UPDATE 10/14/22

TL:DR

I have not updated by paradigm in well over a decade but much of what I wrote then continues to be true. I've been coaching/judging various styles and forms of debate for over 12 years. I am most comfortable judging debates in Policy, Lincoln-Douglass, and Public Forum. I flow and listen to all arguments, so please debate in whichever way you are most comfortable and I will attempt to evaluate it to the best of my ability. That being said, if you have a position that is complicated or difficult to follow, the onus is on the debaters to ensure that their arguments are well explained. I will not vote on arguments that I do not understand or are blatantly offensive/discriminatory. Otherwise, try  to have fun!

My email for chains is: carlito2692@gmail.com

Old Paradigm:

 

I competed in LD at University High School in Newark New Jersey, I was nationally competitive for three years.. I also compete in policy debate for Rutgers University.

Presumption: I typically presume neg unless the affirmative advances arguments for why presumption should flow aff (i.e the negative team introduces a counterplan/kritik alt/etc.

Speed: I don't generally have an issue with speed, however I do have a problem with monotone speed, unclear speed. I will yell clear if I can't understand you, but it will only be maybe once or twice, if you don't become clear by then, my ability to properly evaluate the arguments may possibly become impaired. Also, your speaks probably won't be awesome if I have to keep yelling clear.

-I would like you to significantly slow down when reading tags/card names so I can have a properly structured flow, but while reading the card you are welcome to go at top CLEAR speed(a few caveats to be explained later)

-When making analytical arguments, please be clear, because it's difficult for me to follow analytics when they are weirdly phrased and also being spread.

-I don't like speed for the sake of being fast, I prefer when speed is used as a catalyst for an awesome case or a multilayered rebuttal with really nuanced responses on case.

Evidence: Despite what happened in the round, I may call for the cites for cards read in round, I'll specify which specific cites I would like to see. I do this for two reasons: to ensure that there was no miscutting of evidence, and because I believe in disclosure and am from the school of thought that everybody in the round should have access to all evidence read in the round. I don't appreciate a denial to share citations, if citations are not readily available, I may choose to disregard all evidence with missing citations(especially evidence which was contested in the debate).

Cross Examination: I don't know how much I can stress it...CROSS EX IS BINDING! I don't care if you present arguments for why it shouldn't be binding or why lying in CX is ok, or any arguments with the implication which allows dishonesty in CX, there is NO theory to be ran to change my mind. Nevertheless, I don't flow CX, so its up to the debaters to refresh my memory of any inconsistencies between speeches and CX answers. On the other hand, CX can be the BEST or the WORST part of a debate, depending on how it plays out. A funny yet not disrespectful CX will score big when I'm deciding on how to assign speaks, while a rude and boring CX will negatively influence how I assign speaks. Clarification questions during prep is fine, but I'm not cool with trying to tear down an argument during prep, if it was that important, it should have been in the formal CX, rather than during prep. Don't be afraid to refuse to answer a non-clarification question during your opponents prep time.

Critical/Weird Arguments: I love well explained critical positions. With the caveat that these critical arguments are logically explained and aren't insanely convoluted. I have no issue voting for the argument. But if I can't understand it, I won't vote on it. Also, I am a fan of interesting debate, so if you have a neat performance to run in front of me, I would love to hear it!

Theory: I don't presume to competing interpretations or reasonability. The justification for either one needs to be made in round. I don't like greedy theory debates, which means that I generally view theory as a reason to reject the argument rather than the debater. YES, this means you must provide reasons in or after the implications section of your shell, for why this specific violation is a reason for me to use my ballot against the other debater. I'm not persuaded by generic 12 point blocks for why fairness isn't a voter, I prefer nuanced argumentation for why fairness may not be a voter. RVIs have to be justified but I'm willing to vote on them if the situation presents itself, but its up to you to prove why you defensively beating theory is enough for me to vote for you.

Prestandard: I don't like having preconceived beliefs before judging a round, but this is just one of those things that I need to reinforce. I WILL NOT vote on multiple apriori blips, and winning a single apriori is an uphill battle, a serious commitment to advocacy is necessary(you devote a serious amount of time to the apriori position.)

Speaks: I average about a 27, I doubt I'll go lower than 25(unless you do something which merits lower than a 25) because I personally know how disappointing the 4-2/5-2 screw can be, nevertheless I am more than willing to go up or down, depending on the performance in that particular round. The reason I average around a 27 is not because I generally don't give nice speaks, its because the majority of tournaments, I'll judge only a few rounds that deserve more than a 28. It's not difficult at all to get good speaks from me. I reserve 30's for debaters who successfully execute the following: speak really well, good word economy, good coverage/time allocation, takes risks when it comes to strategy, weighs really well, provides AWESOME evidence comparison, and adapts well to the things happening in the round. I really enjoy seeing new strategies, or risky strategies, I.E. I am a fan of the straight refutation 1N, attempting something risky like this and pulling it off, gives you a higher chance of getting a 30. Another way to get high speaks is to be a smart debater as well as funny without being mean or making any kind of jokes at the expense of your opponent(this will lose you speaks)

Delivery: I need evidence comparison! It makes me really happy when debaters do great evidence comparison. Also, I would appreciate for you to give status updates as the rebuttals progress, as well as giving me implications for each extension. When extending arguments which rely on cards, in order for it to be a fully structured extension it must contain: The claim/tag of the card, author/card name, warrant from the card, and the implications of that extension (what does it do for you in the round).

Miscellaneous: You are more than welcome to sit or stand, I don't mind people reading from laptops or being paperless as long as it doesn't delay the round. Also, I don't care if you are formally dressed, jeans and a tshirt will get you the same speaks that a shirt and a tie will. :) I also believe its impossible for me to divorce my judging from my beliefs, but I'll do my best to attempt to fairly adjudicate the debate.

P.S. I don't like performative contradictions...(just felt like I should throw that out there)

//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

Affiliation: Capitol Debate (High school) and Liberty University (College)
Experience: I've been involved in debate for 12 years now. I debated competitively in Policy Debate primarily (I dabbled in LD and Congress in HS). I have coached Public Forum on the MS and HS level for the last 6 years.

Basic Philosophy: (Novice/Middle School)

As with anyone, I enjoy high quality debates. I find that this comes from students debating how THEY feel comfortable and not trying to appease my every desire in the round. I debated from strictly policy to performative/critical argumentation. I say all that to say that no matter what you do i'll probably be open to it. My below comments will be pretty vague as I judge/coach many types of debate

My Specific Preferences:

1) Impact and Link turns hold my heart. A well executed turn debate always grabs my attention and you will see that reflected in both my interest and your speaker points.

2) I'm lazy, Tell me what do do. At the end of the debate don't just say "They dropped X so we win the debate." Tell me why! What does it mean for the rest of the debate? How should I weigh this against the sea of other arguments at play.

3) I love evidence. I love debaters who explain their evidence and pull out the warrants even more.

4) If you decide to take a more critical/non-traditional route, don't assume I know your literature base. While I am open to hearing it doesn't mean I understand what you are saying. Make sure you explain things in-depth.

5) I am pretty expressive in debates. USE THIS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE! If I look like I don't get it...chances are I don't. If you say "They dropped X" and I am shaking my head no then chances are, on my flow, it's not dropped.

6) Don't be a jerk. I hate it and my expressions and your speaks will reflect it.

Advanced Philosophy(Varsity)

Topicality-- I default to competing interpretations . To make these debates even close to enjoyable for me this requires an explicit list of what specific cases your interpretation permits and why this is beneficial for the activity. As for "Kritiks of T": I tend not to view these as RVIs, but instead as counter-standards that privilege an alternate debate curriculum that is more important than traditional conceptions. Negatives that plan on defending T against these criticisms should not only maintain that the 1AC does not meet what they view as fair and educational debate, but also need to go into a more specific discussion that impacts why their vision of a fair and educational debate is good and why the negative's alternate curriculum is worse in comparison. In round abuse is key for me. It's what you do not what you justify

Theory-- pretty similar to T debates but the one difference is that I will default to "reject the argument, not the team" unless given a reason otherwise. I have been known to go for cheapshots, but these require fulfilling a high standard of execution (a fully warranted and impacted explanation of your cheapshot, and closing the doors on any cross-applications the aff can make from other flows). Stylistically speaking, slowing down in these debates will help me put more ink on your side of the flow--otherwise I may miss a part of your argument that you find important. Additionally, a well-thought out interpretation and 3 warranted arguments regarding why a particular practice in debate is bad is significantly stronger than a blippy, generic re-hashing of a 10-point block.

Straight-up Strategies-- My favorite strategies often involve more than one or more of the following: an advantage counterplan, topic specific DA(s), and a solid amount of time allocated to case turns/defense. I am obviously open to hear and evaluate more generic arguments like politics, dip cap, delay counterplans, and process counterplans if that is your thing, and you should obviously go for what you are winning.

K and Performance Strategies-- I enjoy philosophy and have spent a significant chunk of my free time reading/understanding K and performance arguments. My familiarity with this style of debating makes it a double-edged sword. I will be very impressed if you command significant knowledge about the theory at hand and are able to apply them to the case through examples from popular culture or empirical/historical situations. On the other hand, if you fail to explain basic theoretical ideas within the scope of the K or fail to engage particular points of contention presented by the affirmative, I will be thoroughly unimpressed. Similarly, when opposing a K or performance, I am much more interested in arguments (analytics and cards) that not only substantively engage the K but thoroughly defend why your theorization of politics and interaction with the social should be preferred, rather than a generic 50 point survey of claims that are made by positivist thinkers. This is not to say that generic "greatest hits" style arguments have no value, but they certainly need to be backed up with a defense of the conceptual framing of your 1AC (eg, if the negative wins that the kritik turns the case or a no v2l claim, I'm not sure what "predictions good" or "cede the political" does for the affirmative). In terms of a theory/framework debate, I am much less likely to be persuaded by generic "wrong forum" claims but will be more likely to be compelled by arguments pointing to abusive sections of the specific K that is being run (eg, the nature of the alt).

It's also important to defend your impacts thoroughly. My favorite straight up affirmatives to read when I debated had big hegemony advantages. My favorite K authors to read are Wilderson (Afro-Pessimism) and other forms of Black liberation startegies. As a result, I am unlikely be swayed or guilted into voting for you if the only argument you make is a moralizing reference to people suffering/dying. This is NOT to say that I won't vote for you if you choose a strategy that relies on these impacts. However if these impacts are challenged either through impact turns or comparisons, I will not hack for you; I require an adequate refutation of why their impact calculation or understanding of suffering/death is false/incomplete and reasons for why I should prefer your framing. In other words, if the opposing team says "hegemony good and outweighs your K" or alternatively, reads a "suffering/death good" style kritik and your only comeback is "you link to our arguments and people are oppressed" without much other refutation, you will lose. When your moral high ground is challenged, own up to it and refute their assumptions/explanations.

Speaks-- Largely subjective, but I will generally stick to what's outlined below (in the open division). Other things that may influence speaker points include (but are not limited to): clarity, stealing prep, being excessively mean, humor, the strength of your CX

< 25: You really got on my nerves and you deserve an equally obnoxious number on the 0-25 part of the scale 25: You showed up but didn't really make an argument past the 1AC/1NC, and didn't ever acknowledge the fact that there were opponents making arguments in your speech 26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents 27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims 28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers 28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish. 29: I feel like you will be in the late elims of the tournament that I am judging at 29.5: I feel like you are one of the top few debaters I've judged that year. 30: I feel that you are the best debater I've seen that year.

I debated policy at Eleanor Roosevelt HS for three years and debated at Liberty University for two years.

 

For the high school and college rez: I have not done much research on the topic, so be aware that I’m not familiar with topic-specific jargon and acronyms.

 

 

DA’s – I enjoy the politics DA’s probably more than any other argument. I am not compelled to vote on DA's with terrible internal link stories and even more terrible evidence. Impact comparison is important but I would much rather hear a substantial debate on the link level. I am also not particularly swayed by theory on politics DA's and will most likely not vote on it.

 

CP’s – I like CP's, the more specific the solvency evidence is for the 1AC, the better. However, I am not a fan of word PIC's or Consult CP's, so I encourage you to explore a different strategy in front of me.

 

K’s – My knowledge of K literature and philosophers is top-heavy, so do not assume that I have extensive knowledge about an author or argument that was read in the debate. I’m familiar with basic K’s (anthro, cap, security, etc) but I have little knowledge base with high-theory K’s. With that said, tag line extensions are insufficient and you should err on the side of explanation. Most K's fail in so far as the alternative is shallowly extended and explained; if that is the case, I am less compelled to vote for the K. I want to hear a discussion of what the aff looks like in the world of the alt. The alternative is a critical aspect of the K and should be a huge point of contestation. From previous debates I've judged, the weakest points of most teams have always been the alternative. So if by the end of the debate and you have not kicked the alternative, I would like a clear analysis of how it functions and the role of my ballot.

 

Topicality – I default to competing interpretations, unless told otherwise. I like good topicality debates but only when the impact is extensively discussed. Topic-specific definitions are good. I’m a tad bit sympathetic towards reasonability claims.

 

Theory – Most theory debates devolve into block reading with little clash. This is not the way to have a theory debate, and if theory is more than a time suck to you and you want it to be a viable option at the end of the debate, you should probs respond to your opponent’s args.

 

Conditionality – Two advocacies are acceptable. Three is pushing it.

 

Miscellaneous thoughts –

·       Although my style of arguments in high school were more K-oriented, my style in college has usually been policy-oriented. 

·       Debate what you’re good at, don’t feel like you have to change your argumentation style if you have me in the back of the room.

·       Although debate is a game, always have fun and show respect to each other.

·       As I judge more and more, I've discovered that I am an extremely flow centric judge. I don't like to do work for either team so make sure your speech meets the threshold of sufficiency. 

·       Clarity is important! If I can't understand you, your arguments are not on my flow. 

·       You don’t have to use prep to flash files, but don’t abuse this.

·       For any questions, contact me at ana.calizo@gmail.com

 

 

Brian Drake
Affiliation: Monticello High School
2015-2016 Judge Philosophy

I've been in the policy debate activity since 1992. I debated for T.A. Edison High School (1996) and Mercer University (2000). I used to coach several college teams, but have been inactive for about ten years.

Etiquette: You will quickly discover that I am very easy going about how a debate goes down. I prefer a relaxed competitive environment as opposed to having a cutthroat animosity toward one another. If you address any of the participants in a disrespectful manner, then I will not hesitate to amend your speaker points.

I will disclose the decision at the end of the debate. I encourage and welcome comments and questions about my decision after the round. That being said, I will not tolerate rudeness when we discuss the decision/round.

General Stuff: I will vote on the arguments as they are articulated in the round. I believe developed and well-explained arguments make for better debates. Teams that follow this principle are more often awarded the “W” in front of me. Sometimes I will read cards after the debate to clarify and resolve arguments for an informed decision. I will also read cards if attention is drawn to particular pieces of evidence during the speeches.

Theory Issues: I have been known to vote on Topicality from time to time. With regard to Topicality I am more persuaded by provable abuse rather than potential abuse. I believe presumption shifts to the Affirmative if a counterplan is run. I have no other predispositions.

Performance/Personal Position/Philosophical Positions: I will vote for a personal position/advocacy argument if the performance is compelling. That said, my bar for voting on this issue is set pretty high. The advocating team must clear articulate the harm to them, the world, or the activity. They must clearly explain the links and “implications” for the debate. You must answer the question, "Why should *I* vote for this issue?" It's important to explain what role a white, heterosexual, male (me) has in this dialogue.

I will also listen to and vote on philosophical positions. Same rules apply: They need to be explained in the context of the debate. Clear links to the opposition are important and a clear reason why I should "reject" their position.

Political Disads: I am not a big fan of political disads. I will listen to them and I have been known to vote for them. The problem I have is that the evidence rarely supports the story being told. I have a difficult time resolving conflicts in evidence where it is clear that no one in the news media or other sources fully understands what is going on and must rely upon conjecture and rumor. In short, go for these positions if you are certain that your story AND evidence is superior to the other team’s.

Paradigm 

I vote on almost anything if you win the debate. I believe that debate should be an even competition of what happens in the round and how it affects the outside world instead of the other way around. Also don't do anything racist, homophobic, sexist, patriarchal, transphobic, heteronormative or simply disrespectful in round without expecting poor speaker points. It will also affect how I view your argumentation in this safe space.

 Spreading

In regards to spreading I'm fine with it just don't start out at full speed I need time to adjust to voices. Also be clear and slow on tags so I can know what you are saying and what I should be voting on. I can't vote on something that I  can't hear.

 

It's been quite awhile since I judged debate consistently, and my beliefs on the pedagogical nature of the activity have shifted somewhat since working in two graduate programs for communication studies. As such, I'll speak a little to this shift, and end with a few thoughts on debate strategy.

First and foremost, I am a Christian person: God is real, good, and cares about you deeply - as illustrated and continually affirmed through the personhood of Jesus Christ and the historical and mystical tradition of the holy ancient Orthodox Church. I attend, volunteer through, and worship at an Antiochian Eastern Orthodox Christian mission parish. Joy is not the same as happiness; quiet is not the same as silence; instruction/criticism is not the same as cynicism; Wisdom is not the same as knowledge. The existential dimension of approaching life recognizes that inter-subjective prescriptions of meaning are, ultimately, meaningless - but affirming creation in its relationship with/to God is the only true way of knowing love, beauty, value, purpose, ethics, truth, and meaning. How one communicates reveals an act of becoming: your words and actions form you as much as they attempt to inform others; they can make you more Christ-like, or they cannot. Meeting Wisdom, in all Her glory, is the only true value of debate. Don't debate about things that can't make you more wise, loving, or good.

I'm an indigneous/latino person (Incan) from Long Island that has spent over a decade trying to get back to serving my people. We've all lost people along the way. The colonizer's entire system of power in the West has such a vicegrip on the hearts and minds of the masses that if your soul is not anchored in the ancient ways of adhering to the Holy Spirit - it's easy to slip and lose it. This fantasy of a utilitarian individualism sears itself into the flesh of the West and can only end in destruction. As an indigenous Orthodox Christian, I am interested in the true liberation of all people as expressed through spiritual/material action from the chains that have been cast over our hands, minds, and spirit. Truly integrated approaches to trauma incorporate one's physical, mental/emotional, and spiritual condition - they can never be separated and always affect one another.

I study psychodynamic approaches to communication in Christianity. The psychoanalytic approach to language (along with its underlying, and fairly undeniable, religious current) reveals how and why we've formed attachments in relation to different points of trauma. Any liberatory approach can be trauma-informed or trauma-inducing, relative to their ability to truly love their neighbor as their self. Can there be such a thing as a self when the continual love and service of your neighbors (and hopefully, 'they you') has you constantly place the 'other' as a spiritual site of affirmation? The refusal to cease suffering is an important conclusion of both psychoanalytic and Christian existentialist logic - the ego is a site of comfortability, earthly pleasure, and nihilistic self-destruction. What do you do for your neighbor?

Lastly, a prayer:
"Oh, Lord Jesus Christ, may a blessing rain down over the people seeking truth, justice, and ways to love. May you keep them safe in travel, mind, and spirit. May they seek good things through their work. May they have clarity of the mind, joy within their bones, and feel safe within this space. May your everlasting love comfort us. May we all have courage to pursue what is right, even when it is not easy. May it all be to your glory. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; amen."

Strategy, in no particular order:

Everything you say in a speech must contain a claim/warrant/impact. If you are finishing a thought and can ask yourself “Why is this true,” and/or “Why is this important, given what everyone else is talking about in this round,” then you should keep talking. Stumbling across a complete line of thinking is better then racing through your many, incomplete, opinions.

There was once a debater that began what would become a >4minute final rebuttal on a Sunday morning with the line: "I'm going to end this early so that you can get to church on time!" The floor for that debater's speech was a 29, and they would later win the debate as well. I believe our Sunday morning's are better served worshipping in a Church setting, so anything done to shorten the debate time (even noting this as an argument) is immensely persuasive with an eternally more significant impact. Additionally, debaters willing to roll the dice on an argument that they believe wins them the debate (conceded double-turn; logical truism; moral obligation; etc.) and ending their speech early are also significantly improving their chances.

I will have nothing of the witchcraft that is the ritual encantation of tabula rasa that judges have engaged in in order to appear value-neutral. It is a lie - finding ways to establish relationships with people whom are simply and truly different from one another is a truer means of persuasion. Pretending like judges aren't people is not a good way of cultivating persuasion, education, or really good practice in general.

Debate is a rhetorical practice of character formation: we repeat and instill the virtues that we want to see in the world over and against other visions. I will vote for whomever makes me feel and/or presents a more logically coherent vision of the good life. Yes, you still need a link.

The exception: I will not tolerate trauma-inducing behavior, language, willfull ignorance, etc. I just don't have the energy in my old age to pretend to care like all actions and reactions are morally equivalent. Channel your rage into beating your opponents - considering the lengths that debaters will go to worship the idol of winning in this activity, they are more likely to suffer more greatly from an L.

Most outlandish claims get checked at some level, but spiritual matters are often presumed to be true by the louder voice in the room. I've heard some fairly wild accusations about ancient Christianity in general, and not tailored criticisms to specific Christian groups/people. It's irresponsible, and I have no problem ending a debate over it. Full criticisms on any topic are interesting and good; moralizing cliffnote half-researched soundbyte citations are not good.

This is not to say that you might, as some say, "know more than you know." I once heard a debater start an argument with "is there a reason that when you say 'x' it makes me feel 'y' or remember 'z'?" and then proceed to turn that feeling into a critical question of the presentation of the argument. What you say and how you say it are equally important.

If your neighbor or content require a warning based on the graphic nature of your speech, give it. Be willing to adjust or defend why you chose to speak a gratuitous thing into existence. Many things need to be discussed, but not everything needs to be discussed in a trauma-inducing way.

This is something that generally insecure individuals like to attempt a refutation at, but while we're here: "The standard for pizza is cooked in New York; everything else is a simulacrum."

If I can't understand you, then you didn't make an argument. I will not yell clear.

Regarding speaker points; I am impressionable. I have been known to give high speaker points, but I'm blissfully unaware of speaker point trends over the past 5 years and cannot (and likely will not) account for inflation. A perfectly average team is likely within the range of 28.5-28.6. If you are unenthusiastic, antagonistic, and lack in tonal variation, you may find your speaking points to be as undesirable as the speech's execution. I like speed, but you can be fast and have tonal variation: it's a public speaking event, after all.

Slow down on Plan Texts/Advocacies/CP Texts/Alternative Texts/Permutation Texts. If I can’t flow it, and the other team points it out, that’s on you.

The stock issues are a bit underrated. They are an opportunity to discuss what services/disservices debate. Inherency and Solvency (along with inherent and solvent versions of the AFF) are something with quite a bit of traction to it.

On topicality, proper: fairness is an internal link to people quitting, or, "the death of debate" - but a better and qualitatively similar internal link are ground claims. A persuasive argument I routinely heard was a short pairing of ground w/the TVA: basically that the AFF presented a K the NEG was going to use to test the resolution (defense), which lowers/eliminates their ability to practice advocating said critical rhetoric + hurts in-round education. Debating about debate is a unique K-AFF advantage (communal subject formation impact). Education is a terminal impact - death of debate is probably the other. Lastly, you need to impact why your education is good though: doesn't help much if you win teaching people is good if what you teach them is not good.

Captain America was right in Civil War.

I assume that people are engaging k-aff's more and more due to the fact that books, yano, exist - but if my belief in the literacy of this community over-stated, here's a simple problem for the appeal to abstract notions of ground loss vs. particular ones: the ceda finals round has (since the early 00's popularization of the K) historically featured a KvK debate with a signifcant quantity of NEG wins. PIK's of various metaphors due to their tropological connection to various other signifiers and impacts are creatively interesting to me. Black Framework debates have been interesting. There's a thin line between criticism and whining, and there's way too many intellectual traditions with relations to the topic to presume there's "no debate" to be had.

Everything you say, you defend, unless if you win a specific reason why you don't have to. Don't be afraid to defend good things.

Debaters would be magnifably more successful if they read communication theory as part of their solvency. Media Studies, Performance Studies, Rhetoric Studies, Affect Studies, etc. - it's all there and gives a reason why the ballot matters. A common explanation for why engaging in the plan's role-playing simulation is that repeated education helps us make similar decisions in the future, maybe - sounds like it, yano, non-uniques the advantages and/or a reason to vote.

Bad history makes history. If someone says something about something that's categorically false, and if you read a card in the other direction and then a card about how historical erasure/denial legitimizes all sorts of heinous atrocities - that's an easy DA flow that would either A) be a good debate, or B) be an easy debate.

I once found quite a bit of joy in being a part of a competitive dance crew. I bring this up because I want debaters that make the argument "debate bad" to know they have options. I have just never heard it communicated persuasively within the context of a competitive activity. Opacity for similar reasons. Also, with few exceptions, a critique of wanting the ballot is non-unique. Don't waste everyone's time.

Judges whom have influenced my thoughts on debate, at some point or another: Calum, Hagwood, Shree. Any non-contradictory aspects of their paradigms can be cross-applied here.

Impact Calculus is under-rated. Don't bring (more) links to an impact fight.

Strong Defense can win Debates.

Uniqueness wins most, if not all, debates.

I have been thinking about the Louisville Project of the mid-early 00's and their thoughts on debate (in general, clearly), and flowing (in particular). I'm undecided on this and have talked to different experts about it, but I am unconvinced that one has to flow the majority of the debate to both understand and properly give a good decision. Focus on what's important and extend your arguements properly and all shall be fine. If I do choose to flow, know that I flow straight down, always.

Creativity, comedy, and an intentional desire to engage form the best debates.

Prep ends when the email is sent/flash-drive leaves the computer/cards are otherwise compiled. I will enforce this: if you are using scholarly citations/cards then that evidence needs to be made available to your opponent before your speech begins. Preparing for your speech includes organizing the information you're about to read; if it's organized then it should be readily accessible for your opponents - traditionally by holding a stack of physical "evidence" as you give an order, but in a more contemporary context the virtual transmission of said evidence to the other team. If you've withheld evidence and the opposing team asks for it post-speech, your prep will begin and end when the e-mail is sent. You are not expected to send analytics/blocks - only cards/scholarly evidence. Team rules that you "can't share cases" are either not about evidence or are arbitrary in a world where you can share them minutes after reading but not during. Everyone be fair, share and, when in doubt, feel free to see "Shree Awsare" and/or his paradigm.

I'll ask if I want to be on the e-mail chain, but generally I do not.

Keep your own time.

Theory is a question of good/bad debate practices, is fine, and requires an interpretation, a violation or link, and an impact or reason to reject that practice.

Also, I've been teased about voting repetitively on either "the floating pik" or "the internal link turn." But I'm right: answer the argument or get in the robot, Shinji.

I am most interested in debates about/that involve Christianity, religion/spirituality, psychoanalysis, existential thoughts on language and/or reality, high theory, subject formation in the context of communication theory, and nuanced approaches to the topic.

I'll change my mind eventually, or the world will light on fire due to man's selfish desire to set everything good on fire. One of the two.

God bless~

Former varsity debater at George Mason University, now the policy debate coach at Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington, DC.

First things first, I have done and enjoy both critical and policy debate, so do what you're comfortable with. No matter what style you utilize, just make sure that it is explained well. Even if I know what your argument is, I will only vote on how you articulate it. This is a communication activity, so do not forget that you have to be persuasive. I flow, and I will vote on the flow.

I don't often call for evidence. I'll call for evidence if I think you have a really sweet card (which won't be evaluated off of that) or if there's a dispute on the warrants or quality of a card important to the debate, but otherwise I see it as bordering on intervention to call for cards and interpret them if I didn't clearly hear them in the round. If I do call for evidence and I can't connect it to my flow you should probably learn your evidence better.

I show many facial expressions while judging, but I typically end up looking down at my flow writing the entire time to make sure I get as much as possible. If I do look up, don't get discouraged, I want to listen to your explanation. I will try as best as I can to follow your arguments.

Second, generally, I give speaker points based on a few criteria:

First - Make smart arguments. You don't need to be the fastest speaker to get high speaks with me. I would rather you explain things and be smart over trying to show off.
Second - Organization. I don't want a cluster of arguments spewed onto my flow. Don't mess it up.
Third - Clarity. BE CLEAR. 
Fourth - Efficiency. Allocate your time wisely, you will probably be able to tell when I'm getting bored if you're spending too much time on something.
Fifth - Ethos. Persuade me. This is a communicative activity, I just want you to learn how to be well spoken. Be passionate, make it seem like you actually want to be here debating.
Sixth - BE NICE AND RESPECTFUL TO YOUR PARTNER/OPPONENTS/ME. You're all here to have fun, don't take yourself too seriously.


I don't care about profanity in moderation and when appropriate. If your speech ends up being a slew of cursing with some arguments in between and it isn't related to your specific argument (or the other team deserves it), I will tank your speaks and probably tell you after the round. Being blatantly offensive is not acceptable. By that, I don't mean linking to a rhetoric K or anything like that, I mean saying something that is legitimately offensive to the other team and you don't seem to care. I'll either look angrily at you or interrupt you. That's a sign that your speaks have been bottomed out with no chance of redemption. Be sensitive of gendered/homophobic/racist/ableist language. I will talk to you about it after the round if not already addressed within the round, just so you're aware.

In cross-x, I have no problem with being very indignant or aggressive. It's a high intensity activity and it typically comes across as somewhat competitive to me, but that's not a free pass to be rude and domineering. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be a smart ass if you can pull it off, I'll enjoy that.
Don't get caught up on one thing in cross x that is a dead end or been adequately answered, it will reflect upon your speaker points.

I don't mind small talk throughout the round. I don't want to be just a fly on the wall. But don't think that gets you anything.

Case - It's only detrimental to not have a fleshed out case debate. Both the aff and neg seem to under utilize the aff case in high school debate. Uniqueness questions for advantages, internal link defense, impact defense, internal link turns, impact turns. You have so many options.

K affs - I want a clear explanation of your method or intentional lack thereof. Framing of the round is important. You're re-situating my ballot to mean something outside of the norm of debate, you should probably detail why that's important. I have yet to really hear an offensive reason why permutations shouldn't be allowed in a methodologies debate when the neg frames the round that way, so neg teams be sure to answer the perm unless you can articulate why perms shouldn't matter. There needs to be an offensive reason why the affirmative either fits into, should be interjected into, or entirely abandons the topic. Protip: You probably aren't going to win defining words in the resolution on framework ("Resolved=Reduce by mental analysis" and "USFG means the people" aren't really round winners). If you have a defensible counter-interpretation like "the aff should be in the direction of the topic" and do the work to defend it, you can likely convince me that you aren't all that abusive. If you don't have a counter interp and reject the topic I'm a little more receptive to framework, but you can win that framework is bad.

FW - Framework can end up interesting or boring and stale. If you go for the procedural/fairness portion of framework, I want to hear a list of what kind of unpredictable cases the aff justifies, what arguments you lose, why those arguments are important/good to debate (if the aff wins that the arguments you lose are epistemologically bad, why should I evaluate them?) and why fairness is good. Winning T version solves the aff will likely mitigate most or all aff offense unless they're blatantly not at all within the topic. Going for T version, you should have justifications for policymaking being good, legal discussions being good, and some sort of external impact. T version makes sense to me as a CP or methodology debate, that makes it a lot simpler for you to frame that debate.

DA's - Impact calculus impact calculus impact calculus. Why does the DA outweigh case? Does it turn case solvency or impacts? Is there a link? What's the threshold for the aff triggering the link? Is the DA unique? These are all the basic questions that should be answered for me throughout the debate. Mitigate the aff case or solve the aff with a CP and it's done. Aff, when answering DA's, you should answer all of those questions as well, but the opposite way. Remember, you have an aff. It has impacts. Tell me why those are more important.

CP's - Be competitive. Have an offensive net benefit (solving better isn't much of a net benefit or one at all). If the Aff/CP debate ends up close, flag the presumption voter and outline which direction it goes.

Kritik's - Read whatever K you would like BUT be warned you need to explain it well. Winning the K is all about spin. Unless you've cut some great specific link and impact cards, chances are your K doesn't specifically criticize the aff, so tell me how it does. Real world examples are awesome, in fact, they are preferred. Do the right impact framing and win the role of the ballot. If you can set up a uniqueness story to turn your K into a DA, by all means kick the alt or tell me to boot the alt for you if the aff wins no alternative solvency. I'm familiar with some lit and I would like to say the lit I'm most read up on is CRT and Gender studies. Aff, don't let the neg get away with their vague hipster explanations using buzzwords. Too many high school teams seem intimidated by K's or just do it because they think it's cool without fully understanding it. No. I am a firm believer in debaters needing to learn how to debate before they can read K's or critique it. Do not go for a K you don't understand in front of me. I want explanations.

Topicality - You should provide detailed analysis of what the topic should look like. I default to competing interps. I like to hear a good T debate, but I'm not going to say "don't run T as a timesuck" because that's just inevitable. Your interpretations establish a particular vision of the topic. Give me a clear case list for that topic. Give me a T version of the aff. Give me a list of lost neg ground. In round abuse? Should I vote on potential abuse? Should I prefer fairness or education? Why?

Procedurals (Specs) - I'll vote on them. I think that ASPEC tends to be relevant given the popularity of agent CP's. I'mean fine with your trolly args...if it's won it's won. Hearing a topic specific specification with an in depth description of why that's relevant to having ground to a particular portion of the topic that provides unique education will be incredibly interesting to me.

Theory - Have an interpretation. Chances are that I won't pull the trigger on all conditionality being bad always. Should PIC's have to be functionally and textually competitive? You have to articulate the link to your argument. What did the other team do that's abusive? And if you want it to be a reason to reject the team, you have to impact it and explain how it impacted the round or establishes a bad precedent for debate. If no one says anything on it, I'll default to T outweighing theory, it's a gateway issue. Remember to slow down in theory debates.

When I debate, I have the mindset of the debaters being in charge of how I write my ballot, I encourage you to do that as well. Whether you have to force my hand or you wax eloquently about your position is up to you. But I cannot stress it enough that I will vote on the flow.

I stop prep when the flash drive comes out of your computer or when the email is sent. It's your burden of being paperless to be efficient with it. I don't want my time wasted or yours because it cuts into your RFD time. If you're having computer issues, the screen has to face me.

Random aesthetic side notes:

-Don't hide behind your computer, make eye contact with me. You're trying to win my ballot, not your computer's.
-Don't try to go faster than you are. It only makes you sound unclear or choppy.
-At least try to look like you're enjoying yourself.

Final note: I really do believe that debate is some of the best education a student can get, I am here to help you learn as well so please do not hesitate after rounds to ask me questions.

Any questions, email me. ericajalbuena@gmail.com.

My name is Korey Johnson.  I debated in college for Towson and won CEDA in 2014.  Google me.  Here is Adam Jackson's philosophy, which sums up my views of debate:

"I'll be blunt. I like certain kinds of debates. I like debates that center on the people in the room and how their arguments are tied to the ballot and the "real world".

That being said, there are some things that are really bad to do in front of me:

1. Topicality and Framework - Unless you're beating the living crap out of the other team, I will NOT vote for T or FWK.
2. Wonky shit - If you like stuff like Post-modern theory and expect me to "get it" out the gate, you are mistaken. Unless it is explained in a way that translates into the context of the debate, I will NOT vote for it.
3. Fairness and Ground impacts - If you're using these as the terminal impact to the aff/neg, don't expect me to cry because you don't get your PX Link.

This does not mean you can't run your "traditional" DA's, CP's or K's. I just need you to be explicit in the warrants and why they are important.

Other than that, I like just arguments that are well explained. I'm pretty open to whatever debaters are thinking about or feeling.

I will also mention that I am a former performance debater for Towson. If you are doing performance debate, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ARGUMENTS. There's nothing I hate more than really shallow performance debates. You will not win simply because you "perform". Take time to explain the warrants of the args during the rebuttals. 

I'm pretty simple when evaluating the debates at the end. I actively listen throughout the debate and don't try to "reconstruct" the debate at the end from the flow. I evaluate heavily off the impacts and will NOT do work for you at the end of the debate on impacts. The seminole thing I need during rebuttals is Impact Analysis. If there is no terminal impact to your strategy at the end of the debate...expect to lose.

CX is important and I flow CX. Speak wisely.

If I can not hear you, I will not flow it. Don't think I'm going to hear your Wilson 05 evidence if you're speaking too damn fast. I'm not a robot. Talk at a reasonable speed. It will affect your speaker points.

I am the Director of Debate at Georgetown University ('21-present), before which I was the Assistant DOD (2017-21). I am also an Assistant Coach for Westminster. Before that, I debated for 4 years at Georgetown. In high school, I debated only regionally, for a tiny high school in West Texas.

Please include me on the email chain: bwk9@georgetown.edu

***Update: November 2022***

My prior paradigm was 5+ years out of date. The following are patterns in my judging that you should be aware of when debating in front of me.

All of the items below, EXCEPT for the "D-Rules (not subject to debate)" section, are simply DEFAULTS in the absence of debaters making an argument that I should evaluate these things differently. I would prefer that the DEBATERS tell me how to evaluate things and why, in which case these priors should rarely , if ever, come into play.

D-Rules (NOT subject to debate)

1. Please include me on the email chain.

2. In high school debates, all of the participants are minors, and I will not hesitate to intervene in a debate if anything legally or ethically dubious is occurring. This includes any bullying, displays of sexism or racism, etc. Relatedly, there are arguments which are appropriate for the college context but that I will not--and, legally, cannot!--countenance in a HS debate (one example: the reading of uncensored explicit evidence a la Preciado).

3. Consider me dead inside with respect to any preferences regarding argumentative substance. However, I have very little tolerance for either arguments or ways of engaging that make any participant feel unsafe, and will intervene if necessary.

4. Allegations of an ethics violation will immediately end the debate. No take-backs. I will then inform the tabroom and follow the tournament's prescribed procedures, or in the lack of such procedures will unilaterally determine whether it rises to the threshold of an ethics VI. If so, the accuser will win; if not, the accuser will lose. If allowed for by the tournament rules, I will make a subjective determination regarding whether the violation (or accusation, if the accuser loses) was engaged in knowingly and/or in competitive bad faith, and if so will assign the lowest allowable speaker points. To help guide this determination: egregious or persistent clipping is a D-Rule. So is evidence falsification. Poor evidence "hygiene," e.g. ending in the middle of a paragraph, is a D-rule, but is unlikely to warrant the additional "poor speaks" sanction if it does not change the meaning of the card, whereas if it cuts out a strawperson it is likely to warrant the "poor speaks" sanction. Minor good-faith mistakes in evidence citation are very unlikely to rise to the threshold of a D-rule if it is left up to my discretion by tab and/or the tournament rules.

Things to Know About Debating In Front of Me

1. 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 as providing me a roadmap for how I should approach adjudicating the debate once it ends. Absent this, I will come up with my own roadmap, but it is substantially less likely to work out in your favor and also I will be grumpy about it.

2. I have found that the way that arguments are characterized early in the debate often bears heavily on how I interpret and resolve disputes over them in the final rebuttals. This has accounted for numerous panel splits in debates I've judged the past couple years. If, for example, an argument is articulated in one way in the CXes (all of which I flow), I will tend to treat that articulation as binding; or, if a plan or counterplan is characterized in a given way in the 2NC and the 1AR does not push back on that characterization, I will adopt that understanding of the plan or counterplan and hold the line against 2ARattempts to rearticulate it.

3. Evidence: I value quality of argument and evidence. A smart, well-warranted analytic is far more valuable than a bad card. Research is at the core of what makes policy debate unique and valuable relative to e.g. Public Forum, Parli, etc. However, evidence matters only insofar as it provides reasons to believe you about your arguments (e.g. qualifications, warrants, etc.); it never constitutes an argument itself.

4. I will not read your speech doc, a practice which I've observed account for other panel splits in recent years. I will spot check specific pieces of evidence if they are contested in CX or in speeches. I will read cards I am directed to after the debate, but it is up to you to have leveraged them effectively in your speech--and, how good a card needs to be to get the job done on a given issue is inversely proportional to how well you debate it. If debaters want their evidentiary advantage to matter--as it should--they should do more evidence comparison, including as it relates to source quality, etc. The sole exception to this: if evidence is selectively underlined to an argument not even contemplated by the original, I reserve the right to unilaterally discount it (think here of the difference between underlining a movie script or selectively underlining words in unrelated sentences to concoct an argument never made in the source, vs. cutting a cards as a strawperson - the latter I will very unhappily accept if the other team does not contest it, albeit at the cost of speaker points, whereas the former I will probably not accept, if I notice it, even if the other team does NOT call it out).

5. Conceded arguments are true arguments. However, 1.) A complete "argument" consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact--assertions are not arguments, and thus are not "true" even if dropped. 2.) Receiving the full weight of an argument does not matter in-and-of itself--you must still unpack why that dropped argument impacts the rest of the debate, and if that explanation was not there initially then the implication component of that can still constitute a new argument to which responses are allowed.

6. CX filibustering: Some amount of it is part of the game, but if this is taken to a silly extreme, then I will not hesitate to pull a Dallas Perkins and tell you to "ANSWER the QUESTION" so as to enable a meaningful debate to occur

Argument Defaults

1. Absent arguments to the contrary, CX and 2AC clarifications of plan mandates constitute binding amendments to the plan text, making them presumptively legitimate sources of counterplan competition. (Merely saying that something is "normal means," however, does not make it a mandate, and thus is presumptively not a legitimate source of CP competition.)

2. My defaults are that conditionality is a.) an all-or-nothing thing and b.) is good. However, I have become increasingly open to contestation of either premise.

3. Plan vagueness is out of control, especially in high school, and I will gladly vote Neg on that, either as a voting issue in-itself or smart circumvention arguments or DA links about the way in which the vague plan would be most likely interpreted and applied.

4. Counterplan vagueness is also out of control. If your CP text boils down to, e.g., "do innovation" rather than outlining a mechanism for how to bolster innovation, and the Affirmative points out that that is meaningless, I will agree with the Aff.

5. Kritiks: By default I assume that the K is not a DA plus a CP and that therefore the debate is a referendum on whatever the Link/Alt is critiquing, e.g. the Aff's reps, epistemology, political paradigm, etc. I can be convinced of plan focus/FW-no Ks, particularly if it is grounded in arguments about the resolutional burden of proof and the Negative's reciprocal burden of rejoinder, though meeting in the middle is often the path of less resistance. I am also willing to adopt very Neg-friendly frameworks, e.g. 'you link you lose,' but with the proper Aff responses I will find them ultimately unpersuasive. Absent Aff FW arguments that render them applicable ('pragmatism good,' for instance, or arguments about reciprocity of burdens), I do not intuitively understand why arguments like 'movements fail,' 'transition wars,' 'alt not feasible / no one is persuaded,' etc. would be relevant considerations--but with them, I do.

Argument Defaults - K Affs

5. K Affs: I prefer that the Affirmative be "topical" slash affirm the resolution. I am pretty good for topical K Affs, insofar as I think that there is substantial room for play regarding what topical AFFIRMATION means/entails, and that the wording of the resolution does not necessarily prescribe that topical "affirmation" take the form of defending the narrow causal desirability of implementing a specific topical policy proposal.

However, if your approach when reading a K Aff is to impact turn topicality, the part I struggle with is how debate can be workable once we have left the resolution behind. To deal with this, please speak DIRECTLY to that question in some manner in the 2AR -- whether by explicitly saying that it's better for debate not to be workable, explaining why it will not become unworkable, clearly defending some alternative limiting principle for what the Affirmative win condition is in place of the resolution, or something else -- AND have that be clearly traceable to arguments you set up in the 2AC and 1AR.

6. Framework v. K Affs: I do find there to be a meaningful difference between "topicality," i.e. the Affirmative must affirm the resolution and did not, and "framework," i.e. the Affirmative did not debate or affirm in the specific manner the Neg would have liked for them to. It would behoove the Neg to leverage those differences in response to Aff offense that presumes the latter or blurs the line.

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."

Alternatively: feel free to say whatever "substantive" FW offense you'd like--I do find link turns to K Affs to often be truer than the K Affs themselves--BUT please do not just assert words like "clash" or "second and third level testing" without explication of what exactly you mean, why it is unique to your model of debate/foreclosed by the Aff's, and what the impact is; AND be aware that in so doing, you run the risk of making Aff impact turns LINK which otherwise would not.

I generally do not care about "T version," except insofar as it is explained in terms of what SPECIFIC lines of Affirmative offense are solved by the being able to read the Aff topically. (For example: "we need to go to X section of the library" is probably solved by T version, and arguably solved BETTER insofar as that model preserves a stronger ability and competitive incentive to dig into that issue than does the Aff's model). I DO think that that if a given Aff is COMPATIBLE with topical affirmation, that makes it easy to moot all of their offense while retaining a clear net benefit by saying that they should've have simply read the same Aff TOPICALLY (in essence, the same function that "T version" plays in a T debate vs. a policy Aff). In contrast, K Affs which are INcompatible with topical affirmation is generally better dealt with in front of me by "do it on the Neg" rather than a TVA.

Correspondingly: I tend to think that the best K Affs are centered not on K's of the resolution or topical Affs, but of BEING TOPICAL slash a model of topical debate--in which case the Neg will need to win that their model of debate is better, and a T version will only be useful in very specific, isolated instances for specific reasons.

TOC 2015--

Chattahoochee '13

Emory '17 

I'm going to keep this short since I agree with a lot of what is said on the wiki.  Where I'm from probably tells you a bit about some of my leanings, but as I grow older in debate I really, really don't care what is said as long as it is debated well. 

What is debating well? To me, a good debater should be able to persuade anyone.  For example, if you feel like your style of debate is one that relies on slang you picked up from reading the back of the book of whatever you're going for, I probably am not the best for you.  The reason why I have leanings (i.e. framework is important, the politics DA can be useful, creatively cheating CPs are cool) is mostly because that is what I am familiar with. 

Flowing, line-by-line, even if statements, overviews, writing the ballot are all good things to do.  

PICs are good, condo is bad, intrinsicness is debateable. 

If you can beat a team going conversation speed (remember we do policy debate so that's still at least 1.5x normal), extra speaker points are definitly in the cards. 

 

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

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: brian.manuel@uky.edu

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

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

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

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

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

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following are not for the faint of heart!

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

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

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

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

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

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

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

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

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

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

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

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

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

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

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

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

email: aladekemi.omoregie@gmail.com

Add me to the chain.

I debated policy and public forum for Newark Science, I'm currently an attorney and I usually judge LD rounds. I don't really have time to read philosophy so please explain as much as you can to me.

I don't disclose speaks.

As far as the round goes:

Presumption: No presumption, I listen to both sides

K's: I prefer K debates, they are fun. Strictly topical debates are not fun. They are in fact, very boring. Please stop only running lay/traditional debate in front of me.

Speed: Don't spread.

Theory: I hate theory debates. I feel as though it wastes time during the round because you are essentially complaining about not having enough time to debate, when, what you could be doing, is debating. TO ME, theory is the lowest value argument that can be made.

Cross Examination: Can't believe I have to say this, but CX is binding; however, I don't flow CX

Miscellaneous: If you're racist, homophobic, ableist, or display any other kind of bigotry during the round, I don't have to vote for you.

In an LD debate I will not flow more than 3 off case arguments!

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING

Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

CURRENT THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

I am currently working as an assistant coach to the Newark Science debate team. I am very much indebted to debate for the person that I am today. I find debate (and especially debate rounds) to be very much a part of life. This means that I would encourage everyone to understand that the things you say in a debate round have real implications even outside of the debate round. Fellow debaters and opponents in the past, present, and future are not just obstacles, but are other people whether that is outside or inside civil society. Debate does not allow the things you say to exist in a vacuum, so as a judge, coach, educator, and a petty black man I will not tolerate or evaluate the following ideas (LIKE EVER):

 

RACISM GOOD/ RACISM DOES NOT EXIST

SOCIAL DEATH GOOD

STOPPING WARMING WILL SOLVE RACISM

 

(These are the only things that come to mind at the moment, I know and will try and add more, but understand I put these first for a reason.)

 

BACKGROUND THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

I’m a proud member of the Eastside debate team senor class of 2014. I am the closest friend with Daniel Mendes (who all of sudden became a celebrity in HS debate) and Chaz Wyche (if you don’t know about him you shouldn’t worry about it to affect my judging.). From my time on the Eastside debate team (Eastside BR) I am a member of the few teams from Newark to ever get a TOC bid (Scranton 2013) in over a decade. All my time in policy debate has been devoted to traveling, and debating in national tournaments all over the country (Scranton, Yale, Georgetown, Emory, U-Penn, NAUDL, etc). During my travels I have had Elijah Smith (CEDA AND NDT 2012 CHAMPION), Chris Randall (CEDA AND NDT NATIONAL 2013 DEBATER, and also Elijah’s partner), and Willie Johnson (CEDA 2013 FINAL ROUND JUDGE) as my coaches and most influential to my success as a debater. I am luck enough to have even judged at the college level of policy debates at tournaments such as Vermont, and West point and look forward to judging the HS level. 

 

DEBATE THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

GENERIC THING WITH JAYE:

 

I’ll try and be quick and painless for the people who are waiting to know how they should pref me. Now I have judged policy, critical, and performance, but I find performance to be the debates I’m truly most comfortable with. If you could not tell by the three coaches I have stated above, I am very familiar with performance rounds and by coincidence I am also a performance debater. I ran an Afro-pessimist critiques in all my national tournaments my senior year (exception Yale and Georgetown: I ran Decolonaility, there is a difference btw). At all the other the tournaments I have read at least 2 Wilderson cards in every speech I’ve given. There are other authors that I read that talk about anti-blackness, but the point is that if you are talking about black people I have probably read the books/articles they came from. Now policy is by no means something I can’t judge. No performance debaters I know have started out running performance arguments, the same is true for me that I had to learn policy debate in order to be the debater I am today so I’ll talk about the specifics of policy first. 

 

POLICY THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

TOPICALLY

 

• AFF

You should pick up on whether the negative will truly go for the argument, and let that choose how you will answer in the 2ac and 1ar. Reasonability is a really strong argument in front of me, but that does not excuse you for dropping any arguments that can be used to make topically important.

• NEG

I do evaluate topically. If you are going for topically you need to go hard people. I will not vote for topically if you don’t hard for me in the block. I need in round abuse, topical versions of the Aff, and voters that are going to be impacted in the round in order for me to take topically as more than a time crew you thought of for the round. If you actually do go for topically in the 2nr (which I would be beyond shock and a little impressed if you do it well) to make me vote on topically you need to go for this argument for the whole five minutes. Topically is a prior question in the round it would only make sense to just go for topically in the 2nr. The way I see topically used now as a time screw for a very minimal infraction of the Affirmative that is probably resolved through reasonability.   

 

THEORY

• AFF

 The best thing you could do for me would to try and set up theory in cross x. A simple “What is the status of the off case position?” would help me to at least prepare for a theory debate. I also like theory on a separate flow so that needs to be in the order at the beginning of the speech.  That helps me evaluate the separate offense and defense on that debate. Theory like topically needs to have same time spent on it in order for me to vote for this argument. Your tagline will not be enough for me.  

• NEG

It is of the utmost importance for you to set this argument up in cross x for me if you can. Theory should also be on a separate flow, and similar to what I said on the Aff. You need to spend time on his to have me vote on this.  

FRAMEWORK

 

• AFF

For the Affirmative the framework is really helpful to how I should evaluate. I can guest that a utilitarian framework is the way to evaluate your impacts or you can tell that utilitarianism is the framework, and give some comparative analysis if the negative has their own framework.  A role of the ballot and judge is something you also want in any 2ac because it makes sense.

• NEG

I’m talking about the “Resolved means a USFG topical policy action”. This type of frame is the scorn of my life. You don’t know how many times I’ve heard this argument. I WILL CRINGE EVERY TIME I HEAR THIS ARGUEMNT. I will unfortunately listen to the argument, but no one will like this debate. I believe that you should probably just run the topical version of the plan against whatever Aff you didn’t care to engage with. You can still weight all the education and ground arguments, but we now have a better debate, and I’ll be a lot happier.

AFFFIRMATIVE

 

All Policy affirmatives NEED TO HAVE A CLEAR LINE BETWEEN THE INTERNAL LINK AND THE IMPACT OF EACH ADVANTAGE. I also need a clear line to the SOLVENCY AND HOW THAT WORKS FOR EACH ADVANTAGE. The Aff should tell a story and have a good flow to it. This means the Aff should not be you trying to read as many cards as you can in the 1ac. The 1ac should be slow on tags to contribute to the idea of telling a story. Even policy Affs can be creative. Don’t be afraid to something other than nuclear war/extinction and have some cool advantage with a framework behind how I should evaluate the advantage. The best example of this I can tell you is probably structural violence advantage that stops something like police brutally, but this will require work. I will be happy to see that effort in a debate round and be sure to recognize you in some way for that work.   (Probably a speaker higher)

 

DISADVANTAGES

 

They are ok, but make sure think is a clear link to the Aff. You also need to tell me how to evaluate this impact in round. The answer is YES! I would like a specific impact calculus for the round that compares all the impacts in the round.

 

COUNTER PLANS

If the counter plan doesn’t make any sense after the permutation then I will probably not vote for the counter plan. It needs to complete. That means a net benefit and a reason why the Aff is a bad idea. I believe that even if the counter plan solves the Aff it does not mean game over. The negative still needs a reason why the Aff is a bad idea on top of the net benefit or I will just vote Aff on the permutation. 

 

CRITICAL THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

 

 

• AFFIRMATIVE

 

This for the Affirmative that have a plan text, but have a very philosophical background:

YOUR AWSOME 

 

• CRITQUE

 

I LOVE CRITQUES, BUT IF YOU DON”T KNOW THE LITERATURE I WILL NOT LIKE YOU. This simply means if you read a critique you should have picked a book and read. Not just the introduction, but have read the book. You can easily tell an experience K debater from someone who is just beginning. I find that people can earn high speaks here, but with all high speaks they come to those who have a working knowledge of the hell they are talking about. Know Your Stuff. Links need to be as clear as possible. The better the link story, the better the speaker points. The alternative needs to solve the Aff or resolve the essential question posed in the debate. Make sure I know what the world of the alternative looks like. If you say that you end the work I need to know what the process looks like because my ballot will final end the world and I’ll take great pride in that.  

 

 

PREFORMANCE THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

• AFFIRMATIVE

As stated above I’m very comfortable with this argument. Be sure to have some clear connection to the topic. IF YOU RUN THIS ARGUMENT YOU ARE THE REASON WHY THE SUN SHINES (not really tho)

• NEGATIVE

I do believe that the negative can also have performances. These are really trick to deploy in a round sometime, but when done correctly they are one the most powerful arguments in debate. I prefer these debates to happen when the Aff gives there performance, and he neg provides a counter performance/methodology. These argument hold a special place in my heart as this was the only I ran on the negative of my senior. There is nothing special you get from me by reading this argument but that shouldn’t hinder you from reading this argument in front on me anyway.    

 

 

END OF THNGS WITH JAYE

 

 

First of all +1 for actually reading judging paradigms. You've already started off well.

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

Experience: I debated for three years in high school at Baltimore City College and now I'm one of their coaches. This is my fifth year judging HS debate.

Paradigm: Just a general overview of how I judge debates: I'm fine with spreading as long as you are clear enough. I will listen to almost anything and as long as it's argued well. A dropped argument is a true argument (within reason). I like competitive spirit but don't be a terrible person. By that I mean you can get fiery in your speeches and cross-ex but personal attacks are not cool unless they are really out of line (i.e. they said something outright offensive: racist, sexist, patriarchal, heteronormative,etc.). I want to see a good debate so run what you're comfortable with and know what you're talking about please.

Specifics: Now I'll talk about a few things that are more specific to argumentative style and my own preferences.

DISCLAIMER: Everything beyond this point is my point of view so you should take it with a grain of salt. I'll always judge a debate based on what happens in the round not based on how I feel about the arguments ran. However I will tell you how I felt after the round.

K: I primarily debated kritically during my debating career so that is naturally what I prefer to hear and I know more about. If you run a K, you can trust that I'll probably have a good idea of what you're talking about unless you are running something really obscure.

I read a lot of Deleuze and Foucault myself so I have a higher threshold for these arguments. I really hate generic answers to these arguments...but they can win the debate if they aren't answered well.

Race, so this is an interesting subject. I have read some of the literature behind most classic race arguments and my team has read(or is currently reading) most of the better kritical race theory arguments so I am used to hearing them and I understand them very well. Thus likewise, I expect them to be run well or you are already starting off from behind in my book. If you are an all white partnership, be careful what you say. I'm not going to vote you down for being wrong but being offensive can affect speaker points. So I will listen, just don't say anything that will make me regret that.

Policy: I wouldn't say that straight up policy is something that I love listening to but I will listen to it. Keep it clean. Keep it understandable. Otherwise I have no issues.

T: I really dislike this argument in 99% of situations. If the other team answers it reasonably I will not vote on it. Read something responsive. T is not responsive. If you plan on winning T it better be the whole 2NR or else I'll give the 2AR a lot of leeway on it unless the 1AR just straight dropped it, but you still need an impact. T alone is not a voter. Also if you go for T, especially against a K Aff there damn sure better be some real impacts. I mean real world impacts. Weighing your "education" against systemic issues is not going to be an easy debate to win in front of me.

Theory: I have nothing for or against theory. Be articulate and make sure I understand all the parts of your argument and why what they're doing is bad.

At the end of the day when I'm judging I really just want to see a good debate so if you give me that you can be sure that I will judge it fairly and unbiased.

Experience

4 years policy at Vashon High School

1 year policy at George Washington University.

Currently a Junior at George Washington double majoring in International Affairs and English

Right now I'm an assistant coach for Johns Creek High School, where I was brought on to work specifically with the critical teams this semester & last. Last year I coached for Woodrow Wilson High School, and I've also worked for Interlake, Vashon, and Broad Run. I've coached kids to/through multiple bid rounds. I've probably judged 50+ camp rounds and 25+ national tournament rounds, including bid rounds and late elims of several national tournaments.

I worked at the SDI with all the classic labs and both Hoya Spartan Scholars labs the summer of 2014

 

Top Level-

Generally I’m fine with any form of argumentation style, I’ve debated the national circuit, I’m current etc. I know its annoying to have judges say the debate is yours, do what you want, but that's generally how I feel about it. I have almost equal experience on all sides of policy and K debates and clash of civs, and I do not have a preference to what types of debate I watch. I believe that my role as the judge is to evaluate the round, and try to intervene as little as possible. In general, due to the area of the nation I debated in in high school, as well as the camps I attended, I have more experience personally debating policy-oriented rounds, but I have more experience judging and coaching critical rounds.

 

I am a technical debater, and thus tend to look at debates I judge technically. I try to evaluate the round as a whole in a big picture, and how the arguments interact as the debaters explained them, rather than in a flow-centric way, as I think this is most fair to the debaters. That said, clearly structured arguments, line-by-line, and sign posting if you're not following the flow are all key for a clean and good debate, and also higher speaker points. The easiest way to win a close debate in front of me is to point out concessions and frame the debate.

  

*NOTE- Please let me know before the round if there is anything myself and your opponents should know in the way of preferred pronouns, or accommodation for processing issues, trigger warnings, etc.

 

T-

Generally default to competing interpretations as I think it is better for debate. That said, I can be fairly easily persuaded vote on reasonability- but more in the context of your interp being reasonable than your aff being reasonably topical. I think a good brightline then is how the aff specifically is not T as per certain standards/ precedents set out by the parameters of the topic (i.e extra T/ FX in the context of oceans of whatever), and generally has a strong in-round abuse story. I'm hard pressed to vote on potential abuse.

 

A good T debate is technical, organized line-by-line, impacted, and extrapolated with examples. I have no problem voting for T, but these debates get really messy. Make sure you're drawing clean lines across my flow and capitalizing on concessions. 

 

Counterplans-

I think the counterplan needs to compete off some kind of internal or artificial net benefit. I will still vote for you if you run a counterplan that competes off certainty, but I'll be way more lax towards slightly severance or intrinsic permutations and theoretical objections as a reason to reject the argument. If the counterplan solves all the aff/ is a process counterplan it needs to be textually competitive. I don’t think counterplans necessarily need to be both textually and functionally competitive, but the best and most legit ones are.

 

Not the biggest fan of cheating/ process counterplans, but there are so many smart aff ways to answer them, and generally they are pretty generic, so read, them, but generally I tend to err aff easily in matters of solvency deficits and theory when your CP is sunsets or whatever.

 

The BEST counterplan is well researched, has specific and intelligent answers to common 2AC answers, and has clear roads to solve internal links or advantages

 

I will judge-kick the counterplan but only if told to do so by the negative.

 

K’s-

I’m familiar with pretty much most k-lit you can and will read. I’ve gone for the K a lot, researched the K a lot, debated the K a lot on the aff and neg etc. I'm also an English major so I spend a lot of my time reading critical theory and philosophy.

 

I think framing issues are important, and when there is good clash on the K especially on the impact level of the debate, meta framing makes it a lot easier for me to figure out how you want me to weigh your K against the aff. I think sans a debate that has arguments like serial policy failure, K precedes policy discourse, reps first, the K is a better political solution etc., it becomes very easy for the aff to weight their impacts and very easy for me to vote on a risk of a perm if they prove a risk aff impacts outweigh or come first become.

 

You can kick the alt or read a K without an alt, however I will evaluate the K as a non-unique disad, meaning I will weigh it against the aff the same way I would a disad.

 

Floating piks are fine but theory is important to handle right. You can be shady, just defend it well. I don’t think that if the aff concedes a floating pik they automatically lose, I evaluate it more in terms of conceded sufficiency framing on a counterplan.

 

Topic and Politics Disads-

Generally with topic disads I don’t have a specific link to UQ threshold, as the debate generally comes down to the impact level or specificity of a link/ link offense or defense.

 

Politics disads are some of my favorites arguments, and I spent most of my junior & senior year going for politics strats. If you have a good debate with good clash on a politics disad I will be so very content. Remember when you read politics that one very good card will always outweigh ten crappy ones. Generally I think all-encompassing topic links are OK, but if the aff has case-specific link turns (which they should) then I will not be very persuaded by your link articulation. Unless there is a technical concession, I tend to believe link controls direction of uniqueness. Good impact framing is key to win any debate, but especially a case/disad debate, and I will expect that.

 

Most theoretical objections to politics disads are wrong and illogical, but they still need to be answered. I usually wont vote on intrinsicness or bottom of the docket and the likes unless its mishandled by the neg.

 

Theory-

Fine pulling the trigger on most arguments that have real standards i.e. the big ones condo, pics/piks bad, process/consult/conditions bad etc. You need to do line-by-line and impact your arguments in relation to theirs. Saying “fairness comes first outweighs education” doesn’t help me much. Having a counter-interp is generally a really good thing, as it can help me resolve the debate in a very clear way i.e. what this debate COULD have looked like had the aff/neg been fair. I am not very game to vote on arguments like “no neg fiat voter for debate equity reject the team.” Blips like that and ending every sentence with “and that’s a voter for fairness and education” without any tangible impacts are probably not reason to reject the team, however if they are mishandled, dropped, or answered poorly, they can be reasons to reject the argument.

 

*Update- "fairness" is a stupid impact because debate isn't fair. Real world and portable skills are the most persuasive arguments when going for theory. Tangible ground loss is also a fine argument but go beyond "that's unfair to the aff."

 

So You've Decided Not To Denfend the Hypothetical Inaction of a Plan-

I have experience reading and debating affs without plans & identity politics affs. You don’t need to have an advocacy statement, however I should have a clear idea of what the aff produces if I vote for you, whether that’s scholarship, how I should orient myself around the topic, if my ballot will possibly change debate, or just a simple explanation of the role of the ballot.

 

If I have no idea what your aff does I will often err to the most “pragmatic” option in the round, meaning whatever actually “does” something. This is not necessarily political pragmatism, this is pragmatic in the context of the ballot.

 

I don't think its acceptable to read an identity politics argument from a social location that is not your own. Its OK to read arguments ABOUT other identities, but individualized strategies in debate and actual id politics shouldn't be commodified by others for a ballot.

 

Narratives / Performance- 

I've judged a good amount of performance debates. I usually flow little because I can understand it best by experiencing the performance. Unless you have a specific way you would like me to flow, I will just flow the thesis points of your performance. I understand the implications and reasons for performative debate, but I think it is helpful to have some sort of articulation of why you performed, why your performance is key to the round, and what it means for the round and in relation to the other teams arguments. If you do not utilize your performance throughout the debate but continue to just debate as per usual, you should probably rethink why it is you chose to perform in the first place.

 

I’m fine with personal narratives and non-personal narratives. However if you are going to read a narrative that is not your own you need to have a VERY good defense of why you get to do that. I am VERY persuaded by brown/ chow/ bell hooks-esque arguments regarding narrative commodification, especially when you are a white-male from a private school reading the narrative of someone who is disenfranchised by a specific form of systemic violence. I don’t think that is okay, and I think that ‘they’re only doing this for the ballot’ arguments are true.

 

Framework-

I have had a lot of different thoughts and feelings about framework over the course of time, and I've decided this; framework, like any other argument, is very strategic sometimes, and not strategic other times. Here's why framework can be a good argument: at its core, framework seeks to create an even playing field in debate, which is the same goal that many affirmatives that don't defend plans strive for. However, at times, framework is not strategic, and can easily become ignorant, offensive, and sometimes aggressive. So don't be that framework debate. At the end of the day, one argument beats another and one team wins, which is why we pay attention to strategy in the first place, to win.

 

I don't have preconditions for how you debate framework, but I will say framework debates with specific links and cards to the thesis and methodology of the affirmative are the smartest ways to debate framework. I tend to prefer framework debates with external impacts, or at least well explained implicit impacts because I want something to hold onto beyond what is "best" for topic education, or what is most "predictable." The easiest way to help the judge evaluate the debate is just the same as in any other policy v. policy or k v. policy debate- impacts and impact comparison.

 

I think engaging the aff at least during constructives will make a better and more productive debate.

 

*Update- Calling framework 'T' does not make it a different argument.

 

*Update- I evaluate the whole framework flow and how the arguments interact. So dont get mad at me if they concede some small techy ground arg but I think surveillance state bad for black bodies outweighs. Just because you win tech doesn't mean you win on framework. This is not extra t against a policy aff.

 

That’s pretty much it, if you have specific questions feel free to ask me before the round or email me @ lili.stenndeb@gmail.com

 

My name is Amanda Tobey. I debated for J.P. Taravella High School, for UCF and George Washington. If you are reading this I am probably coaching/judging for GDS. Use this as a guideline for what to run in front of me, and the end of the day most debaters will do what they do best anyway so just do it well and I’ll vote off of what you tell me to.

 

I am now retired. I recently taught middle school policy and public forum for GDS, but as they are novices with no circuit to compete in, I am not that caught up on literature for any current topics. You have been warned*

If you have questions for me: Amandathetobey (at) gmail (dot) com.

 

GDS Invite: updated 9/23/17

Sorry for the late update! Some of this was on the wiki. I just updated this to make my disad and K preferences more open. 

PFD THINGS

At the heart of things, I am a Policy debater who is very comfortable with PFD as I have taught and competed in it a bit. I value tech over truth.

 

• You need warrants
• You need links and internal links
• You need impacts
• If you are extending something you need all of the above
• weigh stuff/impact analysis

 

 

 

Policy Things

After judging a few debates on the 2015-2016 topic these are things I've been saying after every round:

1. Perm texts should be specific

2. SHORT o/v's in rebuttals are your friend (and mine)

3. Organization counts

4. Impact out f/w, T, and theory if you want me to vote on it.

Short but not so sweet:

Love: theory, T, topic specific (IR) disads, and high theory/regular k’s.

Like: case, adv cps, pics.

Tolerate: politics, identity-based args (ask me about this if unclear)

Hate: any spec arg (you will lose speaks), card clipping (potential loss if proven)

  Theory(Framework):

I love theory, I think learning about why we debate the way we debate is important. I was both a cheating 2N and a lying 2A so you do you. I think theory is fluid and changes round to round. I default to competing interps. I like to hear the history of the arguments (i.e. condo and how in the 70’s one off was abuse but in 2002 seven off was the norm) this is important to understand why my ballot matters in these rounds. Please highlight things in these debates that I should focus on (i.e. examples of non-abuse, examples of in round abuse) and/or try not to make these debates messy. RVI’s are almost always shitty. DO NOT RUN SPEC ARGUMENTS IN FRONT OF ME- even if you win on something else your speaks will go down for it. Front-lining is your friend. I default aff framing for framework and this may or may not be a pre-req to theory or T- please keep at least part of these debate alive in the last rebuttals because this is an important questions that should be resolved by the debaters. (look to counterplans for exceptions)

 

Topicality:

As with theory, topicality is awesome. I used to run really abusive affs and I loved slamming affs for being abusive. I have a medium threshold for voting on extra-t/effects-t, just spend time on it. I’m slightly more truth oriented on T than theory but I still rely heavily on my flow. Affs should have a plan txt that is enacted by the USFG- I am more amiable to wacky plan txts than straight up plan advocacies. Whether that plan txt has to be fiated…..is debatable. I default to competing interpretations and I am very impressed with teams that keep T debates clean.

 

Case:

If you need another sheet of paper for something like an overview- tell me please. I love card analysis more than new cards. Smart arguments are good arguments, and I will evaluate smart analytics against bad cards. Be clear in overviews, this is your aff, you know it better, don’t forget that. I’m also fine with squirrely things like not going for your aff, case arguments used in theory debates, ect.

 

CP:

Counterplans are counterplans.if you want me to judge kick you have to tell me and then justify it depending on the theory in the round. I am slightly against multiple plank counterplans and think theory can check back. That along with 50 states and Lopez, I think theory has a good place and I slightly favor an aff ballot. All other counterplans are completely tab and fair game. Please don’t rattle off perms like it’s your job, they should be separate; they should have specific texts with cards if you want to make me super happy. That being said, I sometimes lean pro aff on most all perm theory (except severance).

 

Disads:

Oy. So I i used to be pretty meh on politics disads. Now,  I am a lot more open. I really love a good topic disad. That being said, I will totally vote for any disad, you just must: 1. Keep the debate clean 2. Spend time on it and the entire story 3. Write my rfd. Not one sentence (They dropped the link debate). I mean tell me the impact of that and how that means the 2ar is screwed and has been since the 2ac. I know cutting hyper-specific link cards is a pain, but it goes a long way.

 

Kritik:

My small amount of time in college made me more disillusioned with the K but I am getting over it. I am most familiar with security, cap, GBTL, and Nietzsch. I have no issues voting for k's.  Including high theory stuff.

Performance: I think debate is an academic space and a unique one. Only in this space do academics spread ideas, talk about foreign policy, flow, fiat stuff, ect. I think we can talk about x’s rights anywhere to anyone, but policy prescriptions are unique to this space. Thus, I do not like things that take away from the precious time and space that is policy debate. You should justify how it’s policy prescription or relates to it. General performance and identity don’t meet that standard and I will be very likely to (but not definitely) vote on framework in these rounds. (edit: given our current political climate I can see a world in which this is more "policy" and this I am more open to it)

Exceptions: If someone is racist/sexist in a round, you have impacts that are fiated, or if you are responding to a team that is performance with “but you don’t include me”

 

Cheating:

I encourage you to record rounds, if someone is clipping cards or cheating in any other way, I will punish them. Bring it up during the round. Make a theory arg.

 

Tech:

Jumping isn’t prep, all teams must have access to all evidence. I will allow 2 minutes per team per computer malfunction, after that it’s prep. I keep prep, you keep prep, we all keep prep! You may have to remind me of high school times. Act like you know how to work your computer/stand/space even if you don’t. I may have my computer out in rounds. I will not record anything without your permission and will give you my FULL attention during all cx’s and speeches.

 

Speaks and other important things you should know (and speaks):

My name is Amanda, this is policy debate, please don’t call me Mrs. Tobey or “judge”. Be friendly, act like you've known your opponent your whole life. I like a “cool” style of debate. That being said I was also very passive-aggressive and sarcastic which is fine by me, but should you get too aggressive and make me uncomfortable, speaks will go down. If you want warning for anything tell me- I think it’s noble to know what you need to work on and would love to help but after one warning, if it is something that is bugging me, it will affect speaks. I view speaks as 75% how you say something (clarity, ect.) and the structure you say it with (2ac’s shouldn’t put T at the bottom) and 25% actual smart arguments (that impact turn was a good idea). 

Partnering- I very much value my partner and I expect you to, too. I’m fine with open cross but do not cut your partner off if it’s their cross, do not over tool your partner, do not be a dick to your partner please.

Finally, if you ask me something that I already put here (not including clarification) I will be annoyed which is not a good way to start the round. I took the time to write this so you have the best chance of adapting, take the time to read it. If you show me good flows after the round (like as soon as the 2ar ends) I will add .2 to speaks.

 

So I basically stole this form Shree Awsare- I think it's a good representation of speaks.

< 25: You were offensive or obnoxious and deserve this.

25: No arguments past constructives, no spreading or bad spreading, no strategic thought of usage of the aff/neg constructive.

26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents- bad ethos and bad spreading.

27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims- badish ethos, okay spreading.

28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers. okay ethos, good spreading.

28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish. Solid spreading, okay ethos. You use examples and don't just read pre-written blocks, you contextualize.

29+: You've done everything needed for a 28.5, but you sounded really, really good while you were doing it. This probably includes: you had excellent ethos/pathos, you were incredibly clear, and your strategic vision was executed nearly flawlessly.

30- You did all of the above and you made a connection. Somewhere in the debate (or at multiple points) you looked at me and made a topical one-liner or said something that changed the way I viewed the debate.

          

 

Hi! A little background on me before my paradigm: I live in Cincinnati, OH, and am about to be ordained as a rabbi. I haven't judged since the onset of COVID and my move to Ohio in 2020, but always happy to help out and pitch in. I'm up to speed and ready to jump back in!

Please put me on the email chain: aaron.torop@gmail.com

For many years I was a coach, mentor, and judge with the Washington Urban Debate League. I was a high school policy debater in Florida, got a poly sci degree from American University, and was legislative assistant at an advocacy organization working on the environment and foreign policy.

When I debated, I ran a lot of arguments all over the map (truly, a little bit of everything), and wish to afford you the same autonomy. I much prefer a unique, interesting debate. Do whatever you want, but defend your choices. Be clear, be persuasive, be accessible.

You should tell me what the role of the ballot is and have a clear argument as to why I should vote for you - not just because you extended X author’s evidence or claim Z argument is non-responsive. I will analyze the debate through whatever lens you want me to, just tell me which lens. If there are competing interps, this is the first place I look.

As a judge, I am pretty relaxed about most things- just treat everyone with dignity.

A note about spreading: I love it - and I would like to understand you. I have a pretty good ear but haven't heard super fast spreading in a while. Slow down on tags, plan texts, and theory.

Always happy to answer specific questions.

Update: check out my mentor and former coach David Triguax’s paradigm - I tend to agree with him on most things related to debate, so his paradigm can probably help you out to see where my judge preferences are.

I debated for 8 years culminating in successive quarterfinal losses at the NDT when I was debating for Northwestern. After a long hiatus from the debate community, I returned to coaching and judging debate last year. While the bulk of my experience was in traditional policy debate, I have been actively coaching critical debating for over a year. My philosophy is essentially that everything is up for debate in a round. (except for speaking times) That said, there are some arguments that I find more persuasive than others, particularly with respect to framework and stock issues.
Framework -- While I will evaluate any framework arguments presented, my bias is in favor of frameworks that create clash. I do believe that the principal goal of debate is to develop critical thinking skills as opposed to performance skills, thus a framework debate which asks me to evaluate one versus the other is going to resolve in favor of critical thinking. That said, rote recitations of standards based on education and research burdens are not particularly persuasive. The key to framework debate is to keep the arguments clear and on point. I have seen many examples of debaters confusing framework with decision rules. For the sake of clarity, I believe that framework arguments define the METHODOLOGY that a judge should use to evaluate a round (as a judge/legislator/executive/citizen/teacher/etc), whereas a decision rule is typically an argument in favor of a particular ethical construct (utilitarianism / moral relativism / etc) As for stock issues, here are my thoughts:
Topicality -- I believe that topicality should be about relevance and jurisdiction for the judge. Arguments based on technical definitions are not particularly persuasive. As a general rule, if the AFF is clearly focused on the geography, subject area and actor that are represented by the resolution it will be difficult to get me to vote neg on topicality. That said, I have voted many times for critical AFFs that eschew some or all of those relevant topic areas based on their framework arguments. Moreover, in order to get me to vote for topicality usually requires a fair amount of dedication to the argument in the debate. Unless the AFF drops all topicality arguments, I will give a lot of latitude in answering multiple technical violations in rebuttals.
Advantages / Disadvantages -- Policy debates that feature straight up negative strategies which argue that the disadvantages of a plan outweigh the advantages are becoming increasingly rare. That said, I will admit to enjoying those debates and, in particular, good analysis on probabilities and terminal impacts.
Critiques -- I believe that negative critiques which challenge the fundamental philosophical assumptions of the resolution of a particular AFF are excellent strategic choices. That said, I have several concerns with many negative critiques, the most important is that many teams do not understand their own arguments. In my opinion, there are two types of critiques: Arguments that the AFF rhetoric or philosophy create or could create an impact and Arguments that the AFF is fundamentally inconsistent with an ALTERNATIVE whose adoption will result in a more significant net benefit than the AFF. The first type of critique is essentially a disadvantage, except that the "link" is based on rhetoric or philosophy rather than a specific causality from the plan itself. That link depends upon the notion that the words used in the debate are important and need to be considered directly by the judge. The second type of critique is more prevalent, however. The standard which I will use to evaluate those criticisms is to directly evaluate the claim of competition. If the Neg can prove that their alternative is indeed fundamentally inconsistent with the AFF, then i will weigh the critique. If, however, there is no inconsistency, then Perm arguments are often successful. If you rely on this type of argument consistently, consider striking me if you are not very good at explaining why your criticism applies to the AFF more than the status quo...
Conditionality -- I firmly believe that AFF conditionality would destroy debate, but that Negative conditionality is generally OK. That said, if a negative runs a disadvantage to an AFF advantage and a link turn to the same advantage, conditionality may not apply. Put simply, teams can not drop arguments that have offense on them. (a clear example is a negative that runs a turn to an AFF that claims economic growth based on government incompetance AND a De-Development disadvantage that claims to outweigh everything. In that case the AFF can simply agree to both and capture the impact of De-Dev...)
Abuse arguments -- I have never voted on an abuse argument other than taking evidence out of context. I doubt seriously that I ever will. If a team brings up new arguments in rebuttals, I will ignore them, but not vote against that team. 2NC is a constructive speech, so I will often allow new arguments. That said, I will give 2AR more lattitude to read new evidence against those arguments. If a team is mean spirited, abusive and generally offensive, it will seriously hurt their speaker points, however. I have no opinion about disclosure pre debate -- that is up to individual teams and coaches to decide.
Last, I would also like to point out that I have a very strong opinion that judges should NOT do debaters work for them. If an argument is dropped, I will not extend it for a team and if an impact is claimed and not disputed, it will be as claimed. Too many judges tend to impose their own value systems upon debates these days and I try very hard not to.