I need a COHERENT violation and impact story to vote for your T interp, not just "they dropped x." I will vote on PTIV. To win T on the neg, you just have to prove a violation and why that’s bad. Impact calc is HUGE for T debates and is necessary to get my ballot.

K-affs: I think these can be really good when creatively done, but please make your argument coherent and not just a preempt to FW. I usually find presumption a really good option against k-affs because they often don't make much sense at all. Make sure you have some reason to vote for you. In terms of the content, I am chill with high theory, race, cap or whatever amalgamation of political theory you call an aff, but it must be explained well.

K: I will vote on basically any K. On the neg, the debate is usually down to FW, so please actually do impact framing and make it easy to determine who is actually winning the flow. Link articulation is a MUST for me, so make sure you explain the link or why you don't link, depending on the side you’re on. Alts are usually bad, try to make yours actually say something coherent. Explain clearly why the alt resolves the links. I need a really good reason why aff teams shouldn't be allowed to weigh the plan.

FW/T-USFG: Fairness is an impact; debate is a game & much more. I really like it when the FW team goes for reasons as to why plan debating is good to solve a lot of the impacts the K aff is forwarding or arguments as to how less fairness or clash means less participation or less effective communities of care. Usually, FW teams lose on the impact framing debate, or when they lose the internal link debate. I need good impact framing for this. K-affs shouldn't go for the W/M unless you have a plantext. I probably lean neg on this debate.

Idc how many off you read, but if your one-card Ks or two-card DAs aren't making arguments in the 1NC, you will not get leeway in the block.

If you give a final rebuttal w/ no computer and/or don't use all of your prep, I'll boost your speaks significantly.

If you make a GOOD joke about Misty Wang, Billy Blechman, Ila Dohrmann, Buck Arney, Lex LM, or any ex-Lex debater I will boost your speaks. Jokes in general are good, but you better be funny. Debate is never that deep.

David Trigaux BASIS DC 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 8:24 AM EDT

David Trigaux

Former competitor: St. Petersburg High School (4 yr), University of South Florida (4 yr)

Director, Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

** Fall 2024 Update **

The implications of the 2024 election most arguments are substantial. If you haven't adjusted your blocks and done some updates, expect to lose in front of me to someone who has.

Accessibility:

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

If you erect a barrier to accessing this activity for someone else, I will vote you down, give you the lowest possible speaker points, report you to TAB, complain to your coach, and anything else I can think of to make your time at this tournament less enjoyable and successful. This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own). This is a big accessibility question for the activity that gets overlooked a lot especially post pandemic, many of our debaters still use paper files and don't have their own computers / only have relatively iffy Chromebooks.

5 Min Before Round Notes:

I judge 30 rounds at national circuit tournaments each year, cut A LOT of cards on each topic, and am somewhere in the middle of the argumentation spectrum. I often judge clash debates, though I enjoy policy v policy rounds too. I like Politics DAs and I also like performance Affs. I have some slight preferences (see below), but I amexcited to hear whatever style/substance of argumentation you'd like to make.

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

Ways to Lose Rounds / Speaker Points:

Being Mean -- I am very flexible with speaker points, heavily rewarding good research, wit, and humor, and am very willing to nuke your speaker points or stop the round if you are demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.
Leave D.C. Out: Don't leave D.C. out of your States CP Text or other relevant advocacy statements. Its bad policy writing and continues a racialized history of erasure of the 750,000 + majority black residents who live here and experience taxation and other abuses without representation. Don't perpetuate it.
Rude Post-Rounding (especially if it is by someone who didn't watch the round): I will contact tab and vigorously reduce speaker points for your team after submission.
Multi-Minute Overviews: Don't.
Extinction Good: Don't be a troll, get a better strategy that isn't laced with nasty racial undertones.
Trolly High Theory Technobabble Arguments: If you just want to demonstrate how smart you are by winning a debate by running nonsense, strike me. What you say should contribute to our understanding of the world / human relations, otherwise don't waste my time.
Highly Inaccurate Email Chains: Unfortunately, some folks put a giant pile of cards they couldn’t possibly get through in the email chain, and skip around to the point of confusion, making refutation (and flowing) difficult. It’s lazy at best and a cheap move at worst and will impact your speaks if I feel like it is intentional.
**New Pet Peeve** Plan / Counterplan Flaws: The plan text / advocacy statement is the focus of the debate -- you should put some effort into writing it. I've found myself very persuadable by plan flaw arguments if a substantive normal means argument can be made.

In the Weeds

Disadvantages:

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

o Do:

§ I am a huge sucker for evidence quality / recency debates, and will make it rain speaker points. Have some creative/Topic/Aff specific DAs.

o Don’t:

§Read an Elections DA after the election / be wrong about what the bill you are talking about does on Agenda Politics DAs. I wouldn't have to put it here if it didn't keep happening folks....

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

Counterplans:

I like a substantive counterplan debate.

o Do:

§ Write a detailed, well written CP Text and/or have some topic specific nuance for generics (like Courts).

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

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

o Don’t:

§Default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses.

Procedurals/Topicality:

· Can be a strong strategy if used appropriately/creatively.

o Do:

§ Prove harm

§ Slow down. Less jargon, more examples

§ Creative Violations based in literature or debate-ability.

o Don’t:

§Use procedurals just to out-tech your opponents, especially outside of Varsity. If you hope to win on Condo, strike me.

Case Debate:

· More folks should debate the case, cards or not. Do your homework pre-tournament!

o Do:

§ Have specific attacks on the mechanism or advantage scenarios of the Aff, even if just smart analytics.

o Don’t:

§ Spend a lot of time reading arguments you can’t go for later or reading new cards that have the same warrants already in the 1AC

Kritiks:

· I started my debate career as a 1 off K Debater and grew to see it as part of a balanced strategy, a good strategy against some affs and not others.

o Do:

§ Read Aff specific links. Identifying evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links.

§ Have coherent Alt solvency with real world examples that a non-debater can understand without having read your solvency author.

§ Tell a non-jargony story in your overview and tags

o Don’t:

§ Read hybrid Ks whose authors wouldn't agree with one another and don't have a consistent theory of power.

§ I see more and more teams giving pre-prepared 2NCs on the K that aren't responsive to the 2AC. Be better than that.

§ Read a K you can’t explain in your own words, one that you can’t articulate it's role in a competitive forum, or what my role listening to your words is.

§ I find Psychoanalysis arguments frustratingly unfalsifiable and hard to believe or follow. I'd love to be proven wrong, but run at your own risk.

o Literature: I have read a lot of K literature (Anti-Blackness, Cap, Fem, Security, etc.) but nobody is well versed in all literature bases. Explain your theory as if I haven't read the book, I will not do work for you and assume to understand your buzzwords.

o Role of the Ballot: I default to serving as a policymaker but will embrace alternative roles if you are clear what I should do instead in your first speech. Doing so later seems pretty cheap, and just isn't good persuasion.

Non-Policy Formats of Debate:

I did a fair amount of Congress and old school LD and enjoyed it. Congress and Exempt offer unique opportunities for participants and can contribute to the accessibility of the activity for beginners. Once you get comfortable arguing, the peer reviewed research about the comparative benefits of policy debate is unassailable. Before you mention it, modern LD is just policy for people who can't work together with a partner. Get over it, develop some life skills.

On Public Forum and other similar anti-intellectual formats

I find the growing popularity many formats like PF that are proud their lack of rigor and anti-intellectualism detestable. Notable research shows that formats of debate that value style > substance are discriminatory against women and minorities, and preferring them anyway is a searing indict of those who participate.

If I'm somehow judging one of these formats anyway, something went wrong in tournament admin, and they made me feel guilty enough that I haven't found a way to get out of judging this round. My apologies in advance. I'llbe grumpy and use your pre-round time to tell you how PF was created as a result of white flight far more than you want to hear (but less than you need, if you are still doing PF).

If you do not have evidence with proper citations, you paraphrase, and/or you don't have full text evidence ready to share with the other team pre-round, I will immediately vote for your opponents. If both of you ignore academic integrity, I will put my feet up, not flow, see if the Tabroom will allow me to give a double loss, and if not, vote based on.....whatever vibes come to me, or who I personally agree with more.

Iyana Trotman Northstar Academy High School - Newark 2 rounds

Anthony Trufanov Sonoma Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 12:17 PM EDT

Assistant Director of Debate at Dartmouth;Coach at Sonoma Academy and Head Royce. He/him.

Email Chain

Add me: ant981228@gmail.com

College people, add: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

High school people, add: sonomacardscardscards@gmail.com and ipostround@googlegroups.com .

Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

I write here.

Key Things to Know

1. I will flow your debate and vote based on that flow. I will read evidence if needed to learn more about an issue that the flow is insufficient to decide.

2. I will flow on paper in line-by-line format with my computer closed. If I do not have paper and cannot borrow it, I will flow on my computer and will not have the speech doc open. I will not attempt to reconstruct my flow from the speech doc. If you are interested in me writing down what you said, you should deliver your speech in a way that reflects that interest. If I did not understand something you said based on your speech, your opponent does not have to respond to it.

3. I prefer negs that clash.

4. I will judge kick unless instructed otherwise.

5. If you say death good you lose.

6. If you ask for a 30 you will get a 25.

Online

I STRONGLY prefer that all cameras be on whenever anyone in the debate is speaking, but I understand if internet or other considerations prevent this.

If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

Big Picture

Tech determines truth unless it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument. I strongly prefer to solve problems without resorting to violence or force.

Here is my decision procedure:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide them first based on the debating, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide fewer issues.If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue.

5. Being honest, my level of investment in remaining a neutral arbiter decreases the more I feel that you are deliberately and knowingly wasting my time. This is just part of being human. If your plan is to blackmail me into voting for you by threatening to cut off your fingers if I don't, or your plan is to declare yourself to be a divine being, from my perspective you have no grounds to be upset about the debate no matter how or why I vote.

This procedure typically means (for example):

1. I will prioritize resolution of impact claims.

2. I will deprioritize resolution of claims that do not affect the relative magnitude of two sides' offense. For example, in a DA/case debate where turns case is conceded, uniqueness is often irrelevant since aff solvency is reduced to the same extent neg offense is inevitable.

As of end-of-season 2024, I have voted aff 47% of the time, and sat on 11% of panels.

I often vote quickly. This does not necessarily mean the debate was lopsided or bad; more likely, it is a sign that the teams clearly communicated the relationships between their arguments, allowing me to perform evaluations as the debate is happening. If I take a long time that means I was unable to do this, either because there was significant complexity in the debate or because communication was poor.

DAs

The agenda DA will usually not survive a rich, accurate description of the current legislative agenda based on thoughtfully reading the news.

CPs

Will judge kick unless told otherwise. I am neg on most substantive theory questions, but strongly aff on the value of theory debate as an exercise. The idea that theory is categorically bad because it is non-resolutional strikes me as little more than textualist cosplay.

Functional competition + arguing about what your plan does and how we can tell >>>>> anything involving the concept of textual competition. Textual competition is mind poison that corrupts any competition model it touches.

If I can't explain what a CP does and how it accomplishes whatever the neg says it does, I am unlikely to vote for it. You can avoid this by writing a meaningful CP text AND explaining it in the speech.

I love a good T debate. I really don't like a bad one. What sets these apart is specific application of broad offense to interpretations and impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic.

I prefer topics with conceptual frameworks that guide aff and neg preparation and research.

Many parts of a T argument can be enhanced with cards - e.g. link to limits, claims of aff/neg bias in the literature, predictability via prodicts/indicts.

Argue by analogy and comparison to other affs, especially in CX.

All offense needs uniqueness. Uniqueness means that given a framework for evaluating a debate, the harms to be avoided are present on one side and absent in at least one legitimate option presented by the other. I do not care how this is achieved mechanically - turning your K into a DA is fine, an alternative is fine, a framework argument that is secretly an alternative is fine - as long as you communicate how each approach generates uniqueness for the offense you want to go for.

For whatever it's worth, I do most of my thinking about debate arguments through the lens of competition theory. This includes neg K framework arguments (which, in front of me, would benefit from disaggregating the questions of what about the aff is a basis for competition, what alternatives are legitimate, and what impacts are the most important). If you say "ontology first," what I will hear is that the aff's ontology is a basis for competition. I will expect the link arguments to be about the aff's ontology, and I will expect to hear about an alternative ontology. When these components are misaligned, my struggle with neg perm answers tends to increase.

Planless Affs

I do not judge many debates involving nontraditional affs. The biggest hurdles to voting aff for me are usually: 1) why can't the aff be read on the neg, 2) why is the aff's offense inherent to resolutional debate or to voting neg on framework instead of some avoidable examples, and 3) how do I reconcile the aff's vision of debate or the topic with debate's inherently (even if not exclusively) competitive nature.

I am very willing to entertain arguments that attempt to denaturalize debate as competition but struggle when these critiques lack an alternative or a theory of why debate as a way of putting two teams and a judge in conversation with one another is nevertheless useful.

I think affs that creatively reinterpret the resolution in a way that does not create excessive curricular demands would be more up my alley, but no one has tested this, so proceed with caution.

I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan. However, "no plan, no perms" is nonsense.

The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being fun/engaging to watch, being smart, being classy, being clear = higher speaks.

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making CXs annoying/pointless, making bad arguments, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks. A new and frequent pet peeve is answering things from the doc that were not in the speech - that is 28.5 behavior.

I do not view speaker points as divorced from substance.

My points are slightly below average.

You can find my ethics and conduct policies here.

Malone Urfalian Notre Dame High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 17, 2024 at 3:33 PM PDT

add me to the email chain - maloneurfalian@gmail.com

Notre Dame high school - 2018

The burden of the affirmative is to interpret the resolutional question and the burden of the negative is to act as the rejoinder of the aff. This can be whatever you want it to be if it is both flowable and making a clear argument that I can evaluate.

Clear, both argumentatively and speaking wise, debates are good. Unclear and not ideologically consistent arguments are not as good. Teams that tell good stories, see how arguments interact with each other, and contextualize warrants to the round are winning more debates. Debaters that are having fun are also probably happier and gaining more from the activity.

There is an inherent risk in presenting arguments, that is a good thing. Taking these types of intellectual risks helps you grow both in what you know and how you have come to know it. Leaving your argumentative comfort zone is the only way to improve these skills, wether you are reading the new argument or a new argument is presented to you in round.

Debate is fun and also silly! Everyone is doing silly things. It is good to laugh about it.

I have no ideological disposition against any argument. Debate is a free for all. If you think you can win on it, you should go for it. Particularly fond of impact turns and any arguments that challenge an assumption of the argument it is in response to. My version of the truth of an argument has little bearing on my decision, but evidence quality has a high bearing on how the argument is evaluated. Arbitrary line drawing of what I 'will or will not' vote on seems silly, but not in the good way. If had the inverse of this paragraph that said, 'the fifty states counterplan is a non starter for me' I would not be in the back of your round and you would not be reading this.

So, I do not tend to believe that arguments should be dismissed on the grounds of not being 'real', 'practical', or 'worth talking about.' I do not think that a jobs guarantee solving a wage spiral has anymore truth to it than china war good. I do not think that any argument that is not directly personally violent to another debater is a non starter. Autodrop L + ratio for offensive conduct. Judged more than one debate this year where the response to a word pic was to double down on that word. Not a winning strategy. I believe in a good faith apology as defense and some form of offense is a sufficient response. Good faith apology sounds subjective, I think there is a bright line that can demonstrate wether or not an act was intentional and malicious or a result of ignorance and a opportunity to learn. This should be established in the link debating. I would prefer the ballot not be a referendum on someones character. I believe an accusation of a clipping or evidence ethics auto ends the round and supersedes the content of the debate.

I find arguments that exist on polar ends of a bellcurve are more convincing to me because the larger the gap between what my ballot is endorsing and/or resolving the easier it is to think about i.e. heg good vs decol is easier to resolve to me then the perm of a soft left aff about the BIA's failings. I've probably voted for Ligotti and X country first strike about the same amount of times. Both many more than any 'soft left' aff vs a disad or a k. It is not as I don't find these arguments 'real', but that it is rarely debated out to the be the 'best' option to resolve the harms or framing of harms they have presented. I think these fail to capitalize on the benefits of either a critical or policy aff, but they have strategic value in theory. I think soft left aff's sweep non specific links or alts that don't access the impact. But that seems to be reflective of a skill issue on the negatives construction of the link debate more so than endorsement of middle ground strategies. Inversely, meeting on the bottom between poles makes a lot of sense to me and is under represented in negative strategies against arguments on either ideological end. I do think that debate is a util based game, and that winning the framing page thoroughly is the only way to get my ballot in these debates.

In the vein of critical affs I believe debate is a game. I find k affs interesting, strategic, engaging, and fun to think about. When the timer goes off it is still a game to me. I give my rfd, I talk to my debaters about what happened in the round, what we can learn from it, and I move on. Maybe I download some PDF's, cut responses, or pull backfiles if it is particularly compelling. It can be a good game with a code that can be modified round by round, but it is insulated to the 8 speeches. I think tying a personal endorsement to the ballot can be parasitic and result in a negative experience with the game. This can be debated and changed of course, but when I walk into the round I am under the assumption I am adjudicating a game with four players. The way to play that game is up to you. Some rules are negotiable. Some aren't. I think the negative is best serve disproving case in the 2nr when they are going for education/clash impacts. I find it unconvincing that a critical aff is 'unfair and impossible to debate', most of them are not very good. Most of them can be dismantled by reading the book or grad thesis their solvency card comes from. Invest the time do that once and it will change your relationship to the argument. Ballot can solve fairness. Reflecting on past RFD's I have given, to win the fairness impact you need to win that stasis is good and/or their overarching impact turn to fairness is wrong. Usually when I vote against fairness it is because the negative team has not articulated what that means. If your args on case in the 2nr are consequence focus good and pragmatism good, you need to prove why the aff doesn't access these framing arguments. Also why do you? Whats the internal link between consequences and fairness? Why is fairness something that is pragmatic? Why do games nessitate equal starting points? You get to chose where you jump off the battle bus. What is the impact I am evaluating the consequence of when you are going for fairness? Where are analogies and examples that demonstrate how it would materializes in or out of debate?

Where is the global south?

I enjoy reading cards. I enjoy cutting cards. That being said you do not need more than 5 cards to win a debate. If you send me a card doc and I did not hear those author names in the 2nr/2ar something has gone wrong in your construction of that card document. Technically conceded warrantless claims unrelated to the content of the debate do not earn ballots, but this does not mean an argument should not be answered because you think it's 'stupid'. If you cannot beat bad arguments you should not win.

Wether you chose to go for a strategy that centers around material action, epistemological framing, or theoretical illegitimacy, you need to resolve the arguments you are going for. The speech you give should be responsive to the speech before you, not just what you have written on your blocks.

I value technical debate, but I think the energy of a round is inescapable. That energy, moments on the flow, is something lost with eyes locked on the screen. Hundreds and hundreds of individual memories scribed onto long paper. Worlds. Moments. Captured. Even if I never look at them again. There is a reason I wrote it down and I think that is valuable. I'll believe anything.

Is it more truly more efficient to get your 27th condo subpoint out? Maybe it is. But I do not find that style of debate as convincing as taking up the opponent on their position on any level and having it out with them over the course of the round. Trying to win versus trying not to lose seperates the middling to higher teir of speaker points for me.

judge kick -- seems scared when people ask me to judge kick i think that it is an extension of conditionality.

multiplank counterplans -- each plank is conditional unless in a set. These probably also need solvency advocates if they are more than 'ban x' Also when it is 'ban x' arguments in the 2ac as to why banning x might be a bad idea are good and only require evidence in a reciprocal manner.

I remember the rounds I have judged, rooting for you all to get smarter, stronger, and faster when I am in the back of your rounds again !!

Rosie Valdez Little Rock Central 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 5, 2024 at 6:05 PM CDT

-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions. Please put BOTH of these on chains: rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com and lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com.

Virtual Debate Updates:

I am almost always using two computers so I can watch you speak and flow/look at docs. I would prefer that you debate with your camera on so that I can watch you speak, but PLEASE do feel free to turn it off if doing so stabilizes your audio.

Do NOT start at top speed. You should start a little slower anyway to allow judges to get acclimated to your speaking style, but I think this is especially important in virtual debate.

Do I understand why you don't want to flash theory/overviews/analytics? Of course. Do you have to do it? No. Will I be mad at you if you don't? Of course not. Would it help me flow better in many virtual debates? YES.

TL;DR

Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is exhausting and I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away. My voting record is a pretty clear indication that I judge a wide variety of debates. Who/what I coach(ed) are generally good indications of what I am about. Update: I've found myself recently in some seven off rounds. I really hate to say I am bad for any kind of debate, but I am bad for these rounds. Late-breaking debates make me tired and grumpy, and I find myself having to do way too much work in these debates to resolve them. If seven off is your thing, and I am your judge, do what you do I guess, but know this is probably the only explicit "don't pref me" in this whole paradigm.

Evidence/Argumentation/General

I care a lot about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make.

I think I flow pretty throughly. I often flow in direct quotes. I do this for me, but I feel like it helps teams understand my decision as we talk after a round. I reward organized speakers and meaningful overviews. I am easily frustrated by a messy card doc.

I listen closely to cross-ex.

Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.

Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.

Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.

K Affs vs. FW

For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.

Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

Arkansas Circuit

1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.

Lauren Velazquez Niles North High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 7:20 AM CDT

Name : Lauren Velazquez

Affiliated School: Niles North

Email: Laurenida@gmail.com

General Background:
I debated competitively in high school in the 1990s for Maine East. I participated on the national circuit where counterplans and theory were common.

Director of Debate at Niles North

Laurenida@gmail.com

Experience:

I competed in the 90s, helped around for a few years, took a bit of a break, have been back for about 7 years. My teams compete on the national circuit, I help heavily with my teams’ strategies, and am a lab leader at a University of Michigan. In recent years I have helped coach teams that cleared at the TOC, won state titles and consistently debated in late elim rounds at national tournaments. TL/DR--I am familiar with national circuit debate but I do not closely follow college debate so do not assume that I am attuned to the arguments that are currently cutting edge/new.

What this means for you---I lean tech over truth when it comes to execution, but truth controls the direction of tech, and some debate meta-arguments matter a lot less to me.

I am not ideological towards most arguments, I believe debate structurally is a game, but there are benefits to debate outside of it being just a game, give it your best shot and I will try my best to adapt to you.

The only caveat is do not read any arguments that you think would be inappropriate for me to teach in my classroom, if you are worried it might be inappropriate, you should stop yourself right there.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
When deciding to vote on disadvantages and affirmative advantages, I look for a combination of good story telling and evidence analysis. Strong teams are teams that frame impact calculations for me in their rebuttals (e.g. how do I decide between preventing a war or promoting human rights?). I should hear from teams how their internal links work and how their evidence and analysis refute indictments from their opponents. Affirmatives should have offense against disads (and Negs have offense against case). It is rare, in my mind, for a solvency argument or "non unique" argument to do enough damage to make the case/disad go away completely, at best, relying only on defensive arguments will diminish impacts and risks, but t is up to the teams to conduct a risk analysis telling me how to weigh risk of one scenario versus another.

TOPICALITY

I will vote on topicality if it is given time (more than 15 seconds in the 2NR) in the debate and the negative team is able to articulate the value of topicality as a debate “rule” and demonstrate that the affirmative has violated a clear and reasonable framework set by the negative. If the affirmative offers a counter interpretation, I will need someone to explain to me why their standards and definitions are best. Providing cases that meet your framework is always a good idea. I find the limits debate to be the crux generally of why I would vote for or against T so if you are neg you 100% should be articulating the limits implications of your interpretation.

KRITIKS
Over the years, I have heard and voted on Kritiks, but I do offer a few honest caveats:

*Please dont read "death good"/nihilism/psychoanalysis in front of me. I mean honestly I will consider it but I know I am biased and I HATE nihilism, psychoanalysis debates. I will try to listen with an open mind but I really don't think these arguments are good for the activity or good for pedagogy--they alienate younger debaters who are learning the game and I don't think that genuine discussions of metaphysics lend themselves to speed reading and "voting" on right/wrong. If you run these I will listen and work actively to be open minded but know you are making an uphill battle for yourself running these. If these are your bread and butter args you should pref me low.

I read newspapers daily so I feel confident in my knowledge around global events. I do not regularly read philosophy or theory papers, there is a chance that I am unfamiliar with your argument or the underlying paradigms. I do believe that Kritik evidence is inherently dense and should be read a tad slower and have accompanying argument overviews in negative block. Impact analysis is vital. What is the role of the ballot? How do I evaluate things like discourse against policy implications (DAs etc)

Also, I’m going to need you to go a tad slower if you are busting out a new kritik, as it does take time to process philosophical writings.

If you are doing something that kritiks the overall debate round framework (like being an Aff who doesnt have a plan text), make sure you explain to me the purpose of your framework and why it is competitively fair and educationally valuable.

COUNTERPLANS
I am generally a fan of CPs as a neg strategy. I will vote for counterplans but I am open to theory arguments from the affirmative (PICs bad etc). Counterplans are most persuasive to me when the negative is able to clearly explain the net benifts and how (if at all) the counterplan captures affirmative solvency. For permutations to be convincing offense against CPs, Affs should explain how permutation works and what voting for perm means (does the DA go away, do I automatically vote against neg etc?)

RANDOM

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex and dominating. You are part of a 2 person team for a reason.

Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you have a ton of analytics in a row or are explaining a new/dense theory, you may want to slow down a little since processing time for flowing analytics or kritkits is a little slower than me just flowing the text of your evidence.

I listen to cross ex. I think teams come up with a lot of good arguments during this time. If you come up with an argument in cross ex-add it to the flow in your speech.

Tyler Vergho Bellarmine College Preparatory 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 4:32 AM PDT

Bellarmine ‘19, Dartmouth ‘23

Email: tvergho@gmail.com – put me on the chain.

Last Updated: November 2024

Topic Knowledge: I'm no longer actively involved in debate. I may judge a tournament here or there, but it's likely that I'll be hearing whatever your aff is or topic terminology for the first time in the round. Explain your arguments accordingly.

I have read and voted for all types of arguments. I really don’t care what you say. I appreciate debaters who engage the line-by-line, advance smart and well-researched arguments, and generally seem like they want to be there. The best debaters answer and reference arguments in the order they were presented, crystallize the debate into a few central issues in the final rebuttals, and frame the decision they want me to give by resolving those issues.

Tech over truth, but conceded arguments only have the implications you say they do. Nothing you say will convince me to stop flowing or abandon the line-by-line. Otherwise, any of my predispositions can be easily reversed by out-debating the other team.

The one exception to this is: post-TOC, I will no longer vote on "new affs bad" or a similar theory argument if newly read in the block. The standard I will enforce is that theory arguments that could feasibly have been introduced in the 1NC must be. Hiding cheap shots is not debating; debate as if you are grown.

Debaters should presume good-faith engagement by their opponents. If your strategy primarily relies on ad hominems, references to out-of-round events, screenshots, or accusations that could have been resolved by emailing your opponents or their coaches before the round, you should strike me.

Affs should probably be topical. I don’t have a strong ideological bias against planless affs, but evenly debated I’m skeptical of most common aff responses to framework. Procedural fairness is not automatically an impact.

Conditionality is fine. Anything else is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

I default to judge kick. If equally debated, I’ll likely err negative as the logical extension of conditionality.

Objections to counterplans are generally better expressed through competition than theory.

You can insert re-highlightings as evidence indicts, provided that the re-highlighting actually comes from the card your opponent read. If it comes three paragraphs later, you actually have to read the part where the author concludes the other way. I will treat this as the equivalent of an evidence indict with added context. Advancing some extrinsic argument always requires reading the card.

Asking for a 30 = auto 25.

For a description of my procedure on evaluating in-round ethics and conduct issues, see here. (Largely stolen from Truf's paradigm.)

Aaron Vinson New Trier High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 22, 2024 at 4:26 PM UTC

Aaron Vinson

Debate Coach, New Trier High School, Winnetka, Illinois

email = vinsona@newtrier.k12.il.us

==Updated 10/22/24==

Overarching philosophy of debate/judging (scroll down for thoughts on arguments)

I used to judge a good amount. That has not been the case. I taught at Michigan this summer and probably judged about 15 debates there .

Debate is about having fun - you should read arguments that you enjoy regardless of my past debate background or what arguments my students may or may not read.

Debate is about communication, response, and oral argumentation - if it wasn't in the debate or if it was not clear to me in a debate, it's not a thing. All arguments should have some level of engagement with what the opposing team is saying or they are just floating statements. I try to judge all debates through a lens of, how will I explain to the losing team why they did not win and how can I explain how they could have won.

Debate should be a safe space - be respectful to your partner and opponents; if your "thought experiment" includes trivializing genocide, suicide, x identity, you should consider the impact that that argument might have on your opponents and anyone watching the debate. I understand that discomfort in engaging new areas of literature can be beneficial but there is a line between that and making people feel uncomfortable talking about their own identity (literally referring to CX exchanges with this example). If this is egregious I will feel compelled to intervene.

Thoughts on specific arguments

Topicality - it's fine. Probably hard to win in front of me. What I would call a "low probability victory" because I think most debates fall down into infinitely regressive limits debates that are easily resolved - for me - with reasonable interpretations (that means the aff would have to extend a reasonable interpretation!). To be successful in front of me I think that debating topicality more like a DA (link explanation + impact) and then debating interpretations like a CP (what the debates under each interpretation would be like and why they are good).IPR edit -- there are some interesting topicality arguments on this topic that I am intrigued by so I'm better for t than on past topics.

Counterplans - they're good. Consult CP's are fine. Condition CP's are fine. Process CP's are mostly fine. Delay CP's are mostly fine. Advantage CP's are good. Agent CP's are good. International Actor CP's are fine. States CP's are good. 2NC CP's are questionable. Offsets CP's can be fine. Affs can be most successful in front of me by explaining what is different between the plan and counterplan and then explaining why that difference is impacted by a specific aff advantage / internal link scenario). Final thought is that the aff often forgets to point out that the billion plank advantage cp prolly links to politics.

Counterplan theory - conditionality is probably good because the alternatives create worse debates. I evaluate these debates technically, which often gives a slight advantage to the neg, and look for impact calculus that never materializes (which is also good for the neg). Also, most things just don't make sense as voting issues except conditionality. If you want to be successful with counterplan theory in front of me, see my notes about topicality. And be very clear about what you want me to do and why (reject the argument, stick them with it, they lose, etc).

Disadvantages - they're good. Politics DA's are good. Elections DA's are okay. Rider DA's are so-so. Tradeoff DA's are good. Economy DA's are good. Spending DA's are so-so. I think intrinsicness is interesting, turns case is a big deal, contextualizing size of DA vs size of case is helpful for all. Negs who make their DA's bigger in the block (impact wise) are often successful in front of me. IPR edit -- going for internal DA's or small DA's like court clog and case are probably uphill battles in most cases.

Kritiks - they're good. I believe my voting record skews neg because of most aff teams' inability to generate offense. Aff perm strategies are okay but should be contextualized with offense, solvency deficits, etc. I default to fiat meaning "imagine" so sure we arent going to start a world revolution but I could certainly imagine that or we could talk about if that's a good thought experiment. I would give myself a "B" for K literacy fluency. 2024 edit -- no team is "above" offense. Most of the times when I vote neg in a k debate the aff team is so shocked because they had these handful of defensive arguments and are shocked that the sum total of those defensive arguments plus case was not a successful strategy. Don't be that team.

T USFG/Framework - it's good. But ... I believe my voting record skews the other way. I've had the pleasure of many coaches angrily asking me about arguments that weren't in the debate. I view debate as a communication activity and I only consider the arguments presented in the debate. Coaches get upset when this emphasis on technical execution seems to "hurt" their framework team. I think the data bears out that I am winnable for either side. I will say that affs that don't read a plan AND are not in the same direction as the resolution OR don't read a plan AND are not related to the resolution have a low win rate in front of me. See notes about debating topicality in front of me.2024 edit -- see note above.

Ethics - clipping is bad. Miscutting evidence is bad. Misrepresenting evidence is bad. Misdisclosing is bad. Are any of these things auto-losses in-front of me? Probably not. Context matters. If one piece of evidence is miscut or misrepresented, it seems reasonable to just imagine that card wasn't read. If someone does want to stake the debate on one of these things that can be verified, I can be persuaded. If team A asserts that team B has clipped or miscut evidence, and stakes the debate on it, and is wrong, team A would lose. That's what it means to stake the debate on something.

Speaker points - I know I look 16 but I'm much older. So are my points. I'm trying to be better to represent changing norms but that's a thing. If you lose you're probably getting a 28 something if you were reasonable. If you weren't reasonable you're probably getting a high 27. If you win I try to think about if I would expect the team to break at the tournament. If so they're probably getting a 29. Then relative comparisons to other people in the debate kick in. Things that bump your points up: clarity, cx, respecting your opponent, judge instruction, evaluation and assessment based arguments at the end. Things that can bump your points down: being hard to understand/follow, being mean, not kicking arguments correctly, not attempting line by line, only reading cards, not answering / not letting your partner answer in cx, not disclosing to your opponent before I get there, tech incompetence, prep shenaningans.

Zidao Wang Glenbrook South High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 11, 2024 at 7:41 AM CDT

About Me:

Georgetown LW

Homestead MW

Put me on the chain: zidao.debate@gmail.com.

Conflicts: Georgetown, Homestead, GBS, Westwood, Northside, Woodward.

Top Level:

Debate is a competitive activity that emphasizes research, strategic thinking, and persuasion. The best debaters possess skills regarding all three.

My biases will only come into play at the absolute margins. All can be overcome with technical debating.

Non-negotiables:

1 - Debate should not be about issues that occurred outside the round. If something has occurred outside the debate that threatens the well-being of any of the debaters, I will end the round and go to tab.

2 - Everyone must follow speech times, speech orders, prep time, there will be one winner and loser, etc.

3 - No asking for speaks or crowd participation.

Decision-making:

Tech over truth. However, truth significantly helps your ability to win the argument. Unwarranted or ridiculous arguments can be easily dismissed, but you must answer them.

Zero risk is possible, but my threshold is higher than some other judges. For example, if the 2NR drops "fiat solves the link to the politics DA" and it was well-warranted in the 1AR, I would likely assign the DA zero risk.

Author quals matter. Cards written by undergrads, etc. should not be given much weight.

Clarity and ease of communication > extremely fast/unclear subpoints that are impossible to flow. Nine times out of ten you are better off slowing down and emphasizing strong moments of connection.

I am not a robot. Debate is a communicative activity. Sounding like you're winning will help.

You can insert re-highlightings if it's within the text of the card that was already read, but you must give it context and explain the implication. If you're inserting something 3 paragraphs after the original card, you have to read it.

If your evidence is extremely under-highlighted, you will have a tough time selling me in a close debate.

Theory:

On the Aff, everything seems to be a reason to reject the argument except condo (but you have to say it).

I will judge condo like any other debate. However, I am intuitively more persuaded by Neg flex than most Aff objections.

The less intuitive the CP is, the more likely I am to be skeptical of it absent evidence. I am a harder sell for solvency advocate theory.

T vs Plans:

Topicality says this debate should not have occurred because the Aff was not within the bounds of the agreed upon resolution. Therefore, it asks me to forego evaluating a debate about the topic in favor of punishing the Aff.

I default to offense/defense in lieu of a reasonability argument. However, an offensively framed reasonability argument can be persuasive to me in light of my above thoughts. This must be grounded in predictable and qualified counter-interp evidence. Additionally, the Aff must win a significant amount of defense to Neg standards.

I don’t view reasonability as a gut check, or a decision based on “vibes.” A successful reasonability argument still requires the Aff to win offense for why viewing the difference between two interps through the lens of offense/defense is a bad frame. It is also grounded in the reasonable doubt burden of proof in criminal law.

I am most likely to vote Neg when they are winning a large link to limits, doing concrete impact calculus, and explaining why they have an inroad to predictability/why Neg ground outweighs.

DAs:

DA turns case/solves case can be high impact. The earlier this debate gets started the better. It's also far more persuasive if you can get it higher up the link chain (ie: link turns solvency > nuke war turns warming).

I care a lot about the story-telling component of DAs. In other words, don't debate the parts of the DAs like a bunch of disaggregated pieces without a clear vision. Focus on the core narrative of the DA and ensure that your line by line supports that narrative. Ultimately, I need to be able to articulate in a few sentences the thrust of the scenario the Neg is trying to sell me. Similarly, the Aff needs to explain why the Neg's story is inaccurate.

Impact turns can be great debates, but the closer they get to spark/wipeout the more they start feeling like bad debates.

CPs:

Not the greatest for process stuff that is not about the plan. If you have a net benefit that is a reason the plan is bad or even genuinely mutually exclusive with the 1AC, then I will be extremely receptive on competition. However, most consult and process backfiles are not competitive given equal debating. Best route to an Aff ballot vs these CPs are perms. This preference, like all other preferences, will not come into play unless the debate is extremely close.

If two teams are advancing different visions of competition in the final rebuttals, I will strictly evaluate the offense and defense for each interpretation.

PICs are fine if they result in something different than the Aff. Not the best for word PICs that do the entire plan. If you have good evidence that the inclusion of a certain topic word affects the plan implementation, then I am much easier to sell on your word PIC. This needs to be grounded in an argument about what constitutes a function.

Ks:

The more your K is secretly a counterplan and a DA, the better I am for it. If your K does not exclude weighing the plan, I find it important for there to be an associated framework argument that checks back against an otherwise relatively persuasive 2AR on perm double bind.

I'm not willing to split the middle ground on framework arbitrarily. If the Aff is saying "No Ks" and the Neg is saying "Only Reps Matter" in the final rebuttals, I will decide on one or the other. However, either team can advocate for a middle ground during the debate and I will be receptive. If you are doing this, make sure to clearly explain what your interpretation looks like and how I should make decisions based on that framework.

I am worse than average for Ks that entirely moot the plan. If equally debated, I find fairness and clash objections to these relatively persuasive. I evaluate these types of Ks similarly to how I would evaluate competition for a Process CP. To win, Affs need to be technically sufficient and answer all tricks/checklist items.

The best 2NRs make clear strategic choices on the K. I find myself voting Aff most consistently when the 2NR fails to collapse the debate down to a core set of issues. (Ex: Going for too many links, trying to both win fiat Ks and links to the plan, not developing your core theory of power enough). Similarly, most 2ARs against the K have to win a few core issues, and the rest usually falls into place.

K Affs:

You do not have to read a plan. All you need to do is out tech the other team. If you can’t do this, I am likely to be persuaded by T.

Against T, I am equally fine for an Aff that defends a counter-interp and an Aff that just impact turns. If the Aff wins that topically itself is violent, then a lot of objections about "models" or "ballet solvency" seem to go away. However, I find most objections to the reading of topicality unpersuasive.

I have no experience adjudicating K v K debates. I don't find "no perms" persuasive but am entirely open to other things besides the advocacy statement being a basis for philosophical competition.

I am also good for impact turns. Does the 1AC say "attempting to control other states" is bad? Sounds like NPT Good is offense. Did the 2AC say reject "all instances of American imperialism?" Sounds like you can say Heg Good.

If the Aff reads a plan but says it's good for a deontological reason like Kant or Buddhism, I think T is basically unwinnable.

Ethics/Decorum:

Minimizing dead time in debates will not only allow me to make better decisions (by giving me more decision time) but will also help your speaks.

Clipping= L + 0. This needs to be multiple lines, not a couple words. Any team may initiate an ethics challenge about clipping or other procedural violations (there must be recorded evidence). If I conclude the team is incorrect, they will lose the round and receive a 25. I will also self-police this.

Overt sexism, racism, homophobia, etc = L+0. Threats of physical or psychological violence will never be acceptable.

If you are online, I prefer camera on. However, I won't seek to penalize anyone for having it off.

Speaker points:

If you opensource (every card you've read) and let me know before the RFD, you will get .1 extra speaks. This doesn't apply if you are in college. I expect you to opensource if you are a college team.

If you give the final rebuttal without the use of a laptop, you will get .1 extra speaks.

T Weddington Kenwood Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 27, 2024 at 9:30 AM EDT

Affiliations:

University of Rochester (Debater): 2008-2012
CUNY Debate (Coach): 2012-2015
WVU Debate (Coach): 2012-2018
University of Rochester (Assistant Director): 2019-2021
Head-Royce (Coach-Director-Coach): 2017-2024
Kenwood (Coach) 2024-

top level predispositions (Update pre-season fall 2024):

I'd truly prefer that you don't debate if you're sick. If you must debate, I travel to every tournament with headphones and a laptop sufficient to allow you to debate from a hotel room or space separate from other judges and debaters. If you are symptomatic (nausea, persistent cough, runny nose, etc.) I will stop the debate and politely ask your coach to see if we can set up a remote debate setup for the round.

I won't be reading along with you, and won't spot either team args from pieces of evidence that weren't made in speeches. I'll resolve comparative evidentiary claims, if necessary, after the round.

If I think something racist, sexist, etc. has happened in the round, I'm not going to tabroom lol. If it's especially flagrant I'll vote and talk to coaches, but I can't say how I'll react in every instance. I think that the go to tabroom argument is a non starter and naive about how social dynamics play out in the debate community. I'm also an adult and an educator, so given such behavior has occurred I'm not sure why I would leave students in that situation.

Ethics challenges:

a. I'm not reading along, so I'm not listening for clipping especially close. You should probably record if you think that there's any clipping occurring.
b. Miscut/mischaracterization of evidence: I take this very seriously and will compare the card with the original text to see if any decontextualization / recontextualization / academic dishonesty has occurred. I do not evaluate intent but I do evaluate impact and fidelity to the article or book's original argument.

Plan texts nowadays aren't really descriptive of what the aff will defend and I think negative teams don't take advantage of that enough. I don't like affs that speculative questions about what would or wouldn't be mandated by the plan as if advanced policy debaters should stick their heads in the soil around what normal means to implement a legislative change would entail. I think that affs around a fiated plan should decide what they do and don't defend and plan subsequent strategy accordingly. I will expect aff teams not to dodge simple questions about whether they use courts/congress, about what grounds for claims of IP infringement they establish, etc. I will also tend to read the debate through answers to such questions in CX. Being forthcoming and orienting your strategy around what the aff does is a much better basis for a win in front of me than trying to hide your hand.

I don't like generic neg strategies, if you're going to do this don't pref me please - - this means nonspecific process counterplans, disads, CPs with only internal net benefits, etc.

No, CX can't be used for prep lol.

I'm not going to judge kick. You make a decision about the world you'll defend in the 2nr and I'll follow accordingly.

For many of you reading this, speaker point inflation is the probably norm. I think the standard for what makes a good speech is a. too low and b. disconnected from strategy. My average speaker point range is 28.3-28.7, average meaning you're not doing any work between flows, not making the debate smaller for the sake of comparative analysis, not reading especially responsive strategies, not punishing generic strategies with pointed responses. On the other hand, I reward teams that have ostensibly done the reading and research to give me concrete analysis.

Given the above (and oodles of macrohistorical reasons), we probably are already in the world that the PRL warned us about. I'm more persuaded by empirical analysis of models of debate than the abstract nowadays.

Longer meditations below:

I've found that the integrity in which some high school debaters are interacting with evidence is declining. Two things:

1. Critical affirmatives that misrepresent critical theory literature or misrepresent their affirmative in the 1ac. I'm very inclined to vote against a team that does this on either side of the debate, with the latter only being limited to the affirmative side. Especially in terms of the affirmative side, I believe that a floor level minimum prep for critical affs should be that the affirmative clearly has a statement of what they will defend in the 1ac and also that they stick to that stasis point throughout the debate. If a critical aff shifts drastically between speeches I will be *very* inclined toward to any procedural/case neg arguments.

2. Policy affs that have weak internal links. I understand that a nuclear war scenario is the most far fetched portion of any advantage, but I've been seeing a lot of international relations scenarios that don't really take into account the politics of really any other countries. If your international conflict, spillover, modeling, etc. scenario doesn't have a semblance of the inner workings of another party to the conflict, I'll be *very* inclined to solvency presses and presumption arguments by the negative in that scenario.

I don't want to be on the email chain. If I want to, I'll ask. You should debate as if I'm not reading a speech doc.

I almost exclusively view debate as an educational / democratic training activity. I think rules are important to that end, however. This is to say that I ground much of what I think is important in debate in terms of how skills critical thinking in debate rounds adds into a larger goal of pursuing knowledge and external decisionmaking.

i've been in debate since 2008. at this point i'm simultaneously more invested and less invested in the activity. i'm more invested in what students get out of debate, and how I can be more useful in my post-round criticism. I'm less invested in personalities/teams/rep/ideological battles in debate. it's entirely possible that I have never heard of you before, and that's fine.

you should run what will win you the round. you should run what makes you happy.

Impact scenarios are where I vote - Even if you win uniqueness/link questions, if I don't know who's going to initiate a war, how an instance of oppression would occur, etc. by the end of the round, I'll probably go looking elsewhere to decide the round. The same thing goes for the aff - if I can't say what the aff solves and why that's important, I am easily persuaded by marginal negative offense.

Prep time ends when you email the file to the other team. It's 2024, you've likely got years of experience using a computer for academic/personal work, my expectations of your email prowess are very high.

Competing methods debates don't mean no permutation, for me at least. probably means that we should rethink how permutations function. people/activists/organizers combine methods all the time.

I've found myself especially unwilling to vote on theory that's on face not true - for example: if you say floating PICs bad, and the alternative isn't articulated as a floating PIC in the debate, I won't vote on it. I don't care if it's conceded.

I think fairness is an independent impact, but also that non-topical affs can be fair. A concession doesn't mean an argument is made. your only job is to make arguments, i don't care if the other team has conceded anything, you still have to make the argument in the last speech.

Affs I don't like:

I've found myself increasingly frustrated with non-topical affs that run philosophically/critically negative stances on the aff side. The same is true for non-topical affs that just say that propose a framework for analysis without praxis. I'm super open to presumption/switch-side arguments against these kinds of affs.

Affs that simply restate a portion of the resolution as their plan text.

I'm frustrated by non-topical affs that do not have any sort of advocacy statement/plan text. If you're going to read a bunch of evidence and I have to wait until CX or the 2AC to know what I'm voting for, I'll have a lower threshold to vote on fw/t/the other team.

Finally, I have limited belief in the transformative power of speech/performance. Especially beyond the round. I tend to think that power/violence is materially structured and that the best advocacies can tell me how to change the status quo in those terms.

Negs I don't like:

Framework 2nr's that act as if the affirmative isn't dynamic and did not develop between the 2ac and the 1ar. Most affs that you're inclined to run framework against will prove "abuse" for you in the course of the debate.

Stale politics disadvantages. Change your shells between tournaments if necessary, please.

Theoretically inconsistent/conflicting K strats.

I don't believe in judge kicking. Your job is to make the strategic decisions as the debate continues, not mine.

if you have questions about me or my judge philosophy, ask them before the round!

he/him/his

Adam White Bellarmine College Preparatory 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 12:28 PM CDT

Adam White

He/Him

Last Substantive Paradigm Update: 10/29/24

Georgetown '25. 3x NDT elims.

Affiliations: Bellarmine, WUDL, Blue Valley West

adamwhite(dot)debate(at)gmail(dot)com

---Strike Check---

Most familiar with policy arguments; lean aff on neg frameworks that devolve into “you link you lose”; lean neg on aff frameworks that have no place for the K; intuitively skeptical of affs that don’t affirm the resolution.

---Logistics---

Yes Chain. Please include the following pieces of information in the subject line: Year, Tournament, Round Number, Aff Team, Neg Team

Please send verbatimized Microsoft Word documents absent extenuating circumstances.

No cards in email body. Yes marked docs. Yes card doc with relevant cards referenced in the 2NR/2AR. No inserting rehighlighted ev to make new warrants, but yes if it’s giving context to an argument previously made.

---Key Things to Know---

I will flow the entire debate (including CX) by ear on either paper or an excel spreadsheet, and I will decide the debate based on that flow. I will not follow along in the speech doc.

I refuse to evaluate anything that occurred outside of the debate round.

I am highly skeptical that my ballot has any other power beyond determining who wins and who loses.

Bullying/bigotry/discrimination = immediate L + lowest speaks available. I assume good faith to the extent that I reasonably can. People, especially high schoolers, make mistakes in a highly demanding, pressure-filled, and adversarial activity. Apologies and open conversations are far better means for personal development and reconciliation than my ballot, and I believe competitively incentivizing accusations creates dangerous perverse incentives and is likely counterproductive.

I try to be as ideologically open to as many arguments as I can be. I will not hesitate, however, to immediately end the debate and/or vote down a team if there are arguments made that I believe seriously imperil the healthy functioning of an academic extracurricular activity that involves minors (for instance: arguments implying that students ought to commit self-harm, graphic sexual imagery, etc.).

---How I Render Decisions---

I will attempt to craft a ballot that minimizes intervention to the extent possible. That means I will try to resolve the fewest number of issues possible, beginning with the most important issues in the debate and moving outwards. The exact path through the issues is influenced by the top of the 2NR and 2AR.

If an issue seems difficult to resolve, I will prioritize crafting ballots that do not rely on me evaluating said issue.

Once I have rendered a decision in favor of a team, I will quickly re-evaluate the core issues being as friendly as possible to the losing side. I do this to double check my process and uncover potentially more streamlined ballots that I initially overlooked.

---Argument Resolution---

Concessions are given full weight, but they are important only to the extent that the implications were unpacked.

If I cannot resolve a given quandary based solely on my flow via technical concessions, I will read relevant evidence to aid in that resolution.

I care about evidence a lot, both in terms of quantity and quality. The 2NR and 2AR should speak to the specific warrants in their evidence they would like me to read.

I will only give you access to your highlighted words. I don't care if cards are short, but I care substantially that there is relative grammatical coherence.

That said, I give smart analytics a lot of weight, and I give evidence with no author credentials little weight.

I am not an objective robot, nor will I pretend to be one. Debate is a persuasive activity, and that inherently comes with the subjective bias of how different arguments resonate with me. I feel perfectly comfortable partly discounting arguments that instinctively fall outside of my conception of common sense or logical understanding of the world.

---Case Debating With A Plan---

2As get away with murder. 2Ns should exploit that by explicitly flagging warrants in 1NC case evidence that the 2AC does not contest.

---Disads---

I like them. I like them a lot. I’d prefer to vote for ones that make sense.

---Counterplans/Theory---

I tend to care a lot about arbitrariness/logic/predictability relative to debatability, though the magnitude of internal links obviously matters a great deal.

I prefer for theory debates (process/consult/delay/whatever bad) to be couched in terms of why I should normatively view a specific permutation as legitimate.

I default to placing the burden on the aff to prove their advocacy desirable in relation to both the status quo and competitive advocacies introduced by the negative (I default to judge kick).

---Topicality vs Plans---

Retweet arbitrariness/predictability over debatability. Topicality is a descriptive question where we interpret the words in the resolution, not create new ones.

I am somewhat persuaded by reasonability claims that operate at the level of interpretations and less so those that are about the specific aff in question.

If the plan uses resolutional language, I am amenable to either saying plan-text-in-a-vacuum is bad or smuggling in topicality debates on PICs out of that resolutional wording.

---Kritiks---

I am heavily skeptical of concluding that broad, structural claims are true absent a strong epistemic basis for doing so.

I will not arbitrarily decide to adopt some middle ground interpretation between the aff and neg framework interps unless one team tells me that it's an option.

I am pretty good for neg framework interps that link turn fairness and clash against "FW: No Ks/plan consequences only." Consequently, aff teams would often be better served by reading interps that give a reasonable role for the K to soak up neg offense.

Both teams should invest more time unpacking the implications of their framework interpretation. For instance: can the neg win for disproving a single aff justification? How do I weigh policy consequences against epistemological indicts? Does the aff get to weigh the totality of their representations? Does the neg get PIKs? Should we imagine the aff as being implemented using the 1AC's representations? Is neg offense against aff justifications based on the policies those justifications would lead us to, or based on the consequences of introducing said scholarship in debate, or something else entirely?

---Kritikal Affs---

When listening to kritikal affs, I often find myself thinking, “yeah, this is neat, sure, uh huh, okay… but like… why is any of this an intrinsic reason why you should win the debate?” 1ACs and 2ARs should be constructed around answering that question persuasively.

I am curious (in a positive way) about affirmatives that counterdefine words in the resolution in a non-traditional way and defend that interpretation. “Counterinterpretations” that don’t interpret the resolution would do best explaining an alternative source of predictability for their interp.

---Neg vs Kritikal Affs---

I am equally fine evaluating substantive arguments (DAs, impact turns, counteradvocacies, kritiks, presumption, etc) and topicality. Given that the resolution and usual policy-making paradigms are often abandoned in these debates, a substantial portion of the 2NR should be dedicated to explaining why a given substantive argument is a sufficient reason is to vote neg.

Game for any impact to topicality.

Neg teams, in addition to their usual external offense, would do well to highly leverage turns/solves case arguments, indicts of the aff’s interp ability to solve aff offense, and if applicable, direct offense against the aff interp (aff interp = XYZ way of debating. That’s directly bad).

Arguments for why arbitrary counterinterpretations justify other counterinterpretations are highly persuasive to me.

TVAs are generally overutilized and Read-It-On-The-Neg is generally underutilized as defense, but each have their place against specific 2AC arguments.

---Less Essential Random Things---

Speaker points are mine to decide.

Absent judge instruction to the contrary, I will default to voting negative unless the aff proves the resolution true by example.

I am fully comfortable discounting an argument if I do not understand it.

“Util/consequentialism bad” arguments are not very persuasive to me if the aff has a consequence to their plan that they would like me to evaluate in a utilitarian manner.

Lean neg on conditionality. "We/they get 3!" is not super persuasive to me (see arbitrariness over debatability).

I am amenable to the claim that conditionality bad is a reason to stick the neg with all the advocacies, not to reject the team.

I could see myself voting neg on presumption if there are significant technical drops, but any semblance of clash will usually result in at least some miniscule risk of aff offense.

If the neg offense generated by a net benefit outweighs the impacted solvency deficits generated by the aff, then I vote neg. Your time invested in debates over sufficiency framing would almost always be better spent elsewhere.

Whit Whitmore Pace Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:39 AM EDT

add me to the email chain: whit211@gmail.com

Do not utter the phrase "plan text in a vacuum" or any other clever euphemism for it. It's not an argument, I won't vote on it, and you'll lose speaker points for advancing it. You should defend your plan, and I should be able to tell what the plan does by reading it.

Inserting things into the debate isn't a thing. If you want me to evaluate evidence, you should read it in the debate.

Cross-ex time is cross-ex time, not prep time. Ask questions or use your prep time, unless the tournament has an official "alt use" time rule.

You should debate line by line. That means case arguments should be responded to in the 1NC order and off case arguments should be responded to in the 2AC order. I continue to grow frustrated with teams that do not flow. If I suspect you are not flowing (I visibly see you not doing it; you answer arguments that were not made in the previous speech but were in the speech doc; you answer arguments in speech doc order instead of speech order), you will receive no higher than a 28. This includes teams that like to "group" the 2ac into sections and just read blocks in the 2NC/1NR. Also, read cards. I don't want to hear a block with no cards. This is a research activity.

Debate the round in a manner that you would like and defend it. I consistently vote for arguments that I don’t agree with and positions that I don’t necessarily think are good for debate. I have some pretty deeply held beliefs about debate, but I’m not so conceited that I think I have it all figured out. I still try to be as objective as possible in deciding rounds. All that being said, the following can be used to determine what I will most likely be persuaded by in close calls:

If I had my druthers, every 2nr would be a counterplan/disad or disad/case.

In the battle between truth and tech, I think I fall slightly on side of truth. That doesn’t mean that you can go around dropping arguments and then point out some fatal flaw in their logic in the 2AR. It does mean that some arguments are so poor as to necessitate only one response, and, as long as we are on the same page about what that argument is, it is ok if the explanation of that argument is shallow for most of the debate. True arguments aren’t always supported by evidence, but it certainly helps.

I think research is the most important aspect of debate. I make an effort to reward teams that work hard and do quality research on the topic, and arguments about preserving and improving topic specific education carry a lot of weight with me. However, it is not enough to read a wreck of good cards and tell me to read them. Teams that have actually worked hard tend to not only read quality evidence, but also execute and explain the arguments in the evidence well. I think there is an under-highlighting epidemic in debates, but I am willing to give debaters who know their evidence well enough to reference unhighlighted portions in the debate some leeway when comparing evidence after the round.

I think the affirmative should have a plan. I think the plan should be topical. I think topicality is a voting issue. I think teams that make a choice to not be topical are actively attempting to exclude the negative team from the debate (not the other way around). If you are not going to read a plan or be topical, you are more likely to persuade me that what you are doing is ‘ok’ if you at least attempt to relate to or talk about the topic. Being a close parallel (advocating something that would result in something similar to the resolution) is much better than being tangentially related or directly opposed to the resolution. I don’t think negative teams go for framework enough. Fairness is an impact, not a internal link. Procedural fairness is a thing and the only real impact to framework. If you go for "policy debate is key to skills and education," you are likely to lose. Winning that procedural fairness outweighs is not a given. You still need to defend against the other team's skills, education and exclusion arguments.

I don’t think making a permutation is ever a reason to reject the affirmative. I don’t believe the affirmative should be allowed to sever any part of the plan, but I believe the affirmative is only responsible for the mandates of the plan. Other extraneous questions, like immediacy and certainty, can be assumed only in the absence of a counterplan that manipulates the answers to those questions. I think there are limited instances when intrinsicness perms can be justified. This usually happens when the perm is technically intrinsic, but is in the same spirit as an action the CP takes This obviously has implications for whether or not I feel some counterplans are ultimately competitive.

Because I think topic literature should drive debates (see above), I feel that both plans and counterplans should have solvency advocates. There is some gray area about what constitutes a solvency advocate, but I don’t think it is an arbitrary issue. Two cards about some obscure aspect of the plan that might not be the most desirable does not a pic make. Also, it doesn’t sit well with me when negative teams manipulate the unlimited power of negative fiat to get around literature based arguments against their counterplan (i.e. – there is a healthy debate about federal uniformity vs state innovation that you should engage if you are reading the states cp). Because I see this action as comparable to an affirmative intrinsicness answer, I am more likely to give the affirmative leeway on those arguments if the negative has a counterplan that fiats out of the best responses.

My personal belief is probably slightly affirmative on many theory questions, but I don’t think I have voted affirmative on a (non-dropped) theory argument in years. Most affirmatives are awful at debating theory. Conditionality is conditionality is conditionality. If you have won that conditionality is good, there is no need make some arbitrary interpretation that what you did in the 1NC is the upper limit of what should be allowed. On a related note, I think affirmatives that make interpretations like ‘one conditional cp is ok’ have not staked out a very strategic position in the debate and have instead ceded their best offense. Appeals to reciprocity make a lot sense to me. ‘Argument, not team’ makes sense for most theory arguments that are unrelated to the disposition of a counterplan or kritik, but I can be persuaded that time investment required for an affirmative team to win theory necessitates that it be a voting issue.

Critical teams that make arguments that are grounded in and specific to the topic are more successful in front of me than those that do not. It is even better if your arguments are highly specific to the affirmative in question. I enjoy it when you paint a picture for me with stories about why the plans harms wouldn’t actually happen or why the plan wouldn’t solve. I like to see critical teams make link arguments based on claims or evidence read by the affirmative. These link arguments don’t always have to be made with evidence, but it is beneficial if you can tie the specific analytical link to an evidence based claim. I think alternative solvency is usually the weakest aspect of the kritik. Affirmatives would be well served to spend cross-x and speech time addressing this issue. ‘Our authors have degrees/work at a think tank’ is not a response to an epistemological indict of your affirmative. Intelligent, well-articulated analytic arguments are often the most persuasive answers to a kritik. 'Fiat' isn't a link. If your only links are 'you read a plan' or 'you use the state,' or if your block consistently has zero cards (or so few that find yourself regularly sending out the 2nc in the body rather than speech doc) then you shouldn't be preffing me.

LD Specific Business:

I am primarily a policy coach with very little LD experience. Have a little patience with me when it comes to LD specific jargon or arguments. It would behoove you to do a little more explanation than you would give to a seasoned adjudicator in the back of the room. I will most likely judge LD rounds in the same way I judge policy rounds. Hopefully my policy philosophy below will give you some insight into how I view debate. I have little tolerance and a high threshold for voting on unwarranted theory arguments. I'm not likely to care that they dropped your 'g' subpoint, if it wasn't very good. RVI's aren't a thing, and I won't vote on them.

Rachael Wilczewski Parkrose High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 1:39 PM PDT

Hi all :)

I am the head coach of Parkrose High School in Portland, OR. At Parkrose, I primarily coach policy for the Oregon/NAUDL/Nat Cir. but I have students who do IE's and other debate events as well. I did policy debate in high school and parli (NPDA) in college, nat cir. I have either debated, debated against, or am familiar with most, if not all, arguments out there. I spent my time debating policy and k arguments pretty equally - but probably more k heavy - both on the aff and neg.

I would call myself a tabula rasa judge first. I will hear any argument you can justify - with some exceptions (ex: don't impact turn racism or say feminism doesn't matter. I have seen it happen, don't be that person. I will vote you down, tank your speaks, and probably report you to tab). Other than that, have fun with it, I love to hear fun and interesting stuff :) I will also be okay hearing a policy aff and a T / DA / CP debate. Don't feel like you have to get fancy with it if it's not the best strategic choice for you. I want to hear whatever will make the best debate possible. Debate the topic, don't debate the topic, reject the topic, whatever you choose to do, just be prepared to do it well. I also encourage the use of alternative modalities if that's something you like to do. I want to create a space where you can say what you want and feel free to run any arguments you would like. If you have any other questions about any specific arguments or types of arguments, please ask before the round.

Specific arguments:

T - I like T and will vote on it. I'm okay with a potentially abusive T shell if you can win it. I also don't mind a potentially untopical aff if you can win it. I don't think I have bias more towards one side or the other.

DA / CP - I find generics a little boring but will definitely vote for them if they are won. New, interesting, creative, or aff-specific DAs or CPs would make me the more happy though.

K - Realistically, I am probably a little bias towards the K. I am pretty familiar with most variations on the K as well as K lit. I also feel confident that I have enough background information to understand anything I may have not heard before. I think generic links are fine if you can explain them well, obviously the more aff-specific it is, the better, but do what you can. I think K's do need to have a clearly explained link scenario with an impact extended. For the alternative - please explain the method and how it solves the impact and the aff in some way.

K Affs - Love. I am a good judge to run a K aff in front of. I will vote for T but I prefer a K v. K debate if you have it in you.

At the end of the day, please do whatever you want. Just be a good debater, whatever that means to you.

Other things:

Email Chain - I prefer to be on the email chain. Please ask for my email at the beginning of the round.

Cross-ex - Tag-team cx is fine but the person who is supposed to be doing it should be doing at least 50%.

Speed - I don't judge all that often and am just getting back into debate after a few years off so please take it a ~little~ slower on tags and non-carded arguments than you normally would. Feel free to still spread but on tags, analytics, and theory arguments please slow down a tiny bit, especially with theory. I was a very fast debater and I understand the need to go as quick as you can (little time, lots of args) but I am a little out-of-practice with debate speed and do not want to miss anything that could be important to you later on. This is mainly targeted at extremely fast debaters, if you don't feel like you're in the top 10% of speed, you're fine. I am also hard of hearing so diction is important, especially during online format.

Signposting - I feel like the vast majority of HS debaters do not know how to speak in a way that signals to the judge with clarity when they are moving to different arguments down the flow. I should, in general, be able to tell where you are based on what you're saying but HS debates can be very messy, so please, do make it as clear for me as possible. Verbally signaling, whether through just saying where you're at and what you're responding to, saying "next" in between args, or using other tone/volume/pausing indicators (more advanced skill), make sure you're letting me know in some capacity where to write an argument. If I don't have to spend time figuring out where you are on the flow, it not only looks a lot better on you but it also means I can hear more warrants / examples etc. in depth and overall makes it a lot easier for you to win the debate. Tell me when you're going the link level or the alternative or the perm debate before you start in on that section of flow.

Analytical Arguments - I probably put a lot more stock in analytical arguments than other judges. Please use it to your advantage.

Pro-tips for my ballot:

I can really see how you're evaluating the debate based on what you're saying. Show me your best understanding of the debate through your speeches. Efficiency, time-allocation, and cross-flow extensions and applications are good ways to show me you're an advanced debater. Your speaks will reflect it.
For the aff - perms are great opportunities for analytical arguments.
For the neg - the case debate is a great opportunity for analytical arguments.
Warrants are VERY important. I feel like this has gotten worse since the pandemic but so many debates seem shallow and circular to me. Giving examples, context, and background information in your explanations of your positions are important and add substance to the debate. Your speaks will reflect it.
I can tell when speeches are pre-written. Obviously a lot of blocks are pre-written but if we're past the 1nr and you're just reading off your laptop, your speaks will reflect it. The best debaters are able to go back and forth from their blocks to their the flow and not lose the judge with what part of the debate they're at.
I really don't like when arguments are numbered. Referring to arguments as "2AC #2" will annoy me a bit. Obviously I'll know what you're talking about but I don't write down numbers and this is a debate norm I disagree with. If that's what you do that's fine, don't feel like you have to edit your blocks for me, but do try to refer to the argument by the claim + author as much as possible.
I've been told I look pretty disinterested while I'm judging but I promise I'm just thinking about what you're saying. :)

Pet Peeves:

Being ~too~ aggressive in cross-ex. Cross-ex can get heated. I have been there, and I understand that sometimes it's just part of debate, but sometimes, there are times when it clearly goes beyond being competitive. From a judge perspective, aggression in cross-ex can come off anywhere from being passionate and competitive to being condescending, demeaning, and potentially misogynist. You are in control of how you treat others within the debate space. We all create the environment that is "the debate space", make sure you are acting in alignment with what you think it should look like.
Running things you don't know. I understand that it can be difficult to know all in the ins and outs of an argument when breaking it for the first time. I also get wanting to try new things that you may not know all that much about. But, it's very easy to tell when someone is reading an argument they know next to nothing about and are betting that they know just enough to beat someone knows nothing about it. I don't think it produces very good debates and is often a strategy used to avoid meaningful clash. (this is mainly about k's - if you're going to read a k, please AT LEAST be able to explain the link and alternative in your own words as well as how it relates to the topic/aff).
Extending arguments without actually explaining the argument. If you're extending an argument / author, I need at the very least the claim + warrant and how this argument functions in the debate. You can extend a card that says "x" but if I don't have an extension of x bc y and this is important bc a + b, then it makes the debate hallow and very circular. I find that high school policy debaters have the biggest problem doing this well because of the reliance on cards and evidence. For example, do not just say "extend the link" say "extend (insert author) who says (insert claim + warrant). the aff is doing (insert plan / part of plan the offcase position links to) which relates to (what author says) in xyz way which creates ~whatever impact~". I get that everyone is pressed for time but the work done on these explanations in the constructives are important and set up the rest of the debate if done properly.

Jacob Wilkus Shawnee Mission East High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 11, 2024 at 10:00 AM MDT

TOC NOTE: If you have financially or verbally committed to debate at KU in the Fall of 2025, conflict me.

Please add me to the email chain: jwilkus1@gmail.com; smedocs@googlegroups.com. I almost always want a card doc of relevant evidence from the 2NR and 2AR. Please send that promptly after the end of the debate.

I debated at Lawrence Free State and Kansas. I was moderately successful. More than likely you know my name because of my YouTube channel of archived debate recordings.

I love this activity. It changed my life. I appreciate the hard work and dedication of every debater, because I know firsthand how difficult this activity can be.

I strive to work as hard as possible to render an accurate decision for the debate in front of me, no matter what arguments are made.I will flow either on paper or an excel spreadsheet. I will not flow off of the speech doc. At best, I’ll have it minimized to read evidence that peaks my interest, but I usually never look at it.

Tech always comes before “truth”, but I am far better for quality, well-reasoned arguments rather than arguments simply made to exploit the technical nature of debate. LD tricks, theory arguments that rely on you winning “no we meets” when the other team obviously meets, disingenuously claiming that an argument was a “microaggression”, or arguments that decry value to life are extremely hard sells in front of me. I have and will vote on these arguments if they are won technically, but my threshold for “won technically” is likely higher than most.

Debate is best when it covers well-researched arguments and topics, be it about the consequences of a government policy; about the assumptions underlying a government policy; a critique of the requirement to be topical; or debates inherently about debate itself. Debates that attempt to focus on the best forms of these types of arguments will result in high speaker points; those that don’t will not.

Policy AFF vs. K:

I am far better for framework Ks that attempt to moot AFF offense than those that arbitrarily assert an argument as “philosophically competitive”, and I am far worse for Ks with links that operate as causal consequences of the 1AC, resolved by a fiated material alterative. I find the former to be strategic, and where the best forms of critical arguments arise. I tend to find that others almost always lose to the permutation.

I find it far easier to vote for a team when framework debating includes: specific impact comparison rather than a surface level extension of “fairness” or “clash”, and clear instructions of what winning your interpretation means for how I evaluate the debate; and defense to your opponent’s impact.

The best AFF teams, in my opinion, debate framework using their substantive answers to the critique—if they are link turning it, they use that as a justification for “weighing the plan” as accessing in roads to the NEG’s framework offense. If they are impact turning it, they use that to impact turn the NEG’s framework offense.

The best NEG teams, in my opinion, debate framework by going for a single DA contextualized to both the AFF’s interpretation and impact (not just framework generally). Many, many times I have watched debates where the links to FW DAs are just "plan focus bad" or "debate should not be reduced to a 5 second plan text" when AFF interpretations are far more tailored to include NEG offense.

I think the strategy of reading a soft left AFF and link turning the K is under-utilized by AFF teams and is far more strategic than FW + extinction outweighs.

K AFF vs. T:

I am far better for AFF teams that treat FW debates like a typical T debate than teams that eschew line by line debating in favor of broad, storytelling assertions of “impacts”, “framing issues”, or “theories of power” to justify not answering what the other team has said. The most persuasive AFF approach to FW, in my opinion, is an interpretation that generates a role for the NEG and impact turns minute distinctions between that interpretation and the NEG’s.

I am equally good for “fairness” or “clash” impacts. I went for both throughout my career, including going for each in different NEG prelims at my final NDT. I think fairness is best explained as “only in this round” as opposed to a broad “models” question; and I think “clash” is best explained through skills learned by iteratively debating a TVA over the course of a season.

T vs. Policy AFFs:

I think reasonability is arbitrary and meaningless, because I can never envision a world where I vote on solely defense. The only frame for topicality that makes sense to me is competing interpretations and find the best 2NRs and 2ARs on T to prioritize impact comparison + defense to the other team’s offense rather than pushes on “well it wasn’t really that bad”.

The best and most well-crafted T interpretations are ones that envision a topic with core, controversial AFFs included and have offense germane to why those debates are good. I find myself often very persuaded by “but your interpretation excludes XXX, which is the core topic AFF” even when the objection to the AFF is genuine and makes sense.

For the IPR topic, I have never simultaneously wanted to vote NEG on T in nearly every instance and struggled to justify doing so. This topic is horrendous, and we should be embarrassed as a community that after a year of enjoying fiscal redistribution we chose an inherently vague, overly complex, and reflective of the status quo resolution. I have judged multiple T debates this year where I know the AFF is arbitrary, but the NEG’s model of debate is just as bad if not worse for them. As such, I find big picture explanations of debates under your interpretation to be far more important than usual on this topic. In particular, I find broad Limits DAs without a Ground DA attached not very persuasive because it seems every interpretation loses to "your interpretation is equally unlimited".

Other:

I am not the best for process slop. I can, have, and will evaluate those debates, but I find them both boring and tedious. The more it seems like you are just reading blocks that could have been read identically on another topic, the less happy I will be and the more likely your speaks will be lower. I totally understand the necessity of these arguments on the IPR topic, but I will reward teams that take new, innovative approaches to the topic or AFFs.

Zach Willingham Washburn Rural High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 18, 2024 at 7:30 PM EDT

Live Laugh Love Debate

zwillingham04@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '22

University of Kansas '26

Assistant for Washburn Rural

General Thoughts

I’m studying math and environmental engineering. I don’t know much about intellectual property.

Debate is a technical game of strategy. If you debate more technically and more strategically, you will likely win. Read whatever and however you like. Any style or argument can win if executed well enough or if answered poorly enough. I don’t believe judges should have any predetermined biases for any argument. Dropped arguments are true.

I am operating under the assumption that you have put in considerable effort to be here and you want to win. I will try to put reciprocal effort into making an objective decision unless you have done something to indicate those assumptions are incorrect.

Nothing you say or do will offend me, but lack of respect for your opponents will not be tolerated.

My background is very policy-oriented. I strategically chose to talk about cyber-security instead of criminal justice and water resources. The best argument is always the one that wins. Do what you are best at.

My favorite part about debate is the way different arguments interact with each other across different pages. The way to beat faster and more technical teams is to make smart cross-applications and concessions.

Except for the 2AR, what is "new" is up for debate. Point out your opponent's new arguments and explain why they are not justified.

Evidence is very important. I only read cards after the debate if the issue has been contested. A dropped card is still dropped even if it is trash. Quality > Quantity. I do not see any strategic utility in reading multiple the cards that say the same thing. Card dumping is effective when each card has unique warrants.

Cross-ex is very important. Use it to set up your strategy, not to clarify what cards were skipped. I appreciate it when the final rebuttals quote lines from cross-ex/earlier speeches. Cross ex about things that will be relevant to the 2NR and 2AR.

I do not want to hear a prepped out ethics violation. Tell the team before the round.

I do not want to hear an argument about something that happened outside of the round.

Rehighlightings can be inserted as long as you explain what the rehighlighting says. I see it as more specific evidence comparison.

Argument Specific

Topicality:

Your interpretation is the tag of your definition. If there is any discrepancy between the tag and the body of the card, that is a precision indict but not a reason the aff meets.

Counterplans:

I enjoy quality competition debates. I like tricky perms. Put the text in the doc.

"Links less" makes sense to me for certain disads, but makes it harder for the net benefit to outweigh the deficit. Perm do both is probabilistic. Perm do the counterplan is binary.

If a perm has not been extended, solvency automatically becomes a net benefit.

Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I will not reject the team even on a dropped theory argument unless there is a coherent warrant for why it would not be enough to only reject the argument.

I will only judge kick (without being told) if it has been established that conditionality is good.

Advantages/Disadvantages:

Most scenarios are very construed. Logical analytical arguments can substantially mitigate them. I do not like it when the case debate in the 1NC is only impact defense.

Punish teams for reading new impacts in the 2AC and block.

Extinction means the end of the species. Most impacts do not rise to this threshold. Point it out.

"Try or die" or similar impact framing is very persuasive when executed properly. If the negative doesn't extend a counterplan or impact defense, they are likely to lose.

Zero risk is possible if your opponent has entirely dropped an argument and the implication of that argument is that the scenario is 0. However, I can be convinced that many arguments, even when dropped, do not rise to that level.

Kritiks v Policy Affs:

I will determine which framework interpretation is better and use that to evaluate the round. I will not adopt a middle ground combination of both interpretations unless someone has convinced me that is the best option (which it usually is).

Make it very explicit what the win condition is for you if you win framework. Only saying "The 1AC is an object of research" does not tell me how I determine the winner.

If the K is just one of many off case positions and the block reads a bunch of new cards, the 1AR probably gets to say any new thing they want.

Perm double bind makes a lot of sense to me. The negative needs a reason why the plan and alt are mutually exclusive, a reason why the inclusion of the plan makes the alt insolvent, or framework offense the perm can’t resolve (this is your best bet).

Planless Affs:

All affirmatives should endorse a departure from the status quo.

I do not like it when the 1AC says X is bad, the 1NC says X is good, and the 2AC says no link.

Things to boost speaks, but won't affect wins and losses

Give final rebuttals off paper.

Number/subpoint arguments.

Impact turn whenever you can. Straight turn every disad if you're brave. I love chaos, but the final rebuttals better be resolving things.

Good wiki and disclosure practices.

Don't read arguments that can be recycled every year.

Stand up for cross-ex right when the timer ends. Send docs quickly. Preferably in the last few seconds of their speech.

Make jokes. Have fun. Respect your opponents. Good-natured insults can be funny but read the room.

Pretty speech docs. I will subconsciously judge you need for bad formatting.

Debate with integrity. Boo cheapshots. It is better to lose with honor, than win by fraud.

I’ve never had the privilege of sitting through an entire LD round so if there is specific vocabulary I am not in the loop. Assume I have minimal topic knowledge.

Tell me why you access their offense, why it is the most important thing, and why they don’t access their offense. Be strategic.

Answer your opponent’s arguments explicitly. I want to hear “They say x, but y because z”.

Coralynn Yang Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 1:37 AM PDT

Peninsula '23 | Emory '27

coralynnchiang@gmail.com

I have a profound appreciation for the dedication that goes into preparing for policy debate tournaments, and I judge debates accordingly. I try to default strictly to the technical debating and evidence presented in the round. With that said, all judges have predispositions that can influence decisions and speaker points. These are mine:

1. Explanation matters. My understanding of an argument as communicated is the basis for its consideration. I try to be as debater-friendly as I can in this exception. Given the complexities and arcane knowledge involved in arguments surrounding IPR, I will work hard with the explanation and evidence provided to overcome my own knowledge gaps. That being said, err on the side of over-explanation.

2. Impact calculus & defense are critical. If only one side has an existential impact or accesses try-or-die, I am extremely likely to vote for them. When the relative probability and magnitude of two impacts is close to equal, timeframe matters most. 'Timeframe first' in the face of try-or-die is unpersuasive absent substantial inroads into turning or solving their impact.

3. Reasonability applies to the vast majority of theory and topicality arguments. Going for topicality absent high quality evidence or arbitrary theory arguments absent substantial debatability offense is a risk. If you can win the debate on substance, you should do so.

4. Process counterplans are theoretically illegitimate and not competitive. That being said, it should be noted that many do not solve the aff and it is easy for a small deficit to outweigh a contrived net benefit.

5. Critiques should disagree with a prescriptive, central aff premise. In other words, the link is everything. It should not be possible to simultaneously agree with the critique and the 1ac. Whether this threshold is met is primarily determined by debating, but it is easier to convince me that the 1ac said 'privatizing knowledge is good' than 'the state is good'.

6. Untopical critical affs should lose to topicality. I am a worse judge for teams that do not advocate for a programmatic vision of this activity than those that do. That being said, policy teams that go exclusively for impact defense (no subjectivity shift, tabroom solves) instead of link defense should lose.

Kelly Ye College Prep 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 2:54 AM PDT

https://pref-buddy.vercel.app/public :)

Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers

Please add both kelly@college-prep.org and cpsspeechdocs@gmail.com to the chain.

Something along these lines for the subject line would be great: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code. Please make sure the chain is set up before the start time.

Background

I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum. My comfort for judging rounds is Policy vs. Policy ~ Policy vs. K ~ Clash Rounds >>> K vs. K.

I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur, and I talk about debate the most with Tristan Bato and Ian Beier.

Most Important Things!

Tech >>>> truth and I'll vote on anything as long as it is debated well. I do not hold any firm thoughts about any argument, I will vote for anything as long as there is a claim, warrant, and impact.

I think debate is a communicative research game that can impact student subjectivity. I have found that rounds that are the most frustrating to judge and have to rely on intervention are those in which debaters fail to write a ballot and impact arguments out in the 2NR/2AR. If your strategy is to proliferate as many arguments as possible in the 2NR/2AR without framing how I resolve core controversies of the debate, you'll find yourself unhappy with my decision because my biases may come into play. My biases for certain arguments can, and certainly has, been beaten by good debating. The answer to the question of "how did you evaluate [x argument]" should be "the way that you had instructed me to do so in the final rebuttal". If I don't have an answer you like, you likely did not impact it out or do enough judge instruction for me, and I am unwilling to piece together for you what you wanted the implication of the argument to be.

I am unwilling to use my ballot to take a stance on anything that happened outside of the round (I guess the only exception would be disclosure). Things like call outs that require me to "punish" a team for behavior that I did not witness are a non-starter -- happy to allow you to end the round and take it to tab if you feel like your safety is at risk.

Microaggressions:I fear I have lost the plot with teams proliferating accusations of microaggressions. I interpret microaggressions as a form of interpersonal violence that occurred between debaters within the round, and it should be distinct from questions of whether forms of scholarship or procedural norms can cause psychic violence writ large. I have felt very uncomfortable having to evaluate a few debates now in which both teams have accused each other of committing microaggressions, and will continue to feel uncomfortable having my ballot serve as a referendum on accusations of interpersonal violence within the round. If you strongly believe a microaggression has occurred that requires me to stop the round, I am willing to do so and help mediate accordingly with adults from your school who are responsible for your well-being.

2024-2025 Round Stats:

Policy vs. Policy (14-19): 42% aff over 33 rounds, 40% aff in a theory/T debate over 5 rounds

Policy vs. K (2-7): 22% aff over 9 rounds

Clash (1-2): 66% neg over 3 rounds

K vs. K (3-0): 100% aff over 3 rounds

Sat once out of 13 elim rounds

2023-2024 Round Stats:

Policy vs. Policy (11-20): 35.93% aff over 31 rounds, 22.22% aff in a theory debate over 9 rounds

Policy vs. K (5-2): 71.43% aff over 7 rounds

Clash (2-3): 40% aff over 5 rounds

K v K (1-0): 100% aff over 1 round

Sat once out of 13 elim rounds

Disads

Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. I start evaluation at the impact level to determine link threshold & risk of the disad. My preference for evaluation is if there is explicit ballot writing + evidence indicts + resolution done by yourself in the 2NR/2AR, I would love not to open the card document and make a more interventionist judgement.

CPs

Default to judge kick. If the affirmative team has a problem with me doing this, that words "condo bad" should have been in the 2AC and explanation for no judge kick warranted out in the 1AR/2AR.

The proliferation of 1NCs with like 10 process counterplans has been kind of wild, and probably explains my disproportionately neg leaning ballot record. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."

I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.

Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.

Very bad for post-modernism, simply because I've never read them + rarely debated them in high school. If you have me in the back you need to do a LOT of explanation.

Better for impacts like clash rather than fairness on framework. Generally, I think the internal link to clash > the internal link to fairness because I'm not sure Ks of reps skew the 1AC so much that are at a significant disadvantage. I am more persuaded by the argument that mooting most of the offense in the 1AC decks clash, which is usually a good internal link turn to the neg's offense.

Planless Affs/Framework

For the aff: Tying your criticism to the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of advocacies not tied to the topic.

For the neg: Procedural fairness is harder to win for me as compared to other standards - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate affecting subjectivity. The way that most debaters extend it just sound whiney and don't give me a reason to prefer it over everything else. Impacts like agonism, legal skills, deliberation, etc are infinitely more convincing to me. Absent a procedural question of framework, I am just evaluating whether or not I think the advocacy is a good idea, not that I think the reading of it in one round has to change the state of debate/the world.

Topicality / Theory

Impact framing & explicit judge instruction is the most important thing in these debates!

Ethics Violations/Procedurals

I don't flow off speech docs, but I try to follow along when you're reading evidence to ensure you're not clipping. If I catch you clipping, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what you're doing. I will give you a warning, but drop you if it happens again. If the other team catches you, they can stake the round on an ethics challenge.

Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations. If you believe the ballot should resolve a question of norms (disclosure, open sourcing, etc), then I will evaluate it like a regular procedural. If you believe it's an ethics violation (intentionally modifying evidence, clipping, etc), then the round stops immediately. Loser of the ethics challenge receives an auto loss and 20s.

Evidence ethics can be really iffy to resolve. If you want to stake the round on an evidence distortion, you must prove: that the piece of evidence was cut by the other team (or someone affiliated with their school) AND there was clear and malicious intent to alter its meaning. If your problem isn't surrounding distortion but rather mistagging/misinterpreting the evidence, it can be solved via a rehighlighting.

Online Debate

Please don't start until you see my camera on!

If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.

I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.

Lay Debate / GGSA
I actually really appreciate these rounds. I think at the higher levels, debaters tend to forget that debate is a communicative activity at its core, and rely on the judge's technical knowledge to get out of impacting out arguments themselves. If we are in a lay setting and you'd rather not have a fast round when I'm in the back, I'll be all for that. There is such a benefit in adapting to slower audiences and over-explaining implications of all parts of the debate -- it builds better technical understanding of the activity! I'll probably still evaluate the round similar to how I would a regular round, but I think the experience of you forcing yourself to over-explain each part of the flow to me is greatly beneficial.

Public Forum

I've never debated in PF, I will evaluate very similarly to how I evaluate policy rounds.

I despise the practice of sending snippets of evidence one at a time. I think it's a humongous waste of time and honestly would prefer (1) the email chain be started BEFORE the round and (2) all of the evidence you read in your speech sent at once. Someone was confused about this portion of my paradigm -- basically, instead of asking for "Can I get [A] card on [X] argument, [B] card on [Y] arg, etc...", I think it would be faster if the team that just spoke sent all of their evidence in one doc. This is especially true if the tournament is double-flighted.

If you want me to read evidence after the round, please make sure you flag is very clearly.

I've been in theory/k rounds and I try to evaluate very close to policy. I'm not really a huge fan of k's in public forum -- I don't think there is enough speech time for you to develop such complex arguments out well. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense given the public forum structure (i.e. going for an advocacy when it's not a resolution that is set up to handle advocacies). I think there's so much value in engaging with critical literature, please consider doing another event that is set up better for it if you're really interested in the material. However, I'm still willing to vote on anything, as long as you establish a role of the ballot + frame why I'm voting.

If you delay the round to pre-flow when it's double-flighted, I will be very upset. You should know your case well enough for it to not be necessary, or do it on your own time.

Be nice & have fun.

Messai Yigletu BASIS DC 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 4:45 PM EDT

Messai Yigletu: Head Debate Coach at BASIS DC

4 years experience as a debater in high school, LD.

Coach for policy debaters, middle & high school. (Presently coaching.)

I currently coach the policy debate team at BASIS DC and have done so since the 2020 season.

would like to be on email chains for case files: messaiyigletu@gmail.com

if you are reading this, that means I will be hearing you debate pretty soon! good luck! take a minute to read a few important points that will help you in this debate.

Arguments/Debate

not usually a fan of spread/speed. Usually fine + can keep up if I have case files & you read taglines

if you completely spread analytics, I would like the docs to be shared. Not going to struggle to flow due to the level of speed that is becoming normal in debate. If you are going too fast and I miss something, welp.

SIGNPOST ALL ARGUMENTS! Expecting me to guess what off you are reading based on evidence is irritating and causes unnecessary confusion + various different names/key words in round for the same block/arg. Be clear and straightforward.

Prefer to hear roadmaps at the beginning of every speech.

fine with K as long as it is clearly explained and set out in the speech. not guaranteed that I will have prior knowledge and even if I do, prefer a deep and analytical explanation of your thesis. Make sure to give a detailed/clear explanation - especially w/framing + alt.

comparative + clear clash & addressing all arguments on flow are key winning points for me. Clear story for why you should win at the end, dislike when debaters at the end go for “if you don’t buy _, you can buy __” done with every single argument. Indicates you believe you aren’t confidently winning any flow - 2AR/NR should be straightforward and concise - trying to write my ballot for me.

do not assume I will automatically indicate drops in anyone's favor. if drops occur, you are responsible for addressing and explaining the warrants for why the drop is key relative to the round. (Actual drops occuring, plz don't just try and lie in 2AR/2NR. yes - it has happened.) all args on flow should be extended or specifically kicked out of throughout the debate by both sides.

speaker points are awarded basis on quality of speeches, time usage, and clarity.

keep it respectful, especially during CX. intensity and passion are fine and even encouraged, but never make it personal/attempt to take it to a point of disrespect.

Jack Young Montgomery Bell Academy 2 rounds

Kumail Zaidi McDonogh 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 18, 2024 at 10:24 PM EDT

Georgetown'24

Oak Hall'20

komi.zaidi@gmail.com

Updates

I feel like in most debates I'm judging coaches blocks regurgitated by kids off a laptop. If you give your rebuttals entirely off paper without a laptop in your face the whole time, and give a good speech, I will be giving an egregious, ungodly, criminal boost to speaks.

Things to Keep Top of Mind

1] Strategy is King --- My ideological predispositions have become more viscous over time as I’ve gained familiarity with a variety of different styles of debate, literature, and argumentation. From high school through my short stint in college debate, I've read and researched arguments on all sides of the kritikal/policy spectrum. At this point, I have much more appreciation for strategy over style of argumentation. What this means is that you should read whatever argument you think will give you the highest chance of winning the debate. This is perhaps the most important takeaway from my paradigm. In some debates, that option might be T-FW vs a K aff, in another it could be process counterplan, psychoanalysis, Moten, a floating PIK, China heg good, or theory. The point is, I don’t particularly care what flavor of argument you read. What I care about is execution and strategic choice. I cannot stress this enough, it frustrates me more than anything when debaters try to "adapt" based on (often flawed) assumptions about how you think I feel about arguments. Do what you're good at, debate is a game for debaters.

2] Speaker Points --- Debate is a game of rhetoricians. Winning the room is how you get decisive wins, high speaker points, and perform like a top debater.(Tasteful) Pettiness gets you speaker points. But being a bum certainly won't.

3] "Instead of focusing only on extending and answering arguments, it would behoove debaters to begin their final rebuttals by clarifying what the comparative RFD for the Aff/Neg should be,identifying the key questions to be resolved in the debate, and then going through the process of resolving them. You can think of this asproviding me a roadmap for how I should approach adjudicating the debate once it ends."

4] Folks have been incredibly unclear over the past few years. I strongly believe that debate is an oral/rhetorical game as much as it is technical. If your strategy relies on reading a slew of analytics while simultaneously slurring every other word in an attempt to make up for a grave lack of speaking drills, I will be displeased and you will be too after the decision.

5] Dropped argument is a true argument. HOWEVER, an argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. You must also explain the implications of an argument/how it relates to the rest of the pieces in the debate. New implications to extended arguments are fair game for new responses.

K Aff vs Fwk

I've thought far too much about both sides of this debate and don't have a proclivity one way or another. I genuinely enjoy both sides of the debate and especially love new spins on arguments rather than a regurgitation of blocks.

K affs: I'm fine for anything, whether that be impact turns, counter-models, re-defining words etc. Please just think through the strategy beforehand its shocking how many 2ACs to framework are lazily slapped together these days. There's so much room for creativity in terms of what topical affirmation/negation looks like which is underutilized these days. If you put the requisite amount of thought into the construction of your K aff, I'm probably good for you. If your approach to framework relies on an impact turn, I would like to see some work definitively closing the door on why it is good/beneficial to abandon ANY notion of stasis etc in debate. Or at least have some mechanism of resolving your offense.

Framework: Go for whatever flavor of framework/impact scenario you want. Articulating a clear impact scenario is critical. A lot of debaters tend to spend sooo much time explaining why fairness/clash/competition etc matter, but remarkably little time explaining WHY the affs model/orientation to debate is unfair/bad. Framework teams very let the aff get away with murder in terms of shallow impact turns or nonsensical counterinterps, and I think a lot of that could be resolved rather easily. A lot of my recent thought's on what good framework debating looks like has been influenced by many conversations (and arguments) with Tyler Thur and BK, so do refer to those paradigms for additional insights.

Stealing this line from BK's paradigm as I think it's instructive: "I find "fairness" unpersuasive as a terminal impact. However, this is primarily a function of Negatives explaining it poorly, because I am extremely compelled by the argument that an axiomatic precondition for debate to operate is that the Affirmative must meet their burden of proof arising from the resolution, and that until they do so there is no logical basis for the Negative having any burden of rejoinder. All of which is to say: definitely feel free to go for fairness, BUT please take care to explain why it logically precedes everything else, AND to explicitly no-link the Aff's various lines of offense, rather than just making assertions about "procedural fairness."

For K teams --- the flipside of this is that I am extremely compelled by hyper-specific impact turns to the negs articulation of concepts like fairness in a world where they have not done the proper explanatory work for the fairness impact.

Misc Other Thoughts

1] Impact turns in general are heavily underutilized in case debating. Extinction good, heg good, Interventions good, AI development bad, take your pick. High quality evidence is essential.

2] Fine for CP competition debates

3] Heavily persuaded by reasonability style arguments on frivolous theory (LD).

4] Fine for Phil - I find myself quite enjoying phil vs policy/K debates.

Eric Zhu Westwood 4 rounds

Peter Zinober Berkeley Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 6:05 AM EDT

Yes email chain: zinobpet@outlook.com

Berkeley Preparatory School 23' – TOC Semifinalist (Berk SZ)

Williams College 27'

Currently Coaching: Berkeley Prep

I debated Policy for 4 years almost exclusively as a K debater, but I don't care about what you are arguing, more so that you are debating well and having fun.

TLDR --

- Tech > Truth unless you do something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc...

- Don't over-adapt to me, I have been around debate long enough to be familiar with many different types of argumentation; therefore, I will be able to navigate the debate despite whatever "style" you choose to debate with.

- I am a sucker for good judge instruction. I would rather recite specific lines from the 2AR/2NR in my RFD as a filter by which I make my decision than try to independently decipher the importance of an argument relative to what your opponent is saying. Basically, good judge instruction = high speaks and prob a W

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Clash debates (FW) –

I love Clash Rounds and, by far, what I have the most experience debating and judging in. Def my favorite rounds to judge. Just do you. I will gladly hear fairness, clash, or even some obscure FW arg to mess with K teams. But, being a K debater, I have heard my fair share of really amazing and really terrible FW speeches. That being said, either way, I will vote for FW just as fast as I will vote against it. It is up to your debating. I am extremely comfortable in these rounds and will most likely have some thoughts on how you could have better executed, or for those who I repeatedly judge, what to do better next time you have me in the back.

Ks + K affs -

This is what I have done throughout my debate career. I think Ks and K affs r dope as long as you know wtf u are talking about. I will reward you if you execute your K strategy well and you know what you are talking about. On the other hand, the myth surrounding K debaters having a higher threshold for Ks while judging definitely reigns true for me, but only when a team obviously has no idea what they are talking about. I would rather you go 12 off w/ only T shells than have you over-adapt and hear a poorly researched, unthought-through K strat. Also, figured I would mention this again, ESPECIALLY for you K debaters: judge instruction is what wins K rounds on both sides.

DAs and CPs

If this is your A-strat, I am not a judge you should pref in your 50% range, but if you happen to get me in the back in one of these rounds, there are a couple of things you can do to make it a W:

DAs – Good impact comparison and internal link debating are essential for me. I find that these debates get annoying to adjudicate when both teams lack in-depth comparison, and I find that judge instruction in your final rebuttals is the single best way to break the tie. Also, please don't assume I know the story of your DAs, especially on this topic; although I coach on this topic, I coach K teams. As long as you explain your arguments and do good debating, I will be just fine.

CPs – Least familiar with these kinds of debates and will try to stick as close to the flow as I can, even though there might be some gaps in my understanding of the more nitty-gritty args, especially competition debates. Some advice: first, if you are the neg, do not forget the internal link work at the level of solvency, i.e., how does the mech of the CP solve whatever 2NR impact? I find that these debates become annoying if there is no discussion or comparison of the aff and neg advocacies at the level of impact solvency. Second, I can't say this enough:judge instruction. Third, CP theory is as far out of my comfort zone as possible, so if the debate ends up being a theory debate, do not assume I know literally anything about what you are talking about and explain the implication behind different args, without superb explanation I can almost guarantee my barrier to understanding theory will bias by decision.

Theory -

Ngl, I dislike judging these types of debates. Of course, I know that sometimes condo just has to be the 2AR, and if that is the case, go for it but I find myself less sympathetic to most theory arguments. (ie. no perms in method debates, condo, perf con, etc...)

If you have any questions after the round, don't hesitate to email and ask (although I can't promise a timely response).

Zachary Zinober Berkeley Prep 3 rounds

Jared Zuckerman Glenbrook South High School 2 rounds

Login to Tabroom

53rd Annual Tournament of Champions

2025 — Lexington, KY/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges