Sonny Abbasi

• Background: Lawyer who debated Lincoln Douglas in High School at Houston-Memorial.  Debated policy at George Washington University, including attending on a partial debate scholarship.  Graduated with honors from American University, Washington College of Law and was in first year moot court competition there.  Professionally, worked for the US Government, Law Firms, Corporations, and Trade Association in policy advocacy. 

• Philosophy for Lincoln Douglas: Persuassive arguments is the key.  Make sensible, logical arguments.  Do not drop other sides' arguments even in LD.  This is a pet peeve of mine.  Be organized in the presentation i.e. do not be all over the place.   Structure is very important in arguments.  You need to tell me how to evaluate the debate and not assume I will do it for you.

• Philosophy for Policy: Tabula Rasa.  I let the debaters decide.  I can handle speed but you must be clear.  If I can't understand the spew; I will not be able to count your arguments.  If I put my pen down that means you are not conveying clearly and you need to clarify and enunciate.  If you counterplan, the debate will probably come down to the merits of the counterplan relative to the plan so be very clear in final rebuttals on disads/ads.  Tell a story at the end on the whole debate.  You need to tell me how to evaluate the debate and not assume I will do it for you.    

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)

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

I am the judge/coach/parent for the Stone Ridge team and have been judging for over 7 years on the local and national level.  

I am very traditional.  Presentation and sign posting are very important.  Strike me if you feel the need to speak slightly faster than normal conversation, run a K, or multiple T shells.  If I don't understand you, you didn't say it.  I prefer quality over quantity and I believe that policy debate DOES NOT belong in Lincoln-Douglas debate.

Let me repeat: If I didn't understand you, you didn't say it!

--> It is also very important that you sign post on your opponent's case, I want you to summarize what you are going to say and where on the flow you are going to say it before you say it. 

If you want to win a round with me the most important part is crystallization.  Just a summary at the end of your speech saying what you arguments are, why they stand, and why you win is enough for me.

I have two years worth of experience in college level policy debate.

I have been judging for a little over a year.

I will familiarize myself with the basic arguments on the topic.

One note: if you plan on reading fast and making 20-25 arguments in a speech, then you have your arguments numbered and typed out. If you talk too fast for me to flow your words I will not be able to give a good reason for you to win the debate.

Also if you say, "they say X but but we say Y." This is a competing claim and not a complete argument. A complete argument would be "they say X but we say Y, because Z." Most debaters are good at intersecting competing claims but a lot of them neglect the warrants (reason the argument is won). You can also takeout warrants like this," they say Y because Z, but really Z is wrong." I respect debaters that focus on and engage warrants. In my mind these kinds of arguments make for the best debate rounds. Also if you do not carry over (restate an argument) in consecutive speeches the argument is considered dropped and can no longer be brought up in later speeches.

I debated for 4 years for Scarsdale High School. I qualified to TOC twice, reaching octofinals my senior year (2015).

Debate is your activity not mine so I’ll try to avoid injecting my personal biases into my evaluation of arguments. If you’re ahead, even by just a little bit, on the side if an issue I’m not inclined towards, I’ll vote for you. This means that I’m not committed to a particular set of "noninterventionist" norms; I’ll attempt to use the paradigmatic preferences that debaters assume in the round.

The preferences below are for situations in which debaters' assumptions are unclear or there are no arguments resolving a clear disagreement. They are (unless specifically noted) entirely up for debate. In general, I hope to evaluate rounds similarly to Tom Evnen or Mark Gorthey. Here are some basics:

• I default to truth testing.
• Theory and topicality are questions of competing interps, but by that I only mean that defense isn't sufficient to win a theory debate. If you have a different understanding, explain how your warrants for the paradigm justify the conclusion you want them to, preferably in the first speech you read it.
• Theory is drop the argument, topicality is drop the debater.
• I have an extremely low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments, but I would like some mention of the argument in every speech. The exception is conceded paradigm issues (drop the debater, competing interps, aff gets perms in method debates, etc).
• No new 2AR RVIs. This is a hard requirement. I don’t see a way to evaluate these debates in a wholly noninterventionist way, so I’d prefer to minimize the direct ballot implications of new 2AR arguments.

I assign speaks mainly based on strategy and argument quality.

• I'll say slow, clear, or loud as much as necessary – if you're making an effort to adapt, I won't lower speaks, and I will be especially conscious about not penalizing debaters with speech impediments. However, if I don't hear an argument because of a lack of clarity, I won't vote on it.
• I won’t hesitate to lower speaks for rude post-round behavior like exaggerated expressions of confusion or loudly dropping objects. I believe that post-round discussion is valuable so this deliberately doesn’t apply to questions from the debaters or others who watched the round.

I am on the planning committee for the Texas Debate Collective and the director for NSD Philadelphia I'm a MA candidate in American Studies where I'm working on the intersection between Asian-American and Disability Studies. I coach Loyola JC, Bronx Science YW, and Bergen County EL.

Overview

1. The round belongs to its debaters, not the judge, so it's the job of the debaters to tell me who won, not the other way around. I do my best to evaluate rounds in terms of least intervention, which means I search first for weighing as a means to scale what the key issues are, then examine the arguments thereof. The biases and defaults in this paradigm are meant to help you, not to restrict what you want to do.
2. If you use the word "retarded" as an equivalence to the word "stupid" or "bad" without acknowledgement (that is, an apology upon saying it), I will drop you

Evidence Ethics/ Clipping Cards/ etc.

1. Evidence ethics is an argument to be made in the debate round. I will not stop the round because of an accusation of people miscutting or misusing evidence, for there is a fair academic debate to be had.
2. Card clipping: I will review recordings if available. To accuse someone of clipping cards will cause the round to stop. I'll decide using whatever material I have to figure out if somebody has clipped. If I decide a debater was clipping, I will give that person a L20. If the person accusing is wrong, for I have decided that clipping did not occur, I will give the accuser a L20. I have never judged an accusation of card clipping. I'm not as good at flowing as other judges are, and will invariably give somebody the benefit of the doubt that they did not clip cards.

Speaks:

1. I evaluate speaker points on strategy, arg quality, time allocation, and if you are respectful and nice. When did nice become equated with weakness? I am not impressed by overt-aggression or ad hominen styles of debate. Micro versions of this include "You should've listened in lab more!" or "I have no idea what you're thinking!" Come on. If it's nasty to say to somebody outside of debate it absolutely is in the debate round. Kindness should matter more.
2. What I do not factor in, however, is literal speaking clarity, efficiency, etc.
3. I don't consider the number of times I say clear or slow into speaker points
4. I will not evaluate arguments about "not calling blocks" or what not. Similarly, you can't just tell me to give you a 30.
5. I won't give you higher speaks if you end your speech early- nor will I sign the ballot before the end of the 2AR. I don't know why judges do this. This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
6. I don't find stand up 2ARs or 2NRs perceptually dominant at all

Post- Round

1. I think post-round discussion is valuable. However, if debater A has just lost the round, and in A’s questioning of the judge, opponent B decides to comment and enter into this conversation, I will drop opponent B’s speaker points and get angry in the process
2. If I sit and you are the winner (that is, the other 2 judges voted for you), and would like to ask me extensive questions, I will ask that you let the other RFDs be given and then let the opponent leave before asking me more questions. I'm fine answering questions, but just to be fair the other people in the room should be allowed to leave.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Kulman%2C+Bradley

Updated 04/05/21 for NPDL-TOC

Feel free to ask questions about my paradigm before the round!

About me: I did national circuit LD in high school and APDA parli in college. I qualified to the LD TOC my senior year in HS. My senior year on APDA I was the 4th highest ranked speaker in the country and half of the 7th highest ranked team.

I used to be pretty active in coaching and judging circuit LD, and currently coach APDA.

How I judge rounds: I try my best to make an evaluative decision based on the flow and avoid intervening as much as possible. In practice that means I'll evaluate the framework debate first or, if both debaters have agreed to the same framework (philosophical or otherwise), and evaluate any weighing arguments made about what I should prioritize under the framework. Then I'll evaluate the offense both debaters have linking back to the framework I'm using to evaluate the round (this includes also evaluating relevant defense and weighing arguments).

I assume a truth testing paradigm (Gov has to prove motion true, Opp has to prove motion false) but am certainly open to other arguments about how my ballot should function. I default to using reasonability to evaluate theory/T and don't assume theory/T is an RVI, but those are just the presumptions I have if you don't make any arguments on these issues, not absolute preferences by any means.

Progressive arguments: I am generally fine with anything that you would normally see run in a circuit LD/policy round. I don't have any particular argumentative preferences and I think historically have been pretty neutral when judging clash of civilizations type rounds - I judged a number of LD rounds back in the day that were some version of a K aff vs topicality/framework, and I think I had a pretty even voting record in those rounds.

All pre-fiat arguments do need an explanation of why the come before case, so reasons theory is a voter or a role of the ballot for a K. I won't just assume something is pre-fiat because it's tagged as being something that is traditionally understood to come before post-fiat arguments.

I won't vote on anything I don't understand, so if you want to ready a really gooey K I'd recommend going a bit slower in constructives and then explaining it really clearly in the LOR/PMR. This also goes for blippy theory arguments. I have a very good understanding of what theory is generally, but I'm not at all up to date on the latest theory trends. There's usually certain buzzwords/jargon/shorthand that refer to certain theory arguments that are popular on a circuit in a given year - I won't know any of those, so it would help me a lot if you could explain any theory arguments you want to make in clear and intuitive terms.

Speed: I don't have anything against speed and could comfortably flow national circuit LD/policy speed as of 3 years ago. However, that was 3 years ago, and I haven't tried to flow rounds that fast since then. I'm honestly not sure what will happen if you start reading at top speed in front of me. I would recommend starting off slowly and building speed, and enunciating really clearly. I've found that clarity is more of a limiting factor on what I can flow than pure speed is, so I imagine I'll have an easier time flowing speedy but also very clear teams than I will somewhat slower and less clear teams. I'll say clear or slow if I can't understand you. If I'm saying it a lot, that's probably a sign you need to slow down.

Parli specific things: My understanding is that judges in NPDL are supposed to ignore new LOR/PMR arguments, so I'll apply the same standard that I would in LD and ignore anything that seems obviously new. I'll automatically look at anything you call a POO on, so might still be worth calling if you think it's close or you're really worried about me not thinking something is new. If you do call a POO, please keep it quick and civil. Just tell me what you're calling new, I'll ask the other team to tell me where they think I should look for the argument on the flow, and then we can move on the round.

If you're spreading and/or reading something really complicated, I would prefer that you take a POI or two during PMC/LOC so that your opponents can clarify the arguments. I always thought that cross-ex was really important for this, and since there's no CX here I feel like POIs are an important opportunity for your opponents to try to understand your arguments. I feel much less strongly about POIs in MG/MO and don't really care if you don't take any in those speeches (unless you read something totally new, in which case same thing probably applies).

I'm fine with PMR shadow extensions for arguments dropped from PMC, even if MG doesn't explicitly extend them. However, that doesn't mean that the PMR can answer LO responses to PMC that MG dropped.

I'll also evaluate new MO arguments that the LOR doesn't explicitly rehash.

Misc. preferences: I don't really like it when debaters are unnecessarily mean or condescending or when debaters talk over their opponents. I'll drop you if you say something explicitly racist/homophobic/sexist/etc.

I won't call for cites unless there's a dispute in the round about what a card says. If you accuse your opponent of misrepresenting evidence, I'll call for the cite and look it up. If you are clearly lying about what an article says, I'll drop you, since lying about evidence is bad. If it's ambiguous/power-tagged, I'll probably just ignore the card.

I competed in LD debate for four years at Westlake High School in Austin, Texas. I debated on the national circuit my junior and senior years, qualifying for the TOC with five bids during the latter. I’ve taught at VBI, NDF, and the Texas Debate Collective. I graduated from Swarthmore College in 2013. I previously attended New York University and was the Co-Director of LD Debate at the Bronx High School of Science from 2009 to 2011. I did Policy my freshman and sophomore years of college, and APDA/BP my junior and senior years.

HARVARD 2014

I default to viewing the resolution as a statement the debaters ought attempt to prove true or false. I am open to all arguments instructing me to evaluate the round differently or to use my ballot toward some other end. My favorite debates are those that involve executing a well-thought-out strategy. While I am not opposed to a more "brute force" comparison of utilitarian impacts, it doesn't get me quite as excited. I am fine with critical and pre-fiat positions or arguments, so long as (a) it is made very clear how I evaluate the debate under whatever framework you advocate for and (b) the argument or position does not rely on a mere appeal to intuition. I will vote on theory, but often find it annoying. I will find it less annoying if you have interesting, unique things to say about fairness or education. I will find it more annoying if you act as if theory catchphrases can take the place of warrants. I do not assume fairness to be a voter absent arguments from a debater demonstrating that it ought to be one. I enjoy good RVIs and creative approaches to answering theory.

I cannot flow as well as I used to, since I don't judge high school debate very much anymore. You can go fast, but top circuit speeds are definitely beyond me now. Also, I am a bit disconnected from the circuit, so if there are any terms or arguments that have become commonplace in the last two years, make sure you explain them fully and don't assume too much prior knowledge on my part.

Please feel free to ask me any other questions you have before the round.

MY OLD, MORE DETAILED PARADIGM (CIRCA 2011)

BRIEF OVERVIEW (IF YOU'RE TOO LAZY OR RUSHED TO READ MY FULL PARADIGM): I'm a truth-tester by default, but argue for whatever conception of the resolution and I'll listen with an open mind. I can flow pretty well, but top speeds on the circuit tend to be just beyond my comfortable flowing speed. If you go too quickly or are unclear I'll say slow/clear once. Prestandards are fine if you develop them well and clearly explain how they function in terms of each debater's burdens. Critical arguments are cool, but should be run more slowly. If you run critical arguments, you should be extremely diligent about being understandable and approachable. I prefer that debaters stand during the round. I like well thought out strategies and positional cases more than evidence-heavy util clash (although util scenarios are still fine). I don't like theory, and am easily confused by complicated theory debates. I'll still vote off theory though. I like RVIs, turns on theory, and unique criticisms of theory.

GENERAL: I default to viewing the resolution as a statement to be proven true by the affirmative and either false or not true by the negative. This conception of the round (both as a general paradigm and in terms of the burdens entailed by a given paradigm) is by no means static, and I’ll willingly adjust the way I evaluate offense if compellingly instructed by the debaters to do so.

BURDENS: In lieu of compelling offense by either side, I will vote for the debater that I believe did the better job. For this reason, it is in your interest to give me explicit burdens analysis so I’m not forced to subjectively intervene.

PRESTANDARDS/A PRIORI: I have no issue with “a priori” arguments. However, there are a few important issues to keep in mind when running these arguments in front of me (or virtually any judge). First, you must very clearly tell me how the argument functions prior to the standard. Too often debaters just assert “and therefore the resolution is meaningless and you negate.” This is not at all sufficient. While I would still vote off of this argument if it were dropped (and likely ONLY if it were dropped), your speaker points would suffer. Second, if you are running multiple a priori arguments you need to explain how to prioritize the various arguments. This is important in the event that, for instance, the affirmative turns a negative a priori which claimed that morality doesn’t exist (perhaps by using a regular stock argument establishing that the negative has the burden of proof). If the negative still has a priori arguments that, say, definitionally prove the resolution false, I have no idea what to do now. Don’t let this happen. I will disregard the arguments and dock your speaker points. Third, don’t run multiple blippy a priori arguments. While I have a high threshold for theory and will certainly not automatically disregard such arguments because of “fairness,” you will still piss me off and lose speaker points.

CRITICAL/K: I really enjoy good, understandable critical or K debates. I am not particularly well-read (though I have read at least a minimal amount of critical philosophy), but I like to think of myself as relatively competent at grasping complex ideas. So, if you can run a critical position in an understandable and compelling way, such that I believe the argument and have learned something new or begun to look at the world differently as a result of your position, I will reward you with speaker points. Conversely, if you just spread through your policy debaters’ nonsensical Zizek Cap K (not to say I hate Zizek Cap Ks… I just need them to be good ones that you wrote and understand), your speaker points will suffer.

SPEED: I debated much faster than I think that I am capable of flowing, and I didn't even go that fast compared to current speeds on the national circuit. I was atrocious at flowing in high school, and not much has changed. I CAN NOT adequately follow rounds at the current top speed of the national circuit. I have started flowing on my laptop, which has helped. If you are clear and slow down for author names, justification numbers, and important things like the standard or contention labels it is unlikely that I will actively punish you for speed. I will try to get as much down as possible, but I won’t vote off of arguments I couldn’t understand. If you are unclear, I will say clear once and if you continue I will just get annoyed and dock your speaker points.

CX: I used to demand that people stood for CX, but it seems to be increasingly the case that no one really cares for that. I will say, however, that I steadfastly believe that a dedicated period of cross-examination time is essential. I am fine with flex-prep in that I think questions during prep are acceptable, but I do not think it is okay to remain silent for large portions of CX in order to prep or to simply merge CX and prep. Also, you should know that I don't really pay attention to questions asked during prep time, so make sure that if there's something you want ME to hear that you ask it in CX.

SPEAKER POINTS: I think I’ve talked a lot above about how I award speaker points. I will start at a 27 for an average/adequate performance, and you will get more points for fluency, good strategy, and being interesting. You will lose points for being unnecessarily confusing, sloppy, making bad/blippy arguments, or being offensive. It is unlikely I will reward below a 25 unless you actively offend me or are a blatant asshole. If I give you a 30, it means that I feel I have learned something from the round, that it kept my interest, and that you executed a compelling strategy with technical proficiency. Also, at larger circuit tournaments, I tend to (rightfully) give 25.5-26.5 range speaks to debaters who might have received a 27-28 at a less competitive regional tournament. The reason is because I just don't think you deserve to clear. It's not that you're a bad debater, at all. The competition at these sort of tournaments is fierce, and the field is stronger— as such, my overall range of speaker points increases dramatically. At a lot of regional tournaments I tend to stick between 27 and 28.5, where a very large, more competitive tournament may see me give out ranges of 25-29.5 (and rarely a 30).

THEORY: I don’t particularly like theory. I fundamentally do not think that fairness matters, and believe that theory has a chilling effect on interesting arguments about the truth of the resolution. I can think of few arguments I consider truly “abusive” (maybe delay counter-plans). If you run under-warranted theory that isn’t specific to the case or that lacks a reason why fairness is a voter, your speaker points will suffer a lot. If you run a well-developed theory shell against “clear abuse” that is specific to the case, I won’t dock your speaker points. I tend to have a lower threshold for responses to theory. Do not, however, assume that you can make one response against theory and be done. Make sure you handle it sufficiently, just as you would any other argument. Also, I really like turns on theory. Run them. I will vote off of them if your opponent can’t sufficiently deal with them. Perhaps more important than my philosophical views on theory is my basic inability to non-arbitrarily evaluate complicated theory debates. If a theory debate becomes extremely nuanced and fast, I will likely not be able to follow it. Keep that in mind. Also, "Aff Framework Choice" as a reason to automatically choose a particular substantive ethical framework or metaethical principle is absolutely, unequivocally idiotic. I will not listen to AFC arguments of this sort (I'll listen to AFC role of the ballot arguments though). You will receive no higher than 25 speaks if you run it in front of me.

PERFORMANCES/NARRATIVES/ASSORTED CRAZY STUFF: So, I have no inherent objection to people approaching debate rounds in novel ways. Usually my objection to these sort of positions is that I have virtually no conception of how I am supposed to evaluate the round. If you run something crazy and don't clearly explicate how I make my decision, I will be frustrated. If you do the same thing but I understand what I'm supposed to do with your narrative/dance/rap then I will vote off of it. I have one specific remark about narratives. It seems that most of the literature about narratives essentially says that it's important to couch our analytical arguments in stories that are relevant to people's lives. That indicates that presenting a compelling narrative should be a prerequisite to entering the analytical discussion, NOT that the narrative should replace the analytical discussion. If you're not going to have regular arguments in addition to your narrative, make sure your evidence justifies doing so and, again, that you clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

OTHER: If I am judging you early in the morning, slow down a little. I am not a morning person. This sounds silly, but I am being very, very serious. I tend to be sloppier in my decisions when I'm tired in the early hours of a tournament. Please adjust accordingly. Also, I think net benefits standards are dumb because they beg the question of what constitutes a harm or a benefit-- that is, after all, the question that the standard is supposed to answer. Make this argument, since every round involves net benefits these days, and I will be happy. Also, I like grand strategic gestures. That is, I will always prefer a strategic AC activating its cool nuances in the 1AR or a layered, interesting NC over a really good clash of util scenarios. I don't actively dislike the latter, but I find the former more exciting. I also think it's nice when debaters begin their final speeches more slowly and give a very compelling overview of the ways and layers in which they will be winning the round. It gives me something of a frame or story that helps me better conceptualize the rebuttals and the round. It also makes it more likely that my RFD will precisely mirror your vision of the round, and clues me in to the fact that you understand the nuances of argument interaction on a macro-level, which is good for speaks.

PLEASE, if you have any further questions, feel free to email me at waks.andrew(at)gmail.com or ask me at a tournament or anywhere else you can get a hold of me. Have fun debating!

Rob Wimberly
Debated for 4 years at Dominion High School, 2 years at the University of Mary Washington, 2 years judging/coaching

I would like to be on the email chain. My email is robert.wimberly95@gmail.com. If I had to direct you to my paradigm to get my email and you're just now reading this, know that I'm disappointed that you didn't read my philosophy before the round.

Please label the subject of the email chain with both team names, the tournament, and the round

Big Stuff:

Debate is a communicative activity, and it's your job to make sure that I understand the arguments that you're making. I'm a pretty expressive judge, so if I'm not understanding your argument, I will probably give you a weird look. If clarity is a problem I won't yell clear, but my face will show it - it's your and your partners' job to make sure that you are communicating clearly. I don't like trying to put together poorly explained arguments at the end of the debate, and in the post-round I'm more than willing to tell you that I didn't understand your argument based on how it was presented in the round. 

Beyond building communication skills, I think debate's other big benefit is exposure to a wide variety of literature bases (international relations, critical theory, public policy, economics, etc.). I like it when teams are experts on the research they're presenting, and if I feel like I've learned something new, it will show in your points. 

Organization: Line by line matters. I'm happy when my flow is kept clean. I reward efforts to help me keep my flow clean with speaker points. Please name your flows in the 1NC. I'm not a huge fan of overviews. Debate like this and I'll reward you with points http://vimeo.com/5464508

Quals matter. I would prefer it if you read the qualifications to enter them into the debate before you argue that your author's qualifications are better than your opponent's. Remember that qualifications aren't necessarily based on education alone - relevance of experience to the substantive argument in question is also a factor.

Truth matters. "Alternative facts" are not facts. I reserve the right reject evidence that is blatantly out of context or arguments that are particularly morally repugnant (i.e. "racism good"). I will read the unhighlighted part of your evidence to assess "truth," but I do my best to separate that from how your argument was explained in the debate. Ev comparison is welcome.

Prep starts at the end of speech time and ends once the email is sent/the document is saved.

Specific Arguments

T - I'm not really sure where reasonability begins and ends, so I tend to favor competing interpretations. I think vagueness and specification arguments are important and worth evaluating, but this should begin in cross-ex

Advantage/Disadvantage debate - Impact comparison is important and necessary. I am frustrated by 

Uniqueness shapes the direction of the link. If you're hoping to go for link shapes uniqueness, refer me to parts of the uniqueness debate that you think proves that uniqueness is close.

Counterplans - 2nr should be explicit in weighing the risk of a solvency deficit against the risk of the net benefit. Affs should be specific when making permutations. Most counterplan theory is a reason to allow cheaty perms or reject a counterplan altogether rather than a reason to reject the team.

Conditionality - I'm OK with the community consensus of 1 CP 1 K, but that can be changed by good debating. Convince me that your interpretation is better for accomplishing the big picture issues I noted at the top, and you'll do well. Affs should capitalize on strategies that are abusive for a combination of reasons (floating piks with a conditional alternative for instance). 

Critiques (and critical affirmatives) - I'm open to them. I'm not super familiar with all but the most basic parts of the lit base. I tend to be much better at concrete (rather than abstract) thought, so use lots of examples. Long overviews should be discouraged (see above). Root cause arguments don't make a ton of sense to me logically - if a carbon tax solves global warming by making renewable energy comparatively more economical than fossil fuels, why does it matter that capitalism caused global warming? Likewise, "alt solves case" arguments tend to fall victim to timeframe problems. The best way to win in front of me is to go for scholarship related arguments - if you prove that the scholarship of the 1ac leads to faulty conclusions that implicate solvency/the 1ac scenarios. 

Case - Presumption is a thing. Most 2nrs should address the case

Feel free to email me with questions!